UK - NATS Pay negotiations - latest rumours

[Geffen]

Wasn't even aware he was on a roadshow!

[SilentHandover]

Going along to the roadshow was compulsory at the end of a shift for my watch at Farnyburrow, fortunately LH cancelled at short notice so we had a new ATSOCAS brief instead.

SH

[Gonzo]

Geffen, we were one of the first units he visited early in January.

We'll do this to stop people leaving........
We'll do that to stop people leaving......
We're also looking into doing that to stop people leaving.......

Nothing about working out how they might entice people to stay. :}

[Geffen]

Oh yeah, I seem to recall that now. It left such an impression...

[opnot]

SILENTHANDOVER
How can you be made to go to a briefing at the end of a shift, what you do at the end of a shift is up to you We have watch briefing before a afternoon shift, attendance voluntary

[hangten]

Our briefings are before our afternoon shifts and are mandatory. The WP allows three days each year spare, one is TRUCE, the other two are divided into 4 lots of 2 hours and used for 4 watch briefings, and 4 safety briefings or anything that is deemed sufficient to demand the use of the time.

[White Hart]

Gonz

"We'll do this to stop people leaving........
We'll do that to stop people leaving......
We're also looking into doing that to stop people leaving......."

I bet he wasn't actually referring to ALL of the EGLL ATC grades when he told you this :hmm: some of us just have to accept things are moving on, and certain people's tasks are soon going to 'belong' to others.

BTW - any LPOs want to borrow my SAMOS training guide? :E

[autothrottle]

No White Hart...you keep it. I don't want SAMOS. I want an ATSA 2 by my side.

[Geffen]

Keep the 2's!!

[samos]

Get rid of the pointless Business Support Manager, the Engineering Manager and the other waste of space that sits in his office next to ops and that should fund many ATSA 2's.

[thinkofdolphins]

The unfortunate ethos of this company of thinking that cutting ATSA jobs is the best and easiest way to save money is very short sighted. By the very nature of the job we are there to ASSIST with anything that aids the controllers to carry out their job and are (from my own unit's perspective) very much an integral part of the TEAM. I think the recent adverse weather at UK airports has probably shown how valuable good ATSAs are. Only the other night I took about 30+ phone calls from various AO trying to work out when they could get the 25 odd DIVs back to where they needed to be for AM rotations, not to mention Royal Mail wanting their bags of post in the right depot, while also constantly correcting the bollocks that SAMOS was churning out (the sensors don't like the cold, great for a wx system). I'm sure most ATCO's would not want to be up there on their own doing all this as well as their primary task. It's normally only the bean counters that miss this point. But it's hardly surprising when senior HR people aren't really aware your job exists (as I found out when one was speaking to me in our TWR kitchen) "Are you an ATCO? A trainee? An ATSA ah yes one of them" (with an incredibly puzzled look) No wonder Operational staff has zero time for the empire that is Human Remains but that is a new thread altogether!

[White Hart]

"No wonder Operational staff has zero time for the empire that is Human Remains "

maybe we should be looking at removing a few of these, too? (Just to keep things fair and above board, of course! :E )

and if it did happen, my sick sense of humour thinks it would also be rather entertaining to sit in on the redundancy interview.. :}

autothrottle

sorry old bean, but the SAMOS, like the weather itself, is inevitable, and its headed in your direction. You know it makes sense! :ugh:

[kinglouis]

Just found this on NATS's website:
The PPP was much criticised - was it a success? (http://www.nats.co.uk/faq/231/frequently_asked_questions.html#)
The PPP, or Public Private Partnership, was established in July 2001 and strengthened in 2003 following a financial restructuring prompted by the financial downturn following 9/11. NATS is now owned 49% by the Government; 42% by The Airline Group, a consortium of UK airlines; 4% by BAA and 5% by an Employee Share Trust. The company has just reported its fifth successive year of profit. In the last year we have continued to maintain our strong safety record, whilst handling record numbers of flights. NATS-attributable delays have been reduced from more than two minutes at the time of the PPP to less than 27 seconds this year. The company has a 10-year, £1bn investment programme. Within 10 years of the PPP (2011) we will have achieved our two-centre strategy and delivered the majority of our £1bn investment programme, due for completion in 2013.

Funny how to the outside world we are strong financially and PPP seen as a success. However, a quick log on to natsnet or speak to any employee and they will tell you differently. Is this another 'clue' to the scare tactics being used to staff over pensions and pay yet the reality and the impression to the outside world is very different.
Now come on Prospect.... do the right thing and give your members reason to pay the £15.30 a month and feel 'adequately' represented. mistake was made with the pension, lets learn from it and start playing hardball.

With regards to dropping the CTC Empire... if we can appranatly cut the frontline, safety critical roles of ATSA and Engineer... surely we can cut CTC to half it size. Less ops staff means less 'support staff' and ideally a hell of a lot less managers and top execs!!!

[Dan Dare]

The ATSA thing is not new - management have been trying to be rid of them for decades - a desire that I have never comprehended. An experienced ATSA is far more use in the ops room than one of the new breed of young rapid promotion ATCOs ('cos no-one else wants the promotion). Surely it would make more sense from a cost, safety and service provision point of view to have ops rooms populated by relatively inexpensive ATSAs than to get rid of them and requiring more ATCOs to do the tasks.

[anotherthing]

Kinglouis -

Reading your post, it comes across that NATS management are insinuating that PPP has caused NATS to become better in it's job.


NATS-attributable delays have been reduced from more than two minutes at the time of the PPP to less than 27 seconds this year...
andIn the last year we have continued to maintain our strong safety record, whilst handling record numbers of flights.Whereas the main reason is that we have been slowly clawing back operational manpower to the correct levels (still not there yet), which were decimated a couple of decades ago when NATS binned a lot of operational staff due to an ill conceived knee jerk attempt to save money.

It's a shame that NATS never learns from the past, as is demonstrated time and time again by the stop/start training policy.:ugh:

How long into the future are we going to be suffering after the up and coming redundancies take effect?

[White Hart]

whilst I agree in principle with dan dare's post, I cannot help but think to myself 'when did the ATCOs ever (officially) stand up and say that they needed the ATSAs for support'? (answers on the back of a stamp with a whitewash brush)

I'm not pointing the finger at the ppruners on here who advocate their support for the Assistants, but more at the rank and file ATCO membership at the coalface.

Unfortunately, its the same old story; ATCOs who have a lot to say, (yeah, I support the ATSAs, we need 'em when the sh*t hits the fan, you know.. blah blah, .. erm wots on channel 401?) but no action to back it up.

A bit like the pension issue. And the pay negotiations. So, when the sh*t really does hit the fan, the ATCOs will end up doing the tasks which the ATSAs could have helped you with. (BTW, I cant help but wince when I watch the EGLL newbies struggling with the GMP overload. Too proud to admit its getting a bit much, and too ignorant to even consider asking the Assistant to their right for a bit of support - with or without fckn EFPS!))

I expect the Management to be booking front row seats to watch Prospect's 'ignition' of the (talcum) powder which they have kept so dry for you over the years. I'm sure they will have a (very small) glass of water to hand in order to put out the raging fire that will follow :hmm:

Its probably too late for things to change for a lot of the support grades - its all downhill from here on in folks! -, and the redundancies and cuts will continue, BUT when it comes to the ATCO issues, if you guys really think you carry some clout, then you need to start wielding it about a bit - and fckn quickly.

[Cuddles]

Here's something to try when you've got a spare 5 minutes.

Log onto NATSNET

Look up your name in the 'People finder'

Then click on your immediate Managers name, and when their name comes up, click on their immediate manager, and keep going until you can't go any further.

I had 9 names.

Go figure

[ImnotanERIC]

if you only had nine names you must surely be head of a unit? are you gm swanwick?

[hold at SATAN]

Is one of them Kevin Bacon?

[Minesapint]

Just a small point. The reason that 'they' can cut ATSA jobs is a (vey short) downturn in traffic, and new tools like IFACTS and EFD. They are taking the opportunity that has been handed to them by greedy (w)( bankers :mad: and grabbed on! CTC staff will need to be maintained in many areas to support / create future tools, they do not drop out of thin air! Any attempt to degrade pensions further should result in an immediate strike ballot.

The way forward should be a joint ATSA/engineers/ATCO union. The post above is correct though. There are still ATCO's around that can walk on water, I have been insulated from this 'practice' until recently when a job change put be back in ATCO land. Some (few) don't speak to ATSA'a at all - unless they want something! I will take great pleasure in handing them a headset and escoring them to the opsroom in the coming months :ok::E

[jonno79]

Minesapint: "CTC staff will need to be maintained in many areas to support / create future tools, they do not drop out of thin air!"

If that is the case why not transfer the apparently unrequired ATSA's to CTC to work on said projects. In doing so ATCO's may start to believe the people creating our future tools have an understanding of what is done on the shop floor, which by reading previous threads clearly isn't the case at the present time.

Nobody wants to see VR's at any time, but NATS will be shooting themselves squarely in the foot if they allow groups of people with years, if not decades, of hands-on-experience to walk out of the door. :ugh:



A quick question on what this thread is actually about..... If we do manage to get a payrise agreed would it be back dated to 1st jan 2009??? :confused:

[hangten]

(yeah, I support the ATSAs, we need 'em when the sh*t hits the fan, you know.. blah blah, .. erm wots on channel 401?)

Channel 401? Sky?! Sky SPORTS!?! Jesus. I'm at the wrong airport... :}

jonno79 - Yes any pay agreement (cross ALL your fingers) will be backdated to January 1st 2009.

[BDiONU]

If that is the case why not transfer the apparently unrequired ATSA's to CTC to work on said projects. In doing so ATCO's may start to believe the people creating our future tools have an understanding of what is done on the shop floor, which by reading previous threads clearly isn't the case at the present time.
Do they have sufficient skills or the ability to do that type of job? Just because you've been a strip basher for years doesn't mean you can write requirements etc. A lot of the staff at CTC who work on projects are ATC and have a considerable number of years of experience in the operational world. Unfortunately what they want to produce and deliver can be handicapped by monetary constraints and by the sheer difficulty of finding an engineering solution to a problem. Personally I'd love to be able to deliver the gold plated best solution on the newest whizziest bit of kit which did everything everyone wanted and a bit more besides. Sadly I have to live in the real world and am constrained by what I'm allowed to produce, by time, by money and by human resources.

BD

[Jungle Jingle Jim]

Plans to move CATC to CTC to fill the vacant void post (CTC) staff culling. (Note; these are plans seen by some and might be senior managers making future provisions). I assume is all well with the college moving into new accommodation in the Bournemouth area?

If that becomes reality, expect a 'Park n Ride' scheme as the CTC car park is rather Small!

Am I barmy? No, just passing on rumour substantiated as per this forum!

[MrJones]

jonno79 (http://www.pprune.org/members/79792-jonno79) asked


A quick question on what this thread is actually about..... If we do manage to get a payrise agreed would it be back dated to 1st jan 2009??? When NATS staff voted to accept the pension scheme changes they also voted to be screw for ever more.

I doubt there will be a pay rise for staff this year or next year. Even when the economy turns around I expect it will be extremely difficult for us to get a pay rise until Management absolutely have to give us one.

It is the duty of the Board to maximise profits for the shareholders and that is what they are doing. It would be naive in the extreme to expect these leopards to suddenly change their spots.

[anotherthing]

Mr Jones

The Union did a sterling job over the past 10-15 years getting wages up to a comparable level with European counterparts (and I might add, up to a proper 'going rate'). Unfortunately they seem to have lost their way of late.

Like you, I have a niggling worry in the back of my mind that over the next few years, we are going to fall well behind the market rate again, both in monetary terms and in Ts&Cs.

It is Managements function to maximise profits - the very fact that we have shown them that we do not have a stomach for a fight is more power to their elbow to shaft us :(

From the D&G forum

http://www.pprune.org/d-g-reporting-points/361759-australian-atc-strike.html

At least some people still have balls

[Baltasound]

Screw em for all you can get
Make sure it is backdated.
Threaten to resign en-masse and move to the Sandpit
Point out it takes large amounts of money/ time to train and to stop faffing.

Signed

A signalman.

p.s. Hire a decent PR to do your strike posturing for you. Otherwise you will be "wrong side".

Good luck.

[Minesapint]

A high number of 'future tools' developers are currently ATCO's, the others on the ATC side are T&S 'ATSA' grades, so how would ATSA's fill that need? BD is quite correct, systems development is a whole new world and not everyone can do it! My view: ATCO's go and control aircraft. Correct selection and training for ATC grades in systems development - use the DSS's as a good example of ATCO's replaced by ATSA's in a systems role. Engineers should stick to engineering and stop assuming that they fully understand ATC requirements. In my experience and with the best will in the word, they rarely do!

[anotherthing]

Minesapint -

I think there is a place in 'future tools development' for current ATCOs... otherwise we will just get the farce that is AMAN over and over again.

EFD/EFPS is the next big worry in TC - we can see it being forced in even though it may well prove to be hugely inferior to present day operations.

[soton]

Dont forget not to create a blocking strip.
Do they not test NAS after a DD&C rather than wait til the morning rush?
Expect some people will be getting bonuses for N17 idrop, yet more wasted money on bonuses for managers for things that dont work properly on implementation:ugh:

[beaver liquor]

Anotherthing,

There are ATCO's working at CTC on future tools development - as well as staying current in their ops room. There are also some experienced former operational ATSA's, all working to ensure that ATC requirements are what actually drives tools development, within the constraints of budgets, timescales and engineering.

If you're concerned about EFD, you can get involved! The ATC lead for TC EFD is well known, and he has a team of users as well, contact him and get on that. Then you can actually be involved in shaping what you get, influencing the project.

Of course, to do that you have to raise your head above the parapet, which is more difficult than commenting from the sidelines.

[anotherthing]

Beaver

Thanks for the 'career' advice. I have been heavily involved in several projects, the last one finished a few months ago. I still have 3 extraneous sets of ongoing (unrenumerated) work (not projects, but ever present jobs) over and above controlling that I (am paid to) do - I'm not doing anymore and may even drop some or all of those if the pay deal does not get sorted soon... I'm happy to give my input, but there is only so much of my own time I am willing to give up for nothing.

I am concerned about EFD - as are a lot of my colleagues. I don't think EFPS will work in TC, at least not enhance the operation.

If I am wrong, then I will happily use the thing - however what this company sometimes fails to realise is that new technology does not always mean it's better or more suited technology.

AMAN is still more labour intensive and less accurate than the old EAT PC.

iFACTS ... progressing well, not.

