Nats Pensions

[Co ordination unaffected]

WILL be changed, irrespective of what Management or union says.

Watch this space. Probably be an announcement within 12 months.

Most likely closing present scheme to new entrants, then giving current members the option to move from the less well supported scheme to the less good one.

Someone somewhere let something slip.

[roundwego]

Welcome to the rest of the world mate. Virtually every other company with a defined benefit pension scheme has had to pump huge amounts in to support their pension scheme and employees are expected to take some of the pain as well. Consider yourself fortunate if your employer permits existing members to continue to accrue albeit reduced future benefits. Many schemes have not only closed to new members but have also terminated future accrual to existing members and replaced it with a money purchase scheme.

[AyrTC]

Maybe ,at last its time to unleash the powder:}
AyrTC

[DC10RealMan]

The CAAPS Nats pension fund is well run and in surplus due to the excellent stewardship of the Trustees. I believe that the savings to be made by changing the pension scheme would pale into insignificance against the costs to the airlines of selective strike action as mandated by the membership to the unions. I would have thought that it is about time that the various airline managements started to make representations to nats management about the costs to them of a strike (short or long term) and how it might affect them. One thing you can be sure of and that is Paul Barron will not be affected by any of the issues arising from the pensions situation as he will ride off into the sunset with a large amount of money for his performance in ruining a pension fund that was paid for and used for the benefit of the workers.

[foghorn]

Virtually every other company with a defined benefit pension scheme has had to pump huge amounts in to support their pension scheme and employees are expected to take some of the pain as well.

Ah but the NATS scheme is in healthy surplus, shows no signs of going into deficit and NATS has enjoyed long contribution breaks because of this.

Closing it is more to do with keeping a bunch of crystal-ball-gazing actuaries in the credit rating agencies happy than a sensible response to increasing longevity.

[DC10RealMan]

I am just guessing but another reason for attempting to close the scheme might be to steal the huge pension surplus that there is at the moment. Incidently this is not some obscure or esoteric exercise, as an ordinary worker who has been working for nats for 25 years I went onto the CAAPS website recently and I have in my personal pension "pot" between £500,000-£750,000. These are huge amounts of OUR money that the management is attempting to "reform"

[Del Prado]

The CAAPS Nats pension fund is well run and in surplus due to the excellent stewardship of the Trustees. I believe that the savings to be made by changing the pension scheme would pale into insignificance against the costs to the airlines of selective strike action as mandated by the membership to the unions. I would have thought that it is about time that the various airline managements started to make representations to nats management about the costs to them of a strike (short or long term) and how it might affect them. One thing you can be sure of and that is Paul Barron will not be affected by any of the issues arising from the pensions situation as he will ride off into the sunset with a large amount of money for his performance in ruining a pension fund that was paid for and used for the benefit of the workers.


I don't believe an all out strike would get much sympathy from the general public.
However, if we all turned down overtime, refused to train, left all aircraft on standard routings (and at standard levels), provided real spacing on approach rather than what we get away with now and demanded proper flow and sector closures when short staffed, we'd cost the airlines a huge sum without the emotive media images of picket lines manned by some of the higher salary earners in society.

I just don't believe strike action would achieve our objectives in today's world where public perception can be so easily manipulated by a media savvy management.

[anotherthing]

Del Prado

maybe no public sympathy... but so what?? When have we carried out industrial action? One day (yes ONE day) would let the public know what ATCOs (and ATSAs and ATCEs) really do and how essential they are to the running of this country.

It would also put Barron in the know about what the coal face workers actually do.

Doing what you suggest is worth naught... downing tools totally is the only way to make a point. Yes there may be no public support, but we are not like the cheese eating surrender monkeys, striking every other day. We are not interested in public support at this stage, but should be interested in showing our power

[foo fighting]

With reference to the initial post on the thread, can anybody shed light on where this information came from and just how it "will" be changed "irrespective" of what anyone, i.e. the members, say ?

[BEXIL160]

WILL be changed, irrespective of what Management or union says.

Watch this space. Probably be an announcement within 12 months.

Most likely closing present scheme to new entrants, then giving current members the option to move from the less well supported scheme to the less good one.

Someone somewhere let something slip.

Spin, Spin, Spin. The baron really has got his teeth into this one hasn't he? Float lots of rumours about the "inevitability" of closing the scheme and do it often enough and people will begin to believe its true. IT IS NOT

FACT: CAAPS is well run and meets all of its obligations and is likely to in the future. There is NO evidence to suggest anything else.

Just becasue other schemes aren't doing so well, this has no bearing on CAAPS.

FACT: The current NATS management teams main interest is increased PROFIT. Anything that MAY threaten the great god PROFIT has to be dealt with. Hence the cheap shot at CAAPS.

UK government continues to hold 49% of NATS. Despite assertions to the contrary, the UK government still has responsibily for SOME of NATS and CAAPS.

The baron and his henchmen will continue to float stories about CAAPS being doomed. When you hear these "fictional stories", just remember who is telling them and ask yourself what their true motivation is. Not staff welfare that is certain.

Should push come to shove, single shift strikes are easily do-able at each NATS unit without too much pain to each individual Union member (one shift). The effect on the airlines would be paralysing of course.

This is one that that some senior managers are becoming aware that they should back away from. They are being driven by the baron's lust for profit.

Rgds BEX

[DC10RealMan]

I am afraid I am with Anotherthing on this one. The threat of one days selective strike action (LHR on day, Swanwick another day, ScATCC etc, etc) would be enough. The management would cave in as it would be seen as not cost-effective to pursue it with the effect it would have on our "customers". This is provided that the unions carried through the threat that they have been mandated to do and did not come up with this "working together" nonsense. I consider public "sympathy" and their holidays a complete irrelevance when it comes to my future. To quote an American General (Patton or McArthur, I think) who said "You find the word sympathy in the dictionary between **** and syphilis.

[AyrTC]

If we do go on strike all units must down tools for the same period of time on the same day.In 1981 when we were ( well some of us ) last on strike we went for the odd unit on strike while other units were working and it gave rise to comments like Glasgow should be on strike so do not answer that 'phone line ( even if the ATCO at Glasgow was not in the union and he was just doing his job) It made a lot of people very uncomfortable.

The next time everybody out at the same time and all those who do not want to strike can work with each other and probably make a complete ar$e of it.( and then watch the company "thank" them.)

I no longer give a monkey's about public sympathy.I have put an awful lot of my OWN MONEY into this pension fund.

Also while I am on a rant I do not care what companies outside NATS are like.We have fought hard and long for our Terms and Conditions.We should not be trying to emmulate poorer companies , they should be trying to get on par with NATS.

Nurse!Time to take my blood pressure:*

Rgds

AyrTC

[SensibleATCO]

Those who think a strike over pensions would be successful need to take a reality check. It would quite likely play straight into the hands of Barron and I am sure that he would not hesitate when his back is against the wall to do a "Regan", with the governments blessings, in order to change some of the other T & C's that he doesn't like. This would effectively get NATS off onto a new and clean slate with T & C's in line with other business's, very handy should the government want to sell its 49% stake in NATS, as it did with BP and other companies, in order to enable NATS to be floated on the stock market. He would get massive support, helped by the media, from the public who would be only too willing to put up with a bit of discomfort in order to see a highly paid workforce with excellent T & C's brought into line with what they have to put up with. Baron would win and retire in a blaze of glory with all the millions he will have made from the flotation of NATS. All sound a bit far fetched ? Maybe, but everything that is happening at the moment including employee shares, rebranding, Moody's upgrading to A3, accounts published in line with IFRS, financial restructuring, all point to NATS being shaped up for a flotation. The pension scheme is the only hurdle left to tackle.
Not that a strike ballot would succeed anyway, just listening to peoples comments when this subject is raised in the coffee lounge, rest room and other places it is clear that the majority of people would not automatically vote for a strike. Combine this with the timing of things, the workforce just having moved, settling into new houses in new areas, younger members getting mortgages for the first time, getting used to the new workplace and its surroundings, creating a new circle of friends and social life, getting the children settled into new schools etc. Vote for a strike that you know you may not win and then suffer the financial consequences, with all that lot on your plate ? I don't think so.
My view is from an ATCO's perspective. ATSA's, Engineers and others would be insane to even consider striking.
Having said all of that I am vehemently against any changes to the perfectly good and well managed pension fund that we currently have. I just do not think a strike would help our cause. Strikes are very divisive and harmful to team environments such as ATC. Even now there is still some needle amongst older members over the 1981 action.
Baron should be proud of the company pension scheme and our T & C's and hold them up as a beacon of good practice that other companies should be striving to achieve, this should be part of the "showcase" (his word on the NATS website) that we can be proud of and leaders in that area, something other companies should be aiming for. Instead he wants to dumb everything down to the lowest level he can get away with, except for his own salary, pension and T & C's that is. His motivation is undoubtedly one of greed.
I do think Del Prado's idea is a good one to start with when things begin to get serious, which they probably will at some point.
I'll get me coat,
SATCO

[ayrprox]

ah messing with my pension.. oo i feel slightly unwell.. touch of the flu... nasty, very contagious
anybody else???:oh:

[Co ordination unaffected]

I know that our scheme is well run, and has a significant surplus, and NATS pays a comparatively low level of contributions.

It seems to me there is a bit of a herd mentality going on, 'everyone else is doing it, why can't we?' type of attitude going on with our senior management.

Senior management take note.

You'll look really good in an interview when asked why you left your previous job and you say 'I mucked around with the pensions............................
everyone left to work for someone else...........................
then the company went bust.............................'
The main thing that has made me reluctant to leave NATS is the pension. No pension, nothing else really keeping me, and I suspect a large number of my colleagues think along the same lines.

ATCOS / ATSAS / Engineers can work for anyone, NATS or no NATS.

As for my source, all I have is secondhand information, but I believe it to be correct. I'd be delighted to be proved wrong.

I got it from someone who was present at a meeting when someone from HR said too much. Apparently senior managements faces told the FULL story.

Obviously names and places can't be mentioned eithere here or by PM.

[opnot]

co ord unaffected
If your info is second hand how can you believe it to be true.
Deal with the facts not second hand information

[rab-k]

I agree with most, but not all, of what has been said. However, when all is said and done, we have but three choices:
Get lubed-up, bend over, then prepare to get royally shttp://milbut.org/smilies/gob_icon_censored_sm.gifd by our very own contender for "Employer of the Year". :yuk:
Tell Mr B where to stick the proposed changes to the scheme, (whatever they may be), and point out to our customers that the pittance they/their SLF pay towards the NATS Employee Pension Scheme is but a 'bladder full of piss in the Pacific' when it comes to the financial penalties of being unable to move a single aeroplane through NATS controlled airspace/airports for a week.
Take one's money and run and go work for someone else, somewhere else, while throwing as much £/$/€ into your own private pension as you can afford.Personally, #2 gets my vote...

[Nimmer]

The thing we have to do over the pension is stick together. I do think a strike, or just a threat of strike action would send warning bells throughout the aviation world, most if not all airlines could not afford a day without flying.

As for public support, forget it. Most of the public reckon that ATC is the reason that their plane is delayed and they have to miss out on a few hours of sun and drunkeness on their annual two week binge. I am sure many of us have heard a pilot blame ATC for late arrivals or departures!!

As for the promise that if you are already in the scheme then your pension is not under threat. How long before the members of the "new scheme" out number the members in the "old Scheme" and vote to close the "old scheme" down???

Another question. If the pension goes what will the difference be between NATS and other ATC providers? One of the reasons we all work and stay with NATS is the pension. No pension, whats to stop controllers wanting to work for other companies, especially if they bid and get the ATC contract at your unit?? Have you thought of that aspect Mr. Barron?

[120.4]

To strike seems like the obvious thing to opt for but I am not so sure that it should be the first step, as it exposes all of us to risks and the wrath of the public before it might be necessary. Why not first make use of the fact that we are over delivering; that we are doing such a good job in shifting this much traffic through an inadequate system should be heavily in our favour becaue it is more than management have right to expect and can be taken back without penalty.

