UK - NATS Pay negotiations - latest rumours

[tomtom2003]

ANYBODY GOT ANY INFO ON THE CURRENT PAY NEGOTIATIONS,

IT'S ALL GONE A BIT QUIET

WHO ARE GOING TO BE THE MAIN BENEFICIARIES?

[Scuzi]

What company and where?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Well, for once, NATS pensioners should get 5% - not bad, eh?

[Loki]

HD

Sounds good, where did you get that from?

[vapourer]

Don't think so HD. This year's pension increase will be based on the RPI for February 2009 which is published in March. Perhaps you are thinking of state pension increases which are payable in April 2009 but are based on the RPI for September 2008 which would be around 5%.

[anotherthing]

This is a Rumour Network after all, so has anyone else heard the following...

1. The details of the sale of the old Heathrow tower (realising £45 million) were kept quiet until after pension negotiations were completed - i.e. the profit although known, was not divulged to all parties.

2. The (not for profit investing) Airline Group are going to receive a £19 million dividend.

3. Management are playing hardball and are not negotiating over pay deal. They are whingeing about the fact that we are using the Aug 08 RPI as a base figure, although in the past they have insisted on using the Aug RPI for pay deals (when it was believed the following years RPI would rise, not fall). This is despite the fact they still use it as a basis to charge their customers.

4. The Union has even tried to suggest a middleground which has been dismissed out of hand.

5. Our powder is dry.

OK, I know number 5 is a bit of a stretch, even for a rumour network.

Anyone else been privy to rumours or able to substantiate those above??

[Medway Control]

well who doesnt love a good rumour... so:
1) I believe this to be fact... And totally dont put it past the powers that be
2) Also believe the airline group will get some variety of dividend this year... Not sure about the figure, but I cant see how they wont. As for not for profit, maybe as well be written on a sheet of tesco value toilet paper, for all its worth
3) Also heard this one, and well believe it too! In previous years, it was Aug RPI, we got it shoved down our throats, why arent the union doing the same?
4) Middleground has been offered, and from what i heard turned down. Heard the company say Pay Freeze, end of discussion.
5) 5 is a big stretch, even for this rumour mill... It was as dry as a desert for me on the pension talks, but if we wont take action over pension, will we really take action over a few quid of a pay rise...

Also heard a nastier rumour this week, but it really is totally totally unsubstantiated... Even for a rumour network, its not that a great an idea... Lets see what our union get for us, i'm not planning what i'm gonna spend my rise on, put it that way

[Ceannairceach]

Let's face it though, we've rolled over and had our tummies tickled over pensions - the thing we said we'd never even contemplate compromising on. Now, management have us pretty much over a barrel regarding pay, WP's and anything else they want to alter/shaft us on. And we can hardly complain.....

Also, perhaps it's time we "joined the real world" once and for all. After all, I don't think anyone, in any trade, job or profession, is having an easy time at the moment. Perhaps we should be glad our jobs are safe and take the hits as they come.

Unless you're an ATSA/T&S grade that is. Or an engineer.....or anyone moving up to Scotland from Manchester.

Oh.

[Jungle Jingle Jim]

The YES voters also voted a NO pay rise without realising it!

Prospect and its membership have been rolled over a barrel and shafted BIG TIME.

The Bloody Red Barron has shot yet another group of employees down in flames.

No pay rise in 2009 means that I am earning less compared to last year if you add inflation from Jan 1st 2009.

What next, Prospect advocating a pay freeze?

Vote YES to save NATS.

Vote NO to upset Barron.

[Flybywyre]

WHO ARE GOING TO BE THE MAIN BENEFICIARIES?

NATS and its senior managers ............ :mad: s

[45 before POL]

Well...voting yes has left management laughing and out to test the water thinking they can roll over the union as its members will just vote yes......well if the union recommend no then members will likely vote no...so management be warned! Biggest problem we got at the moment is they will look at the economic climate and how the public will view us with so many losing their jobs, and jump on this to force our hand. Also.....biggest issue is they are discussing redundancies........across the company, numbers to be announced very soon......nice way to maximise profits!! and s@#*# the workforce:=

[PeltonLevel]

The Total Service Units in the EUROCONTROL region are forecast to grow by 2.1% (UK 1.4%) in 2008 (vs. 2007 actual). This forecast is 1.4% (UK 3.2%) below the previous 2008 forecast issued in September 2008.
The Total Service Units in the EUROCONTROL region are forecast to decrease by 3.4% (UK 6.2%) in 2009 (vs. revised 2008 forecast). This forecast is 5.8% (UK 9.2%) below the previous 2009 forecast issued in September 2008.