If it works; all well and good, we will embrace change. However there is nothing wrong with a bit of cynicism - it balances out the people on the other side of the fence who cannot see past technology and don't recognise it's failings.

As for EFD - I know a few people working on it, there are concerns within the team re the sutability for a busy radar environment. Time will tell.

[The Many Tentacles]

Dont forget not to create a blocking strip.
Do they not test NAS after a DD&C rather than wait til the morning rush?
Expect some people will be getting bonuses for N17 idrop, yet more wasted money on bonuses for managers for things that dont work properly on implementation

By this am I to assume that the N17 software was a waste of time and has ****** something up. Not been in since before it arrived.

[soton]

many tentacles
yes a slight problem, am sure you will find out on your morning shift tomorrow, they have done another software drop to try and correct problem, but seem too scared to test it and we are still not to create blocking strips.
Just makes you think what problems are there going to be before/if IFACTS actually comes in

[anotherthing]

Just received my February issue of Profile, the union rag.

On page 13, I stumbled across this little article – copied in full, grammatical errors in the article text are not mine - I copied verbatim.

Thing is, I cannot recall receiving any communication since the pension vote informing us that we are delaying pay talks. Has anyone received such notification? Are the union failing once again in communication, one of the biggest issues we complained about during the pension debacle, an issue they promised to resolve?


More to the point, are the union falling over themselves to appease management? We should be pushing hard, not waiting to see if the economy gets better, or even worse.

Or is this a case of a very poorly worded and timed article - in which case surely the union should not allow such poor standards in their official literature (another example of shocking communication skills).

My comments are in red.


Air traffic control officers and system specialists at NATS have delayed talks on the 2009 pay round until the spring because of the deteriorating economic situation, after voting in favour of controversial changes to their pension scheme.

The NATS trade union side had submitted a claim for an increase for all staff from January based on the August 20098 RPI figure, which stood at 4.8%, plus 1%.

The claim, submitted in September by the trade union side, noted that NATS had posted profits for 5 years running – with a cumulative total of £329m – and reduced debts by £164m over the same period. At the same time the volume of air traffic had increased by 22%.

National secretary, Garry Graham said: ”We recognise the economic circumstances have changed since the claim was lodged and that there is a significant gap between our positions” said Graham.

“However, we believe that the significant increases in productivity achieved by members should be reflected in the pay offer to all NATS staff.”

On pensions, the negotiating team set out to protect existing members of the scheme, ensure new arrangements were flexible enough to stand the test of time and provide a high quality scheme for the future. (I was under the impression that the negotiating team had set out to protect the pension for all – OneNATSOnePension I seem to recall... maybe that was a lie from the outset.)

The deal approved by the members ballot includes: a 15 year cap on future pensionable pay from Jan 01; the introduction of a more efficient way of paying pension contributions – to be up an running in 2010 (why so long?); and a new defined contribution scheme to be implemented on April 1.

National secretary Garry Graham said the vote was a positive step towards securing pension provision for the future. “Work on the detail of the defined contribution scheme and SMART pensions is continuing” (I was under the impression that only the MOU was to be finalised, after all, we were balloted on set values for SMART pensions and the defined contribution scheme, were we not?)

The union, and specifically the secretary as it is his statement in this official publication, are not exactly being effective in putting their money where their mouth is by holding off on talks

“However, we believe that the significant increases in productivity achieved by members should be reflected in the pay offer to all NATS staff.”
Not exactly being backed up by the action of delaying talks, is it Mr G???

For all of the company ‘yes’ men (I don’t necessarily mean anyone who voted ‘yes’ to the pension), on the same page as this article there is a list of pay deals (2008 and 2009) that have been agreed. Amongst them (specifically 2009 deals):

Audit Commission – 4.9%
BAE Land Systems Munitions – 5.6%

There are also listed, a lot of late 2008 pay deals,just finalised, in the region of 3-5%

So asking for a rise is not out of the question, and does not mean, (contrary to what some of you management lackeys try to claim), that we are not living in the real World.

Unfortunately, it is looking increasingly obvious that the Union is not prepared to fight for members.

[rumouroid]

anotherthing

You beat me to it!

I can't believe I hear about our postponement of pay talks in a magazine that has obviously had it's articles ready for publication for at least a week. We have a union notice board at work and it would of been nice to have had a notice from Prospect letting their members know that we have put the pay deal on the back burner. We have already had our pay talks delayed due to the pension proposals taking priority during the autumn, god knows how much this has already cost us with RPI falling almost 1% a month and now more delay which can only be a bad thing as the economy will get worse the longer we leave it.
Come on Prospect stop "working together" with management and letting them "manage your expectations" and start working for your members and communicating what is happening, even if it is bad news.
I pay my £15.30 a month for you to negotiate the very best terms and conditions for me and my fellow members, I'm not convinced my money is being well spent at the moment.

[TALLOWAY]

My impression of our Union Secretary, Mr Garry Graham, gained from listening to him at several pensions presentations, was that he resented the pay that ATCOs already received and was not supportive of us (or our aspirations) in any way whatsoever.

This latest piece of brilliance only serves to confirm my viewpoint. If he doesn't feel he can represent us or put forward our claims, then sack him, and find someone else who actually is willing to stand up for us.

[anotherthing]

Does anyone have an e-mail for our hallowed secretary?

I would like to send him one, asking on whose authority he has postponed pay talks.

I know the Union can do certain things unilaterally, in the best interests of the membership, however is postponing talks in our best interest?

I would be grateful if anyone can pass on the e-mai address, it may be worth others raising the question as well...

[The Many Tentacles]

I don't know if anyone else saw the article in Prospect on Page 12 - just opposite the one about us lot:

It seems a little at odds with what Prospect seem to be trying to achieve for us. This is the interesting bit in my opinion:

All the indications are that the UK will move into the uncharted territory of negative inflation by early Spring and this could continue until the turn of the year. According to Incomes Data Services, the low point is expected in September when RPI could fall to -2.7%.

The obvious danger is that employers will seize on this opportunity to curb pay increases. But while recognising that some sectors of the economy are genuinely hard pressed, it is as well to remember that for the majority it should be business as usual.

Whether preparing to negotiate a new settlement or mid-way through a long-term RPI linked deal, there is a good case to be made for a decent pay rise in 2009.

First, experience from recent recessions when inflation has fallen sharply is that settlements reach a floor above inflation - usually around 2%. Although these did not involve negative inflation, the fact that the government's own inflation target is 2% provides a compelling reason not to dip below this level - not least for it's own employees........

.......Second, economic recovery - and hence the profitability of business - depends on stimulating demand or......So, in the current climate, wage growth is good for the economy. Indeed, except perhaps at the very highest income levels, it provides a much more direct stimulus than cuts in indirect taxes such as VAT.

As I said, taken from the same issue of Prospect. Based on this I want to see a decent pay rise negotiated, or do Prospect have two different sets of ideals and use whichever one suits them at the time.

Time for our union to grow a spine and stand up for the members.

As another thought, I understand GATCO offer the insurance cover that the union was offering - which incidentally was the main reason I joined. Seeing as our union doesn't appear to represent the feelings of its members, I feel I'm paying them £15 a month for a pretty magazine which isn't that exciting at the best of times, and the main reason behind my joining can be found somewhere else.

Am I right in my last assumption or does the legal assistance package, in case of a "whoopsie", offered by GATCO differ to the one offered by Prospect?

[BAND4ALL]

Anotherthing

Here you go give him hell

[email protected]

PlusGarry Graham: 020 7902 6616 (w); 07713 511703 (m)

All of which can be found on the tinternet ok mods!!!!:ok:

[LostThePicture]

I know the Union can do certain things unilaterally, in the best interests of the membership, however is postponing talks in our best interest?

Maybe, maybe not. If things get strung out as far as the publication of this year's company accounts, we could well see that rumours of the company's parlous financial state have been somewhat exaggerated. Then maybe the union and its membership will show some teeth.

LTP

[hold at SATAN]

...the problem with hanging around for the accounts is that the snakes that are in charge of the books can more or less fiddle them to their own end.

...Enron anybody?

[anotherthing]

Band4all

Thanks for that - I couldn't find it for some reason.

Won't necessarily 'give him hell'. but will ask under what authority he has said we have postponed talks... and if he really thinks it is in the members best interests

[BAND4ALL]

You're welcome mate.

I do however agree with TALOWAYs post earlier. I have met him on several occasions:(

[Fletchers Left Boot]

Mr. Graham also needs to remember (whatever his apparent/alleged distaste for the levels of ATCO pay) that it's not just ATCOs pay being negotiated.. Prospect engineers and PCS are also postponed assuming there are joint negotiations this time.. I have not heard anything to the contrary.

Edited to fend off the grammar police

[ZOOKER]

Where did Mr Graham come from?
I believe his predecessor, (David Luxton), simply 'crawled out of the woodwork'.

[TALLOWAY]

I do however agree with TALOWAYs post earlier. I have met him on several occasions

How do you know it was me ? :} ;) :p

[BAND4ALL]

Sorry Tallers, I meant I have met GG on several occs:ok:

[privatesandwiches]

Looks like Mister Graham will be getting a fuller than usual inbox this week. It's about bloody time someone gave us PAYING members some answers rather than doing what the hell they like and not having the courtesy of using the union notice board at work.
If he/they wont communicate with us then we can go knock on his door and drag something out of him. I think he and Prospect should do some pay briefings without management as we are now post pension and getting the royal shafting over pay, im sure there will be some very poised questions for him to answer to which most will not take the fob off he gave us during pensions as an answer!!!
So come on prospect, get your balls out of uncle Pauls pickle jar and come meet your PAYING mambers face to face.
Adding to that, I will also be emailing him this week. :ok:

[BigDaddyBoxMeal]

In actual fact, the union DOES represent the workforce quite accurately in a way, since WE ALL had a chance to express our opinion in the pension ballot, and it turned out that the majority of the workforce agreed with the management proposal !!!

A tree that falls makes a lot more noise than 100 trees growing, and equally, a bunch of disgruntled barking ATCOs moaning on pprune makes more noise than a lot more colleagues picking up high salaries and AVAs silently and accepting what sh!t gets thrown at them for the "greater good" of a cushy life. But making a lot of noise doesn't mean being the majority.

[throw a dyce]

Well my twopence worth is,

Payrise.....Miracle
Payfreeze.....Possible
Paycut......Probable

Mr B has got his chance to get wages down.Looks like the Union have already surrendered.
Maybe if there are paycuts then the upper bands should take the hit,and redress the balance to the lower bands.
Since the lower bands took the hit in the past,so the upper bands could be where they are today.:E

[Standard Noise]

So Prospect successfully fought -

Privatisation of VOSA - Yes (it seems our roads are more important than our skies, but there you go)
Privatisation of NATS - No

Downgrading of pensions in the Electricity industry - Yes
Downgrading of pensions in NATS - No

For cost of living increases - Audit Commission (4.9%), Highways Agency (4.45%), BAE Land Systems Munitions (5.6%), even Arista (3%).
For cost of living increases - NATS (0 or -% ?)

Am I being cynical or is there a pattern emerging here?

[jonny B good]

Below is a statement which has just gone out which I hope sheds some light on what appears to be a missunderstanding of the Unions position. I hope this clarifies the situation :ok:



Dear Colleague,

The purpose of this circular is to update you on the issue of pay. Some members may have read an article covering NATS pay in the most recent edition of Prospects magazine Profile. Unfortunately this article was incorrect and factually misleading. The article published was an initial draft put together by Prospect communications department which had been subsequently corrected. Unfortunately it was the initial draft which was published.

As you will be aware, Prospect and PCS submitted a “core pay” claim to
Management for 2009 in September 2008. This is a moderate claim for an increase of RPI + 1% based on the August 08 RPI figure. Since that date Prospect and PCS have been seeking to enter into substantive negotiations with NATS in order to advance the interests of members.

Whilst some discussions have taken place, management have yet to make a formal pay offer and have suggested a pay freeze in the light of the current economic downturn and rising pension’s costs.

For clarity, both PCS and Prospect stand ready to enter into formal negotiations with management on the issue of pay and are exasperated by the lack of progress.

For clarity, in a context where NATS is scheduled to make significant profits this year and debate as to whether a dividend should be paid to shareholders, particularly against the backdrop of the recent pensions ballot, such a position as articulated by management to seek to impose a pay freeze will be met by a ballot of PCS and Prospect members on industrial action.

We will keep you in touch with developments.


Garry Graham Paul Smith
National Secretary National Officer

[privatesandwiches]

Now that sounds a lot better...... a little communication goes a long way.:ok:
Keep it up!

[anotherthing]

Firstly, why was there even a draft article stating we had postponed talks if there was no thought of doing so?

Are the Union pre-empting things?

Does this show the reality of what the Union intends to settle for?


The Union:
For clarity, both PCS and Prospect stand ready to enter into formal negotiations with management on the issue of pay and are exasperated by the lack of progress.

For clarity, in a context where NATS is scheduled to make significant profits this year and debate as to whether a dividend should be paid to shareholders, particularly against the backdrop of the recent pensions ballot, such a position as articulated by management to seek to impose a pay freeze will be met by a ballot of PCS and Prospect members on industrial action.


Yahoo!
Lets hope Garry can walk the walk too. I like the cut of his jib though.
I'm sorry, but in the statement from the union, I see nothing that makes me like the 'cut of his jib'. He has stated we are exasperated by the lack of progress. He has stated that if the management try to impose a pay freeze, we will ballot for industrial action.

If I was management, I would be very happy. No threat of working to rule or such like if management do not enter negotiations, just a 'feeling of exasperation'. Doesn't make me tremble. :ugh:

How long do we continue to be exasperated before we move it to the next level???
What is the next level, trepidation???
How much longer do we allow this to be dragged on for, as recession deepens?

It's all very well saying we are not happy, but management are the ones who touted 'working together'. If they are not entering into meaningful discussions, we should be taking them to task, not expressing exasperation FFS.

The Union said many fine things before the pension talks started - lets not start forgetting such recent history.

Words are meaningless. If we don't get management round the table, we might as well get more KY Jelly ready.

BigDaddyBoxMeal

...the majority of the workforce agreed with the management proposal !!!

Wrong!

35% of staff did not vote. Therefore the majority of staff did not agree with the proposal, only the majority of people who bothered to vote agreed with it.

Many people did not vote, some did not receive ballot papers. There were some who informed reps they had not received a ballot paper, and asked for one. They were told by reps that they could not have one as one had been sent to them :ugh:


Throw A Dyce

Mr B has got his chance to get wages down.Looks like the Union have already surrendered.
Maybe if there are paycuts then the upper bands should take the hit,and redress the balance to the lower bands.
Since the lower bands took the hit in the past,so the upper bands could be where they are todayI think pay rises are the least of NSLs worries, I'm afraid to say. NSL was effectively lost when we voted yes to the pension, or more accurately when PPP was voted in.

