NSL/NERL split

[poi098]

The Red Barron has been dropping some very broad hints recently about NSL splitting off from NERL to become a separate business - as early as this Summer based on a recent bar-stool session. I can see the logic of the two businesses diverging, given the different market pressures, but didn't realise it was this iminent.

More worrying, I've heard murmerings about a possible merger with a certain US-based airport ATC provider:=. Does anybody know anything more about this?

[Not Long Now]

I suppose the logic is that NSL only makes £14m pre-tax and is up against regular competitive tender for contract renewal, whereas NERL makes £75m and is effectively a monopoly (although charging is fixed by external sources).
I know which I'd rather concentrate on.

[rab-k]

Quel surprise :hmm:

The REAL issue surrounding pensions...

Q: How can you persuade someone to invest in/buy out NSL when all its' existing AND future employees are tied in to CAAPS?

A: Stop new employees joining CAAPS!

WARNING! WATCH YOUR PENSIONS BOYS & GIRLS!

[MrJones]

I hear a lot of pennies dropping.

[DC10RealMan]

This scenario is nothing new. It was discussed at a joint union briefing a number of months ago as justification for the managements attitude to the pension scheme. If the management succeeds in this, I wonder if large bonuses will be forthcoming?

[MrJones]

Never mind the large bonuses, think about the small redundancy cheques.

[055166k]

Will this create a rift between stand-alone Approach units/Combined or clutch-type Approach units/Centralised Approach functions? Where would the division be exactly? I have an image of a controller with a leg on different poles of a raft that is breaking up and drifting apart.

[Stupendous Man]

If it is an NSL separation then the split will affect any member of staff working at airfields NATS currently operates at. So APP guys at TC wouldn't be affected.

This is a very slippery slope. Different ts&cs for NSL compared to NERL staff. Then how long before it would be separate T&Cs for those at the "important" aerodrome and the others slowly shafted even further?
:\

[Roffa]

Now you know why NATS rebranded and dropped the National bit from the title.

Oh for a joined up, seamless ATC service rather than the mess we're going to end up with.

Think I'll just screw up as often at possible over the next few cycles and so get myself promoted on to bigger and better things... that's how it works now isn't it?

[Me Me Me Me]

The two clearly operate in very different markets. However, their other message is that NERL should start behaving more as a commercial company and not a monopoly.. If that's the case, doesn't it bring the two closer together??? :confused:

The motivation (IMHO) is to introduce new T&Cs for NSL staff based on performance-related bonus structures. Not for the first time management will seek to play on the exisiting "I'm alright Jack, screw the rest of you" mentality to wave huge bonuses in front of the NSL noses and get them to accept reduced T&Cs, including a new pension scheme. This hugely reduces the liabilities on NSL contracts and pushes up the profit margins.

There's nothing wrong with the organisational changes they have made in management of the two companies, but please don't take their bribes and sell your T&Cs down the river if it comes to pass...

[flower]

It will be interesting for the units funded by both NERL and NSL.
Bad move IMHO and further limits career opportunities within the company. Probably looks good on paper to the bean counters but look at what they have done the training system.

[ATSA_Grunt]

If Mr. Baron gets the pension sorted, that would make NSL and NERL both very attractive wouldn't it?

[poi098]

He's already got us exactly where he wants us on redundancy terms, thanks to a monumental sell-out by the unions:D - stand by for loose-change payoffs.....

[Me Me Me Me]

He's already got us exactly where he wants us on redundancy terms, thanks to a monumental sell-out by the unions - stand by for loose-change payoffs.....

Not true on either statement.

[BDiONU]

Not true on either statement.
I don't often carry £750 (£450 after tax) around in my back pocket ;)

BD

[Me Me Me Me]

Me neither... I pay by switch :}

[ATSAWHO]

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

As far as I remember NATS was part privatised on a 'not for profit basis', with any surpluses being returned to the employees/shareholders...was this part of the legal basis for part privatisation? Am I suffering from false memory syndrome? Why all this talk from Nats managers about BUSINESS BUSINESS BUSINESS???

PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT!!! Where does the 'surplus' go? Surely the BUSINESS shareholders have not let they're payout go that easily...or are they being duped, as the employees are about NATS cashflows??? Possibly, with the exception of the aftermath of 9/11, NATS have always been able to 'surplus', and 'bung back' to the airlines, even before the airlines were part owners/shareholders of the NATS organisation.

In Orwell's dystopia, '1984' citizens were expected to follow the party line that the war ran from one enemy to the next and back again, and follow the mantra of the bosses, otherwise suffer great pains to their well-being...in NATS the mantra was safety over profit, with profit the anathema of safety.

NOW?