[ZOOKER]

And a "Total Service Unit" is........??????

[landedoutagain]

total service unit is a french owned garage that does fuel and maintenance...

RB can get stuffed, we should get a pay rise (even if only RPI). Most - maybe all? - units are short staffed. The reduction in traffic thats forecast is not enough to warrant reducing staff numbers (certainly operationally required staff), so we are still short staffed. Demand outweighs supply, and we are also in demand from other ATS providers, ergo, management should not be trying to have their cake and eat it, or the candle might lead to the powder!!

I would even work an hour for free too (but it will be the night of the clocks going forward)

I cant see our esteemed leaders getting much sympathy if there was a strike given that they have cut trainee pay, cut pensions, yet given themselves unnecessary cars and bonuses.

[PeltonLevel]

And a "Total Service Unit" is........?????? A "Service Unit" is what ANSPs in Europe get paid for (the square root of the result obtained by dividing the maximum take-off weight (in metric tons) of the aircraft by 50, multiplied by the distance flown in 100s of km)
AND
a "Total" is a sum, an amount obtained by the addition of smaller amounts
see EUROCONTROL - Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.eurocontrol.int/crco/public/faq/faq_main.html)

[ZOOKER]

Pelton,
Interesting points.
The formula for route charges seems as contrived as a certain ANSPs pay-banding formula, taking the square-root of MTOW divided by 50 etc.
If this is a standard formula, how come NATS route charges are higher? It is of course right that UK ATC should charge slightly more as it is allegedly one of the best ATC services in the world. Basic economics teaches that one should expect to pay slightly more for a premium-quality good or service.
I looked at the CRCO document and the traffic growth graph contained therein. Considering the the rapid growth in recent years, not much of a downturn yet then, (back to 2006ish so far). Just part of the largely greed-driven, boom-bust economic cycle I'm afraid.. Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt(s).
Lots of departures from my local airport while I'm typing this, OPS normal for a Saturday morning in January.

[eglnyt]

The formula for route charges is contrived but enshrined in International agreement. Its the same for all Eurocontrol ANSPS but each country sets its own unit rate to feed into the formula. There are a number of reasons why those rates differ. The UK recovers other costs as well as the pure NATS costs through its route charges which others don't but the main difference is because the actual cost of provision isn't reflected in the charging formula. It costs far more to provide Air Traffic Control in a complex busy environment than it does to provide service to large aircraft in the cruise and Air Traffic Control has a large element of fixed costs which are driven by the peak demand rather than the average load.

The problem for any ANSP in this and any other recession is that when routes are cut and frequencies reduced it immediately affects income because there are less flights but those cuts are usually off peak and you still need just as many staff and just the same infrastructure in the peak periods so the opportunities for cost saving are limited.

[PeltonLevel]

If this is a standard formula, how come NATS route charges are higher? As eglnyt has hinted, the formula is a means of sharing out each ANSP's total costs between all of its users. The square root formula seems a bit odd, I agree. It has been in place since the early 1970s (total cost recovery from en-route charges was, however, only achieved in the late 70s as it was phased in from 1974 on). I always assumed that the square root formula gives an approximation to the potential passenger payload of an aircraft, although I've never tried to do any analysis to confirm this.

ps I think that NATS is remarkably cheap, given that it is the only ANSP which has been established as a separate trading entity for long enough for any implicit state subsidy to have worked its way out of the system.

[luv pringles]

Not looking good, any truth in the rumour that not only a pay freeze, but a hold on all increments/spine points as well, the income into the company is falling at an "alarming rate"

[PeltonLevel]

not only a pay freeze, but a hold on all increments/spine points as wellDo I detect the distinctive clicking sound of the ratchet as the spiral spring is tightened?
i'm guessing your advocating a pay cut or a promotion Pelton?Neither - I'm only providing facts, for what it's worth.
marvel at the accuracy of those waypoints.Yes - with Google Earth or similar service I could give a location to one hundredth of a second - but where would my anonymity be, if my desk could be identified within a couple of floors?

