there wont be any shortfall in budgets!
If NATS budgetted for a positive growth in income during CP2 and we are currently seeing -10% which may last for up to two years then there can only be a shortfall in the budget. Be careful not to confuse budget shortfall with loss, you can make a profit and still have a shortfall in your budget. NATS reckons the shortfall between what it expected as income over CP2 and what it will actually get is £90 million. You can argue about that figure but it looks consistent with a -10% growth over 18 months. That £90 million includes the reduction in pension contributions because of the agreement. If we had voted No NATS would have been unable to limit the pension contribution in the way it has and therefore the figure would have been greater than £90 million. If £90 million shortfall equals £45 million of savings equals X number of jobs then > £90 million shortfall equals > £45 million of savings equals >X jobs.
Not scaremongering, just the way it is and slightly irrelevant because we voted Yes. I was only countering those who argued that we should have voted No.
Shortfall? We've been making 50 million profits for each of the last 5 years. I can't wait until this year's financial results are published.
The £90 million shortfall must already include any profit we make this year which should be quite big because the downturn in income only took effect from the Winter schedules and NATS makes all its profit in the Summer. Although it has been making profits it has spent most of that money on the capital investment programme and reducing its debt. It hasn't been putting it away for a rainy day so previous profits aren't going to help much. Remember also that under current accounting methods quite a few NATS staff are actually paid for by the capital investment programme and therefore their jobs are dependant upon NATS being able to fund that investment and funding that investment depends upon being able to reinvest the profit.