As has already been mentioned, just let every ATCO do their sector by the book;fully man the sectors and insist on flow measures to protect it. Refuse to permit operations that expose us to acknowledged safety risks, e.g. the current fiasco in Stansted's airspace where traffic is constantly running a gauntlet for rwy05 against LC, GW and WU departures. (This issue is already the subject of a safety report which demanded correction "...on the grounds of passenger safety." It is entirely proper for ATCOs to take action to protect themselves where management have not. It is actually our duty.)

Heathrow - use 60 seconds instead of the current 45 for a one minute split; apply the minimum final spacings. When the multiple CAT Bs are in the way as they nearly always are, slow the rate to protect the system.

Refuse AAVAs.

Currently, we are making all these things work and it makes Management look good - That is fine when they are playing ball on pensions but they cannot have it both ways. Do what you are required to do, nothing more.

As I understand things, such action should lead to a significant increase in delays for the airlines, which will put management directly in confrontation with them and the regulator. That must work in our favour.

Strikes are often devisive and are a frightening prospect for many. Is it necessary, yet?

.4

[Co ordination unaffected]

Opnot

I have only passed on what I heard, although it is secondhand information, it was plausible and concerned me enough to make me feel I ought to send out a warning.

As I said before, I would be delighted to be proved wrong on this.

[BDiONU]

Fact The current pension scheme cannot be 'interfered with' by NATS, only a change in the law will allow it.

Fact Staff in the current pension schemes rights and benefits are protected by law.

What appears to be the concerns are that this scheme will close to new employees and a new scheme started up for them and/or that current staff will be 'encouraged' to leave CAAPS.

My personal opinion is that I would need a huge amount of 'encouragement' to leave the Gold Plated Rolls Royce scheme which is CAAPS.

As to closing it to new staff, well its obvious to me from everything I've read that there are very very very few companies (except for MP's) offering the Roller that CAAPS is to new staff because pensions are vastly expensive. NATS as a company will be forced by the regulator to do something about the huge cost of its contributions to the pension scheme. By forced I mean that charges will be capped and/or reduced so that income is less and less income means that something somewhere has to be cut back because NATS does not have a huge pot of gold to dip into, it runs on revenue.
So something has to be done now because of the lead time for it to have an effect. Why not close the scheme to new recruits I ask myself? Some people say we have a responsibility to new recruits, well do we? Are we their parents? They would be joining this company with their eyes open fully aware of the Terms & Conditions of employment, including pensions. Its their choice not ours to attempt to make for them!
NATS would be foolish to attempt to introduce a replacement scheme which does not compete with other companies because they could not attract staff.

Just to reiterate - Current members of CAAPS are absolutely protected by law, their terms and conditions and benefits are protected by law, NATS cannot do a Maxwell. The discussion (IMHO) centres on whether the existing scheme closes to new entrants and what decision current members want to make on behalf of future employees, whether or not those future employees want current NATS staff to make decisions for them!

BD

[BEXIL160]

NATS as a company will be forced by the regulator to do something about the huge cost of its contributions to the pension scheme.

Thats the point though. NATS pays very little into CAAPS compared with other companies and their schemes. It doesn't pay "huge sums".

BEX

[BDiONU]

Thats the point though. NATS pays very little into CAAPS compared with other companies and their schemes. It doesn't pay "huge sums".
Currently 12% I believe because its using the surplus to cover the shortfall (shortfall being the difference between what NATS has to pay to keep the scheme assets the same or greater than its liabilities and how much it is paying). How long will the surplus continue to cover that shortfall? How long is a piece of string? One sure thing is that it cannot be forever, not unless the scheme trustees find some fantastic investments which no one else in the financial markets has found.

BD

[oceans 11]

What about staff who joined NATS after april 2001?, I don't think their pensions are protected by law.

[120.4]

BDiONU

Forgive my ignorance in this matter and explain if you can...

Firstly: I have heard on a number of occasions that if new pensions terms are given to new employees then when their number exceeds those on existing terms a vote could be taken to close down the existing scheme. Is that correct? Surely, if new employees join a different scheme they cannot then vote in matters relating to the old scheme, it would be none of their business?

Secondly: I have spoken directly with one of the IPMS team working on this and have been advised that the start-up costs for any new scheme would be significant, both to NATS and the "new" employees. Therefore, why is that still more attractive to NATS than continuing the current arrangements, which go a very long way towards keeping NATS' ATCOs quiet? In other words, why kick up a huge stink over something that is not going to be much cheaper (certainly in the short term).:confused:

.4

[Del Prado]

.4, Your first point is the crux of the matter. The estimate is something like 10 years before 'new' staff outnumber 'old', then a huge amount of pressure can (will) be brought to bear to close the present scheme. Promotion dependent on you signing up to new pension, higher pay rises for those on new scheme there are hundreds of 'incentives ' that management can use.
This has happened throughout our industry and throughout privatised companies.


Your second point, way back at the start of this thread foghorn said

Closing it is more to do with keeping a bunch of crystal-ball-gazing actuaries in the credit rating agencies happy than a sensible response to increasing longevity.

As NATS is so heavily geared (and the higher it's credit rating, the cheaper it's borrowing) the company can save so much more by having a AAA credit rating than the start up costs of a new scheme.
High credit ratings are achieved by reducing long term liabilites (like pensions).

[BDiONU]

BDiONU
Forgive my ignorance in this matter and explain if you can...
I'm just giving my viewpoint based on everything I've heard and read. Not just what NATS are saying but everything we're all exposed to in the media and from friends employed in other companies. I do not profess to be any sort of 'expert', just a bloke with a slightly different opinion to the 'One out all out brothers!' type of post which seems prevalent.
Firstly: I have heard on a number of occasions that if new pensions terms are given to new employees then when their number exceeds those on existing terms a vote could be taken to close down the existing scheme. Is that correct? Surely, if new employees join a different scheme they cannot then vote in matters relating to the old scheme, it would be none of their business?
I concur with your conclusion. No one can 'interfere' with the current CAAPS scheme unless the law is changed.
Secondly: I have spoken directly with one of the IPMS team working on this and have been advised that the start-up costs for any new scheme would be significant, both to NATS and the "new" employees. Therefore, why is that still more attractive to NATS than continuing the current arrangements, which go a very long way towards keeping NATS' ATCOs quiet? In other words, why kick up a huge stink over something that is not going to be much cheaper (certainly in the short term).:confused:
.4
If what you say is correct (and I have no reason to doubt it but the 'new' pension scheme details aren't being announced until March/April next year) then the key bit is that costs will be significant to the 'new' employees. Also the company are looking at the long term view. If you joined the company at 20 you could be employed for 40 years, so if they close the existing scheme now it'll be about 20 years until the 'new' scheme members begin to be greater than the 'old' ones. Bear in mind that CAAPS will still be paying out pensions until everyone in the scheme dies which could be a very long time for some of us.

BD

[BDiONU]

.4, Your first point is the crux of the matter. The estimate is something like 10 years before 'new' staff outnumber 'old', then a huge amount of pressure can (will) be brought to bear to close the present scheme. Promotion dependent on you signing up to new pension, higher pay rises for those on new scheme there are hundreds of 'incentives ' that management can use.
For a change to the current scheme, other than by government legislation, the members must vote on it and the vote must be 100% in favour or it fails. So if even 1 person voted against a change the scheme will stay intact. There is, to my mind, no incentive which could persuade 100% of members to vote in favour, unless the offer was to apply a coat of platinum over the gold ;)

BD

[Del Prado]

My post would have been more accurate had I said "a huge amount of pressure can (will) be brought to bear to move members to the new scheme" rather than "a huge amount of pressure can (will) be brought to bear to close the present scheme".

BDiONU, they can't close the present scheme under existing guarantees. Do you trust those guarantees to still be in place in 10, 20 years time?

Management have many tools to force members from the present scheme into a new scheme. Who's going to look after present scheme members interests when 60% of the workforce are in the new scheme? What about 80%? Your estimate of a 20 year 'tipping point' when new members outnumber old is a lot higher than union estimates.

[BDiONU]

BDiONU, they can't close the present scheme under existing guarantees. Do you trust those guarantees to still be in place in 10, 20 years time?
My crystal ball doesn't go out that far ;) But I cannot, currently, envisage any situation which would move the government to make a change to the laws covering CAAPS.
Management have many tools to force members from the present scheme into a new scheme. Who's going to look after present scheme members interests when 60% of the workforce are in the new scheme? What about 80%?
100% of members have to vote for a change, lets say that the workforce stays static at 5000 and in future its down to 20% in the CAAPS scheme, a 1000 people. I still have difficulty in envisaging how you could get 1000 people to all vote the same way, particularly as many of them would be approaching retirement or could see it on the horizon.
Your estimate of a 20 year 'tipping point' when new members outnumber old is a lot higher than union estimates.
Was just a very simplistic calculation based on all staff joining at 20 years old and doing 40 years (or 50 as retirement age moves to the right ;) ) I know that there is a big retirement bulge looming due to the big recruitment drive in the 70's.

BD

[120.4]

Okay

Thanks for those. It seems from what is being said that it is going to be an uncomfortable period all-round until we know the truth of management's intentions and the strength of feeling in the subsequent vote.

.4

[BDiONU]

It seems from what is being said that it is going to be an uncomfortable period all-round until we know the truth of management's intentions and the strength of feeling in the subsequent vote.
.4
well IMHO there appears to be a lot of hysteria and unfounded/unnecessary angst which doesn't accord with the facts, which are that the current CAAPS scheme is totally safe and ringfenced provided NATS doesn't go bust and the government does a Railtrack OR legislation is introduced which changes the laws covering CAAPS.

BD

[120.4]

BD

If it is as secure as you suggest, that is great. May I ask how you come to KNOW that it is that secure? Sorry - I 'm not really up to speed on the relevant laws etc myself.

.4

[BDiONU]

BD
If it is as secure as you suggest, that is great. May I ask how you come to KNOW that it is that secure? Sorry - I 'm not really up to speed on the relevant laws etc myself.
.4
Had lots of briefings on this recently plus I recall all the stuff that was going through around privitisation, which is when parliament passed the laws ringfencing CAAPS.
BTW I'm not saying it is totally and absolutely 100% secure, thats just my opinion based on my knowledge, everyone needs to make their own minds up.

BD

[SensibleATCO]

Had lots of briefings on this recently plus I recall all the stuff that was going through around privitisation, which is when parliament passed the laws ringfencing CAAPS.

This of course is the same parliament that previously announced "Our air is not for sale"

[BEXIL160]

Hmmm,

If everythinmg is as secure as BD suggests (and I'd like to believe he is right) then why are NATS management going to all this trouble when they have NO CHANCE of getting the allegedly required 100%?

Protecting "the company?" and therefore it's employees. You're having a laugh.

BEX

[BDiONU]

Hmmm,
If everythinmg is as secure as BD suggests (and I'd like to believe he is right) then why are NATS management going to all this trouble when they have NO CHANCE of getting the allegedly required 100%?
Its 100% of members who have to vote in favour of a change to CAAPS (or the law would have to be changed). NATS are not proposing a change, they're proposing to close it off to new employees. From the reactions in this thread its obvious why NATS are going to all the trouble of explaining to current employees just why they want to do it, they don't want disenfranchised, hacked off and militant staff.
Protecting "the company?" and therefore it's employees. You're having a laugh.
Sigh! The regulator has allowed a pass through of pensions costs to the airlines in CP2 (but not for those employed after 1st Jan 2006). In other words NATS are charging the airlines directly, in the form of an increased route charge, for the contributions to CAAPS. As you can imagine the airlines are less than pleased to have to shoulder this additional cost on top of what they already consider to be the most expensive ATSP in Europe. Particularly when you consider that BA has a HUGE hole in its pension fund and I doubt RyanAir or EasyJet have much of a pension scheme. The airlines are squeezed on how much they can charge because they're all in competition with each other and could price themselves out of the market. NATS is a monopoly provider, no one else can offer en route services in the UK. But NATS cannot simply charge what they like, the regulator examines the books and investment proposals and decides on what NATS may charge. Those charges have not only been capped in CP2 but are being reduced by percentages over the years.