Anyone else notice that NATS no longer has the remit of striving to be the 'World Leader In ATM?

Whilst it is still acknowledged that the operational side continues to provide amongst the best service provision in the World, in some of the most challenging airspace/airports, the company standing has fallen. We are now trailing far behind some of our European counterparts - officially.

NATS has lost sight of itself since PPP. We are witnessing the demise of NATS as we know it.

Last one out, switch off the lights.

[Medway Control]

Another thing,
I like the cut of your jib... Wise words, and not softly spoken. These pay negotations are now getting beyond a joke, a date should be set. Say 31st March, deal done, or else we ballot for industrial action.

As for what action should be required, well I always thought that the idea of a weeks strike plan was a good one.
Monday: AC walk out
Tuesday: TC
Wednesday: MACC
Thurs: SCottish
Fri: Oceanic
Sat: Well lets give the CTC a day, so they can feel like part of it (only kidding all you CTCers out there)
Sun: Well the lord did say we needed a day of rest
Mon: Revert to above...

How long do you think it would be before Mr Barron's Batphone has Willie Walsh, Steve Ridgeway and the rest on?? Sunday night?? I dont think it'd even get to that, and we'd have our Pay, as we were promised

[ImnotanERIC]

monday 0000, total walkout,
thursday 0000, back to work.

In reality we would be back in by tuesday afternoon after a management cave-in brought about by significant govt and public pressure. As long as we employ a top PR man that is as otherwise we would be made to look like the fools we are.


The fact that we as nats atcos are held in higher regard by other states atc providers than our own is a sad position for us to be in. Thats how i feel anyway.

[anotherthing]

MedwayControl

Nah,


a series of strikes so that every watch gets a day (to make it fair). All units out as one. Maximum disruption, minimum time.

Management would be on their knees pleading before 10am on the very first morning.

I do hope it doe not come to industrial action, but if management aren't going to even talk, **** 'em.

Mind you, after the pension result, plus the number of non voters, if I was management, I'd be pretty confident that the much vaunted powder was very damp.

[privatesandwiches]

31st March, 4% pay rise minimum or we all walk....

[PPRuNe Radar]

Maybe we could fund the payrises through a swearbox placed on this thread ?? ;)

Try and keep potty mouths in check guys, it's a public place.

[Standard Noise]

Why 4%? The company allegedly wants to use Aug RPI so why not make it last August's RPI of 4.8%? That wouldn't even be a pay increase, just keeping pace with the cost of living.

[Vote NO]

If management offer 0%, and we ask for 5%, then we meet in the middle and get 2.5%, :ok:.Thats how it always has been done. Nats has about 4,000 staff on an ave. of about £50,000 pa. A 2.5% payrise would cost Nats around £5,000,000, a mere drop in the ocean to a company boasting of its profits over the last few years :E


Performance - NATS (http://www.nats.co.uk/text/4/our_performance.html)

NATS recorded its fifth consecutive year of profit in 2007/08.
We declared profits of £66.7m on revenues of £742.5m. These results were delivered against growth in traffic of three per cent to nearly 2.5m flights. The average delay per flight was 26.8 seconds
NATS continues to strive to offer the best possible value to its customers on safety, service and cost.


Does anyone have an idea of what our profits are likely to be for 2008/2009 ? Nats can well afford to give us a decent payrise, dont let anyone tell you any different. The figures speak for themselves :suspect:

[DTY/LKS]

Initially when I got the email, I was chuffed at the way he was setting the record stright and taking the "tough stance" towards management.

Then upon reflection ONE NATS, ONE PENSION popped into my head!

[anotherthing]

why are you having a go at me?

don't be so sensitive love.

I wasn't having a go at you, I was quoting you so that my comment that followed would be in context. All better now poppet??? :}

My comment was my point of view, stating that I did not think that just because Mr Graham said one thing, that it actually amounted to much, especially given the recent track history of the Union saying one thing then doing something else.

And the quotes are correct - don't understand what you mean by learn to quote properly, there is more than one correct way of doing things, just because I don't always choose to use vB Code - I'd expect an ATCO would know that ;)

Bless...

[not a scooby]

perhaps our good leadership in prospect,could lead from the front and perhaps not do most of the ava`s on offer, that the rest of us are now shunning.

now if i was a manager, i would be screwing us into the ground big time, after all, i won the pensions issue hands down, even with a sizeable number not voting, so who is going to challange me over something small like a payfreeze?
perhaps i could work together with the unions and get them to do the dirty work for me again......., now there is a thought!!!!!

[throw a dyce]

Anotherthing,
Well for the moment the pay talks cover NSL and NERL under one umbrella.
Perhaps giving NSL staff a separate say in their own pay and conditions,might not be such a bad thing since we have been railroaded by the centres in the past,to fund their own big increases.
It's NERL who are looking for the big cost savings.This has already been done to a large extent in NSL,as it is a much leaner operation.
Yet we hear that the BAA owe NSL £3 million,but NSL aren't persuing them,because it may affect any future contract negotiations.

The union's statement about payfreeze =industrial action ballot is about as threatening as the pension stance.Management can say what they like now,including a pay cut for the ''over paid Atcos'',(Mr B's words).The union have got little choice but to just accept it.They have no power,or say anymore.

[hold at SATAN]

if NATS can't sort out the pay rise by 31 March 09, then pull the AAVA agreement effective from 1st April 09.

Flow the traffic if we are forced to bandbox due staffing and watch the world go by.

Simple as....:ok:

Enough is enough. We have been taking crap from management these last few years, as the to$$ers in charge treat us (ATCOs, ATCEs, ATSAs, admin, et al) with disdain whilst pi$$ing away money on non-jobs and useless functions that reward people for doing their jobs! :ugh:

Union - sort it out. grow a pair and tell management to wake up and smell the coffee. Yes many people are struggling in this recession but let's remember many are not. Don't let the glass half-full brigrade derail a fair pay deal, especially since NATS are going to make a nice profit this year and possibly pay dividends :mad::mad::mad:

[GM WAN TO BE]

So....

Not only to Prospect fail to communicate to their members, it appears they have trouble communicating within to each other - Mickey Mouse.

Undoubtedly the pay debate will drag on for ages and finally we will get far from 4.8% + 1%. It's about time we stood up to PB and the gang and got the going rate as posted previously in this thread.

GMWTB

[White Hart]

"It's about time we stood up to PB and the gang .."

Q - and without Union sanction/backing to keep it 'official', how are you going to do that?

A - you're not going to. The two Unions are sh*t/weak/spineless at senior level, (as are the majority of the members), as has been ably demonstrated with the pension issue. The only ones who talk about walking out or doing something more than just talk are the few 'keyboard warriors' on here, and we are not enough on our own.

At our workplace it doesn't happen, and it isn't going to either. They mumble and grumble day in, day out, but they all value their jobs, and the money, far too much to put themselves or their careers on the line, no matter how bad things get. Just like the rest of NATS.

A very sad state of affairs, but thats how it is.

[chiglet]

Whit Hart
Not all Unions are "spineless", nor are their members I remember being on strike for over 6 weeks, along with most EGCC/LATCC/SCATCC etc ATCAS over a renaged pay deal...guess what
WE GOT THE PAY RISE :D

[White Hart]

Hi Chiglet

yep, true - but just for the sake of the younger readers, perhaps you'd like to advise them in what year this took place! :}

things are a bit different now, as are the players.

(BTW - how's things oop north? PM if you dont wish to swear and upset the Mods!)

[Aylyn]

It was in 1977. An exciting year. Nearly bankrupted the Union.

[White Hart]

Ahh yes, '77 - when I was in Baghdad, and a lot of the staff now at LL TWR (and probably across NATS, too) were in Dad's bag. Its no good the older staff 'telling it how it was', 'cos it means SFA in relation to nowadays. We have to deal with what's going on right now, and frankly, even with Union support, I don't think the majority of staff, (for various and probably good personal reasons), have got the balls to take the Mgmt on - and a ballot for strike action would probably prove it.

It is a tough (aviation) world out there, especially outside of NATS. For some of us, just holding on to a job is going to be a result this year, let alone thinking about a fckn pay rise! Those who are in the more 'safer' jobs/areas of NATS will not be sticking their necks out to help those whose jobs are on the line - but they will expect these same people to support them in aid of a pay claim!

and thats where it all goes to pot, both from the Unions' perspective, and within the workforce itself - too many people with different priorities, and not an ounce of 'we're in it together' between the lot of 'em.

[RPIplus1]

1977 - a time of honesty and short trousers!

The union is NOT just the handful of people that represents its members -- the union is ALL of its members.

Therefore DO NOT rely on the union reps to sort this out... help and assist them.

The union reps need to put the message out to all members... but don't sit back and let them do all the work - HELP THEM - and also 'keep them honest' by telling them what they can do better (in realtime - not a few months later when its all over).

If the membership are balloted then we all need to do our bit to spread the word and get people voting (and voting in our favour).

I think that anything less than RPI+1 is a kick in the teeth so I'm gonna do everything I can to ensure I get it.
:)

[DC10RealMan]

Chiglet.

You forgot to mention that in 1977 when the ATSAs went on strike some of the ATCOs who were on their days off came into West Drayton to do the ATSA task.

[aaaabbbbcccc1111]

I would NOT support industrial action, regardless of small payrise, pay freeze or pay cut. We shot ourselves in the foot with the pension negotiations. Even if the pension fiasco was a forgone conclusion, why we couldn't at the very least get a payrise out of the YES vote, I will never know.
I read the article in the Prospect paper, and the reply stinks of a cover-up. Maybe they were trying to see the reactions it would cause. I will be looking at cancelling my prospect membership, and would be grateful if someone could give me advice in terms of how this could effect me in regards to my licence and other employment issues, and wether GATCO or any other organisation could be just as suitable for an ATCOs need.

[BigDaddyBoxMeal]

As for what action should be required, well I always thought that the idea of a weeks strike plan was a good one.
Monday: AC walk out
Tuesday: TC
Wednesday: MACC
Thurs: SCottish
Fri: Oceanic
Sat: Well lets give the CTC a day, so they can feel like part of it (only kidding all you CTCers out there)
Sun: Well the lord did say we needed a day of rest
Mon: Revert to above...

NSL staff have long thought we play second fiddle to NERL. Now we don't even exist!

[White Hart]

agreed - and if the issues weren't so serious, we might even think it rather funny :rolleyes:

lets hope that NATS Mgmt aren't thinking that a future partial sell-off of NSL assets would be the 'cash-cow' that keeps good old NERL afloat and the CTC in Lattes! I wonder who would be standing up for who in that event??

[Minesapint]

More contractors going, I know of three that are not having their contracts renewed. It will be interesting to see what happens to their work!

[Gonzo]

So, all these non-op ATCOs that are licenced but not valid.......where are they? I heard there were only three of them in the whole company.

WH, not sure NSL has any more assets to sell!:}

[Medway Control]

you know what, i know when i'm wrong. and i'm wrong... I didnt think the airports would wanna get dragged into this, I know you're contracts are sometimes delicate, but I also know that many of you feel disillusioned by all this!
I just thought maximum impact would be effected by the fewest staff by doing it centre by centre... though the thought that I would not back my NSL colleagues up if it came to a head, would boil my blood! One union member, all union members!
But as i said, I was wrong not to involve you guys in my post... I've never said I wasnt an idiot...:ugh:

[1985]

What about every ATCO that works in an office and holds a validation, gets a salary that is appropriate to the task they actually do for 90% of the time and then gets a daily rate when they have to turn up to get their hours? That should save some money without having to get rid of jobs.

[Ballstroker]

The thing is, the switch from ATCO to non-ATCO often doesn't save that much money as an on cost.

Most office-bound ATCO jobs when they get converted to non-ATCO tend to get converted to T&S B or C grade posts which, although are paid a bit less than top-of-the-band Band 5 ATCO 2s, are paid as much as many long-serving ATCO 3s out there.

The big benefit comes from getting the sunk cost of the trained ATCO back in the Ops room. That's if they validate...

[Ceannairceach]

Pensions is the one issue we all said we'd walk out about. We didn't. We're screwed.

The end.

[White Hart]

"One union member, all union members!"

and here is the root cause of the problem - we've got two fckn Unions! So how the hell any Union Rep expects staff across the board to stand up for each other and deliver a real show of force to the Mgmt just totally beggars belief! PCS and Prospect have a history of NOT working together, nor in each other's interests - and this goes right back (probably) even as far as Chiglet's 1977 'power to the ATCAs!' victory. It has certainly been the case since I joined.

Having a single Union representing the entire workforce will not in itself achieve 'solidarity' - there's still personal circumstances that will come into play when deciding how one will vote. However, it would be a start.

Gonz - the only thing NSL has left to get rid of is the support staff, and they won't hang around with that issue! I've tried selling my SAMOS stuff to autothrottle and friends (they're going to need it! :E) - maybe you'd like to make an offer for a genuine, one owner, UNUSED headset?? :}

[not a scooby]

try UNITE for personal issue represntation & GATCO for the court appearance.

UNITE is £9.40 pm

[anotherthing]

Medway

When you strike, you lose a days pension contribution. That's one very good reason why every union member should be involved. It's only fair as the strike action would be to benefit everyone!


As for job losses and saving money (an integral part of discussions over pay awards), a friend of a friend was at the hotel below.

Who happened to be there, but a group from NATS, taking part in a NATS 2 day meeting. This was this week - not 18 months ago before the economy started slowing down!

The hotel is 26.5 miles from Swanwick and 28.5miles from CTC in a more westerly direction i.e. further from the main routes, not closer, both of these locations have meeting rooms and catering facilities.

Saving Money? (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/where_to_stay/south_east_england/article480520.ece</p><p>)

Not if it means cutting luxury (http://www.britainsfinest.co.uk/hotels/hotels.cfm/searchazref/75001190RHIA)

Just cut operational staff and support jobs instead... pass me another glass of wine old chap (http://www.handpickedhotels.co.uk/hotels/Rhinefield-House/)

Having taken part in 2 day workshops before, the usual structure is

Day 1

Arrive, register, partake of coffee and biscuits.
Mid Morning - coffee break with nibbles
Lunch
Mid afternoon - Coffee break with nibbles
Evening meal with wine
Overnight stay (if you want it)

Day 2

Breakfast for the overnighters, a chance to read the newspaper delivered to your room
Mid Morning - coffee break with nibbles
Lunch
Mid afternoon - Coffee break with nibbles


Unlimited coffee, tea or water still/carbonated (bottled at hotel rates of course) during the rest of the day.