Employees ARE suffering great pains to their well being at the most core (values) level, because of their current 'we are where we are' management mantra.

More like 'YOU'LL BE WHERE YOU WANT ME TO BE'.

He might as well as said 'IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH'.

To whom am I referring...his namesake flew a red triplane! (Alledgedly)!

DEBATE!

Regards from the Tardis!!

[BDiONU]

DEBATE!
Difficult to debate a rant :}

BD

[ATSAWHO]

Usually u so r BD...why the change?

Too many realities for you?

Tardistwo.

[Ayr-in-ya-JockStrap]

As far as I remember NATS was part privatised on a 'not for profit basis', with any surpluses being returned to the employees/shareholders...was this part of the legal basis for part privatisation? Am I suffering from false memory syndrome? Why all this talk from Nats managers about BUSINESS BUSINESS BUSINESS???

ATSAWHO's bang on the money here. Don't forget what we've done to help the company.

Endured the misleading propaganda of the corporate side of NATS.
Pensions holiday post 9/11.
Accepted 3 year pay deals so the company bean counters could have "financial clarity".
Sold off Home to Duty Pay.
Accepted a reduction in student pay.

AND HERE'S THE THANKS WE GET

DRASTICALLY REDUCED REDUNDANCY TERMS BECAUSE THE BARON WANTS RID OF SOME YOU WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY!

The £750 is devious ploy to get the deal accepted, because most staff in NATS are not staring down the barrel of the redundancy rifle, he figures human greed will do the dirty work for him. Will you be bought off so cheaply, over such an important and highly emotive subject, when the voting starts?

A line has been drawn in the sand, so stick together brothers!:*

[ATSA_Grunt]

Correct me if I'm wrong, as this is the first I have heard about this.... I assume from previous posts that the redundancy terms are not quite what they once were and we're being offered £750 as a sweetener to accept them?

If this is the case I would imagine that the ATCOs will vote in favour and the ATSAs will vote no (as we're in Mr. Baron's sights). So I'll get £750 after tax and bugger all when they kick me out!! Great!! LOL

[fly bhoy]

I would imagine that the ATCOs will vote in favour

I, as an ATCO, will be voting NO irrespective of the size of bung offered to us!! As will several other I know of.

FB:ok:

[ImnotanERIC]

i read the literature outside the ops room the other day and from what i understood of it, the redundancy terms are better after the propsed changes? can someone please explain why they are not. I am a bit of a dunce when it comes to such topics.

[arthur j negus esq]

ImnotanERIC,

From what I understand after reading the proposal, NATS have said that if we don't accept the new terms then they could give 6 months notice and then implement statuatory redundancy terms(ie. 1 week pay for every year etc). So NATS are making it look as if the terms are better. However IMHO if you compare the new terms to our current terms they are nowhere near as good.

Another ATCO who wont be voting for the new changes (even though £450 would make a nice dent in the credit card)

[Me Me Me Me]

The redundancy terms now (if accepted) will be better or worse for different groups. Those who would have got the big bucks previously will clearly miss out. However, some groups will get better terms e.g. those 60+ who previously would have got nothing at all but now will receive the same terms as everyone else.

It's a tough sell for the unions but, quite frankly, a no vote will have the simple outcome of NATS imposing statutory redundancy terms. They are completely within their rights to do so and no strike action would be legal as far as I know. With this deal you'll get 1 - 1.5 months salary for each year of service up to a maximum of 20. On statutory terms you'd get 1 week.

My advice is take the £750.

[fly bhoy]

I understand about the statutory redundancy terms and that is obviously the worst case scenario, but surely the deal on offer isn't that good or they wouldn't have to offer a £750 bung for it to be accepted?!?

FB:ok:

[Me Me Me Me]

They know nobody would have wanted this change so the £750 is a sweetner, yes.
Basically... the old scheme had a whole load of steps in it, triggered by age and service. This meant that, for a certain amount of money, you could pay very little at the bottom and step it up many times so the guys in the top bracket got a wheelbarrow full.
Under new legislation you are only permitted 1 step up and this must be at age 41 and it must be a maximum ratio of 1.5:1
The result is that, if you wanted a scheme that gave the same payment at the top end, then the terms at the bottom end would be massively increased and the overall cost of a redundancy deal would go through the roof. That aint going to happen.

[Ayr-in-ya-JockStrap]

Fact is the unions had the Staff surplus agreement protected until 2011. This was no accident as redundancy would be very relevant to some come the TC move to Swanwick and MACC to Prestwick.

It's a tough sell for the unions but, quite frankly, a no vote will have the simple outcome of NATS imposing statutory redundancy terms.