The regulator has fired a warning shot over NATS bows in CP2 by not allowing the pass through of pension costs for those employed after 1st Jan 2006. The regulator has made it clear that if NATS do not take any action to reduce pension costs they will take further action in CP3. Further action means yet more reductions in route charges and less pass through of pension costs. The regulator has to take action because of pressure by the airlines to reduce the costs of charges made by the NATS monopoly.

If the route charges are made smaller by the regulator and pension pass through is not allowed then NATS faces a reduction in revenue with an increase in pension costs. By taking action now the company are protecting the employees from the prospect of NATS going bust and the government then doing a Railtrack (which I have no doubt they would, ATC is too important to the UK).

BD

[Roffa]

The regulator has fired a warning shot over NATS bows in CP2 by not allowing the pass through of pension costs for those employed after 1st Jan 2006. The regulator has made it clear that if NATS do not take any action to reduce pension costs they will take further action in CP3. Further action means yet more reductions in route charges and less pass through of pension costs. The regulator has to take action because of pressure by the airlines to reduce the costs of charges made by the NATS monopoly.

Just curious, how does the regulator fund its own pension scheme?

Isn't what's good for the goose good for the gander?

As for being the most expensive in Europe, to quote our leader...

Barron acknowledges that "The airlines think we are far too expensive; they want to keep the pressure on and rightly challenge our costs." But he claims that "it is impossible to measure us against our European counterparts . . . our airspace does not compare." He continues, "No one else in Europe borrows several hundred million to run their business, has a regulator, has to absorb the cost of that regulation, has to pay for the buildings and land, etc. There are things we have to do because we are privatized that government-subsidized organizations do not. The regulator believes we are competitive with the rest of Europe. We know that we are among the best at what we do. So if our charge rate is the highest, it probably reflects what the real costs are. However, our target is not to be highest and to get that rate down successively year after year."

[Del Prado]

Beady, I don't see the threat as management making unilateral changes to CAAPS. As you've stated, present rules do not allow for that.
The threat comes when the majority of staff are in a new scheme. management are then in a very strong position to 'victimise' those in the present scheme. They will have 2 groups of staff on different terms and conditions, they will think nothing of offering larger pay rises to new staff and none to existing CAAPS members. There will be many incentives offered, both carrot and stick to get us to leave CAAPS.
Any move by management to split the workforce is very dangerous and will be exploited fully in the years to come.


I'd advise all NATS staff to be very wary of views offered both at work and on this forum. Management (down to some supervisors/chiefs) have been asked to push the board's position on this matter, what you read and hear may not be personally held opinions.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Leading the charge is the guy who was in charge of Alstom ...

Alstom was sold to Siemans in April 2003.* Workers have discovered through a letter from David Curtis, Alstoms' International Director of Pensions, posted on the company's website that workers applying for early retirement faced a further 20% cut in their pensions.

Workers who retire before 65 already face pension losses of 30% and have been kept totally in the dark over the new plans. Alstom has an estimated £435m shortfall in its UK fund, which has more than 20,000 members.

... yet he quite happily let NATS pick up HIS pension shortfall as part of his incoming pay package whilst leaving his previous workers to pick up the pieces of their own crumbling fund.

As soon as he's plundered our fund, got his knighthood from his pal Tony, and put a suitable golden parachute for himself and his buddies in place ... he'll be off as quick as a flash.

[Nimmer]

Interesting point made about management pushing the pension plans on this forum. may i suggest(after reading a number of his/her replies) that BDIONU may be a manager trying to "sell" the pension plans????

[120.4]

What are the grounds under which NATS would be entitled to offer different pay awards to ATCOs on different pension schemes? Wouldn't that be a form of discrimination?

.4

[BDiONU]

Interesting point made about management pushing the pension plans on this forum. may i suggest(after reading a number of his/her replies) that BDIONU may be a manager trying to "sell" the pension plans????
LOL!!! :) Just because I have formed a different opinion from most posters in this thread doesn't make me a person trying to "sell" anything (nor am I a manager by any description). We're all entitled to air our own views, thats what this forum is about.

BD

[BEXIL160]

..... yes entitled to your opinion, and I'd support that, but most people are starting to become aware that it's very much a minority opinion.

BEX

[BDiONU]

;) ..... yes entitled to your opinion, and I'd support that, but most people are starting to become aware that it's very much a minority opinion.
But at least I'm arguing my position, as opposed to just saying "They're not messing with our pensions!" then sticking my fingers in my ears and going "Laa laa, laa laa, I can't hear you". ;)

BD

[BEXIL160]

Who's the bigger fool? the fool or the fool that listens to him?

BEX

[BDiONU]

Just curious, how does the regulator fund its own pension scheme?
The regulators (CAA) contributions to CAAPS are funded from the route charges NATS levy.
Isn't what's good for the goose good for the gander?
I'd have thought so but I don't know what the CAA position is vis a vis its pensions.

BD

[Nimmer]

Whats wrong with sticking your fingers in your hears and saying your not messing with our pensions???

The facts are it is a good well run pension scheme. I personally want to keep it as do many others. So its hands in ears and LAA LAA don't mess with my pension and if you do "everybody out"

[Roffa]

The regulators (CAA) contributions to CAAPS are funded from the route charges NATS levy.

The regulator though has to raise its own charges to cover its costs and such like. You want something done by the CAA, you have to pay them...isn't that where they should be covering their own pension costs rather than from NATS route charges?

I didn't realise that NATS was effectively funding the CAA's pension costs, I find it quite surprising if that's the case.

[Roger That]

I didn't realise that NATS was effectively funding the CAA's pension costs
My understanding is that NATS Doesn't fund the CAA through their charge. The total amount levied for the UK element of a flight's ATS bill includes an amount for the CAA, an amount for Eurocontrol and an amount for NATS.

[BDiONU]

Whats wrong with sticking your fingers in your hears and saying your not messing with our pensions???
The facts are it is a good well run pension scheme. I personally want to keep it as do many others. So its hands in ears and LAA LAA don't mess with my pension and if you do "everybody out"
As previously stated NATS don't/can't and aren't intending to mess with current employees pensions. They want to close the scheme to new employees and give them a different scheme.
If no action is taken the regulator will (Because they've told us so) further cap and reduce route charges and will cease to allow charge through of pension costs to the airlines. NATS income will be reduced but staff costs and pension costs won't be. Eventually NATS will go bust and there will be no more contributions to CAAPS and the pension scheme, which I'm looking forwards to drawing in retirement, only has whats in it at that time. En route ATC in the UK continues because the government does a railtrack but are not obliged to contribute to pensions because that was a NATS obligation and now they've ceased to exist.

Fingers in ears won't work unless you want to lose your pension.

BD

[BEXIL160]

You've fallen for the management line (again).

If no action is taken the regulator will (Because they've told us so) further cap and reduce route charges and will cease to allow charge through of pension costs to the airlines. NATS income will be reduced

All true. But if NATS management weren't quite so interested in making a huge PROFIT out of "the business" and would settle for a small profit the there would be no problem.

(Whatever happened to NATS, the not for profit organisation?)

Eventually NATS will go bust . Pure supposition. Would UK government allow NATS to go Bust? Dunno.... and neither does anyone. Comparisons with RailTrack don't add up.

Why deal with this (possible non) issue at this particular moment in time? Well could it be something to do with the end of "Destinations" next year, and the probable departure of the Baron soon after. His reputation in the rail industry preceeds him.

No fingers in ears, just a very healthy suspicion of anything that comes from NATS management who may well have ulterior motives.

Do you really TRUST The baron?

No, i thought not.

BEX

[BDiONU]

You've fallen for the management line (again).
Yeah of course.
All true. But if NATS management weren't quite so interested in making a huge PROFIT out of "the business" and would settle for a small profit the there would be no problem.
(Whatever happened to NATS, the not for profit organisation?)
NATS aren't allowed to make a huge profit, the regulator sets the charges. NATS is a business and businesses make money and profit, otherwise they go bust.
Pure supposition. Would UK government allow NATS to go Bust? Dunno.... and neither does anyone. Comparisons with RailTrack don't add up.
They knew Railtrack were going under and they allowed it. I don't trust Tony and his cronies one inch.
Why deal with this (possible non) issue at this particular moment in time?
Because its going to take years and years (10, 20?) for results to show and its got to be done before the start of 'negotiations' for CP3.
No fingers in ears, just a very healthy suspicion of anything that comes from NATS management who may well have ulterior motives.
Do you really TRUST The baron?
No, i thought not.
Nor do I trust the government and I am VERY worried about my pension. I don't want it jeopardised because we've failed to take action NOW!

BD

[BEXIL160]

Classic tactics. Frighten people and then they'll accept anything. Tony's lot do it, and the baron uses the tactic too.....

Nor do I trust the government and I am VERY worried about my pension

So, you DON'T trust the Government, but you DO trust The Baron. Yeah, of course, he always tells the truth. Ask any ex Alstrom employee. :rolleyes:

BEX

[BDiONU]

So, you DON'T trust the Government, but you DO trust The Baron. Yeah, of course, he always tells the truth.
I don't need to trust him, all the information is available to read for yourself and make your own mind up. The pension situation for other companies in the UK has been in the media for years.
What I do believe is that the Red Barron is trying to take action to protect the company (and my pension).

BD

[BEXIL160]

The pension situation for other companies in the UK has been in the media for years

There you go again, comparing CAAPS to "other" less well run schemes, and like the baron, "the media" are always right as we all know.:rolleyes:

If the info is all so unequivical, how come so few people (including the Unions advisors) actually believe the barons tale of woe?

Pensions are LONG TERM investments. There aint no rush.

BEX

[Spamcan defender]

Just to go back to a point early on in this thread about the Company being media savvy....It amazes me that the union does not hire the services of some PR Guru such as Max Clifford etc in order to put the our issues in a 'public perception friendly' guise. Lets face it the Comany will have its spin doctors so why dont we????
Possible strike action was mentioned, however this will only succeed if the public are on-side which makes PR the name-of-the-game.

Just my 2p worth.
Spamcan

[Del Prado]

can someone please clarify the concept of "pass through"?
Is it the costs of CAAPS being passed on to the airlines now or is it only that the airlines are liable to fund any shortfalls in CAAPS if NATS went bust?

[DC10RealMan]

One of the things I find unacceptable about some of the issues raised by this pensions issue are some of the middle ranking supervisors/managers telling the workers how essential these changes are, however they personally are old enough to know that they are not going to be affected by the issues as they will have retired with their benefits intact. I am realistic enough to accept that this is part of their job, but to stand in front of their "colleagues" and mouth the managements platitudes without embarrassment is beyond the pale. Have they no sense of shame?

[BDiONU]

can someone please clarify the concept of "pass through"?
Is it the costs of CAAPS being passed on to the airlines now or is it only that the airlines are liable to fund any shortfalls in CAAPS if NATS went bust?
When the regulator looks at the costs (wages, infrastructure, investment etc) of NATS operation they use that as a basis for what they think NATS should be charging and set the levels accordingly. Prior to 1 Jan 2006 NATS were also allowed to 'add on' the costs of its contributions for all staff to the airlines. Thats whats meant by a pass through of pension costs. The airlines would not meet any costs if NATS went bust, the only people impacted would be those who currently benefit or expect to benefit from CAAPS (ie NATS staff).

BD

[terrain safe]

What is quite interesting is that all this talk of pass through to the airlines and CP3 etc is only relevant to NERL. NSL is run on a purely commercial basis, having to win contracts by signing agreements with other, external agencies, and having to sometimes compete with other companies. We have to pay for our trainees ( indeed seem to have to do most of the training on unit now!) , and have to have cost centres for absolutely everything. Actually the real answer is if the pensions were messed with would be for all staff to resign en-masse leaving a company in deep doodoo and a good store of staff for the rest of the world to poach (actually probably wouldn't happen that way but nice to dream).

Basically I work to retire, but I do enjoy my job, hate the crap from above and would love to move on but what other job could I do where I look out of the window for £55000?

[Cuddles]

What, you mean form a sort of workers cooperative, like a really really strong union?

It's a thought....