How much will this little lot cost the company??

If the website has whetted anyones appetite, here are directions on how to get to this budget hotel:


Helicopter Grid Reference
Grid Reference:
OS Map 195 Grid 254 037

[Radarspod]

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

RS

[RPIplus1]

I know this is slightly off topic but thought it may be of interest...

BBC NEWS | Business | Watchdog issues pensions warning (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7896734.stm)

Watchdog issues pensions warning

Employers must not use the downturn as an excuse to cut pension contributions while still paying dividends to shareholders, says a watchdog.

The UK Pensions Regulator said economic conditions were of "real concern" to employers with final salary schemes.

[Minesapint]

There are a lot of ATCO managers out there! Some are very good indeed, many are :mad:so why pay them band 5 ATCO 1/2 rates for doing a T&S job?

If they want to continue doing the T&S job pay them T&S rates and regrade them, also ensuring that said post isd VN'd.

[rumouroid]

Whilst I believe that we are all doomed since we voted yes to the dodgy pension proposal that the unions should never even have entered negotiations on, let alone recommended, and we are still waiting for the MOU to be signed, I will not be handing in my Prospect membership. The reason being that if all the "no" voters leave the union because they don't think it's worth being a member any more, guess who's left? Answer - all the "yes" voters and that's too scary to comprehend, I still want a vote and a voice even if I'm in the 40% minority.
I just wish that all the "yes" voters hadn't been so short-sighted as to think that all we were voting on was the pension. Management used the pension vote as a "dip test" to check out whether we would crumble if they tried to reduce the benefit that we said we would never let them touch. Now they have seen that we fell at the first fence, they will be brimming with confidence that they can do anything to us with enough scare-mongering and threats, and to be honest it disappoints me to believe that they probably can.
T&Cs R.I.P.

[White Hart]

Rumouroid's comments reflect exactly why the staff at NATS will no longer have even an equal starting status in any future negotiations, let alone be in a position of holding the upper hand. The Unions gave advice on the pensions issue, and a large enough proportion of the staff felt obliged to accept it - not because it made sense, but because its better to have something (ie a reduced pension) rather than run the risk of having nothing (no pension/no Company - the scaremongering tactic), or even just be out of pocket for taking a stand (loss of a few days wages). The same will now happen with the wages negotiations.

Both Unions no longer carry any credibility in the negotiating arena. They won't 'win' anything - they'll accept what is offered - even if its nothing! - and tell you 'its the best deal we could get'. And even if they did take the hard line, and say 'enough is enough', then the hard stance would fall flat on its face once the votes were counted, 'cos too many staff have too much to lose, and will vote on the same 'personal' basis as they did over the pension issue.

Best just to keep your membership going so's you can call on the independent solicitors' half-hour free advice available to Union members, and to have a witness present at your 1-2-1 chats with the local big-wigs.

[anotherthing]

unfortunately the scaremongering tactic will be used again. They are already saying the new pension is all but unaffordable... 2 months after it was voted in. If they can't even plan financially 2 months ahead, the scaremongering may be correct, because such poor planning ability will cause this company to fail...

We do well in normal times because of the virtual monopoly we have, but when it comes to running NATS properly, like a savvy business, our management don't have a clue.

Still sending large groups of people on 2 day junkets to expensive hotels, yet bleating about the finances - it's not rocket science, i'm just surprised so many staff and the union are taken in by it.

Never mind, the Union is 'exasperated' - maybe by December we will have managed to get management to agree to discuss pay, obviously the dates of those discussions will need to be finalised... sometime in 2010??? :ugh:

[Flybywyre]

maybe by December we will have managed to get management to agree to discuss pay, obviously the dates of those discussions will need to be finalised... sometime in 2010???

Pay discussions and dare I mention it, even the MOU, will be finalised when management feel like it and not before. Maybe never during the reign of PB and the other spivs.
The reason they can take this stance is because they do not have any tangible opposition to their plans. The NTUS is a spent force that has been completely outwitted and outmanoeuvred by NATS management.
The existing NTUS should be replaced immediately. We have some very able reps in TC/AC who are more than capable of stepping into their shoes.
FBW

[White Hart]

The 2-Union representation, plus the scaremongering will also mean that, pay issues aside, the ATCOs will not stand up to help save the operational support staff, even if they truly believe that we are neccessary to keep things running, or for contingency etc. As for the ATSAs themselves standing up - :rolleyes:!! at LL we've just experienced a perfect example of Central PCS' strength in standing up for its members - :mad: Come back, Chiglet - we need someone to wave the PCS Union flag! (and put wood/SAMOS guides/paper strips in the picketline's brazier)

like I said, just keeping ourselves in a job is going to be the target for most of us this year :hmm:

[GAPSTER]

I should first of all say that I have complete sympathy with the ATSA grades and the predicament facing them....I was one myself for several years albeit an ATCA then.

I am also totally in agreement with the view that one workforce/two unions reduces our strength to support any of our grades in difficult circumstances however....

...some years ago I remember joint pay negotiations with a final offer tabled by management.Rejected by ATCOs branch,accepted by ATSAS/ATEs.We later accepted a revised offer (a better one of course) and were subjected to an awful lot of recrimination from the grades who prematurely (in my view) accepted the earlier offer....

I find it a little rich to be subject to the view that I would not stand up for the ATSA grade....you have to do it yourselves with strong PCS representation...as and when PROSPECT are involved you will have my unqualified support.

[White Hart]

"...some years ago I remember joint pay negotiations - 'X' - with a final offer tabled by management.Rejected by ATCOs branch,accepted by ATSAS/ATEs.We later accepted a revised offer (a better one of course) and were subjected to an awful lot of recrimination from the grades who prematurely (in my view) accepted the earlier offer...."

you missed a bit out at the point I have marked 'X' above. let me refresh your memory...

..with an agreement in place between the two Unions that, if one Union voted 'yes', but the other voted 'no', then it was back to the table for both Unions and their members. It was also mooted (but possibly not officially agreed) that the percentage pay rise offer should be the same for all - not X% for the ATCOs and a lesser Y% for the rest. As it turned out, PCS voted 'yes', Prospect voted 'no', so it should have been back to the table for both parties. But it didn't work out like that, did it? No - Prospect went back to the table on their own and without recourse to PCS, who once they found out about Prospect's sleight of hand, promptly rejected the accepted offer as per the 2-Union agreement...

so much for Unions working together in agreement :hmm: that is where the recrimination stems from!

Gapster, thank you for your 'sympathy' for the lower ranks. I shall put your 'lapse of memory' down to having done 20+ years within NATS, (which is sufficient to addle anybody's brains), and which you must have done if you were once an ATCA.

As for it being 'a little rich to be subject to the view that I would not stand up for the ATSA grade', neither Prospect nor its membership have officially stood up for us before or since - and even though we all hear the ATCO blah about how 'invaluable' and 'essential' we are, I shall not be expecting the majority of them to change their ways in the future, and certainly not whilst the 2-Union arrangement exists.

[chiglet]

White Hart...et al
I am still an active Union member,(BEC) [tho' with less than 18 months to 65 :{, I am cooling it, a bit] We do have some "young turks" at Manch, but as you know, time is not on our side.
Take care, out there...
wh pm on way

[White Hart]

PM for you too, Chiglet.

I reckon there's a better than average chance that we'll see both Prospect and PCS unrepresented at LL local level before too long. (who is the Prospect rep at LL?) Still, it won't affect the Heathrow 2-Union 'working together' ethos, will it? :rolleyes:

No 'young turks' at LL, I'm afraid to say - only 'old turkeys' wearing suits. :)

BTW - has anybody been released under the current VR offer at LACC?

[anotherthing]

Another ‘draft report’ from Prospects communications department for Profile magazine perhaps??


Prospect ATCOs Branch have today taken the unprecedented step of escalating relations with NATS management in a bid to speed up the stalled pay talks.

Prospect have taken the unusual step of moving from ‘feeling exasperated’ to being ‘mightily peeved’.

The annual pay awards, which are traditionally due on the 1st Jan, have never been brought in on time, however even by usual standards the current situation is fast becoming a farce.

A Union spokesperson said today:


“We have tried working together with NATS Management but to no avail. We have been left with no option but to indicate that we are now officially, ‘mightily peeved’.

The reason we have taken this robust course of action is twofold. Firstly we want to send a clear, unambiguous message to Management and secondly we want our members to feel they are getting value for money.

We believe that this escalation will bring the NATS Board to the table to start discussing the pay award issue.

We have also indicated to Management that if they do not enter discussions with us soon, we will consider the unprecedented step of becoming 'extremely miffed'.

We are giving management a shot across the bows, and urge them to enter into talks to prevent us escalating things further. If there is no sign of movement from management by lets say November, we will officially become ‘extremely miffed’.”

This is the strongest action that Prospect have taken since the much maligned PPP. They have never, in their history been ‘extremely miffed’ with NATS Management.

The spokesperson went on to say

“We really do not wish to go down this route, especially as we have been so good with Management in ‘Working Together’. However we feel that we have no option as all other avenues have failed.
We believe that the use of the words 'mightily' and 'peeved', coupled with the possible future utterance of the words 'miffed' and 'extremely' will send shivers down Managements spines”
NATS Management have so far declined to comment on the Unions action.


the above is not real, before anyone gets all worked up

[Vote NO]

Is this a "wind up" ? :rolleyes: They had better get their bloody act together soon.
NATS no doubt will reveal next month another profit busting financial year amongst the "temporary decline in winter traffic". Their long term business plan is in place for a 3% annual growth in traffic levels for the next twenty years. So we are well financially placed, are we not ?:mad: Or maybe they have got it wrong :oh:

[Ceannairceach]

I'm so glad we're a not for profit organisation.

Oh.

[BigDaddyBoxMeal]

Sure for a company that is doing so well, his shouldn't be a problem !

The PPP was much criticised - was it a success? (http://www.nats.co.uk/faq/231/frequently_asked_questions.html#)
The PPP, or Public Private Partnership, was established in July 2001 and strengthened in 2003 following a financial restructuring prompted by the financial downturn following 9/11. NATS is now owned 49% by the Government; 42% by The Airline Group, a consortium of UK airlines; 4% by BAA and 5% by an Employee Share Trust. The company has just reported its fifth successive year of profit.

In the last year we have continued to maintain our strong safety record, whilst handling record numbers of flights. NATS-attributable delays have been reduced from more than two minutes at the time of the PPP to less than 27 seconds this year.

The company has a 10-year, £1bn investment programme. Within 10 years of the PPP (2011) we will have achieved our two-centre strategy and delivered the majority of our £1bn investment programme, due for completion in 2013.

[Jungle Jingle Jim]

They say 'we follow' America?

Reading his speech, hopefully we are not looking at a similar path in the UK for pilots or controllers?

Hero Pilot 'Sully' to Congress: My Pay Has Been Cut, Pension Terminated | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/128656/hero_pilot_%27sully%27_to_congress%3A_my_pay_has_been_cut%2C _pension_terminated/)

[Min Stack]

I was mightily peeved and miffed recently to learn that my subscription to Prospect had increased - I hope they are making good use of my money. :hmm:

[Cuddles]

They'd be crackers not to get on with it (NATS) before the end of year data is published.

[anotherthing]

Cuddles

Are you alluding to well founded rumours of profits in excess of £100million, with a £50million dividend to the airlines, perchance?

When do the figures get published? Anyone know??

[Minesapint]

End of financial year I think. So have we all completed talkback yet? The response will be damning but 'they' will tell us that its 'understandable' and that we are in a 'bad place' but things will get better. Sure they will! :mad: Ballot for industrial action please - and one union for NATS at the same time. :ok:

[Vote NO]

Have a look at last years financial report :eek: published in June 2008 , so we may have to wait 4 months. This will play into managements hands as they won't reveal the massive profits before the "pay rise :rolleyes:" is negotiated, and plead poverty till then:mad:

The financial statements were approved by the Board of directors on 26 June 2008 and signed on its behalf by
Chairman John Devaney
Finance Director Nigel Fotherby


NATS (En Route) plc
Financial statements
for the year ended 31 March 2008
Company Number: 4129273

http://www.nats.co.uk/uploads/user/NATS%20(En%20Route)%20plc%20-%20Financial%20Statements%2031%20March%202008.pdf

[Ceannairceach]

How rather wasteful the two centre strategy seems now too. How poorly sighted and quite frankly, wasteful.

An outlay of £23.6m to the "Prestwick/Manchester programme" from those latest accounting figures....second only to current software systems in terms of capital expenditure.

Hardly a vital business expense really is it? Was it absolutely necessary to commit to nPC I wonder? Perhaps with hindsight it'll become a project management would rather not undertake, certainly financially.

And lo, is that a profit of £47.1m I see before my eyes?

[anotherthing]

Minesapint

Unfortunately with 'Talkback' the vast majority of the 'tick-box' questions are centred around the performance of your immediate line manager, though there are one or two more generic ones.

That said, even the more generic ones don't really lend themselves to stating how you really feel about the way the company is going - "Are you proud to work for NATS" - well actually, my answer would have to be 'yes'. NATS as a company, with its aims (ANSP provision) is a very good company and a good industry to be in with an above average percentage of talented people (All grades), and because of those people, a good place to work.

What I am not proud of is the direction the company is being taken.

Fortunately, there is a box at the end that you can write comments in - it allows you 3000 words... worth the 10 or 15 minutes making views known, if you have any :ok:

Ceannairceach

I assume that £47.1million figure is after shareholder dividens have been paid? Although in effect a true 'profit' figure as it shows what is left for the company after all costs, it doesn't reflect the fact that for a company said to be struggling with its present and future commitments, we will still give the airline group a whopping dividend.

The same airline group that is putting pressure on us and the regulator to reduce our charges, one of the reasons management are bleating about future costings!!:mad:

[Vote NO]

The BA and Virgin part of the airline group need to get some dosh back on their criminal actions following their massive fines. These are the sort of people who own NATS. Are we all still proud to work for them? :suspect: I believe four of their managers have been jailed or are facing jail sentences in the USA.

British Airways has been fined about £270m after it admitted collusion in fixing the prices of fuel surcharges

BBC NEWS | Business | BA's price-fix fine reaches £270m (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6925397.stm)


Office of Fair Trading charges British Airways executives with price-fixing - Times Online (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article4478325.ece)

[band2drone]

Playing devil's advocate here, but should we push for a pay increase in light of the announcement on the intranet regarding possible job losses for permanent staff?