If this is the case then, this is why we should stick together. Stand up to NATS and fight like we use to fight for our T&C's. We do not have to strike, few of us can afford it, but we can work to rule and impose an OT ban. You will soon have NATS at the negotiating table when the delays start to bite. Be strong!

[MrJones]

From what I understand after reading the proposal, NATS have said that if we don't accept the new terms then they could give 6 months notice and then implement statuatory redundancy terms(ie. 1 week pay for every year etc).It's called Working Together

My advice is take the £750.No change there then.

If people in NERL vote for the £750 and people in NSL against the £750 what happens then?

[Me Me Me Me]

The vote is via the TU, not NATS. So it's not company specific.

At any rate, this is not something that can be divided by company. This is a legally required amendment to policy. It HAS to change for everyone regardless.

[MrJones]

Why can it not be divided by company?

[Me Me Me Me]

1. because our unions are not divided by company
2. a resolution must be found for everyone, so what would be the point in splitting the results of a vote?

[MrJones]

The point of splitting the vote up is NERL & NSL may have very different futures. (see start of thread)

[Ayr-in-ya-JockStrap]

i read the literature outside the ops room the other day and from what i understood of it, the redundancy terms are better after the propsed changes? can someone please explain why they are not. I am a bit of a dunce when it comes to such topics.

On the back of the literature are 6 examples of what you would receive if you were made redundant. Under the current scheme, in these examples, you would receive £92,500, in a cash for cash comparison. I'm not going to try and explain the pension benefits, but I understand they are considerable.

[Me Me Me Me]

They may well do... but they both come under the umbrella of NATS Ltd, which has to replace illegal agreements now. Barron's made it clear they will look at T&Cs in NSL seperately in future but you can't take a seperate vote now on something that isn't a seperate issue.

[MrJones]

No such thing as can't.

[Me Me Me Me]

That's the spirit! ;)

[anotherthing]

Mr Jones

you are argumentative, aren't you!!!

Tell you what, lets do as you propose and have a separate vote for NSL and NERL.... then, when it comes to the next set of pay talks (next year), we can do the same....

Wonder who will be better off in a separate pay deal - a large profit making NERL or ssmall profit NSL?!!

Stick together for everyones sake

[MrJones]

Why is asking simple questions being argumentative?

I think the possibility of NSL being spun off means there should be separate ballots and I have yet to hear any cogent argument why there shouldn't be separate ballots.

[anotherthing]

Mr jones,

If you have a divided vote in one thing you must have it in all - that means that NSLill have less of an argument for a decent pay deal next time round... I can see my foot, now where's me shotgun?

[MrJones]

If NSL is spun off from NERL that is going to happen anyway.

[Hootin an a roarin]

[I]"If you have a divided vote in one thing you must have it in all - that means that NSLill have less of an argument for a decent pay deal next time round... I can see my foot, now where's me shotgun?"

In NSL, unless you work in London, we get a pretty poor pay deal in comparison anyway ( The good old banding system) so what is your point?

The guys at the top vote through the pay deals as always, irrespective of what crumbs are thrown at the regional airports anyway. Your argument therefore of sticking together because of this seems to fall a bit flat!

:ok:

[anotherthing]

Hootin and a roarin -

In NSL, unless you work in London, we get a pretty poor pay deal in comparison anyway

you are talking rubbish I am afraid.

Yes, the banding may be unfair, however the yearly negotiated pay deal you get is the same across the board at the moment. 3% increase is a 3% increase (insert whatever percentage is applicable).

What I am saying is if you want to start having separate votes now you are effectively setting up vastly different Ts and Cs (again, put aside banding for the moment). Therefore if you have a separate pay deal for NSL and NERL, who do you think is going to fare better? I will give you a clue... it won't be the loss making airports!

I would have thought that a 3% (for example) pay rise for someone on a band 1 or band 2 scale, would be better than a 2% (for example) pay rise for them... I will admit, I am not a maths graduate, but it's pretty simple!

Do you really think that setting up NSL as a wholly stand alone business is going to result in you getting higher pay?

Mr Jones -

NERL and NSL may well go separate ways in the future, but does that really suit you as an airport worker? I doubt it very much with regards to pay and pension etc, but if you and your ilk want to make life easier for Barron in his 'divide and conquer' strategy, keep pushing for separate votes.

I for one would rather see us sticking together a slong as is humanely possible for the benefit of NATS (as an employee - not a management lackey), and as an individual

[MrJones]

Mr Jones -

NERL and NSL may well go separate ways in the future, but does that really suit you as an airport worker? I doubt it very much with regards to pay and pension etc, but if you and your ilk want to make life easier for Barron in his 'divide and conquer' strategy, keep pushing for separate votes.A cynic might say he'll conquer by getting comfortable NERL staff vote for the £750, then win the Pensions argument on the basis that low profits NSL couldn't afford to Top Up any pension fund shortfall.