[BDiONU]

One of the things I find unacceptable about some of the issues raised by this pensions issue are some of the middle ranking supervisors/managers telling the workers how essential these changes are, however they personally are old enough to know that they are not going to be affected by the issues as they will have retired with their benefits intact. I am realistic enough to accept that this is part of their job, but to stand in front of their "colleagues" and mouth the managements platitudes without embarrassment is beyond the pale. Have they no sense of shame?
Perhaps (like me) they recognise this as a real issue and feel a duty of care towards their employees and loyalty toward a company they may have worked for 20, 30 or 40 years for. Not forgetting that they're acting to protect their own pensions as well. If NATS goes bust then there will be no more contributions to CAAPS and everyone in it will have severely reduced pensions, including, I would have thought, those currently in receipt of a pension.
Remember that the CAAPS fund has to pay out until everyone in it and their spouse is dead.

BD

[BDiONU]

What is quite interesting is that all this talk of pass through to the airlines and CP3 etc is only relevant to NERL. NSL is run on a purely commercial basis, having to win contracts by signing agreements with other, external agencies, and having to sometimes compete with other companies.
Correct, NSL has competition which influences what it charges. NERL is a monopoly and its charges are regulated by the CAA. But the regulator looks at all parts of the NATS business and casts an especially keen eye for any cross subsidies as they're an absolute no no.

BD

[Hooligan Bill]

BDiONU, anyone else who has never worked outside NATS,

Visit a non-NATS ATSU. Ask them about their t&c's, ask them about their pension etc. Ask them who they would like to work for!

Above all, listen very carefully. Having been there, done that, I know that I believe in ONE NATS, ONE PENSION (no matter when you join), not BEND OVER, HERE IT COMES AGAIN.

It started with Home to Duty, and if you do nothing it will end with NATS becoming just another ATS provider. Good news for all those other companies looking for airport contracts etc, not very good for you though.

[rab-k]

ONE NATS, ONE PENSION

Who will give me odds that whatever scheme Mr B & Co. cook up to replace CAAPS will be neatly packaged into a scheme for new NSL employees, a scheme for new NERL employees and a scheme for new employees at whatever the training side of things becomes.

This once big ship is being steadily broken up to be flogged off in little bits, with only NERL remaining as a sop to the back-bench lobby-fodder with their useless 49%.

W:mad:s, the lot of 'em!

[Nimmer]

would any government allow its ATC providor to go bust, especially when it came to power stating "our skies are not for sale" ????

Can't really see it myself. But thanks BDIONU for all the valuable information, however definately time for us all to stick together and protect "our" pensions and those of future employees.

As the union keep saying, the pension is in profit and very well run, if it aint broke don't fix it.

[Del Prado]

would any government allow its ATC providor to go bust?

To quote Paul Barron, NATS went bust after september 11th and the government bailed it out. He stated that quite clearly at our "roadshow".
First time I'd heard it put like that.

[rab-k]

NATS went bust after september 11th and the government bailed it out.

And I'll bet he was told in no uncertain terms to restructure NATS so that should the situation ever occur again in future, any liability on the part of Govt. is limited to bailing out NERL only. NSL and the college will be out on their own to sink or swim in the 'free market'.

[DangleOfAttack]

I personally expect Nats to close the fund to all new employees except ATCO's. This is consistent with their strategy of seperating them from other grades of ATC staff in collective bargaining. This would hamstring Prospect ATCO branch from taking any action to support other satff grades but allow the company to reduce it's cost base, with minimal risk of disruption, and reduce route charges.

It's also a strategy that would be easy for ERG to accept. ERG are part dunderheads and part straight jacketed by the rules placed upon them by the Government. Why dunderheads? Only a true cretin could allow a "not for profit organisation" to make a profit, without compelling it to return a big chunk of this by reducing charges.

I'm an ATCO, and I find the whole concept as repulsive, but that's where my money is. I could wax lyrical about this issue, but at the end of the day we are (at NATS) victims of Tony and his ignorant mates. Viz, there is a huge pensions crisis so lets have a policy to close a well funded, successful fund, so a bunch of companies (airlines) who have a disgusting record on funding their own pension schemes can become 'profitable'. W@nkers the lot of them!

[rab-k]

victims of Tony and his ignorant mates.

And guess who one of his "mates" was who, along with 58 other 'big-hitters' from the CBI and world of business, wrote to the 'Times' in May 2001 calling on business as a whole to support New Labour? You guessed it: Paul Barron CBE, (then) President of Alstom UK.

[Flybywyre]

I personally expect Nats to close the fund to all new employees except ATCO's. This is consistent with their strategy of seperating them from other grades of ATC staff in collective bargaining. This would hamstring Prospect ATCO branch from taking any action to support other satff grades but allow the company to reduce it's cost base, with minimal risk of disruption, and reduce route charges.

A most errudite post indeed. That strategy would become a "fait accompli".
Regards
FBW

[DC10RealMan]

I wonder if members of the atco grade would be so naive?, do they really believe that the management would leave them alone once they had picked off the other grades. I have never underestimated the atcos capacity for greed and mendacity, but even they can see that "We all hang together or hang separately"

[Courtenay]

I don't even work for Nats yet... but what is being talked about seems to be very similar to what is happening to my Police Pension.

When I joined the pension you were offered was: 1/60 per year (2/60th for year 21-30) ie 40/60ths after *30* years, for 11% contribution (you can reduce pension to 1/2 and take a nice lump sum nearly 3 times your basic salary when you leave).

From 1st April 2006 (or 5th?) anyone who joined joined the NPPS (NEW Police Pension Scheme) - 1/70th per year, ie 35/70ths after *35* years + 1.5 times your basic salary as a lump sum, for 9.5% contribution (you can UP your pension by REDUCING your lump sum).

Everything goes along swimmingly for 4-5 months, then the charm offensive starts... They publish ALL the good points about the new pension scheme, ALL the bad points about the old one, and indicate how much money you can save by transferring etc etc... They have just recently sent out a pack "selling" the new pension scheme, with a form to sign to transfer over... About 1% will. However they have now reduced the cost of the police pension quite significantly.

This is very similar to what many blue chip companies have done, closed their old "gold-plated" pension (final salary, often no contributory) and changed it for a money purchase scheme (everyone has their own pot). I can only think of one company that has closed it's current pension scheme to existing employees, even then what they have earned upto that point is safe. They just are forced onto the new scheme from that point onwards - not nice I agree, but unlikely.

I just hope the change is not for a little while, to allow me to get in quick on the old scheme!

Cheers

James.

[ATSA_Grunt]

Looking at the above posts I see that most people are divided about the actions to take if the threat is realised. Thats always the problem with ATC staff when the serious issues come up. If I was Mr. Baron reading this (and if he has any brains he will look at this site on a regular basis) I would think its worth taking a chance, because as per usual we are divided.

Look at the train drivers, they don't care about public opinion, they show a very united front and it seems to me they pretty much get what they want. The French?? Christ, they strike over anything and get what they want!

We don't. And when the serious issues come up we talk a good fight and when it comes to a vote it goes through!!! This has to be the time when we say "NO! YOU AIN'T TOUCHING OUR PENSIONS!!!"

We have to send a clear signal, and say do it by all means, BUT BE AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES!!

UNITE!!!

Right. Rant over. As you were!

[mdcsplatter]

I'm not in the union but work for NATS (NSL). I don't know about anyone else out there, but if NATS try to mess with the pension, I will join the union and ballot for strike action with absolutely no reservations. I have absolutely no problem with downing headset on this issue. I didn't work for the company through PPP but my response would have been the same on that issue, and I beleive that this was balloted at the time and the result quietly swept under the carpet.

[rab-k]

An ATCO's variation on a theme by Niemöller:


First they Privatised us, and we did nothing-
because we were told to;
Then they broke up the company, and we did not speak out-
because we were still employed;
Then they laid off the ATSAs, and we did not speak out-
because we were not ATSAs;
Then they outsourced the Engineers, and we did not speak out-
because we were not Engineers;
Then they messed with the Pension, and we did not speak out-
because we were bought off;
Then they came after the ATCO pay and conditions-
because we were not united, and we did not speak out.

[ATSAWHO]

..to death of this issue.

If I had a third rate endowment sales type in my house then I'd show them the door.

Regrettably I have a Barron(n) who is worse than the above, and is my employer!

The (immediately) above WILL also be shown the door by Prospect and the PCS.

I remember in the early nineties a number of my colleagues boasting that they had got a private pension that would be far better than NATS/CAA (!). Then in the true nature of 'doublethink', those persons boasted to their colleagus about how they were getting 1000's in compensation a few years later in the so called 'pensions scandal'.

Unsurprisingly, this co-incided with the lengthy parliamentary debate about the privatisation of NATS. The NATS/CAA pension was shown to be King...and still is! (NB King is higher than a Barron(n)...true!).

Barron, we WILL strike, and you will be gone, and we will remain with our jobs, and pension, along with ALL our colleagues. You must be tired of your job to take the stance you have. Your defeat will be sweet for us.

Yours Truly

ATSA WHO :=

[BDiONU]

Barron, we WILL strike, and you will be gone, and we will remain with our jobs, and pension, along with ALL our colleagues. You must be tired of your job to take the stance you have. Your defeat will be sweet for us.
Who will strike? How will the union gain the necessary support (if indeed the union goes down the route of advocating strike action)? How will CAAPS be able to pay out pensions if NATS goes bust and cannot make any contributions?

Let me reiterate some of the facts from my previous posts because I formed my opinion on the basis of fact, not sure what those calling for strike action are basing their opinion on because all I've heard is a knee jerk reaction.

FACTS:

1) NATS consists of NERL and NSL with NSL operating in a competitive environment so its charges are dictated by what the market will bear. NERL is a monopoly and its charges are regulated by the CAA on behalf of the government.

2) The regulator is reducing the amount NERL may charge in CP2 by percentage reductions each year. So although traffic levels have risen considerably since 9/11 profit is not rising by the same amount. It also needs bearing in mind that NATS lives a fairly hand to mouth existence as the experience of 9/11 showed where government and the airlines had to bail NATS out to the tune of £30m each (remember that?) Although NATS has managed to better restructure its loans we should always bear in mind the fragility of the market.

3) The regulator has warned NATS that it must take action as regards pensions. NATS currently passes through to the airlines (as a part of the route charges) the costs of its contributions to CAAPS. The regulator has fired a warning shot in not allowing NATS to continue to pass through for all employees engaged since 1st Jan 2006. The regulator has made it clear that if NATS take no action to reduce pension costs it will take further action in CP3 and this may be in further route charge reductions or extending the pass through disallowance or a combination of both.

4) NATS cannot, by law, interfere with the current pension scheme and must continue to make contributions to ensure that CAAPS assets meets its obligations. The only changes which can be made to CAAPS are by a 100% vote in favour by its members. Even a single dissenter would cause any vote to fail.

From the above facts I deduced that if NATS fail to heed the regulators very clear warnings then the regulator will take action which will restrict NATS income. NATS is legally obliged to continue payments into CAAPS but has offset its costs somewhat recently by ploughing the surplus back into the fund but given the money markets fairly dismal performance that surplus is likely to dry up somtime. So NATS are faced with a reducing income but no reduction in its contributions to CAAPS and a highly likely need to increase them. Something has to give and since its the pensions which are exercising the regulator (due to pressure from the airlines) it seems sensible to me that NATS address that area. Since the CAAPS scheme is untouchable I don't see any option but to close it off to new staff.
I consider that this is protecting the company (and my pension) because if your profits are reducing but your overheads remain the same (or increase) eventually you'll go bust. If NATS goes bust then CAAPS is severely impacted because there will be no more contributions. If CAAPS is impacted then my pension (which I'm looking forwards to enjoying) will be hit and I really really really don't want that.

So thats my view but I'm curious as to what facts those advocating a strike are basing their views on?

BD

[anotherthing]

BDiNOU - some salient points, however

your fact number 2 - NATS should never have been put in the position of being so financially bereft in the first place before 9/11. The Labour (our skies are not for sale) governement put us through PPP then to cap it all saddled us with 100s of millions of pounds of debt.

Fact number 3 - Pensions and passing through of costs. We are a service industry, our pension contributions come from profits, we make profits by charging customers. It's semantics by the regulator - pension costs for any company are met by charging the customer.... whetther it's called pass through or not. Barron states that the airlines will not stand paying for our pensions... why not? We as passengers pay towards the pensions of the airline industry!!