[privatesandwiches]

Should we be pushing for a payrise when the company is about to post profits over £100 million on last year and over £50 million dividend to the airlines?

The intranet is a tool used by those above to steer things a 'certain' way. Think back to the pension propaganda last year!!!

[Vote NO]

Absolutely spot on sir!

The NATS intranet is being used to fuel fear and perpetrate propaganda. It is also being used to gauge opinion and "manage" staff in the way management want. This is how things actually work in all major businesses, but I guess the more naive and compliant amongst us cant or dont want to believe it :eek:


Playing devil's advocate here, but should we push for a pay increase in light of the announcement on the intranet regarding possible job losses for permanent staff?


For possible job losses, read," lets frighten them about job losses and see if they jump"

[Radarspod]

PPRUNE ATC Issue forum - The REAL NATS intranet :ok:

[anotherthing]

Band2Drone

Short answer –

YES.

Longer answer –

We are about to announce huge profits.
We are paying a ridiculous dividend to the airlines.
Our operational staff continue to reduce delays and improve safety.
Our support staff continue to work long hours on other business enterprises.

What NATS is right to do is to look at what people are actually doing and see what is necessary for the company. Bin the projects etc that will not enhance NATS. Look at manpower properly and ensure that they are gainfully employed. If it becomes apparent that there is excess staff, then get rid. Even if that means permanent positions.

NATS is a business; once PPP came in we needed to run it like a business. Assessing the business as in the above paragraph should be done continually, not just because there is a financial downturn.

Case in point – the NATS awards. Many people have said this is a waste of good money. This year it is announced that they will not go ahead. If they were previously deemed to be so essential that we had to waste thousands of pounds running them, why are they no longer essential? Does that not indicate that it was indeed an unnecessary waste of cash?

Getting rid of permanent staff is not pleasant, but to steal a phrase often used by management lackeys when talking about pay freezes – ‘look at what’s happening in the real world’.

We should not be keeping staff purely through sentimentality.

The staff that remain, who will continue to make NATS the world leader that it is (despite managements interfering), deserve a pay rise.

[General_Kirby]

Anyone thought about a lump sum payment instead of a payrise, just to tide us over and shut us up, it's something I'd find hard to say no to, provided it was big enough:} As I see it they company would save money as it wouldn't count toward pension costs?

[DC10RealMan]

I would like to suggest that one of the benefits of getting rid of permanent staff is that they are members of the "old" pension fund and by getting rid of them it just brings the day closer when members of the "new" pension fund outnumber the old members and then both the management and the unions (acting in the interest of the MAJORITY of members) can make changes to the existing pension entitlement such as transferring the risk to the employee of their pension provision.

[anotherthing]

The pension provision for those of us in what is now the 'old scheme' will not be in existence within 5 years I reckon; and it won't rely on the new members outnumbering the old.

NATS will come knocking and bleating about unaffordability before long :(

[Hooligan Bill]

anotherthing wrote:

NATS will come knocking and bleating about unaffordability before long

Bound to happen. Was speaking to an actuary today and apparently any pension fund evaluation that was done on 31st December 2008 will give some bad results. Even though this is not our triannual valuation I'm sure management will use any bad news to try a beat us with a stick, again!

[Buster the Bear]

anotherthing, it took 7 years at Luton airport after Barclays created a 'them & us' workforce following on from establishing 'new terms and conditions for new starters'.

Airport staff employed by the airport were once in the Local Govt Pension Scheme (LGPS), the sort your local council staff enjoy (final salary). Luton airport was concessioned out by the Town Hall, Barclays placed an axeman at the helm and the rest they say is history! And so it was for the 'old' terms and conditions!

[MrJones]

NATS are broke!!

So broke they can afford to give people 2 years salary to leave the company!!

Does nobody think the reason NATS is splashing the MegaBucks right now might be to disguise the amount of money they are currently making? An accountancy trick?

The question I would like answering is this...

When did NATS stop being a Not For Profit Public Private Partnership and who made the decision?

[eglnyt]

When did NATS stop being a Not For Profit Public Private Partnership and who made the decision?

It never stopped because it never was. Although it was a term frequently used in Parliament in the run up to PPP the true not for profit option as seen in Canada was rejected early on in favour of a sale of 51%. Not for profit was not a requirement of the bidders, does not feature in any of the legislation and, according to the Airline Group in a submission to the CAA, doesn't form any part of the Strategic Partnership Agreement they signed with the Government at PPP. The Airline Group actually used the term "not for commercial return" which isn't the same. To date the return on their investment falls far short of what might be described as a commercial return as very little in the way of dividend has been paid since PPP.

[anotherthing]

I, and I think every other operational member of NATS, was under the impression that the airline group received a piece of NATS for a relatively small cost on the understanding that it was a not for profit investment, but to ensure that NATS continued to provide the sterling service it always has.

In effect the 'dividend' to the airlines was the continued high standard of service. In fact part of the condition of allowing PPP was that airlines were to be invited so that they had an interest in the business (because it was, for want of a better phrase, in their interest).

The rest, including £50million dividens etc is smoke and mirrors. The existing pension is doomed - a situation manufactured by management.

To date the return on their investment falls far short of what might be described as a commercial return as very little in the way of dividend has been paid since PPPA statement that could only come from the mouth of someone who is non-operational who does not understand what benefit good ATC is to airlines.

The airlines bought into PPP to ensure the maintenance of one of (if not the) best service providers. They receive a 'dividend' every day... Their investment is not about monetary dividends - it's about the continued work that NATS does at the coalface to reduce delays and provide shortcuts and in the back offices - re-designing airspace and procedures to benefit airlines. For example isn't that what the much vaunted AMAN was supposed to be about - reducing time in the hold and slowing down en-route, thus reducing fuel costs? How much money do you think airlines save by virtue of the fact that NATS does it's job well and strives to make changes to keep improving an already gold plated service??? Just because it is not shown by handing over big fat cheques, the airlines are benefitting...

Jobs in NATS are still going (some quite rightly) despite voting to change the pension.

Where are all the people now who said 'vote yes, save jobs' just 3 months ago???

We have weakend any power the workforce had and have given management the green light to screw us over in the future.

Good work people.

[Vote NO]

The "Yes men" have noticeably gone very quiet indeed :oh:

The usual suspects :suspect: on here seem to have dissappeared from the face of the earth :eek:
I wonder why ?


(looks like a some of them are coming out of the attic again :E )

[BDiONU]

Jobs in NATS are still going (some quite rightly) despite voting to change the pension.
Where are all the people now who said 'vote yes, save jobs' just 3 months ago???
I'll bite. I think you'll find I said vote yes to save my pension, not jobs. Although I'm told that the more difficult conversations taking place are with those who applied for VR but weren't accepted.

BD

[Cuddles]

Gen Kirkby

A payrise is the gift that keeps on giving, If you get a lump sum, then next years 3% doesn't include the payrise from last year and so on and so on.

Basically they're a cunch of bunts and have sold us all (Myself included) a dummy.

[anotherthing]

BDiONU

If thats the case, then it wasn't you I was talking about!!!! However there were plenty of people who were saying 'vote yes, it'll safeguard jobs' or 'if you vote no, you are costing people their jobs'.


I think you'll find I said vote yes to save my pension, not jobs.
As you are a non union member, it's very magnanimous of you to tell others how to vote...

[Radarspod]

The "Yes men" have noticeably gone very quiet indeed

The usual suspects on here seem to have dissappeared from the face of the earth
I wonder why ?

Nope, we're still here, reading the usual drivel :ok:

You think these job losses would have been prevented if it'd been a No vote? It'll be the same or worse.

RS

[eglnyt]

I did say that Voting No could cost jobs and I stand by that. At it's most extreme failing to address the pension costs could cause the company to go bust and as I've said before I think a lot of non ATCO jobs wouldn't survive that. Even without going bust an increase in pension costs would only add to the apparent shortfall in the CP2 budget and if the current shortfall could only be addressed by job losses it seems reasonable to conclude that a bigger shortfall would need more job losses.

I didn't say there would be no job losses if we voted yes but I do believe that voting yes has meant less job losses than if we had voted no.

[ZOOKER]

NATS would never "Go Bust"
This cobblers is part of The Red Barron's 'Platform Of Fear' horsesh!t.
Mr Bean would have to bail NATS out.
Corrupt 'bankers' are !0-a penny. Air Traffic Control Officers are a rarer, more select, breed.
I am certain of this.- As certain as a future Ryanair passenger is of p*ssing ther pants! :E

[BDiONU]

BDiONUAs you are a non union member, it's very magnanimous of you to tell others how to vote...
Hhhmmm, I think you underestimate other peoples opinion of me if you believe they'd listen to my telling them how to vote (as well as inflating my opinion of myself in thinking they'd listen).
I'm not a union member for a variety of reasons but negotiation (or working together) between union representatives and management is the only way the workforce's views etc. are presented and responded to (or not as the case may be). Because I do not wish to join a union it effectively closes the door to my being heard and I don't feel thats right. That leaves open the option of trying to influence (not tell) other people who are union members. I very much doubt I managed that on here as this site is mainly populated by the very vociferous, vocal minority of nay sayers and negative minded people. Hence my 'absence' of late, I'm bored with reading moans and whinges in here when I'm working in the real world with a lot of very positive people who have a "can do" not a "can't do" attitude.

BD

[Vote NO]

Radarspod

Nope, we're still here, reading the usual drivel http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

You think these job losses would have been prevented if it'd been a No vote? It'll be the same or worse.

RS

And writing it :}

But seriously, NATS can well afford to keep its full time staff, why did they employ them in the first place? If their business plan was wrong,it's their managers who need to go, and some are going soon with a shed load of money! How many millions do you think NATS have wasted over the last few years? Perhaps some "expert" on here can tell us? :)

[Ceannairceach]

MACC staff should have received their voluntary redundancy acceptance letters this morning. 30 posts or thereabouts.

[anotherthing]

BD


I very much doubt I managed that on here as this site is mainly populated by the very vociferous, vocal minority of nay sayers and negative minded people. Hence my 'absence' of late, I'm bored with reading moans and whinges in here when I'm working in the real world with a lot of very positive people who have a "can do" not a "can't do" attitude.

The majority of the negative comments on here are posted by operational staff who have to put up with things that those with can do attitudes have brought in...

AMAN, N601, TC SE LOW changes etc.

Sometimes letting off steam is the best way for these operational staff who have to get on and do their jobs with badly implemented tools, or poorly thought out airspace redesigns. Unfortunately comments books etc are not heeded.

So people will let of steam here, and tell it like they see it - it's often a good way of getting frank and open discussions between different sets of staff.

I'd even go as far as to state that some of the threads on PPRuNe (more the ones of a technical nature, not the pay or pension ones), have probably resulted in some benefit.

[1985]

I'm working in the real world with a lot of very positive people who have a "can do" not a "can't do" attitude


Unfortunately these people don't talk to the people who "have to do". I'm not against change and try not to whinge as much as i can, but i do get fed up of people with a "can do" attitude foisting stuff on us without talking to us in the first place. And then saying well you'll just have to make it work! :ugh:

[Not Long Now]

Careful 1985, that's teetering on the verge of common sense, and we all know what that leads to....

[Flybywyre]

MACC staff should have received their voluntary redundancy acceptance letters this morning. 30 posts or thereabouts.

Is that across the board or just a specific group ?

[BDiONU]

The majority of the negative comments on here are posted by operational staff who have to put up with things that those with can do attitudes have brought in...

AMAN, N601, TC SE LOW changes etc.
You illustrate my point beautifully thank you. Pointing out only the very few things which haven't gone well and not the majority of things which have gone well. For some people the glass is always going to be half empty.

BD

[Scuzi]

The majority of "things" that go well must go so well that we don't even realise they exist on the shop floor. My experience has been somewhat different with the majority of new technology implemented since we (TC) graced the southern shores with our presence having been implemented in a rather half arsed manner. CAIT is the only thing that springs to mind as being introuced in a reasonably efficient manner.

[BDiONU]

The majority of "things" that go well must go so well that we don't even realise they exist on the shop floor. My experience has been somewhat different with the majority of new technology implemented since we (TC) graced the southern shores with our presence having been implemented in a rather half arsed manner.
How was the move down from WD? Pretty good I thought from the very minor part I played. However I'm sure I'm wrong and it was absolutely atrocious, really badly handled, appalling and rubbish, why did we ever move from the excellent ops room we had at WD etc. etc.
No one likes change but some people seem to handle it better than others :ok:

BD

[Vote NO]

Quote:
MACC staff should have received their voluntary redundancy acceptance letters this morning. 30 posts or thereabouts.
Is that across the board or just a specific group ?


Manch and Scottish, 45 ATSA's offered VR, 15 by Nov 2009, 30 by Nov 2010

[anotherthing]

BD

the three things I mentioned just happened to be the latest 3 things to hit the Ops room, it was by no means an exhaustive list.

The two new airspace changes have not even happened yet, but they do not enhance the operation (N601 from a TC perspective - it has merits from an AC one). In fact N601 actually makes the TC Mids controllers job more difficult!

As for the move from WD - lets see:

VCCS, only just recently became stable after 14 months - but we still cannot cross couple more than 2 frequencies. As the very fiorst person on the day of opening to get hit by a VCCS failure, it's a pretty sore subject with me.

Radar screens - BARCO displays regularly flickering (not nice to witness when controlling) - according to engineers they are not allowed to purchase the expensive digital graphics cards that would solve the problem because of cost, therefore instead they are going to try other inferior cards.

Headsets - poorly designed, expensive flimsy rubbish.

Even down to the nitty gritty of domestic issues...

Carpet tiles that don't stay stuck down - may sound silly but a health hazard and looks a mess.

Still no colour screens for stack displays.

Seats that are uncomfotable, but again was the most expensive choice - despite feedback prior to the move that they were not ideal.

The WD move was a sucess in that we moved and we stayed, but it's far from perfect.

Do I prefer the working environment I now find myself in - of course - by miles, but I don't walk round with rose tinted glasses. If something is good, I acknowledge the fact, if something could be better, I make a noise about it.

NATS is first and foremost about air traffic CONTROL. Safety is paramount. Since when was good enough, good enough??

[Scuzi]

The move in itself was seamless and very well handled and I congratulate those involved. It's a pity about the VCCS though. It was atrocious and still is although to a slightly lesser degree now. I also believe it is dangerous but that's another thread for another day. There's also the carpet, AMAN, SAM arrivals airspace and many others which fall under the umbrella of the farcical.

EFD is an up and coming event which I feel will top all of the others by a country mile as far as cock ups go. I really do sympathise with the engineers involved with it.