Then of course the two companies could be split and with reduced liabilities all round they'd be worth a lot more.

But only a cynic would think that.

[anotherthing]

Mr Jones,

a cynic may indeed think that (and there is no one more cynical when it comes to Mr Bs motives than me), however, NERL staff, myself included, would be stupid to vote for a change for the sake of £750 one off payment.... just because we are typically on a higher wage, it does not follow that we would be better off than band 1 or 2 workers when it comes to the new redundancy package.. far from it, we would lose a lot more.

The problem lies in the veracity of the statement that if we vote against a change, the company can go ahead and do it unilaterally after giving us 6 months notice anyway.... if this is true (any company law experts out there who know the NATS handbook willing to comment?), then we may as well take the money as it is a fait a complis (sp).

If it is not true, then it would be silly for us to take the money and run. In the case of this vote, we need to know what the company can and cannot legally do.

At least this vote and 'bung' will be slightly different compared to the HTD vote in so much that it affects everyone - the HTD vote was a joke, giving people who did not qualify for HTD £250 if the scheme was cancelled..... hmmmm £250 to vote to bin something you are not entitled to... it's no wonder management pushed it through!!

[Me Me Me Me]

The problem lies in the veracity of the statement that if we vote against a change, the company can go ahead and do it unilaterally after giving us 6 months notice anyway.... if this is true (any company law experts out there who know the NATS handbook willing to comment?), then we may as well take the money as it is a fait a complis (sp).

It is the case and I believe it may have been mentioned more than once during negotiations.

Yes, management saw an opportunity to reduce costs on the back of new legislation, but the fact remains there is still a legal requirment to make the changes.

Lets be realistic... The old deal meant some people could theoretically walk out with up to 6 years salary. None of these people were ever going to be allowed to. Management would block it and pay off a cheaper alternative.

So fighting against the tide to protect terms you're never going to get anyway and ending up with a statutory minimum is unwise IMO

[throw a dyce]

Anotherthing,
People at NSL have already paid for the terms at NERL.Atco2/3,Banding including pay deals etc.This is just another thing that we can't fight,and quite frankly £750 minus tax is better in my pocket.You may say that that is just what The Barron wants,but we lost our battle years ago.
NERL staff especially the ones down south have not seen what happened to people in NSL,especially in the sticks.Well welcome to our world.
If we get split off,or are working for the Spaniards whatever,the NSL staff in the lower bands haven't got any fight left in them,or the numbers of oppose whatever Nats/Prospect decide.They have already divided and conquered.Now it's time for the sell-off.

[anotherthing]

throw a dyce

i hear what you are saying, but it flies in the face of what another airport ATCO - Mr Jones - is saying!!

[Ayr-in-ya-JockStrap]

Now it's time for the sell-off.

:hmm: Not neccesarily. Perhaps it is the case NSL is carrying some of NERLs overheads and therefore appear to be more loss making than they actually are. Seperating the business would give clarity to how competitive NSL can be! Food for thought...

quite frankly £750 minus tax is better in my pocket.

:ugh:Absolutely what the little red triplane wants you to think. Next it'll be your annual leave, your luncheon vouchers, your non ops allowance, your uhp, your OT rates and any other allowance he can scrape back of us. When will we stop accepting bungs and stand up for hard won T&Cs.
WAKE UP AND THINK! IS THIS ETHICAL WHEN PEOPLE ARE FACING THE CHOP!

[anotherthing]

When push comes to shove, any attempt to sell off the airports business would smack of gross incompetence with regards to what NATS as a company is trying to achieve.

Barron likes to claim we are an industry leader... well, we may or may not be; what with the way we operate at the coalface coupled with the innovative groundbreaking things our support guys are doing (Mode S etc etc), we are comparable with the best.

However, to either stay or become the industry leader we need the expertise gained from having people in the company doing the hands on job i.e. we need airport, terminal and en-route controllers working in the company, controlling on a day to day basis to ensure that what the wizards in the darkened rooms are developing with regards to future ATC systems etc are salient and worthwhile.

In the same regard, as an industry leader, we need to be able to take someone off the street and train them with a high degree of success to become an ATCO. If we cannot train our own staff, we can never claim to be an industry leader. Unfortunately, our training success at the moment is appalling, taken from initial recruitment to validation. Despite our inability to train, we are trying to sell our training services to foreign agencies..... we even have a 'head of overseas training'.... pity it is filled by the person who oversaw the current fiasco which is the college.