[BDiONU]

BDiNOU - some salient points, however

your fact number 2 - NATS should never have been put in the position of being so financially bereft in the first place before 9/11. The Labour (our skies are not for sale) governement put us through PPP then to cap it all saddled us with 100s of millions of pounds of debt.
I agree 100%, NATS should not have been saddled with the debt as it was. But thats what was done.

Fact number 3 - Pensions and passing through of costs. We are a service industry, our pension contributions come from profits, we make profits by charging customers. It's semantics by the regulator - pension costs for any company are met by charging the customer.... whetther it's called pass through or not. Barron states that the airlines will not stand paying for our pensions... why not? We as passengers pay towards the pensions of the airline industry!!
You need to understand how the regulator works things out. When NATS submits its accounts the regulator goes through them with a fine tooth comb. NATS has to have put together a business plan which includes things like infrastructure investment, R&D, staff wages, pensions etc. The regulator looks at all the figures and if, for example, NATS underspent 10% on its investment proposal one year then the regulator would cut what it'll allow in the next years investment proposal. From all those figures it works out what NATS are allowed to charge.
Because NATS is a monopoly, regulated by government, it cannot charge what it likes and it would like to include pension costs but the regulator has already clamped down on that for people joining as at 1st Jan 2006. The regulator decides on what NATS may charge. Airlines are not regulated by government in this way and any pension charges they make are (as you rightly state) in the ticket price. Remember that the airlines have to be competitive or they go out of business, so they're squeezing pension costs hard (those airlines that have such schemes).

Hope that makes things clearer.

BD

[BEXIL160]

BD.

I Do not agree with your "deductions"

NATS is legally obliged to continue payments into CAAPS but has offset its costs somewhat recently by ploughing the surplus back into the fund but given the money markets fairly dismal performance that surplus is likely to dry up somtime.

Yes, NATS must pay into CAAPS.The rest of the sentence doesn't make sense (nor is it strictly gramatical)

CAAPS is actually performing VERY WELL. There is no evidence that it will not continue to do so. Just becasue other schemes etc etc....

no reduction in its contributions to CAAPS and a highly likely need to increase them. More supposition, or if you prefer, guess work. It can equally be argued that there will no need to increase contributions. (Don't forget NATS has had a pensions holiday because CAAPS is doing so well)

How will CAAPS be able to pay out pensions if NATS goes bust "If" NATS goes bust, bears some examination. Would any UK government let NATS go to the wall? I think not, especially as it owns 49% of the company.

NATS does not need to make HUGE profits. The regulator is there is ensure that NATS does not abuse it's monopoly in trying to do so.

NATS can well afford it's CAAPS obligations, now and in the future. It might be squeezed a bit (or might not) and might not be able to make big a profit in the future.

BEX.

[BDiONU]

BD.
I Do not agree with your "deductions"
Yes, NATS must pay into CAAPS.The rest of the sentence doesn't make sense (nor is it strictly gramatical)
Apologies for my poor English. The surplus that CAAPS makes (its profit) is being used by NATS to offset its own contributions.
CAAPS is actually performing VERY WELL. There is no evidence that it will not continue to do so. Just becasue other schemes etc etc.....
It performs well in part because NATS continues to pump funds into it. Neither you nor I can forecast the money markets (or we wouldn't be discussing CAAPS pensions!) but experience shows that they go up and down. If they go down.............
More supposition, or if you prefer, guess work. It can equally be argued that there will no need to increase contributions. (Don't forget NATS has had a pensions holiday because CAAPS is doing so well).
Yes a guess because I cannot see into the future but I do prefer to look at worst case scenario's when my pension is at stake. How many thousands of people got bitten by endowment policies which looked OK when they took them out?

"If" NATS goes bust, bears some examination. Would any UK government let NATS go to the wall? I think not, especially as it owns 49% of the company.
One word. Railtrack.
NATS does not need to make HUGE profits. The regulator is there is ensure that NATS does not abuse it's monopoly in trying to do so.
NATS can well afford it's CAAPS obligations, now and in the future. It might be squeezed a bit (or might not) and might not be able to make big a profit in the future.
But as I explained the regulator has signalled, very clearly, its intent to force NATS into taking action over pensions. NATS affords its obligations now because the regulator is allowing the cost to be passed onto the airlines. Its signalling that in future it will not allow this.

Am I missing the point somewhere?

BD

[BEXIL160]

Quote:
"If" NATS goes bust, bears some examination. Would any UK government let NATS go to the wall? I think not, especially as it owns 49% of the company.

One word. Railtrack.


And what ACTUALLY happened to the Railtrack pension fund after the company was returned to a "not for profit company?" Terms and conditions for most of the workforce didn't change, although a 100 or so managers were made redundant.

Losers were those who held large amonts of shares in Railtrack, not the workforce.

Am I missing the point somewhere?


Yes, i think you are. The regulator is there to make sure NATS doesn't abuse it's monopoly status. There is no evidence to suggest that NATS cannot fund its CAAPS obligations without "pass-through", it simply won't be in a position to make BIG profits.

Smaller profits are more of a worry to businessmen like barron, whose whole philosophy leans towards maximising profit at all costs.

BEX

[BDiONU]

And what ACTUALLY happened to the Railtrack pension fund after the company was returned to a "not for profit company?" Terms and conditions for most of the workforce didn't change, although a 100 or so managers were made redundant.
Its an example of how this government will lie to push companies into receivership and back into public ownership.
The regulator is there to make sure NATS doesn't abuse it's monopoly status. There is no evidence to suggest that NATS cannot fund its CAAPS obligations without "pass-through", it simply won't be in a position to make BIG profits.
Smaller profits are more of a worry to businessmen like barron, whose whole philosophy leans towards maximising profit at all costs.
One the one hand you acknowledge that the regulator regulates what profit NATS makes but on the other you state that Paul Barrons intent is to maximise profit. Which is it because both cannot be correct?

BD

[BEXIL160]

One the one hand you acknowledge that the regulator regulates what profit NATS makes but on the other you state that Paul Barrons intent is to maximise profit. Which is it because both cannot be correct?


Short term, they can be. barron is trying to maximise profits now, before the next CP, and his own departure.

[BDiONU]

Short term, they can be. barron is trying to maximise profits now, before the next CP, and his own departure.
:confused: If he's leaving a company, who's profits are regulated, why bother to attempt to maximise them when there will be no benefit to him?

I really don't understand what your view is and I'm certain everyone else is getting as bored as I am with this exchange.

BD

[Asda]

To be honest, this is one of the best discussions I've experienced about the pensions issues. I'd like to congratulate both of you on what is a very measured and deep exploration of what both management and unions are trying to establish as fact.

Please don't feel you have to stop on our behalf.

[jonny B good]

I have to take issue with some of your supposed 'facts' :=
1) The regulator has NOT said that NATS must reduce its pension costs. If you think otherwise, please, please tell me where and what they have said !!
If you have taken the time to read cp2 and the Airlines response to it, you can see what was actually said.
"For instance, it would be unacceptable if NATS were able to benefit from savings in operating expenditure such as those that could be made by cutting back on pension contributions, at the expense of higher costs in future."
ie. don't cut back on contributions now, then ask us to make them up in the future. It doesn't say you must cut your pension costs !! :p
2) All companies pass their costs onto their customers, pensions included. NATS is no different in this. More so, NATS only pay a rate of 12.2% into pensions. This is considerably lower than most companies. To save money on pensions, this rate would need to be reduced even further. So just how little do they want to pay towards pensions?? :p
3) Yes, the AIrline Group 'bailed' NATS out after 9/11 BUT with the help of our pension fund. NATS rate before 9/11 was about 16%, they then paid 0% for several years and now are only at 12.2%. :p
4) NATS are NOT pumping huge sums into the pension scheme. They contribute 12.2% (about £30 million) a year into a fund worth over £2000 million. :p
5) The surplus has dropped due to lower NATS contributions, Pension Holidays, Equity market crash in 1990 and 9/11. Yet, it still is in surplus and subsidising NATS conributions which are lower than they were prior to 9/11 (12.2% vs 16%). Also, the markets are reaching their highest levels since the 'crash' and there is no reason to believe that after the triennial revue, the SURPLUS WILL HAVE INCREASED to well over £200million.
The market performance is better now than 10yrs ago when our pensions subsidised NATS. :p
I thank you for your time and indulgence :D

[vintage ATCO]

I agree with Asda :D

[BDiONU]

I have to take issue with some of your supposed 'facts' :=
1) The regulator has NOT said that NATS must reduce its pension costs. If you think otherwise, please, please tell me where and what they have said !!
If you have taken the time to read cp2 and the Airlines response to it, you can see what was actually said.
"For instance, it would be unacceptable if NATS were able to benefit from savings in operating expenditure such as those that could be made by cutting back on pension contributions, at the expense of higher costs in future."
ie. don't cut back on contributions now, then ask us to make them up in the future. It doesn't say you must cut your pension costs !! :p
A matter of interpretation methinks ;) How do we know what the future markets will be giving in the way of returns on investments? Since the impact of reducing future pension costs will take years to achieve I think action has to be taken now. I note you make no mention of the regulator ceasing to allow pass through of pension costs for new employees. Why did they do that do you think?
2) All companies pass their costs onto their customers, pensions included. NATS is no different in this.
But NATS is different in that its a monopoly and its regulated by the government, other companies are regulated (for want of a better word) by market forces. In addition the regulator has stopped allowing NATS to pass through pension costs for new staff. No other company has this burden AFAIK.
More so, NATS only pay a rate of 12.2% into pensions. This is considerably lower than most companies.
Because its currently using the CAAPS surplus to make up the 'shortfall'. I believe the figures are that NATS should be contributing 28%. That NATS is fortunate enough to be able to use the 'surplus' is all due to sound investment and proper funding over the years.
To save money on pensions, this rate would need to be reduced even further. So just how little do they want to pay towards pensions?? :p
How do you predict the future and know that the market will give reasonable returns in the future so that NATS could continue to fund the 'shortfall' with the CAAPS surplus? Remember that CAAPS must pay out until everyone is dead.
3) Yes, the AIrline Group 'bailed' NATS out after 9/11 BUT with the help of our pension fund. NATS rate before 9/11 was about 16%, they then paid 0% for several years and now are only at 12.2%. :p
As they're entitled to do, what they're not entitled to do is to jeopardise the fund.
4) NATS are NOT pumping huge sums into the pension scheme. They contribute 12.2% (about £30 million) a year into a fund worth over £2000 million. :p
£30m is a bit more than my take home ;)
5) The surplus has dropped due to lower NATS contributions, Pension Holidays, Equity market crash in 1990 and 9/11. Yet, it still is in surplus and subsidising NATS conributions which are lower than they were prior to 9/11 (12.2% vs 16%).
Your point being what? NATS are still making contributions and they're increasing as they're being squeezed on passing through pension costs to their customers..
Also, the markets are reaching their highest levels since the 'crash' and there is no reason to believe that after the triennial revue, the SURPLUS WILL HAVE INCREASED to well over £200million.
The market performance is better now than 10yrs ago when our pensions subsidised NATS. :p
Whats 10 years in the timescales of our lifetimes? How do you know what the markets going to be doing in 10 years? Or when I retire? Or when I'll statistically die? Or when my wife will statistically die? There is no reason to suppose that the surplus will not have ceased to exist in the future. Myself I take a pessimistic view and I want to protect my pension. The whole discussion about pensions is about closing CAAPS to new staff, not about affecting current members pensions.
I thank you for your time and indulgence :D
And I thank you for a well argued and reasoned rebuttal of my posts to date :) Its a first :D

BD

[BEXIL160]

...... and the management Spin goes on.......

BEX

[anotherthing]

Keep it up lads... if nothing else its getting everyone (me included) aware of all the arguments on either side, and also clearing misconceptions up :ok:

BDiNOU

an old chestnut but in your rebuttal to Jonny B, one of the things you said was


But NATS is different in that its a monopoly and its regulated by the government, other companies are regulated (for want of a better word) by market forces. In addition the regulator has stopped allowing NATS to pass through pension costs for new staff. No other company has this burden AFAIK.


