Historically, I would say that NATS has always had a good pension scheme, certainly better in many respects than those of controllers directly employed by airports and, if I what I'm lead to believe is correct, significantly better than SERCO in some key details.
I often hear that other European controllers' pension schemes are better than the NATS deal. I don't know much truth there is in such claims - I've never checked - but some of the claims are hard to believe! I don't know what things are like in the US but pensions are a highly emotive subject in the UK at the moment with many funds that may not be able to pay the pensions that have been promised. The situation is not helped by some companies - NATS included, I believe - taking 'contibution holidays' because of financial difficulties. As I understand it, this shouldn't happen unless the fund is in good shape but rumours of creative accounting practices aboud. All in all, although NATS people may not agree, I would still say they are generally better off than directly employed controllers - but things can change and I fully understand their concerns for the future.
As I mentioned, we have rules about working hours. The rules get complex in some areas (e.g. where standby shifts are rostered) but, in general, no shift can be longer than 10 hours, you have to have at least 12 hours off between shifts, after 6 consecutive days on shift you have to have at least 60 hours off and you can't be rostered for more than two consecutive night shifts. After two hours in an operational position you must have a beak of at least 30 minutes but at quiet units I think this can be extended to 4 hours before the break (if the CAA agrees) but then it must be at least an hour's break. Holiday must be taken in chunks of 5 consecutive days at least twice a year.
The rules cover everywhere from Heathrow and Swanwick Centre to the smallest grass field with ATC and as I said in the earlier post, as far as I know, they are pretty evenly and fairly applied. I have heard that the high traffic density units roster breaks after 90 mins or less but I can't say whether it's true or whether it still happens - maybe someone from EGLL or Swanwick could comment.
It's not clear just how bad NATS finances are at the moment. They recently applied to the CAA to increase their en-route charges on grounds of not having enough money and the CAA said no and that things weren't as bad as were being made out. I can't say I followed the story that closely but I think that sums it up but I stand to be corrected by someone who knows more.
As for whether NATS could go bankrupt? I honestly don't think it would be allowed to happen - there's too much at stake for the Government to let it fold - but there's lots of politics involved. Lots of parallels are drawn between NATS and Railtrack, the train track operator that was privatised a few years ago. Not all of the parallels are valid but Railtrack was recently restructured and effectively taken back under greater Government control when things went awry. So I can't believe NATS would ever go bankrupt, but working in an organisation in such disarray (or potential disarray) must sap morale faster than just about anything else I can think of. Even if the worst were to happen, the working hours restrictions would still apply but who knows what might happen to pay and conditions - so those concerns have some foundation.
I'm not saying that everything is wonderful but simply trying to tell it like it is. Nor am I trying to start a NATS vs the rest thread, but I am surprised that there is relatively little activity on the topic.
Last edited by Spitoon; 13th Jun 2002 at 20:03.