It must by now be increasingly obvious to anyone that all Barron is interested in is making NATS a profitable company, despite the 'not for profit' way we are supposed to work.

As far as his management style is concerned in that respect, he is doing a good job - selling off assets, getting rid of (in the future), less profitable ventures.

As far as his management style is concerned regarding making NATS the 'industry leader', he is doing a terrible job. The way things stand, making large profits does not sit with making the company the best at what it does. Unfortunately, despite any protestations to the contrary, all that Barron and his cronies (and the Governement) are concerned about, is turning a profit.

[MrJones]

I don't look on the £750 as a bribe or a bung, I see it more as Lubrication :\

[radarman]

Ayr-in-ya-Jockstrap,

Hard-won allowances are already slipping away. In spite of being reassured that we are part of 'NATS UK', nobody on the Gibraltar contract gets UHP, LV's, and we only get 25 days annual leave. NATS appears to have conveniently 'forgotten' to factor these in when they bid. Having won the contract, there is obviously not enough cash to pay for these allowances, so we don't get them! The phrase used by management is that they are 'not achievable under the current contract'. That's management-speak for 'tough sh1t'. And where do our representatives in Prospect stand in all this? Yep, you've guessed, snuggling up to the Barron.

So for those whose airport contract is up for renewal, be very careful as to how the bidding is formulated. The rot has already started, and you won't get any support from Prospect.

[rab-k]

I suspect all this talk of being a "World Leader" is simply to provide a springboard/marketing edge for NSL to be launched into the "Free Market".

The question no doubt asked by Ministers and their advisors of both present and previous administrations is what is the State doing part-owning a company which has a large section operating in the "Free Market"? What is also true is that those private companies who operate in that same "Free Market" are fed up to the back teeth of competing against what they no doubt still regard as a subsidiary of a State-owned company.

The strongest arguments used against an outright privatisation of NATS as a whole were issues surrounding national security and the civil/military interface. Unfortunately, neither of these arguments apply to NSL to the same extent as they do NERL. Likewise, I suspect that the training of ATC staff and to a lesser extent the provision of ATC engineering services are also regarded as being less strategically important than the responsibilites which can be ringfenced by NERL.

Sadly, I suspect that 10 years from now only NERL, (or whatever it will be called by then), will remain from the NATS we know today and, unfortunately, I also suspect that the Unions will not be able to do anything to prevent it.

PS In the world of big business it is not uncommon for a company to take on a contract simply on the basis of making themselves look more attractive in the eyes of a potential buyer. What say you, Radarman?

[terrain safe]

I've read this thread with great interest but I feel i have to say a couple of things.

When the leaflet came out from the union regarding the change to redundancy it was quite interesting how it didn't list what our present terms are.

Regarding the split, when Barron came to chat, he made a very interesting statement. Basically he said that if NATS was split then NSL would become a lot more profitable. This was because at the moment NSL was paying a lot of money into NERL for things that they didn't require. NIBS was part of the process of identifying where the money comes and goes but it would all be untangled sooner rather than later. Now this won't mean that we all get great pay rises, but at least some parity can be afforded to each unit. However I think spliting NATS would be the worst thing that could ever happen to both sides of the divide, but asking people to stand up and be counted is probably asking too much of everyone.

Anyway goodnight all.

[MrJones]

No Idea what Radarman may say rab-k but have you ever considered a position with Prospect?

[throw a dyce]

Ayr
It's past the stage of The Barron getting us to think what he wants.The rot started 17 years ago,and NSL regional airports have been shafted ever since.There is no fight left here,because our friends in NERL and higher band NSL units have done very well at our expense.I didn't see too many people being ethical in the past to shaft lower band units.
The Barron has made it very clear that he wants rid of all the perks.His way is giving bungs.I know a lot of people at our unit have quit the union,over the appalling way they have been treated over the years.May as well save £200+ a year cos they do B:mad:gger all for us.Ok people are facing the chop,but how come our unit is recruiting Atsas.Because they are on a lower salary than NERL units,and few people don't want to come for a wage drop.Who agreed to that,yep THE UNIONS.Barron will steam roller things through and there is nothing that you,me can do to stop him.The Unions have no backbone.

[Ayr-in-ya-JockStrap]

The Unions have no backbone.

Sums it all up really!:ugh:

but how come our unit is recruiting Atsas.

They are probably Varied Contract ATSA's, who can be got rid off cheaply i.e. they are only entitled to statutory redundancy.

[The Jellyman]

I think it's important to differentiate between local and national levels when talking about the Union. The local reps seem to be banging their heads against a brick wall trying to get support from a higher level.