I agree that some people do blow these things out of proportion but turning a blind eye and declaring failed or flawed projects a success gives them plenty of fuel for their fire.

I'm sure I could tat for your tit and vice versa until the cows come home but this is a thread about pay negotiations and we're straying off track.

[rumouroid]

I think AC will hold the title for biggest cock-ups when iFACTS eventually raises it's head.

Anyway back to the thread, any news on what happened at the pay meeting on Friday? I hope we let them know exasperated we are!:rolleyes:

[BDiONU]

ROFL! You guys crack me up :ok:

BD

[ZOOKER]

Two contrasting quotes here:-

"No one likes change, but some people seem to handle it better than others :ok:"
- BDiONU.
This is not entirely correct. I would not like to go back to the car I had before the one I now drive. Nor would I want to live in the previous house or use my discarded computer etc. Change should always be for the better, otherwise it is pointless. Some people handle it better because they are prepared to lower their standards and compromise on quality/safety or whatever.
If it isn't broken, don't mend it.
"Since change is inevitable, we should direct the change rather than simply continue to go through the change"
- GSH.
From reading these pages, many of the changes occurring in ATC are not changes for the better, and are certainly not 'directed' by those they affect the most.

[ImnotanERIC]

the last good thing to come in was mode s, that is brilliant. since then everything that has been brought it is balls.

[Del Prado]

Even without going bust an increase in pension costs would only add to the apparent shortfall in the CP2 budget and if the current shortfall could only be addressed by job losses it seems reasonable to conclude that a bigger shortfall would need more job losses.


Shortfall? We've been making 50 million profits for each of the last 5 years. I can't wait until this year's financial results are published.

And how much did NATS get from the sale of heathrow tower?

[landedoutagain]

To continue from del prado's post

an increase in pension costs would only add to the apparent shortfall in the CP2 budget

there wont be any shortfall in budgets! That was supposed to be the whole point behind capping the pensionable pay remember? The figures are already based on RPI +.5 fixed for 15 years, so the required amount is known. It will reduce if there is no pay rise of course, but then it will also have reduced somewhat because they have stopped the scheme for newcomers.

That post is either a mistake on your part egnlyt, or spreading of misinformation and scaremongering...

[eglnyt]

there wont be any shortfall in budgets!

If NATS budgetted for a positive growth in income during CP2 and we are currently seeing -10% which may last for up to two years then there can only be a shortfall in the budget. Be careful not to confuse budget shortfall with loss, you can make a profit and still have a shortfall in your budget. NATS reckons the shortfall between what it expected as income over CP2 and what it will actually get is £90 million. You can argue about that figure but it looks consistent with a -10% growth over 18 months. That £90 million includes the reduction in pension contributions because of the agreement. If we had voted No NATS would have been unable to limit the pension contribution in the way it has and therefore the figure would have been greater than £90 million. If £90 million shortfall equals £45 million of savings equals X number of jobs then > £90 million shortfall equals > £45 million of savings equals >X jobs.

Not scaremongering, just the way it is and slightly irrelevant because we voted Yes. I was only countering those who argued that we should have voted No.

Shortfall? We've been making 50 million profits for each of the last 5 years. I can't wait until this year's financial results are published.

The £90 million shortfall must already include any profit we make this year which should be quite big because the downturn in income only took effect from the Winter schedules and NATS makes all its profit in the Summer. Although it has been making profits it has spent most of that money on the capital investment programme and reducing its debt. It hasn't been putting it away for a rainy day so previous profits aren't going to help much. Remember also that under current accounting methods quite a few NATS staff are actually paid for by the capital investment programme and therefore their jobs are dependant upon NATS being able to fund that investment and funding that investment depends upon being able to reinvest the profit.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Although it has been making profits it has spent most of that money on the capital investment programme and reducing its debt.

And an alleged 13% pay rise for our glorious leader let's not forget.

[anotherthing]

And an alleged £50 million dividend this year to the airlines... but even after the dividend has been paid clear profits are rumoured to be in excess of another £50 million plus...

[Del Prado]

Be careful not to confuse budget shortfall with loss, you can make a profit and still have a shortfall in your budget

Just not quite as big a profit as you'd like?


BTW, the 10% reduction you are quoting, is that flights or revenue?
The higher revenue flights are not down by nearly as much as the less lucrative traffic.

[eglnyt]

And an alleged 13% pay rise for our glorious leader let's not forget.

You won't ever find me defending executive pay. I'm firmly in the camp that can't see how one individual can be worth so much whether they work for NATS or a bank or anywhere else. I'm also not convinced that the mutual arrangement whereby a group of executives from other companies get to set the rate in ours and vice versa actually sets a fair market rate for executive pay. I would however point out that it wasn't actually a pay rise. If you set somebody's pay set on performance and one year they don't hit that target and the next year they do the subsequent increase in pay isn't really a pay rise.

And an alleged £50 million dividend this year to the airlines

I have a slightly different view on that. The shareholders including me haven't had a fair rate of return in the good years. If a slightly higher dividend is paid this year it will redress that a bit especially as it's unlikely that one will be paid for the next couple of years.

BTW, the 10% reduction you are quoting, is that flights or revenue?
The higher revenue flights are not down by nearly as much as the less lucrative traffic.

The downturn is based on CSUs rather than traffic. It's a much better indicator of actual income in NERL than traffic as it takes into account the difference between lucrative and less lucrative traffic. You can find the figures on the Eurocontrol Charging site which Pelton Level posts links to from time to time.

[PeltonLevel]

BTW, the 10% reduction you are quoting, is that flights or revenue?
The higher revenue flights are not down by nearly as much as the less lucrative traffic. The chargeable units for December and January are down 8.2% and 8.3% on the previous years - better than 10%, but not much, particularly when rates are set at RPI-x. There may have been some windfall gains on exchange rates in the latter part of 2008 but NATS hedges most of its route charges income.:{
(see EUROCONTROL - Service Units Forecast (http://www.eurocontrol.int/crco/public/standard_page/su_forecast_main.html) )
The latest predictions were due last week but still haven't been posted - don't expect too much cheer when they are issued.

[jonny B good]

When we talk about invstors/shareholders not having had an adequate return on their investment, we need to remember that this return does not need to be in the form of dividends. An increase in the value of your shares is also a return, and one which can be reflected in the individual shareholders company accounts. I would say a return where ones share value has increased from approx £0.80 to £2.50 in 8yrs isn't so bad. That equates to the FTSE increasing by 300% over the same period. Not such a bad return really!:hmm:

[eglnyt]

Be careful not to confuse the artificial price set to allow a pseudo trade in the employee share holding with the actual value of NATS or its shares.

Some of the airlines which form the Airline Group are not public companies so it's quite hard to see what value they put on their Airline Group shareholding and some don't put a figure in their Annual Reports. Those that do seemed to assume a value last year of about £10.5 million on an original investment of £6.6 million. Not bad but well down on the 300%. As FTSE shares have fallen about 30% since those reports it would be reasonable to assume some adjustment in NATS share valuation based on likely future income and dividend will be reflected in their 2008/2009 reports when they are published. Their shareholding value is probably just a little bit more than they paid for it but as there's no real market nobody knows for sure.

[xzulu]

In reply to ImnotanERIC's earlier post....

Can any one recall what happended when Mode S was first introduced into OPs. Was there a smooth transition? Was it well received by the Ops room?

[Radarspod]

Assuming you mean Mode S Tools in the ops room, it was extremely well received if I recall, although there had to be a new RDP build pretty much straight afterwards as some minor assumptions made in simulations weren't quite the same as reality when it came to the levels of Mode S equipage in the transponder population and some related indications - if I've got that wrong I'm sure an LTC bod will say so. No where near as bad as AMAN's introduction. :mad:

Meanwhile, back on thread..............:}

[anotherthing]

Xzulu

Mode S was very well received in the Ops room. There were some moans about some superfluous information causing excess clutter on the radar, and they got fixed immediately.

There will always be some moans when new kit etc is introduced - it's what comes naturally to an ATCO - the time ATCOs don't whinge when something new has been introduced is the time to sit up and worry.

The difference is the whinges about Mode S were done and dusted after about a week. Thereafter there were MORs put in because some airline operator were seen to be deviating from what was condered should have been the norm.

[kinglouis]

Pay anyone???

[FDP_Walla]

Pay. I hear that the Union bods walked out on Fri. There must be a union announcement soon.
Less than RPI is a cut in our conditions after accepting all the recent changes. That is of course last years RPI.

[Vote NO]

We should be getting 5.8% (Aug RPI+1%) minimum :hmm:

If Nats are offering 0%, then I expect to meet them half way and get 3%, at the very least :ok:

[Radarspod]

If Nats are offering 0%, then I expect to meet them half way and get 3%, at the very least

Absolutely! :ok:

[055166k]

The union is well aware of deficiencies in its communication with the membership.....or so I was led to believe! I am concerned at the lack of touchy-feely union/membership chats to gauge the willingness or otherwise of the workforce to consider industrial action.......and exactly what level of offer would be needed to persuade worker opinion against a strike vote.
Bit too much going on in little secret rooms with no feedback for my liking!

[hold at SATAN]

If Nats are offering 0%, then I expect to meet them half way and get 3%, at the very least

RPI is historical data - i.e. prices have already gone up by that amount. Anything below RPI is a pay cut in real terms, so 3% is indeed a pay cut in real terms and thus should stick to no less than RPI - Aug08 or Sep08 figures, whichever we normally use - not latest

[anotherthing]

RPI is historical data - i.e. prices have already gone up by that amount. Anything below RPI is a pay cut in real terms, so 3% is indeed a pay cut in real terms and thus should stick to no less than RPI - Aug08 or Sep08 figures, whichever we normally use - not latestToo right, in fact despite low inflation and an economic downturn, prices that we, the consumer are paying, continue to increase. Petrol prices have risen to around 10p a litre more than some 3 months ago, and food prices continue to go up...

...The most popular cuts of lamb, pork and beef are up by as much as 59% in a year, putting enormous pressure on household budgets...

Meat prices rise - report dated 2nd March 2009 (http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=479797&in_page_id=2).

It's in the Mirror - it must be true! (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/03/01/credit-crunch-31-rise-in-price-of-meat-115875-21161672/)

A pay award of last Augusts RPI (a reflection of the year up to August 2008) would in effect be a standard of living freeze at best, and a standard of living cut in some opinion.

August 2009 RPI+1 is what we should be aiming to get - we should be claiming initially for higher to ensure we get it...

[rumouroid]

055166K

Couldn't agree with you more. O.K. so the reps walked out of the pay meeting last Friday, I'm pretty sure management consider that a good result, no negotiations mean no pay rise, which is exactly what they want.
It's time to up the ante and start talking about industrial action unless a sensible offer is made my a certain deadline, scaremongering and propaganda works both ways. In the Profile magazine other similiar Professional groups managed a 3-4% pay rise, so why can't we negotiate the same?
Please can the Prospect reps organise some question and answer sessions so that they can give and receive ideas on how their members should proceed to get this deal through soon, because the longer we wait the worse position we will be in.
The Jan 2009 pay deal is based on August 2008 RPI and NOTHING ELSE, it must be stressed that current traffic levels and RPI must not be used in the negotiations by management. The August 2009 RPI will probably be negative for the Jan 2010 pay talks and that is why it's SO important to ensure we don't come away with nothing now.

[Vote NO]

O.K. so the reps walked out of the pay meeting last Friday, I'm pretty sure management consider that a good result, no negotiations mean no pay rise, which is exactly what they want.


As soon as you walk out you have lost the arguement. If this is the case our reps have a lot to learn.:oh: They should have held their ground and let management walk out

Any news on pay rise negotiations ?

[Scuzi]

As soon as you walk out you have lost the arguement. If this is the case our reps have a lot to learn. They should have held their ground and let management walk outWithout knowing what was said or what went on in the meeting, it is not prudent to draw up such conclusions. I do hope the union are taking a very firm stance though. If we lose this "round" we're screwed quite badly for the forseeable future.

[Vote NO]

It would help if we at least heard something after 5 days. What happened to improved comms? :rolleyes:

[ImnotanERIC]

people are living in dreamland if they think our union are capable (currently) of getting anywhere near last aug rpi.
You are also living in dreamland if you think that a) industrial action would ever even be put to the membership and
b) our membership would ever vote yes.

[man friday]

being one of nats Gib atcos we had a different pay deal over the past three years to the rest of the company.

Last year we got 3.3% ,a lower rise than the UK figure, the same was the case in the previous 2 years.

i'm willing to bet my bollocks that this year we'll be treated the same as the rest of the company for a change and get fcuk all too !!!

[Radarspod]

You are also living in dreamland if you think that a) industrial action would ever even be put to the membership and
b) our membership would ever vote yes.

I don't agree, I actually think that this time it is likely to. I voted YES to the pension changes as I believe it was (and still is) the right thing to have done. But now the management are properly taking the p*** and I actually feel strongly enough that if it came to ballot I would be out there with everyone else (where can I buy a donkey jacket??), and I am often accused of being a company man!!:confused:. If I feel that strongly, then there is most likely a considerable amount of the membership like me who feel the same if nor more strongly that something needs to be done, especially those who were against the pension changes.

Vote NO - if it goes to a ballot, will you be changing your name? :}

RS

[Vote NO]

I will change it to "Give me a pay rise" :ok:

[Quincy M.E.]

Sorry Ive not been on prune for ages and cant be bothered to read through 22 pages (!) but has anyone mentioned that the company has mentioned nothing about there even being any talks?

What the fnck is NATS Net for if not something like this? The only reason I know that they are taking place is because the union let me know. My collegues who are not in the union have no idea what is going on. I have spoken to HR and they just fob me off and have also ignored emails I have sent to them.

[45 before POL]

Nats net is for management to put out their own stories as they wish, spin spin spin:}:}:}

[rumouroid]

Natsnet is also where if you put something controversial that management don't like you get one of those yellow messages from Starbucks command, and if you're really lucky you get an invite to meet Barron for him to personally brainwash you, as happened to some people over the pension proposal comments on the natsnet.
Anything less then August 2008 RPI of 4.8% is a saving for NATS towards its £45 million, as it's charges increased by this amount because they are also based on the August RPI. So if NATS give us a 4% pay rise they can claim a saving of 0.8%, which equates to about £3 million.
Sounds like a fair compromise to me, I'd vote yes to 4%, anyone else?