You are 100% correct, it is a monopoly, it always has been and it probably always will be. Thats how succesive Governements set it up. Thats how it was when it was sold (against all the experts wishes), thats how the regulator has always known it.

The fact it is a monopoly and therefore not regulated by competition is not our problem. And it is certainly not any kind of excuse for management to p:mad: around with our pensions. :*

[Nimmer]

Thanks to all for explaining how NATS makes it money!!!! To be totally honest I don't care. My job is to control planes in "a safe and orderly" way. With the invaluble help of ATSA's and Engineers we provide an ATC service.This is what NATS does, this is what it's function is.

At the end of each month I receive a nice wage, and at the end of 30ish years work I WANT to receive a nice pension, after all I will of earned it.The pension scheme is in profit, leave it alone.

These are the basic facts, forgotten by all management types especially "the Barron"

[pikman]

Ask the question...If NATS pays 12.2% salary into the pension fund, how much as a percentage of pay do they pay into Paul Barron's pension pot? You can get the company accounts online as we are a PLC, but I seem to recall a figure in excess of 250K per annum! Nice work if you can get it!!!
Anyone who thinks that this is a course of action that can be got away with is quite frankly mad. I cannot think of a single issue that is more likely to unite NSL and NERL and have us ALL out on the picket line if neccesary. Divide and conquer my a£$e. Light the braziers, I'm ready to rant!!!!!!!!!!!
PS...Join the union now!!! If there was ever a time to stick together, this is it...

[BDiONU]

Ask the question...If NATS pays 12.2% salary into the pension fund, how much as a percentage of pay do they pay into Paul Barron's pension pot? You can get the company accounts online as we are a PLC, but I seem to recall a figure in excess of 250K per annum! Nice work if you can get it!!!
So he managed to negotiate great terms and conditions before agreeing to work for NATS and you didn't. Jealousy is no reason to strike IMHO.

BD

[pikman]

So he managed to negotiate great terms and conditions before agreeing to work for NATS and you didn't. Jealousy is no reason to strike IMHO.
BD


No, jealousy is not a reason to strike. Hypocracy is though.
Besides, I did negotiate great terms and conditions before I agreed to join NATS. Part of this was the NATS pension scheme. This is under threat and I and many others think this calls for action. IMHO!!!

[flower]

Besides, I did negotiate great terms and conditions before I agreed to join NATS. Part of this was the NATS pension scheme. This is under threat and I and many others think this calls for action. IMHO!!!

Hear Hear :D :D :D

[BDiONU]

Part of this was the NATS pension scheme. This is under threat and I and many others think this calls for action. IMHO!!!
Can you explain how CAAPS is under threat?

BD

[120.4]

Pikman

My understanding is slightly different to yours and I would like to be clear...

I was party to a discussion about this with a NATS senior manager last week. Now I know he is NATS management and he will be spouting the company line but he did clearly state what I have heard on many occasions from other quarters...

The only risk to CAAPS and current employee's pensions is NATS going bust. Anybody who has a pension in the current scheme is protected by act of parliament. It would take a new act of parliament to change that or 100% vote of the members.

Assuming that to be correct, it seems to me that our pensions are not at risk. What is at risk are our future terms and conditions of employment because it seems NATS will use these to try and lever us out of the existing pension? So any future fight will be over pay rises, not pensions.

If that accurately sums up the position then it seems to me that any industrial action cannot be over pensions? If those in the existing scheme strike, won't management ask "What are you striking for, your pension is not affected." What answer would we have to that?

.4

[Gonzo]

120.4, that's my understanding also. I'm going to be receiving a briefing on the pensions issue from Prospect soon, so I hope to get a better idea of the current union thoughts from that.

[DangleOfAttack]

120.4

Which is why I suspect that ATCO's would be excluded from any change (see my above post).

Also, as others have rightly said, NATS has a habit of of painting a black picture then presenting a package which is far less draconian. Staff think, "Well it could have been a lot worse", and are less inclined to resist.

I used to be suprised as to how gutless NATS ATCO's are. Many of our continental colleagues have far superior T&C than ours, mostly obtained by summer industrial action. I wish we would do the same. It would certainly clarify a few minds in a number of offices along the M27 and in Whitehall.

[flower]

As other companies pension schemes have been scrapped I can't see why ours would be so protected. If it is so protected then why are the unions concerned about it ?

[120.4]

It has just been confirmed to me by another senior source that the existing pension cannot be touched so long as NATS remains solvent (excluding a 100% vote or Act of Parliament).

He also opined that future pay differentials are a risky and needless strategy for NATS because setting up a new pension scheme for new employees addresses the issue at hand and also sends the right signal to the regulator. Having achieved that, a question for the NATS board would then be, "What is the point in picking a fight with the unions by trying to introduce pay differentials when the longterm aim has been met?". Would the upset to the service and bad publicity be worth the short term gain to NATS when they have got what they really want, i.e. control of the longterm liability?

So, if there is to be no impact on our pension and if there is little risk of the board picking a fight over differentials, I have to ask the question again...

What would we be striking for? Make that clear to me and I will consider supporting it.

.4

[grim_up_north]

"It has just been confirmed to me by another senior source that the existing pension cannot be touched so long as NATS remains solvent (excluding a 100% vote or Act of Parliament). "

It has just been confirmed to me by another senior citizen source that "we're all going on (another) pension holiday"

Keep the tinder dry folks!!

[jonny B good]

BDI :E
Yet another rebuffal, I'm sorry to say: :=
-
-
1) The reason the regulator has stopped pass through for new employees, and wishes to do so for all, is for the very reason explained earlier. It does not wish NATS to make short-term savings by cutting its contributions rates now, only to go to the airlines in a few year and say...oops, we have a shortfall so you need to make it up, please !!
-
-
2) Yes, in enroute, NATS is a 'monopoly'. BUT this pass through is a red herring. ALL companies, even regulated monopolies pass their pension costs onto their customers. You say NATS has the burden of not having 'pass through'. Well, please show me another regulated monoploy which does ?? NATS is no different from anyone else operating in a regulated environment.
-
Also, NATS only pay in 12.2%, a very low % by todays standards. YES, this is supported by the surplus, a surplus which appears to be increasing (as the triennial revue should soon show), and the surplus is the figure left over AFTER ALL members are paid their pensions (and future payments are included in this).
-
-
3) YES, NATS are entitled to contribute at a rate of 12.2% and not 16% as they previously did. However, they are legally obliged to contribute at a rate which ensures the Pension Fund can meet all its commitments. Obviously, they therefore feel the scheme is doing so well, they need not contribute more (point of interest, the pass through is set at about 19% at the moment if they felt there was any looming problem with the fund!!)
-
-
4) I'm guessing that you agree with me that £30million a year into our pension fund is actually a small amount of money in corporate terms. A 12.2% rate is relatively small as a company contribution and the scheme is almost 'Self-funding' being worth over £2billion !! :O
-
-
5) Please stick to the facts...NATS contributions are not rising. They were 16% prior to 9/11. They then feel to 0%, and are only at 12.2% now, with the surplus increasing year on year (see NATS own publised accounts).
-
Also, pensions are a long-term investment. YES, 10 yrs is a short time, it was used to show that the only time our HUGE surplus feel was after the equity crash from 9/11. Prior and post that, our savvy investers have consistently out performed the required market return, hence the HUGE surplus is continuing to grow, even after pensions holidays and lower contributions from NATS.
-
-
Surely we do not want to go down the road of a 2 Tier NATS, with people doing the same job being paid differently (Yes, pensions is a payment). When payments from new members stop entering the current scheme, it makes the scheme more at risk as any long-term growth potential is removed. If there ever was another bad market crash, the scheme would then be more likely to face difficulty.
ONE NATS ONE PENSION :ok: :ok:

[BDiONU]

BDI :E
Yet another rebuffal, I'm sorry to say: := :
You're entitled :) Nothing much that I can rebutt though as most things we agree on, its simply a matter of interpretation. Although I'm not aware of the details of any other monopoly regulated by government as NATS is.


5) Please stick to the facts...NATS contributions are not rising. They were 16% prior to 9/11. They then feel to 0%, and are only at 12.2% now, with the surplus increasing year on year (see NATS own publised accounts).
-
Also, pensions are a long-term investment. YES, 10 yrs is a short time, it was used to show that the only time our HUGE surplus feel was after the equity crash from 9/11. Prior and post that, our savvy investers have consistently out performed the required market return, hence the HUGE surplus is continuing to grow, even after pensions holidays and lower contributions from NATS.:
Sigh. As the regulator has fired the warning shot of ceasing to allow pass through its inevitable that NATS conributions over the years must increase (although employee contributions are only 6%). Yes the fund is doing well at the moment but if it ceases to do well NATS must (by law) make up the shortfall every year.

Surely we do not want to go down the road of a 2 Tier NATS, with people doing the same job being paid differently (Yes, pensions is a payment).
And thats different to how things are now in what way? Yes it would make a slight difference in negotiated grades (dependent on what the replacement scheme is and remember that no one forces you to work for NATS, new people have a choice) but not to Personal Contract employees. Also, without going too far down this route, it wouldn't be different to, for example, ATC (T&S) grades who do what were formerly ATCO desk jobs for less money and without the 'benefit' of shift pay (NOS) which ATCO's will always get, irrespective if its been 30 years since they last controlled an aircraft or worked a shift.
When payments from new members stop entering the current scheme, it makes the scheme more at risk as any long-term growth potential is removed. If there ever was another bad market crash, the scheme would then be more likely to face difficulty.
I disagree. Members pay only a 6% contribution (NATS pays 12.2%) but eventually receive a VERY substantial return. NATS is obligated, by law, to ensuring that the pension scheme has sufficient funds to be able to pay out everything its committed to. CAAPS, like every pension fund since the Thatcher days, is capped on its 'profit' which must be ploughed back in or distributed to its members somehow. BTW you're also arguing both sides here, on the one hand how brilliantly the fund is doing with its large surplus (which gets ploughed back in) and on the other how it would be doom and gloom if there were a crash. :}

BD

[Carbide Finger]

I've got to agree with many others: this is by far one of the best discussions I have seen in the ATC forum for quite some time.
Please stick to the facts...NATS contributions are not rising. They were 16% prior to 9/11. They then feel to 0%, and are only at 12.2% now, with the surplus increasing year on year (see NATS own publised accounts).
Whilst NATS' percentage contributions may not have risen, every time we get a pay rise, they're actual contributions rise.

[BDiONU]

ONE NATS ONE PENSION :ok: :ok:
Sorry for the further late response, just wanted to be clear on something.

Are you saying that NATS must never change any of its Terms & Conditions of employment (because thats what pay and pensions come under)?

Are you saying that if NATS closes CAAPS to new employees, who will be aware of the changed T&C's and will have made a conscious choice to work for NATS anyway, that NATS staff should take industrial action?

Are you saying that current NATS staff should take industrial action to 'protect' the T&C's of people who don't even work for the company yet, aren't forced to work for the company and will be aware of the companies T&C's before they sign on the dotted line?


BD

[Dunebug]

Here's my viewpoint on the pensions debate.

I think the real reason why Barron is proposing these changes is to prepare NATS for full flotation on the stock market. Any reduction to the contributions made by NATS will make the company appear to be a better investment for any would-be future shareholders and also increase the 'windfall' that the government would make by selling its 49% stake which of course would then be used to bribe the UK voters with lower taxes in the run up to the next election.

People keep saying over and over again that we are protected by 'the trust of a promise' whatever the heck that means??? which is guaranteed by law. This law is not worth the paper it's printed on - I bet the government has already drafted a change in legislation that would be implemented within weeks of a change of the NATS pension which would then be followed closely by flotation.

Some may say that NATS is too small to warrant such a change in law but we all know that when it comes to plundering our hard earned cash this government will stop at NOTHING to get whatever they can.

[rab-k]

I think the real reason why Barron is proposing these changes is to prepare NATS for full flotation on the stock market.