Ours has been asking for help for ages to deal with our emotional blackmailling and quite frankly bullying management and appears to get absolutely nothing back. In the mean time, agreements both local and national are ridden roughshod over at every given opportunity and the staff are squezzed tighter and tighter and the unit pushed ever closer to the dreaded but sadly predictable, howling nasty. Disputes seem to be a badge of honour for GMs nowadays.

On the subject of contracts, they're screwed up by some faceless wonder somewhere who just gets promoted and it's the staff at the airports staring down the barrel.

For example, take the case of a certain unit with a Delegated Function. The contract was bid for on a certain price and the airport company accepted this and started to pay. The unit then got a Delegated Function and charged NERL for the provision of said DF. Rather than this unit being a rarity in NSL and making a profit, an approximate 25% discount was given to the airport company on the conract price! The GM then uses this as an excuse to emotionally blackmail the staff to work over two hours at a time, push the limits of SRATCOH, not cover shortages, not cover all WP positions, break WP, not pay AAVAs, expect staff to add to the massive TOIL backlog, work for free and be grateful for it etc by threatening/using the scare tactic of "the unit is losing money, if you don't do it we'll all be out of jobs"!

Maybe NATS will lose the contract, most likely when NSL is broken up and sold off. However, it's likely to happen far quicker if two get welded together because the GM has read "The Railtrack guide to running a business" and we'll be losing far more than just our jobs!

Managements' cock up, the staff arses!! :*

[Ayr-in-ya-JockStrap]

I didn't see too many people being ethical in the past to shaft lower band units.


I hear you, but sooner or later people will wake up. Unfortunately, it may come too late for the smaller fish in the sea. Sad thing human greed.:sad:

[throw a dyce]

Well The Barron is certainly planning a biggie.Word around work today is that we will all be saying Ola in the not too distant future.As for smaller fish in the sea,then our particular minnow contributes billions of £ to the UK economy,but Nats hardly know where it is.The further North of Watford the worse it gets.
As I say our unit can't fight anymore.I have got a Yellow book,and I don't care what Barron says,he can't take that from me.Go on then Barron,do what you F:mad:ing well want.We woke up 17 years ago,and now we've had it.

[MrJones]

I feel the Love.

How much does Prospect get for this?

[poi098]

I am astounded to hear that management could impose satutory redundancy terms. I have read the legislation and it states quite clearly that only those terms that are discriminatory are void - therefore 1 month per year is enforceable under the old scheme because it is not age discriminatory. How can it be legal to take away a non-age-discriminatory term and condition?

I hope the union have taken their own legal advice on this because it sounds like macho bull from NATS to intimidate us. And by the way, how the hell can it be unlawful to strike (with a ballot)??? Even if it is, planes can't take off when we're striking, lawfully or otherwise, and Airline Group airlines would start to go bust very rapidly indeed....

Another 'no' vote you can count on.

[EGLL19791986]

Interesting and quite surprising (but gratifying) to read that many ATCO's will be voting against the new redundancy payments.

To anybody that thinks that 'it's not going to affect me 'cos I'm an ATCO' please remember that this represents a vicious attack on the terms and conditions of service for everybody in NATS. This is just the tip of the iceberg, vote for this and you won't like what comes next!!

By the way, was the little red triplane a 'Fokker' or have I spelt it wrongly?

[RVR600]

Spoke with a union rep a couple of weeks ago about this and was surprised that they are advocating a yes vote. When I asked what the rationale was for them recommending a yes vote, the answer was " a No vote means the company will screw you with statutory redundancy terms, a Yes vote means
they will still screw you but just not as much and give you £750".

They must have spent minutes around the negotiating table fine tuning that delightful deal.

[MrJones]

If Management imposes the Statutory Minimum then that surely is the end of Working Together and I very much doubt Management want that.

[Cuddles]

OK, back to the split.

I'm playing devils advocate here BTW.

NERL makes a profit of £75M. It's regulated, and effectively capped. That's all the profit it can make. (Ish)

NSL makes a profit of £15M. It's not regulated, gets all its work by competetive tender, and the sky's the limit (Ish) Thing is, if some units aren't making profit, (and some aren't) might they get dropped?

However.

As NERL is ringfenced, and has been since PPP, ANY new business will have to fall under the auspices of NSL, so, even in the event that we go after new en route businesses, that profit will fall into the NSL pot.....

[poi098]

Does anybody really believe the Airline Group would allow NATS management to impose statutory redundancy terms and risk industrial action?

Methinks our union brothers should stop cosying up to management, clean the brown stuff off their noses and start showing a little backbone! We don't need a strike, just a permanent work-to-rule, total AAVA ban, withdrawal of all input to programmes, massive increase in sick leave....they'd soon see sense.