[45 before POL]

But a payfreeze would allow them to give the 4.8% to their shareholders in dividends:E:E:E at least we might get a payrise of a couple of quid in divi payments....coffee anyone??? :ouch:

[rumouroid]

One more scary thing I forgot to mention that I heard at work today from a Prospect rep, at the pay meeting last Friday NATS are already bleating again that they can't afford the NEW pension proposal costs, inparticular NSL can't pay the necessary contributions to support it. Bye, Bye NSL.
So expect some more propaganda on the natsnet about taking a pay freeze, which equates to a 4.8% pay cut, to save the NEW pension scheme.
Since the "yes" vote on the first pension proposal, the scheme is a sitting duck for management to chip away at, along with all our other terms and conditions. I still find it hard to believe "we" voted yes, I can sort of understand the admin staff who don't have the job security that ATCO's do, but why on earth would 60% of ATCO's have voted yes? I'll never fathom that out.:ugh:

[Jungle Jingle Jim]

I guess if you have lived in cloud cuckooland for the last 15 years the Red Barron would scare you to death into voting yes!

I voted NO and I still await the memorandum, or was that a LIE?

The problem that I have is that I did not believe the pension hype by management last year, so I damned well will not believe anything else that appears from NATSNet or the lips of the Red Man's lips!

I know NSL is in MELTDOWN, but that is a senior management issue. There is the sword, now go and do the sensible thing LH!

I do not trust Prospect either whom I personally believe fell under the Barron's pension deficit spell!

Lawrence and Paul are best buddies, just remember that folks!

And to the YES voters, don't moan when more of your T's & C's are eliminated!

I will forgo a pay rise if NATS pays NIL dividend.

Strange how within CTCland, folk with numerous years of service are being accepted for voluntary redundancy, whilst those with fewer years are not? Could I be wrong in suspecting that NATS wants the huge pay offs to reduce its underline profit for 80-09?

Staff are walking with 2-3 years salary, when others that applied with 2-3 year service are being declined.

If those that are walking are being subsidised by early retirement via our pension scheme, those that vote YES need medical assistance! Can our scheme cope with this additional cost?

[PeltonLevel]

I voted NO and I still await the memorandum, or was that a LIE?I don't know how good communications is in your section, but I received an NTUS update today (Friday), which stated:
"The MOU has now been signed by all parties and this will be available shortly on the NTUS web site on NATS Intranet."
If those that are walking are being subsidised by early retirement via our pension scheme, those that vote YES need medical assistance! Can our scheme cope with this additional cost?As far as I am aware, all VR offers are cash based - no-one is even being offered early access to the 40-year rule. I think that the aim is to burn off some of the 2008/09 profits to minimise the tax paid. I believe that all agreements have to be signed before the end of March so that any compensation payments made can be accrued this financial year.

[BDiONU]

Natsnet is also where if you put something controversial that management don't like you get one of those yellow messages from Starbucks command,
Its only recently that they've started to impose the rules you now sign up to before you make a response. If your message gets edited you've no one to blame but yourself for being stupid. If management really didn't want to hear responses then they wouldn't have provided the opportunity to allow everyone to write in, or they'd have removed it after a short period. I think its very telling that this communications opportunity exists.
and if you're really lucky you get an invite to meet Barron for him to personally brainwash you, as happened to some people over the pension proposal comments on the natsnet.
You mean those people who were full of p1ss and vinegar but didn't have the balls to speak to PB personally? Or do you mean those who wrote libelous comments (about DB9's etc) thinking they could hide behind the anonymity of the internet and get away with it? I thought it showed the mans committment that he is prepared, as the CEO of a major company, to make time to see people who seem particularly hard of understanding and try and better inform them.
Sounds like a fair compromise to me, I'd vote yes to 4%, anyone else?
I would if there was any chance of that being on the table. Given the recent sackings of some high powered managers, the redundancies and the letting go of 50% of contractors I somehow doubt there will be a reasonable pay offer.

BD

[throw a dyce]

Well the only time I had the balls to speak to Mr B,I came in on a day off,no Toil.His opening gambit was he believed that ATCOs were 20% overpaid,to the lowest paid in Nats.He then played some music,and then spent half the time in the corridor on the mobile,as if he really couldn't give a stuff.Came across a bit CJ ish to me.I didn't get where I am today without talking about trains.Not bad for someone with a 13% pay rise,flash car allegedly,and a thirst for screwing the staff to boost his bonus.
LH I do not understand what he says.Had the chance to spend half an hour with a universal translator,but hey I got better things to do on my responsibilty free break.
Everyone in NERL and NSL should be given the chance of VR.Probably get flattened by the stampede,if the shares pay out is anything to go by.

[PH-UKU]

[QUOTE][they could hide behind the anonimity of the internet /QUOTE]

Personally I think NATS should have a zero tolernace policy toward sloppy spelling, sloppy html, and grammer). :8

If you cant spell propperly (or use Spellchecker) you should be sacked - instantlly ! :p

Next?












(obviously this doesn't need to apply to operational staff ;) )

[Geffen]

grammar.... ;)

[beaver liquor]

tolerance...:uhoh:

[anotherthing]

BD

you wrote:


I would if there was any chance of that being on the table. Given the recent sackings of some high powered managers, the redundancies and the letting go of 50% of contractors I somehow doubt there will be a reasonable pay offer.
The thing is, the managers are being replaced, the posts still exist.

The redundancies - some would say that we have been running overstaffed in some areas for some time.

Contractors - see above (notwithstanding that getting rid of contractors is an easy option for NATS - means they don't have to pay redundancy, and they don't have to advertise the fact that we are making so many redundancies. The fact it may be a knee jerk reaction ridding us of people we actually need is another matter)

[eyeinthesky]

propperly...:E

[BDiONU]

BDThe thing is, the managers are being replaced, the posts still exist.
The 2 at swanwick are (but are the replacements posts being filled?) but there are others which aren't as 'in yer face' as the happenings at Swanwick.
The redundancies - some would say that we have been running overstaffed in some areas for some time.

Contractors - see above
You are PB and I claim my £10!!

BD

[Vote NO]

Eight days since last meeting about pay, any news other than "the reps walked out" ? :confused:

Doesn't tell us much does it? :oh:

[3miles]

Whats the truth in the rumour that NSL is for sale and thats what the latest union get together is about?

[PeltonLevel]

"It is disappointing to report that a number of scheduled meetings have been cancelled although we did meet with management on the 27th February. It is equally disappointing to report that, despite our expectation that NATS would make a formal offer at that meeting, none was forthcoming.
The next joint meeting is scheduled for the 16th March with further dates of 23rd March and 3rd April in the diary."

There does seem to be a bit of a communications problem affecting some posters on this site - still, you can't make a decent rumour using real facts, can you?

[Ceannairceach]

The redundancies at my unit - MACC - certainly in the most part don't come from areas where we're overstaffed.

[PH-UKU]

cant ;)

[terrain safe]

Never mind the punctuation, you appear to have used the wrong vowel to describe our supreme leader. :E:ok:

[radar707]

Union BEC have called a special delegates conference for next month to discuss issues relating to NSL which have become apparent during talks with management. Sell off anyone? Closing Pension scheme for NSL?

More news next week after BEC meets on 11th and 12th

[Vote NO]

Thanks for the update :ok:

Makes me mad about NSL sell off rumours. I asked the union bod (Scots guy) at the pension briefing about NSL and he lost the plot, went red with anger and denied it would be sold off once the pension deal went through.:mad: I then told him he was living in cloud cuckoo land :eek:. I lost faith in our Union after that. If they do sell NSL off they can shove their membership where the sun don't shine :mad:

[anotherthing]

The latest contract we have 'won' (sounds a bit like ebay where they say you've won the item... that you are paying for) does not exactly have good repercussions financially for either the pension pot, or NATS collectively, or dare I say it NSL if NATS are looking to get rid.

Basically, as far as Ts and Cs (including pension) are concerned, we're (NATS collectively, old scheme members and new) screwed.

[3miles]

Just seems very scary that this meeting, which again the union's great communication skills, dont actually specify what these "Areas" of concern are. Specifically mentions NSL, and not just NATS as a whole.

Is this possibly linked to the shambles that is the manchester airport contract, in that they have discovered just how much money is being waisted there? ATCO's in offices on ATCO1 pay, 3 Managers per watch. For a unit that as recorded movements of less than 300 some days. They've realised how much money is being waisted there, and have now turned their eyes to other NSL contracts that are struggling and having pressure put on them by the airport operators to cut costs.

Perhaps they are looking at a regrading of the bands again, or maybe a seperate pay deal for NSL units. Or just plain simply selling it off, or some of it.

Personally I think we deserve a pay rise, but as any pay rise is a percentage one, and a percentage of more is more, there is some real issues with the banding system within NSL. A DWM at a atco 3 unit with 20 years service, 2 or 3 ratings(ratings not just validations) earns less than a Luton/stansted approach controller with 8 years service who does nothing but control. Im sorry but I cant see the justification that EGCC have ATCO1 watchmanagers that dont have to plug in very often, yet then have a DWM on ATCO1 Substitution pay, and a SCOD on ATCO1 Substitution pay, then a whole bunch of ATCO1/2 sitting in office doing work the 3 managers could do on each watch. An ATSA3/4 per watch to manage the assistants, all in a unit that as a fairly simple approach in sense of complexity, ok a fairly complex ground, and has had a massive downturn in traffic, with some days not even shifting 300 movements. and also for the last however many years, have been losing millions a year, undoing any good the rest of NSL do.

So when it comes to looking at pay rises if there one pot of money to give them out in, then if you have to give more to some than others, then that means there going to be less to give in general, So some of the dross needs to go, the bands need to be fair, the scales for WM, DWM, LCE's needs to reflect the work they do and not just the Unit its at. Then when you come along to negotiate payrises what actually comes out is fairer. Rather than those that are losing us money actually getting a better share of it!

In a selfish world we should all be bumped upto the EGCC terms, but in a real world, yes we deserve a pay rise, yes I'd vote yes to industrial action on a pay freeze, yes I'd vote yes to Industrial action, if they tried to apply unfair Banding, but If they choose to bump EGCC to come in line with the rest of the NSL units im sorry for once i'd be inclined to agree with management.

[Vote NO]

How much will Nats lose over the EGCC contract over 5 years ? :eek:
Is this "contract" designed to stop rivals offering lower bids? Lets face it, you cant offer less than f**k all :mad:

Sounds like we are rapidly becoming the Ryanair of ATC :}

[3miles]

They technically shouldnt lose anything on it, as it a non profit contract, but of course if they dont cuts costs then one, we wont make profit, two, as other costs increase...namely paying ATCO1's payrises then the ability to keep it at non profit or turn it into profit making doesnt happen.

Its good that we retained this contract, not just for the people at EGCC, but because losing it could have caused us other issues, MAG providing ATC at EGCC, along with EGNX, EGHH, EGNJ would have been cause for concern, having EGCC in their portfolio would have made them look like a contender to provide ATC elsewhere, and would have justified them setting up a dedicated ATC support system to do just that, other NSL units could have come under fire.

There are also issues where the economics of supporting CTC, NSL HQ etc, could be effected by losing contracts. However it still shows by the fact that we got into this state in the first place that there is so serious inefficiencies within some parts of NATS/NSL. EGCC seems to be still living from the days of it being run by an Area supervisor, and hiding its inefficiencies within the NERL MACC that there. When they all leave and it becomes obvious the amount of people sitting around on massive salairies for a unit that is losing traffic left right and center. They may realise that it time for some creative accounting. IF the rest of NSL have to have managers that control as much as the staff, work on their breaks, dont have dedicated safety managers, LCE co-ordinators that sit in offices, managers for assistants, 3 managers per watch, then I dont see why EGCC should, fine if you are EGLL making mega bucks, but when you've been losing mega bucks for years, I think you have to accept that the good times are over.

[Vote NO]

Thanks for replying

[Hootin an a roarin]

Union BEC have called a special delegates conference for next month to discuss issues relating to NSL which have become apparent during talks with management

At which management have been invited to give a presentation.

F**k me. So they can convince our reps with massaged figures etc. When will the higher echelons of the union grow some balls? I also hear that management are trying to screw NSL but for the moment the union is holding firm. A withdrawal of the NERL AAVA agreement has been suggested but thrown out by the NERL side (major majority) of the union reps. Thanks for the support, as this would be a major slap to management.

It will only be a matter of time before the union caves in, NERL get a rise (with LHR no doubt) and NSL get left way behind again. Don't tell me Prospect, your hands are tied!

[ImnotanERIC]

nsl is gone then. is this the point where people get to say "i told you so?"

Let me be the first..........


(clears throat) I TOLD YOU SO.

[Standard Noise]

Christ I hope this isn't true, I'm not sure how much of the hokey cokey my career can take - Yer inside NATS, yer outside NATS, back in, out again, screw yer pension up.
All cos some tw4t wants to make a few bob before fecking off to screw some other poor b4stards.:ugh:

[ForrestGrump]

If a prime reason to 'Down Band' a unit is a drop in traffic,then surely pretty much every NSL unit bar EGLL and EGLC would have to take a drop in Banding, this may also have repercussions at NERL with regards to some of the Approach Radar provided there i.e EGSS/EGGW - can't see it happening as it would open a massive can of worms:eek:. You only have to look at the weekly stats on the NATSNET (if you can be ar$ed) to see the substantial drop in traffic most units are suffering.

[PeltonLevel]

Even EGLL might suffer a drop if the airlines get their way!


A group of European airlines has asked the European Commission to suspend the rules that govern how long an airline can hold its landing and take-off slots at European airports. In a letter to the Commission, the Association of European Airlines (AEA) said that current rules – which dictate that an airline must use all of its slots 80% of the time, or face losing them to other airlines the following year – could create difficulties for airlines cutting capacity during the current economic crisis. © 2009 European Voice. All rights reserved.

[Hootin an a roarin]

If a prime reason to 'Down Band' a unit is a drop in traffic,then surely pretty much every NSL unit bar EGLL and EGLC would have to take a drop in Banding

This has never been the case. Our units' figures continually beat Brum and have since the day banding was brought in and they are the next band up.

It's too political to separate the Scottish airports and will not happen. We won't be part of NATS soon anyway and with the way things are going roll on that day. I must pass on my commiserations to Manchester who have had their Nats contract renewed.

[Grumpyoldgit]

3miles sounds like somebody who failed an assessment at EGCC and has a chip the size of Mount Everest on his/her shoulder. bet he/her voted yes to the pension changes too!