Recon you may be right, but I suspect that this is all heading towards a break up of the company and the pensions issue is really a smoke-screen. Unlike NERL, there is no strategic/national security issue which could be pulled out of the hat by opponents of a 100% sell-off of NSL.

The one problem for Mgt in order to do this is the Pension Scheme - in its current form.

No private company like SERCO or whomever would be willing to take on NSL with the current scheme in place and the surest way of solving that problem is to wind up the existing scheme and open new ones which distinguish between NSL and NERL.

Like I say, I suspect there is a bigger issue here than just pensions.

[Del Prado]

Hang on, the pension fund is worth £2 billion and the company is putting in £30 million a year?

1.5%?

CAAPS could put the entire pension fund in a current account and still grow twice as fast as with NATS contributions.
NATS' contributions are a drop in the ocean so far as the fund is concerned and still they're trying to reduce their (overall) payments.
The numbers we're presented with from management (and BDionu:eek: ) don't stack up.
We need to see a strong rebuttal from the union.


I really wouldn't believe any 'senior management' sources that anyone is privy to, there's a lot of incentive to sell this one to the troops.

[120.4]

[QUOTE I bet the government has already drafted a change in legislation that would be implemented within weeks of a change of the NATS pension which would then be followed closely by flotation.
[/QUOTE]

Dunebug

What you are saying is that the government intends to use valuable time in Parliament to get a bill through so that it can more easily sell off NATS for... how much?

I doubt there is sufficient value to merit what would surely be seen as a blatant back tracking on the PPP arrangements. It would surely suggest to the country that parliament was abused by the government in order to get around a difficult issue that was likely to prevent PPP. I suggest the political dangers in that are immense. This country has little trust in this government as it is; such an admission of the mistreatment of Parliament would hardly encourage trust of government in the run up to the next election.

I could yet be proven wrong but I just don't see that; it's Political suicide.:=

.4

[120.4]

DP

I understand the fears. If the "strong rebuttal" you seek involves strike action then the first question I will ask the union is...

If the law says CAAPS cannot be touched, and there is little risk of the introduction of pay differentials (no need to take on the troops over that if what they really want is in the bag), what would we go on strike for?

There is no way I am going to vote to strike unless there is a "clear and present danger" of serious errosion of my T&C.

.4

[BEXIL160]

Bit of history of the reasons behind PPP as it relates to NATS.

The Tory government pre 1997 had already earmarked NATS for sale, and had already budgeted for it's sale bringing in many million quids. Cue much hand wringing from the then Labour opposition, including the infamous "our air is not for sale" statement. (Sounds like "your pensions are safe", doesn't it? but I digress......)

1997 arrives and Gordon arrives at No.11, finding finances in a shambles. First thing he does though is ADOPT all the financial plans already in place, and puts a stop to any further borrowing. No tax and spend Chancellor will Gordo be, no siree. But there's a problem. £750m of a problem. Without the sale of NATS, which is against Labour policy, poor old Gordo is short of said £750m.

Solution, change policy like the wind. Use your majority in Parliament to force the sale of NATS through, as least a bit of it that rasies enough cash. Appease the masses with some claptrap about pension protection (you can always change this later when no-one's looking, say on Friday when something bad has happened in Iraq / Afganistan etc etc) and Robert's your Uncle.

Gordon fills the hole in the accounts, and also tidily sidesteps questions about CAA NATS future investment.

Governments can and do change policy, and legislation, at the drop of a hat when it suits them or their friends. The union did their very best to protect CAAPS both at the time of PPP, and after NATS enforced split from the CAA. The legislation is only as watertight as the Govenment will allow it to be. Do you trust the politicians?

[BDiONU]

Governments can and do change policy, and legislation, at the drop of a hat when it suits them or their friends. The union did their very best to protect CAAPS both at the time of PPP, and after NATS enforced split from the CAA. The legislation is only as watertight as the Govenment will allow it to be. Do you trust the politicians?
I don't trust them an inch, they can and do change with the wind. We only have to look at the latest (and fastest) U-turn over the compulsory requirement to have 25% of children in faith schools not of that schools faith or of non-faith. I think that took 6 days from full steam ahead to full reverse.

However this is a red herring concerning closing CAAPS off to new entrants (which is what we're discussing). If the government want to change the law concerning CAAPS so they can do a Maxwell and plunder it then they will, irrespective of whether or it its been closed off to new members.

BD

[BDiONU]

We need to see a strong rebuttal from the union.
Quite! What've we seen so far........

BD

[jonny B good]

Lets get something straight....
-
CAAPS, Deed of Trust/Promise is extremely good protection. It makes it very difficult for changes to be made in the current scheme but only relates to members of the scheme prior to July 2001. There are employees who are not protected by it !! The TRUST/DEED is NOT PERFECT, but it is as good as the unions could get for PPP.
-
NATS, under PPP, was set up as a NOT FOR PROFIT company, but look how, in such a short time, things have already changed in that respect !!
-
In the latest NATS Pension Presentation, and interesting point they made was
"The Trustees cannot return any surplus in the scheme to NATS."
-
mmmmh!! Do I detect they wish to get their hands on the £200million in OUR Pension Scheme ?? No, surely not !! HaHa.....
-
-
Why is there such a rush to sell this one to Staff and not await the results of the Triennial Revue being carried out this month, with results due in March. Surely you would want to know exactly what is happening with the scheme before you make any hasty decisions ??
-
-
I am going to lay my cards on the table here for BDI and others who support the changes...
-:ugh:
WHY NOT AWAIT THE TRIENNIAL REVUE IN MARCH 2007, SEE THE TRUE STATE OF THE SCHEME AND WHAT THE INDEPENDANT SCHEME ACTUARIE SAYS THE FUTURE HOLDS, THEN ACT ON WHAT THE TRUSTEES REQUIRE. ALL THESE PEOPLE INVOLVED ARE LEGALLY BOUND TO ENSURE THE BEST RESULTS FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE SCHEME. LET THEM DO THEIR JOBS !!-
-:ugh:
If they say the scheme is in difficulty, trust me, I will be the first to demand action be taken. If the scheme is fine, then, If it aint broke, don't fix it !!-
-
-
PS......Glad everyone is enjoying the debate, but please, please....don't blindly believe everything you are told. ASK questions, of both sides, find out the facts for yourself, and finally make your own decision.
Cheers guys/gals. :ok:

[Flybywyre]

I doubt there is sufficient value to merit what would surely be seen as a blatant back tracking on the PPP arrangements. It would surely suggest to the country that parliament was abused by the government in order to get around a difficult issue that was likely to prevent PPP.
You mean in the same way as they said "our air is not for sale"

[BDiONU]

Why is there such a rush to sell this one to Staff and not await the results of the Triennial Revue being carried out this month, with results due in March. Surely you would want to know exactly what is happening with the scheme before you make any hasty decisions ??
<edited to remove shouting>If they say the scheme is in difficulty, trust me, I will be the first to demand action be taken. If the scheme is fine, then, If it aint broke, don't fix it !![/U][/I]-
Simple. We're not talking about now, we're talking about the future, the next 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 or 60 or 70 years. I feel like I'm going round in ever decreasing circles but to make the point once more. The regulator has clearly told NATS to sort out its pension contributions, it has ceased allowing pass through of pension costs for anyone joining after 1 Jan 2006. Undoubtedly it WILL do more as we enter 'negotiation' for CP3 if NATS does nothing now. NATS costs increase but its charges do not, NATS goes bust and our pensions get hit HARD.

BD

[REVOLUTION]

[QUOTE
Are you saying that current NATS staff should take industrial action to 'protect' the T&C's of people who don't even work for the company yet, aren't forced to work for the company and will be aware of the companies T&C's before they sign on the dotted line?
BD[/QUOTE]

That was my initial reaction until someone explained the following:
Supposing the existing scheme is closed to new recruits, initially no problem as a small percentage of the workforce will have a different pension, but as time goes by...10...20 years that percentage will grow until the proportion of the work force that is in the existing scheme become the minority. At this point the minority will not have the leverage if there are any disputes!

For the long term safety of existing scheme members there should really be one pension scheme.

[BDiONU]

Supposing the existing scheme is closed to new recruits, initially no problem as a small percentage of the workforce will have a different pension, but as time goes by...10...20 years that percentage will grow until the proportion of the work force that is in the existing scheme become the minority. At this point the minority will not have the leverage if there are any disputes!
Uuumm, what disputes? CAAPS is ringfenced only parliamentary legislation or a vote by CAAPS members which is 100% in favour can make any changes. Anyone outside of CAAPS has no sway, please see the previous posts on this subject :)

BD

[Stupendous Man]

I posted this on the thread in the NATS forum that has gone off topic....

You are all right when you say that at the moment with the current laws in place NATS cannot touch our pensions - and long may that reamin so. Yes they would have to keep up contribution.

However. When the "new pension staff" out weigh those of us in the current scheme by 1 NATS will be able to tailor any pay deals + T&C to suit the new people.

So if in the future a new pension comprises of say 3% NATS input and 15% staff input (just making up numbers here) and our old one stays at the same rates what do you think will happen when management puts a deal on the table that goes like this

1% on basic pay
plus a reduction in staff contributions to the new pension of say 3% and the company will increase their own contributions to make up the shortfall for 3 years.

In effect a 4% pay rise for everyone in the new scheme, but 1% for those of us in the old.

And it would get voted through.

Its not just the pension that we are talking about - it is splitting the company (again imho thankyouverymuch Banding)

[jonny B good]

BDI...
-
-
You keep saying that NATS has been told by the regulator to cut its pensions costs. Please show me where they have said this?
-
"For instance, it would be unacceptable if NATS were able to benefit from savings in operating expenditure such as those that could be made by cutting back on pension contributions, at the expense of higher costs in future."......A direct quote from the Airline response to CP2.....Don't take pension hols then expect use to pay for them later....NOT....cut your pension costs, as you would have us believe.
-
I have read CP2, NATS Response, Airlines Response, IATA Response and a response from the Star Alliance. Nowhere, in any of these, does it say NATS must cut its pension costs. At worst, it says they must manage them and not make short term savings then ask the Airlines to make up any shortfall.
-
-
I REPEAT, and NATS AGREE...THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH THE PENSION SCHEME.
-
IF the surplus begins to fall, and it appears that in the future NATS contributions rates need to rise to an unrealistic level, then SURELY THAT IS THE TIME TO LOOK AT CHANGES, NOT WHEN THERE IS NOTHING WRONG !!
-
-
NATS Pensions costs are NOT increasing as the surplus is funding them. If the surplus begins to drop, then of course lets look at changes, but again I ask....Why Now??
-
-
I'm happy to back up what I say with quotes and facts, Can you do the same??

[BEXIL160]

CAAPS is ringfenced only parliamentary legislation

But, as you admit, legislation can be changed in an instant by politicians. No safety guarantees there then.

NATS goes bust and our pensions get hit HARD.
... Two suppositions, and neither is guaranteed or dependant upon the other because NATS is still 49% the responsibility of the government..... so, in your own words BD, RAILTRACK. (only the management and shareholders suffered there.)

'course they could always change the rules but we're dealing with National Transport Infrastructure here, like Railtrack, so it would be in UK Plc interests to keep things going as a non profit company, and write off the debts.

BEX

[Courtenay]

[quote=Stupendous Man;2976606]

So if in the future a new pension comprises of say 3% NATS input and 15% staff input (just making up numbers here) and our old one stays at the same rates what do you think will happen when management puts a deal on the table that goes like this

1% on basic pay
plus a reduction in staff contributions to the new pension of say 3% and the company will increase their own contributions to make up the shortfall for 3 years.

In effect a 4% pay rise for everyone in the new scheme, but 1% for those of us in the old.

[\quote]

I cant see that happening very often, cause their rate is going to be fairly low, if it is worse than the current scheme... and if it isnt they wont be able to try and pursuade people to transfer over.

DP - the rate is 12.8% of people´s pay, not the value of the scheme. Employees pay 6%, employer 12.8% at the moment...

James.

[120.4]

Surely, if the government should U turn and change the law protecting our pension that would be the time to strike? Up until that point our pension is safe. Why pull the trigger before we know what we are aiming at?