[Ayr-in-ya-JockStrap]

massive increase in sick leave

:eek: Don't lose the moral high ground my friend. I agree with the rest of your post but fraudulant sick leave can save the the compant money 'cos they would have grounds for dismissal. Stick together brothers, your allowances will be next!

[BDiONU]

Stick together brothers, your allowances will be next!
Aye brothers, one out all out and then 't pit will 'ave to close.

BD

[Roffa]

Not sure if I'm reading more into this than was intended BDiONU, but are you suggesting any form of action is bad?

Just over this issue, or any other that might (will) come up in the future?

Is it not worth at some point drawing a line in the sand, perhaps lighting our infamously dry powder, or is it preferable to you just to accept a slow but continuous drip, drip, drip away of our current T&Cs until we can but look back with rose tinted spectacles and wonder how on earth we let it all happen?

[BDiONU]

Not sure if I'm reading more into this than was intended BDiONU, but are you suggesting any form of action is bad?

I'm just bored with all this olde worlde type strike action talk which I heard first in the 60's. I personally believe that the very outspoken and vocal few who post in here don't represent the silent majority. In a public forum like this I think it reflects poorly on the rest of us in NATS who don't happen to wish to ignite the 'dry powder'. Yawn.

Oh and one other point before I stop reading this thread. I note a lot of talk about how poor the unions are and how badly represented the great unwashed masses are. But I don't read of anyone volunteering to actually join the committee and fight the great fight against the fascist management oppressors. Yawn.

BD

[throw a dyce]

Well stop training and doing AVAA's then.Ok you take a small pay hit,but the system will soon start to creak.Why is it when someone starts having a go at the Band 4/5 units,then we all have to stick together to defend this terrible act.These are the same units that have voted for mega pay deals,at the expense of the lower band ones,without batting an eyelid.Wake up to what has been happening in lower band units for years.Prospect has done almost nothing for these units,but the greater damage was done by the Band 4/5 ones being plain greedy.I wouldn't like to say what the lower bands will think.Maybe £750 makes up slightly for the money we have lost.:suspect:

[MrJones]

A lot of Yawning there BD.

No one likes the idea of strike action and I think that would be the wrong road to go down.

Join the union? While some may advocate that I think it's a Non-starter: Prospect are totally compromised and a mass exit would be far more beneficial.

I sincerely hope NATS staff reject the proposed Redundancy package because I think it'd be good for NATS. Happy staff are productive staff. If we carry on down the path some would take us then we are just going to end up another useless company - RailTrack, London Underground, (your local) Water Company, Council, Telecoms Company.

Is that what the Airline Industry really wants? We still provide a Rolls Royce Service and it's about time our management & customers recognised that.

Are we going to spoil the ship for a ha'penny of tar?

Can we pull back from the edge?

[Roffa]

BDiONU wrote:

I'm just bored with all this olde worlde type strike action talk which I heard first in the 60's. I personally believe that the very outspoken and vocal few who post in here don't represent the silent majority. In a public forum like this I think it reflects poorly on the rest of us in NATS who don't happen to wish to ignite the 'dry powder'.

I have no great desire to take any form of action either but like most of my colleagues I'm sure there'll come a time at some point in the future when it is time to say enough is enough and rather than rolling over, having our tummies tickled, yawning and nodding off oblivious to the world it will be time to stand up and be counted.

Drip...redundancy terms, drip...pension scheme, drip...

p.s. I've done time as a union rep, thanks for asking.

[anotherthing]

Throw a dyce


These are the same units that have voted for mega pay deals,at the expense of the lower band ones,without batting an eyelid.


Can you explain when this has happened over the past few years? We have all had exactly the same pay rises over the past few years IIRC.

[Hootin an a roarin]

throw a dyce is refering to the Banding system which still grates.

The difference in pay between the bands is getting even greater obviously now that we are banded. The bigger units earned more before the banding system as they were ATCO 1/2's and the rest ATCO3's anyway, but this system seems to have greatly widened the gap.

An instructor at the college who has failed validations will retire on a pension greater than my salary!! That's not right. :=

[anotherthing]

Hootin and a roarin'

I kinda knew what he was on about but the banding system has not been a past of negotiations for a while i.e. there has not been a vote whereby we could refuse to agree a pay settlement until the bandig system was adressed etc etc.

The banding system is not fair, but there are some quieter units than otheres, and whne you look at the airport side, you will probably find that this is where the greatest disparity lies i.e. form the busiest, most complex airport to the quietest least complex.

However, although I work in area, I know that it's not that simple. I reckon there are a few airfields out there that are fair bit more complex than Heathrow, but they are obviously not as busy. Trying to find a way of measuriong x (being the resultant the combination of business and complexity) is very difficult. The banding was an attempt to do this, however, I agree that it should be revamped and the'model' tewaked to get more accurate results.