[throw a dyce]

Well Grumpy,if Manchester's traffic keeps falling at the same rate,then you'll all be Atco 3's soon.The rest of NSL has been bailing out the Manchester contract for years.That includes units that have already had terms and conditions slashed.Why should we tolerate one unit sitting fat,dumb and happy,sneering at very experienced staff from so called lower band units,and it's lost millions.
Maybe a cold dose of reality is what's needed.It's coming but not on a scale that other units have received.:*

[Grumpyoldgit]

throwa dyce.It might interest you to know that we still have not recovered from the last 5 year "shafting" we received. Its not that long ago that we were shifting upwards of 800 movements a day without the full compliment of staff.
Its not our fault the way the contracts are negotiated & we are under no illusions as to what is going to happen
I object to the likes of you & 3miles insinuating that we sit on our fat ar__s doing nothing. You have no more idea what goes on at EGCC than I do at Aberdeen & where ever 3miles resides.
Management must laugh there socks of at what get published here.
I have been in this game for more than 25 years & I have never seen a more divided set of controllers in all my life!! Who is responsible for that.
Our union & management. Its about time we all stood up for each and everyone of us regardless of where we reside.
Oh, I forget, some controllers would sell their grannies for a few quid!!

[Flybywyre]

I have never seen a more divided set of controllers in all my life!!
Who is responsible for that. Our union & management.

When it comes to the current NTUS can anyone spot the difference between the two :confused:

[Hootin an a roarin]

Its not that long ago that we were shifting upwards of 800 movements a day without the full compliment of staff.

Maybe if the manc selection process was all transparent then this may not have happened. In the past before movement between NSL units became almost impossible you could have filled your seats. However too many managers at Manc up their own backsides, a well renowned face fitting culture plus a big unit attitude because you are co-located with NERL has all contributed to this situation. Why not fill the void with even more area controllers and their unqualified girlfriends? That is why people have a chip on their shoulder/are bitter because the whole process has never been above board. Why has it ever been necessary for a qualified NATS TWR/App controller to have an interview to do the same job? It does not happen at Heathrow so is Manc so much harder?

I'm afraid your management have created this problem.

[throw a dyce]

That's if you could get an assessment.Controllers who were valid in 3 ratings,OJTI etc were even been refused an assessment.The reason was that our GM at the time,was prepared to lie on application forms,as our own unit was in dire straights staffing wise.Couldn't be released.People found out and complained.They then went to be assessed and failed for no reason.Couldn't be released.
I really can't see what shafting EGCC has had.They are Band 4 with no more difficult job than Band 2 units.They have losses that are now coming to light.They have been completely untouched,until now.Perhaps Grumpy should open his eyes to what has happened at other NSL units,mainly due to NTUS agreements.:suspect:

[Grumpyoldgit]

Hootin an a roarin. You may well be completely correct-I couldn`t possibly comment!! However, as stated before, after already having been shafted in the previous 5 year contract, I do know that the guys & galls at the coal face on my watch do not have chips on their shoulders. They just do & have done, their best to provide a service to the customer, be it the airport authority or airline, under whatever circumstances are thrown at them!!
Just as you & all the other Nats controllers do at their respective units.

If there are controllers(or management bods for that matter) at EGCC who do have "chips" & "egos", then I`m sure they will know who they are & I apologise on their behalf. Please do not tar the guys & galls at the coal face with the same brush.
ps. I can hazzard a guess that under the new contract, we will no longer understaffed!!! However, we always have a choice in life- either work the new practices or move on to pastures new.
Rant over!!:ugh:

[Grumpyoldgit]

Quote "Perhaps Grumpy should open his eyes to what has happened at other NSL units,mainly due to NTUS agreements"
Ahhh We finally have the nub of the matter- the union & management setting controllers against each other. Smell the coffee folks. I`m sure a could find something better to do with my union subscription!!:D

[loubylou]

PS - you most certainly DO have to have an assessment AND in in depth interview about NSL, in order to either get an ATCO job at Heathrow OR TC ,
even moving between the "same" grade

louby

[anotherthing]

louby,

by 'TC' I assume you mean Heathrow App function... not for any other position

[Vote NO]

Let me get this right and myself up to speed !!:{..........

NATS have a new contract for five years to provide ATC at EGCC. The staff there are "secure" for the next five years, but they now have to take a pay cut :mad: to reemburse NATS for the the lost revenue which they (NATS) agreed in the new "contract". Also are we now using our "dry powder" :zzz: to reignite the flames of a "threat of industrial action" :eek: to stop the pay cut at Manch, and stop NATS from trying it on elsewhere :suspect: ?

[Geffen]

Does anybody know what is actually going on? I sincerely hope that the guys n' gals up at EGCC aren't looking at a pay cut.

[Traffic is...]

I'm sure the union will do the right thing (:suspect:), but if EGCC do end up taking a pay cut and nothing is done about it, then it will only be a matter of months before another airport is taking a pay cut, then another, etc....

[Hootin an a roarin]

PS - you most certainly DO have to have an assessment AND in in depth interview about NSL, in order to either get an ATCO job at Heathrow OR TC ,
even moving between the "same" grade

No you don't.

If you actually read what I said I did not state that you didn't have to have an assessment, I said an interview. You do not have to be 'grilled' by 2 managers to become an ATCO2 at Heathrow whilst at Manc you do. And why? Your credentials are known and proven within the company it's just a change of airspace to learn and an increase in traffic. Why interview, it is not a management position. If you put your head up above the parapet and pass the assessment at LHR you are in London before your feet touch the ground. However when you did your assessment, force fed I believe by your current MATC which you stated at the time, you did not have an interview because there wasn't time. That however was a one off.

Grumpy

Again I never said anyone at Manc had chips on their shoulders. I was responding to accusations from others who point to people who might have been unsuccessful in getting into Manc and are then accused of having this.
If everything was above board there would be no bitterness but it hasn't always been like that over the years. When your ex GM sent out a memo stating only a maximum of 3 area controllers (if successfull) would be accepted that guaranteed 3 area controllers WOULD be accepted. Lo and behold.

I have nothing personal against the coal face workers at Manc but again state that your problems have been created by a pompous attitude and the big unit mentality which lies fairly and squarely at senior mangements feet.
Hope it all works out well for the coal face

Regards

[Hootin an a roarin]

I have no problem about having to do a practical assessment in order to move to a busier unit - but agree that having to do an in depth interview for - as you say - essentially another controlling job is not reasonable.

We agree, hurrah! i'll leave it there.

p.s. good luck for the wedding

[loubylou]

Another thing
- yes I meant TC on the approach side - I don't know what would happen if someone wanted to dust off old area ratings.

Hootin' -
Yes you do - I have a friend who has had to do just that - assessment AND interview about NSL's hopes dreams , vision blah

louby

[anotherthing]

Yahoo - I was rather hoping we could get rid of some of the managers we have at Swanwick already, and making the roles non existent... we certainly don't need any more of them!!! That way we could protect the Ts and Cs of the rank and file at Manchester and save money to boot.

The best way would be to look at the roles, if they really are needed, keep them in place, if not, terminate the contract. The days of a guaranteed job for life have long gone, especially in PCG land (and not before time I might add).

I assume this talk of pay cuts for Manchester staff is pure speculation at this point??

If Manchester airport are re-banded, will Manchester AC be re-banded as well?

[Gonzo]

Interview for LHR....

No you don't....Errrr, yes you do.

[45 before POL]

ANy PCG grade managers at Manch??? They will probably be sweating at the moment as the axe has started to swing. 1 at Swanwick gone with immediate effect and a number of others told post going, with others subject to an interview..:E:E

[opnot]

Hootin and Roarin
the three area atcos who where offered positions on twr/app all held validations in the tower. one has regained his tower validation quite quickly, one is coming across when the centre closes and the other is doing something else. It would seem prudent in terms of training time and money to offer those positions to people who have already held validations in the tower

[anotherthing]

45 before POL

I know of one PCG at Swanwick who has gone with immediate effect - but he is being replaced... in fact, already has been.

Another one has moved sideways within the company, although the e-mail inferred he was leaving NATS. Again once he has moved sideways, someone else is taking up his old post.

I have also heard on good authority that we are keeping all 5 OM's.

So as far as I can see, we have not made any savings as yet on management positions.

I do have it on good authority that one ATCO who has been unable to validate and has been hiding in an office on top of the scale pay will be going though... not before time, but not a huge saving.

We seem to be getting rid of a load of ATSAs - not sure if letters have gone out yet - it was supposed to be yesterday but it did not happen. I think they are to be gone by the end of the month.

So when the summer schedules kick in (and I am sure people will actually be surprised at the traffic levels - they won't be as low as some may think), we are going to be woefully short of ATSAs, especially in TC - any balancing between the two Ops rooms will require retraining, but there will be nobody to do it!

I can see overtime happening in the TC Ops room for ATSAs within the next 2 months. :ugh:

Once again, a case of management looking after themselves and not doing what is best for NATS, or dare I say it,the provision of a safe service.

[Hootin an a roarin]

Opnot

Taking away an NSL controllers promotion prospects because an area controller has decided to side step is poor. From a business point of view it makes sense I agree but that doesn't make it right.

Plus (if we are talking about the situation from a few years back) when one of those controllers takes his other half with him, or was doing at the time, because he was successful and they couldn't give it one without the other is scandalous. Especially when the said person was not previously valid but no doubt was the best on the selection day as said controller's boyfriend's mates were the ones conducting the selection tests. Very incestuous. That is where the 'chips on the shoulder' come from and lack of transparency.

[45 before POL]

Another thing ..There is one you have not mentioned that will be going and not sideways. As for posts being replaced? yes its true with the one that went with immediate effect, but what happened to their old post? Somewhere there is a void ........I quite agree...... with all the cuts planned , atsa's /personnel/ engineering/contractors again a kneejerk reaction,and an excuse to maximise profits. Looks like the beancounters are out to save money but in reality, come the summer traffic even if it is at 2005 levels(worst case scenario) is still busy and with less atsas to man sectors in AC and there is already overtime given out. TC being cut to the bone....i don't know where the unions will go with this as I can see a push for compulsory overtime at some point by management. Delays???? Hmmm I think management and the public might find themselves in for a shock(IMO):sad::sad::sad:the direction the company is going is worrying

[45 before POL]

nepotism is nothing new and been around for hundreds of years:ooh: many companies have been guilty of it, but the level they do it and how blatent is another =:=

[Vote NO]

Traffic is


I'm sure the union will do the right thing (http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/cwm13.gif), but if EGCC do end up taking a pay cut and nothing is done about it, then it will only be a matter of months before another airport is taking a pay cut, then another, etc....


Did the "Union" :suspect: know about this special contract and did they agree to it? :oh: . Did the staff at EGCC know about it, and accept it to stay in situ, and have they set a precedent? :eek:

I will take silence to mean "yes" :mad:

[kinglouis]

Was there a big union meeting today?

Just got to work and ive heard again that our twatty company are pushing for not only a pay freeze, but a spine point freeze also.
With the execs all walking round getting big arse bonuses, they expect ops staff to take this ****e..... i dont care if mister b says a bonus is a 'gamble' or however he dresses it up. my pay and my spine points are my contract.... no gamble there so you can go swivel.

Anyone shed some light?

[anotherthing]

The pay spine freeze rumour has been around for a while. According to a well placed union rep I know it is just that - a rumour with no substance.

A pay freeze is one thing and easy to implement (if it's not challenged), a pay spine freeze is a change in a condition of our contract - not so easy.

[RPIplus1]

There's certainly no "promotion freeze" at the moment from what I hear.

[anotherthing]

Kinglouis

If I were management I think it would be very wise to say to the unions

"Not only do we need you to accept a pay freeze, but we cannot afford to pay spine point increases this year either".

The union will huff and puff and, as has happened, the rumour will get out into the public domain.

It does not even need to have a shred of truth in it - as soon as a rumour starts doing the rounds stating that management want a spine point freeze, they are onto a winner.

It means that in negotiations, if the union are unable to get a pay rise but we still get our annual pay spine, some suckers are going to think that we have done well.

In actual fact what will have happened is that the management have got exactly what they wanted (a pay freeze), whilst we pat ourselves on the backs for 'negotiating' what is contractually (and written in the employee handbook) ours anyways i.e. the annual pay spine.

The pay spine freeze is merely a rumour - and a very bad, unsubstantiated one at that. No one should even give it a second thought for exactly the reason above!!!

[vespasia]

Never forget that anything less than last August RPI is a pay cut, exactly last August RPI is a pay freeze. Only RPI plus anything can be seen as a pay rise.

[Del Prado]

Are NATS charges going up by a margin based on august RPI?

[rumouroid]

Del Prado,
Yes, NATS charges go up by the August RPI, which is why our pay rise is also based on the August RPI, because then NATS knows how much extra revenue it will be receiving and therefore how much it can pass on to staff in the form of a pay rise.

Pay meeting tomorrow!

[250 kts]

Never forget that anything less than last August RPI is a pay cut, exactly last August RPI is a pay freeze. Only RPI plus anything can be seen as a pay rise.

So if RPI is say, -2.5% next August as it is forecast to be, do you still expect an above 0% pay rise in 2010?

I think we will do well to get anything above 2.5% for 2009 but if this were tied into say, another 2% in 2010 then I think that would be a reasonable deal should a 2 year one be on the table.

[alfie1999]

I've been wondering if the 2 or 3 year pay offer would happen.

I'd sort of assumed that with qe stoking up an inflation inferno over the next year or two nobody would even give it a second thought.

Fantastic move by management if they could tie us in for any sort of extended period.

[landedoutagain]

So if RPI is say, -2.5% next August as it is forecast to be, do you still expect an above 0% pay rise in 2010?

I think we will do well to get anything above 2.5% for 2009 but if this were tied into say, another 2% in 2010

If that was an offer that management were to make, I'd much rather take 4.5% now and 0% for next year. much better for the pension!

[Vote NO]

Any news on the "pay talks" today? :uhoh:

[vespasia]

So if RPI is say, -2.5% next August as it is forecast to be, do you still expect an above 0% pay rise in 2010?


Absolutely not - the point is that NATS management wanted to base pay increases on the previous August RPI when it suited them (i.e. when it was lower than current RPI) and now they want to move the goalposts.

[fisbangwollop]

How will you all feel when the Airline group walk away with a few million in share divis and we get cock all!!!

One thing for sure I will be mighty unhappy if thats the case......in real terms to take a pay cut as basically thats what a pay freeze will mean, just so we can pay the share holders a nice divi....I think not!!!

[Vote NO]

That will be the same Airline group, our co-owners,(makes you proud does it not) two of which forked out £300 million smackers on fines for criminal dealings on fuel price surcharge fixing :mad: . Their former managers who are now in jail or facing jail terms will be comforted by those dividends, I am sure :E. We dont see much about that on the intranet propaganda pages do we? :\