.4

[BDiONU]

BDI...
You keep saying that NATS has been told by the regulator to cut its pensions costs. Please show me where they have said this?
-
"For instance, it would be unacceptable if NATS were able to benefit from savings in operating expenditure such as those that could be made by cutting back on pension contributions, at the expense of higher costs in future."......A direct quote from the Airline response to CP2.....Don't take pension hols then expect use to pay for them later....NOT....cut your pension costs, as you would have us believe.
The bit where they specifically disallow NATS from passing through pension on new joiners from 1 Jan 2006, which I've asked for your comment on previously. why did the regulator do that do you think?
I REPEAT, and NATS AGREE...THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH THE PENSION SCHEME.
You miss out the magic word, currently. There is currently no problem with the scheme.
IF the surplus begins to fall, and it appears that in the future NATS contributions rates need to rise to an unrealistic level, then SURELY THAT IS THE TIME TO LOOK AT CHANGES, NOT WHEN THERE IS NOTHING WRONG !!
Thats depends on whether you want to take a reactive approach, when its all falling about your ears, or a proactive approach and ensure things don't get to the stage of having to take action quickly.
NATS Pensions costs are NOT increasing as the surplus is funding them. If the surplus begins to drop, then of course lets look at changes, but again I ask....Why Now??
Reactive versus proactive. I know the approach I prefer.

I'm happy to back up what I say with quotes and facts, Can you do the same??
Uuumm I thought I had been, what have I missed?

BD
P.S. Could you please cut back on the shouting, really jars on the eyes.

[Del Prado]

DP - the rate is 12.8% of people´s pay, not the value of the scheme. Employees pay 6%, employer 12.8% at the moment...

Thanks for that James, I was just trying to put the sums into perspective. £30 million has been represented on this thread as a substansial amount, I was mearly trying to show that in this context it's not a lot.




Surely, if the government should U turn and change the law protecting our pension that would be the time to strike? Up until that point our pension is safe. Why pull the trigger before we know what we are aiming at?
.4


Because by then how many of us will there be in CAAPS to strike? 80% of staff? 60%? What happens when less than 50% of staff are in CAAPS?

We won't have the strength in the future unless we stand together now.

[DC10RealMan]

NATS Employees are being criticised for promoting strike action in the event of changes to the CAAPS. In my opinion this is a too simplistic view, I think that the talk of strike action is the culmination of frustration of employees who think that the management have gone far enough in attacking employees general terms and conditions, treating the "Operational Resources" with bearly concealed contempt ie: Paul Barron complaining about "excessive" salary scales, conning the unions with "Working Together" whose only advantage seems to be one way ie: in the managements favour, ignoring personnel and other centrally negotiated agreements and other issues whose only aim appears to be to screw the workers.

[REVOLUTION]

Uuumm, what disputes? CAAPS is ringfenced only parliamentary legislation or a vote by CAAPS members which is 100% in favour can make any changes. Anyone outside of CAAPS has no sway, please see the previous posts on this subject :)
BD

I think it is a bit naive to believe that having people doing the same job but with different benefits is not going to cause problems in the long run!

[120.4]

DP

Fair enough, I see what you're saying.

Looking forward to something solid from the union.

.4

[fisbangwollop]

Ask yourself what would our French friends do if in the same situation???? is it not about time we showed we have balls of "steel" and not "rubber" as we have done in the past ......as for Mr "B" whatever the outcome he once again will wander off into the sunset with a nice wadge in his back pocket!!

[jonny B good]

The reason the regulator is stopping 'pass through' is to prevent what I have attempted to explain on numerous occassions. It prevents NATS from taking 'pension holidays' or failing to pay in sufficient funds today only to force the airlines to stump up more cash in the future, to subsidise a badly managed pension fund. It doesn't prevent our pension costs being passed onto the airlines in any way, shape or form. All companies include pension costs in their overall charges. Provided our scheme is managed well and not used as a cash cow for NATS short term profits, then we will continue to include pension costs in our fees. Your argument would seem to say that with no pass through allowed we cannot pass any pension costs to our customers. That is a ludicrous suggestion and not only a blatant distortion of the truth but simple scare mongering !!
-
-
As I said before, there is no problem with the Pensions Scheme. You say, not currently......Well, what is changing that makes it seem there is going to be a problem......Surplus is increasing, interest rates are rising, property prices are on the up, Govn Bond returns are increasing, the economy is stable, NATS are making a healthy profit, NATS costs per movement are down, etc, etc.
Again, when there is no evidence of this looming disaster.....Scare mongering
-
-
There is a surplus of over £200million, and it is likely this is will be even more come March. This will not vanish overnight as you would make out. If we see the surplus begin to fall, then that is the time to look to changes if need be. I'm not being reactive, I'm being sensible. Your actions are to change a scheme that is extremely healthy and shows no signs of being anything else.
-
-
To set up a new scheme, our costs would have to go up. To set up a Defined benefits scheme would cost in the region of £70million to set up initially. On top of this you then have NATS contributions to pay. The 12.2% is currently subsidised by our surplus, which would remain in the old scheme. Therefore, the new scheme is not being subsides, SO, just what contribution rate would NATS pay in. Surely it would have to be well over 12.2%, otherwise it would be well below what is required to provide a living wage on retirement?? SO, the cost of providing pensions would increase yet we can't pass through these costs....Where does this money come from then??
-
-
You have the right to believe what you do regarding the Pensions Issue, it is a complex and emotive topic, but I think you will find the arguments/facts stacked strongly against you. I hope we are all able to retire on the £££ we expect to recieve. I, for my part, will do all I can to ensure that is the case for all, not just those who believe (rightly or wrongly) their pensions can't be touched.
-
-
Once again, I thank you (and no shouting this time:O )

[rab-k]

j-b-g

Bravo :D

As I've said before, I suspect there is more to this than simply pensions and NATS continued involvement in CAAPS is the biggest obstacle to a full-scale sell-off of, in the first instance, NSL, followed by whatever else can be flogged.

[ifaxu]

j-b-g
an excellent post which sums up perfectly the real issues and motives behind managements posturing on our pensions. I do hope you are a union rep as that is exactly the depth of research and knowledge that will be required if this comes to a fight. As someone who has spent a very dull evening trawling through cp2 and other equally dry publications I concur with all of your points.

[120.4]

Jonny be Good

An excellent post. Now I think I am beginning to understand the arguments and they do seem to suggest that there is no need to be messing about with this. Which then begs the quesiton, what are they really up to?

I am grateful for your clarity.

.4

P.s.
Just seen ifaxu's post. I agree; j-b-g, if you aren't a rep, please consider becoming one!

[anotherthing]

One argument from management is that 'we have done well with our investments in the past but the future might not see such good dividends, '.

Well thats utter tosh... that is the way investment banking has always been (the old "rates may go up or down" statement bankers have to issue). For the management to use that as an excuse to stop the current scheme is complete twaddle!

[Ayr-in-ya-JockStrap]

Jonny be good? Should be Jonny for God!!!

Excellent riposte!!!:D

[rab-k]

Which then begs the quesiton, what are they really up to?

May I refer the Honorable Gentleman to the reply I gave some time ago...

NATS continued invlovement in CAAPS is the biggest obstacle to a full-scale sell-off

[120.4]

May I refer the Honorable Gentleman to the reply I gave some time ago...

!:D

.4

[amclift]

Not content with messing with the pensions of future employees, NATS are attempting (unilaterally) to use age discrimination legislation as an excuse to worsen terms and conditions for existing pension scheme members - see recent mail for Prospect and PCS members.

Could this be management testing the resolve of the unions? After all, if we won't stand up for our own terms and conditions we're hardly going to fight for the pension rights of future employees.

[Courtenay]

I've not seen this letter or anything, but my understanding is that once you have completed the total number of years required to get a full pension, you can retire. FULL STOP.

Ie the police pension scheme, you can in theory retire at 48.5 years old, as long as you joined when you were 18.5... there is no way of changing that. - Unless they change the pension scheme, like they have for the police, but only for new employees...

James

[DC10RealMan]

I too believe that Courtenay is right, once you have reached the age of 50 you can claim your pension (age 55 after 8th April 2010). I wondered if there is another reason for messing about with YOUR existing pension in that it might "encourage" the older employees (ie: expensive) to retire earlier rather than later?

[Me Me Me Me]

I've not seen this letter or anything, but my understanding is that once you have completed the total number of years required to get a full pension, you can retire. FULL STOP.

Ie the police pension scheme, you can in theory retire at 48.5 years old, as long as you joined when you were 18.5... there is no way of changing that. - Unless they change the pension scheme, like they have for the police, but only for new employees...

James

It's no longer legal. Based on the shaky premise that having a different rule on retirement age because someone has been there a long time discriminates against those who haven't. Not a NATS shaky premise... a government one.

The union letter isn't actually saying what NATS has done is "wrong" just that they did it unilaterally, without proper consultation and examination of possible alternatives.

[Thehitman]

Lets be clear about this!!! The ATCO flexible retirement scheme is based on age and time served. The non-ATCO flexible retirement scheme was based on age and time served. Some wording may be different between the two schemes but the principle is the same. The correct course of action would be for NATS and the unions to agree a form of words which kept both schemes. Furthermore the union says that their legal advice is that the non-ATCO scheme do not breach the new legislation. IMHO this is another management move to divide and conquer. If this situation is not changed we will have a three tier pension scheme GOLD - ATCO, SILVER- existing non-ATCO staff and BRONZE - new staff.

[DC10RealMan]

I believe that we were told that existing staff would not be affected by the proposed changes to the pension scheme. The management wish to change the non-atco flexible retirement scheme to the detriment of, and without reference to the members or the trustees. The non-atco flexible retirement scheme was the keystone of my retirement and now it may be to my disadvantage. I also think that Thehitman is a little naive in that he think that there will be three pension funds ie: Gold, Silver and Bronze, I am quite sure that in time the management will propose in interests of fairness and equality we will all be put on the bronze scheme excepting present day managers who are championing this nonsense. What price the management guarantees and assurances now?

[TATC]

the "40 year rule " is deemed to be dicriminatory on the grounds that only people who joined under the age of 20 benefit. On these grounds isnt the extra leave entitlement earned for years of service discriminatory - as it is only a benefit to employees who joined before a certain age.

Is the change to the 40 year rule a way of the company limiting its cost burden

[Talkdownman]

Any "40 Year Rule" age discrimination pales into insignificance when compared with the iniquitous nats age-pointed ATCO pay scale of the mid-seventies. Some of us have been seriously affected by both these misguided policies.......

[Me Me Me Me]

the "40 year rule " is deemed to be dicriminatory on the grounds that only people who joined under the age of 20 benefit. On these grounds isnt the extra leave entitlement earned for years of service discriminatory - as it is only a benefit to employees who joined before a certain age.
Is the change to the 40 year rule a way of the company limiting its cost burden

Yes and the leave entitlements will be changed too.. already in progress.

The change to the 40 year rule and all of this is driven by legislation, not NATS. However, they are using it as a convenient tool by which to make large savings on future liabilities.

[Thehitman]

The change to the 40 year rule and all of this is driven by legislation, not NATS. However, they are using it as a convenient tool by which to make large savings on future liabilities.[/quote]

NATS interprets legislation to its advantage. It could be argued that the 40 year rule is legal as, under the legislation we can work for as long as we want. Someone joining at 25 can now work till they are 65 thereby building up a full 40 years hence full pension.

Prior to the legislation being introduced NATS could insist that you retire at 60 thereby denying that 25 years old joiner the opportunity to build up a full pension. It could be argue that the new legislation enables more people to benefit from the 40 year rule

[choclit runway]

Apologies if I am covering old ground here but have yet to get through the (vast number of) replies on this thread!!!

Does anybody know (roughly in % terms) how much less income you would receive from a new proposed scheme if you were fully paid up at retirement compared with the current one?

Did the French ever get what they were after when they went on strike?... And if so... What was it?

For what it's worth (not alot as EX prospect/NATS member)... Strike on guys and gals... I look forward to reading the headlines.

Hope you win! (More importantly hope there's a decent pension to return to if NATS ever take me back).

Happy camping.

P.S... Keep it up Nimmer!!! See ya when the pension changes!!!