The fact that we used to have ATCO 3/2/1 on the same scale is possibly not enough of a difference in wages to keep people happy - and quite rightly so - would a guy working at Farnborough (very busy LARS, steady arrivals/deps) be happy to be on the same wage as a tower only controller at Luton?

Would you, as an Aberdeen controller with mixed runways etc be happy to be on the same wage as a London City Twr controller? There are differences in what we do, even within the same disciplines, these differences have to be recognised, though they should be reviewed regularly to ensure that they are as fais as possible.

As far as the college instructing is concerned - I agree totally. Instructing there should be done by people who still control - if possible they should retain a validation and do th ehours required at a parent unit each month, or if from far away parent units, they could drop the validation, but on the understanding that they will have to re-validate when their college stint is over.

There are a lot of ancillary jobs at the college which could be filled by people who do not need a license - however it is my personal belief that the guys who are doing the runs, should be at the college for a maximum of 5 years. Most Ground School subjects could easily be done by non ATCOs at a hell of a lot less cost.

[throw a dyce]

As an Aberdeen Airport controller I am on the same pay scale as London city,Luton.If you look at the agreement,Band 1 was only for people that went to these units after the agreement date.The ones there prior to that are on Band 2.That's what you Area boys voted for,and every lower Band unit couldn't stop it.And that's before we even talk about radar,which I do for Nats for NOTHING.
Anyway this isn't a banding discussion.Just pointing out that the higher band units have never been touched til now,and have no idea how much their greed has cost the lower band units.This isn't anything new to us.Just continuing a theme which Nats/Prospect have done to us for years.:suspect:

[ATSA_Grunt]

If it is enforced, and you want to hit NATS hard it would be very easy to do. STOP doing AAVAs!!!! For the month of June, one watch in en route requested 61 I understand!! But, you won't....

[Ceannairceach]

I understand what you mean BDiONU but I disagree with what you say earlier.

How much longer, or rather to what extent are we going to allow our working conditions and entitlements to be eroded in exchange for cheap financial bribes or management lies and empty promises?

Personally I wouldn't hesitate taking industrial action. I must add though - if I believed that I and my colleagues were being treated unfairly and that my job security and basic rights were being worn away to a point where all negotiation and diplomatic routes had been extinguished.

It's not something to be taken lightly.

I don't think standing up for our rights reflects poorly on us at all.

I think taking £500 management bribes whilst selling anyone who joins the company in the future down the creek without a certain rowing implement, or allowing the spectre of privatisation to darken our doors when we've always sworn en masse we wouldn't allow it - paints us in a poorer light. Definitely. No wonder we're tagged as being a selfish bunch.

Oh and I've been a union rep. Sadly, I became disillusioned rapidly with people using the union for their own personal gain and standing. A union should be for the staff - not for those who are supposed to represent their views.

[hangten]

STOP doing AAVAs!!!! But, you won't....

Well in excess of £10000 (pre-tax) for 21 days work. I don't know anybody that's going to turn this down. People are taking this money for their mortgages and their children and I don't blame them. I would take it if it came my way.

We can carry on all day asking people to do the right thing but we're all interested in our OWN security first. This is why communism fails and capitalism works.

[250 kts]

hangten,

40% of ATCOs at Swanwick choose NOT to do AAVAs. I suspect this is the highest percentage certainly at any of the area units.

[opnot]

perhaps it has something to do with the salary differential achieved by the c**p banding structure

[250 kts]

Or maybe it has to with the fact that despite what many people may think the LACC ATCOs are not just a bunch of money grabbers.

If it was down to banding then why are the LTCC and Heathrow folks climbing over each other to do them? And I heard that the vast majority at MACC and SCACC do them as well.

Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with anyone voluntarily working additional shifts and certainly at LACC there is a real concern that the high usage and low(ish) sign up rate will cause issues later in the year.

[Gonzo]

Not everyone does AAVAs elsewhere either, and even then not everyone pockets the cash.

And bear in mind this sort of thing is no longer restricted to ATCOs!:=

[anotherthing]

250kts

I know a lot of people at TC who are not doing them for whatever reasons... certainly don't see people climbing over each other to get them!!

It's probably the same at TC and Heathrow as it is at LACC

[Bigears]

Gonzo,

Who else does them?

[eastern wiseguy]

Well in excess of £10000 (pre-tax) for 21 days work.


Not in my world.......:uhoh::uhoh:

[Gonzo]

Well, they're not called AAVAs, but our ATSA4s have a similar arrangement.

[therenim]

Why don't you consider asking the union about the seperate vote:confused: