UK - NATS Pay negotiations - latest rumours

[anotherthing]

Basic Company Management

Roffa linked to this article

Story here.

in another thread – it does have a bearing here though because monetary issues are what is holding up pay talks, with management already stating that it will be difficult to pay pension costs, asking us to take a pay rise that is non pensionable (only 4 months after the pension agreement was finally sorted), and claiming the company needs to tighten its belt in these difficult times.

Airlines want a bigger dividend – tough.

Airlines need to start realising that part of the dividend they get will not be cold hard cash, but through reduced fuel burns etc through the constant tweaking and changing of procedures that we as NATS carry out to make things more efficient. These tweaks etc cost money, for new equipment (AMAN etc), and to push airspace design through.

When times are difficult, such as they are supposed to be just now, they should be given a choice – continued improvements to what is already one of the best services available, or cash.

Not both.

Airlines are constantly given shortcuts, more optimum cruising levels etc when the airspace capacity is available.

It’s about time management realised that provision of an efficient service, and all the costs that this entails to keep it at the forefront of new technology is a dividend in itself – a bloody big one. Unfortunately management seem to have lost sight of what ATC is about and therefore does not realise that the service it provides gives a dividend in itself.

Barron can’t have it both ways.

He’s bleating on about the fact that it will be difficult to sustain the newly reduced pension.

His team have already tried to sell us a miserly pay deal, which to cap it all, would not even be pensionable.

They do this by talking about the "difficult challenges NATS faces financially".


Well, Mr Barron – how on Earth does the frequently repeated statement above lend itself to the other statement of (paraphrased)

“they (the airlines) want a big dividend and we will give it to them because they have only been getting 1% which totals around £9million over the last 6 years or so.”???


You are supposed to be a good businessman – God knows you’ve used enough press coverage (bending the facts when you wanted to – some would call it being dishonest), to blow sunshine up your own backside.

If you’re that good a businessmen you will realise that if times are challenging we tell our shareholders that to ensure the continued integrity of the company, they will be getting no dividend at all this year.

A barely competent businessman would understand that so why should a supposed big shot not grasp the fundamental?

It's not difficult FFS - to quote a famous meerkat - "Simples"