[DAL208]

Not looking good, any truth in the rumour that not only a pay freeze, but a hold on all increments/spine points as well, the income into the company is falling at an "alarming rate"


Expect many 'rumours' such as this. I think in PR it is referred to as 'kite flying' (?)...make people expect something awful, then when something ****e but not actually anyway near that bad is offered, they think ts a great deal and they are lucky.

[General_Kirby]

I heard were not doing to bad thanks to the euro?

[hold at SATAN]

RPI is a figure obtained from historical data: i.e prices have already gone up by that amount.

Any payrise at RPI will simply bring pay back up to the level prior to the rise in the cost of living. We are all currently, in real terms, getting paid less than what we were last year, notwithstanding any spine point increases.

So please Prospect et al don't let management screw us over using the current economic climate as an excuse. We're still sore from the shafting we received over the pension scheme. NATS have "controlled" one of their biggests costs, now they can give us what's fair.

Plus, the Euro is doing great vs sterling, so drop in revenue is more than compensated by exchange rate changes.

[rodan]

You could always, y'know, tell them where to stick it, or else you won't be at work on Monday? Guess who has more to lose from that scenario?

[eglnyt]

Plus, the Euro is doing great vs sterling, so drop in revenue is more than compensated by exchange rate changes.

Not sure where you were when we discussed this on a previous thread but not the case I'm afraid. Eurocontrol adjust the unit rate each month to ensure that what they charge the customers in euros is roughly right in sterling. There will be a small gain because the rate lags the actual exchange rate but it won't be that much.

[anotherthing]

DAL208

Kite flying or sh!t stirring - I never can tell the difference!

For management to stop the annual pay spine award it would need to re-write our contracts... I can't see that happening.

Prospect have already told management that they have historically insisted on using the Aug RPI as a basis for negotiation, therefore they cannot change procedure just to suit them.

Upon hearing managements offer of a pay freeze, they also informed them that as far as they (Prospect) were concerned, a pay freeze equated to a pay (standard of living) cut and an RPI rise equates to a pay freeze.

Whether that statement is backed up or is just Prospect posturing for the benefit of the crowds remains to be seen.

The fact of the matter is, if management continue to play hardball over the next couple of weeks, Prospect need to stop fannying about and start taking action.

However, this will probably drag on for ages, just like the pension. Prospect have indicated that there were lessons to be learned from the Pension issue (namely communication to the members), lets hope that we get informed officially, and promptly, of what is going on after this weeks BEC.

[kinglouis]

We will not get a spine point freeze!
Having spoken with my union rep who is on the negotiating team for the pay deal, we will get some sort of payrise.... not sure how much though and he also stated that prospect WERE prepared to play hardball against the company if they continued to push a 0% rise.
Lets hope they communicate well, keep us informed and involved of ALL developments unlike the pension saga.
My personal view would be to give management a date, eg 10th Feb. If they havent come back with a respectable offer that can then open negotiations, the union ballot right away for strike action. No fannying around, straight to the point..... or something to that effect.
I sincerely hope the union can gain back a lot of the lost confidence they have lost over the pension deal. Again, management are chancing their arm and seeing what they can get away with, ala pension deal... please can we learn from this and the union can prove they represent us with strength and confidence.

[trafficnotsighted]

As a outsider looking in , i see some (i say again some)of you still have no grip on reality and whats happening in the real world of business whilst sat inside your NATS cocoon. You remind me of the the old British Rail Guards who when told by management that they would be losing the danger money allowance ,which was in place as the guards had to physically light the old oil lamps. Replied "but we have always had the allowance " (even though they had gone to electric 10 years previous)
Wake up guys smell coffee, its a whole new world out there now.

(puts on hard helmet and body armour);)

[DAL208]

Wake up guys smell coffee, its a whole new world out there now.

It really isnt, and it's sentiments like that which any company will always say no matter the circumstance.

That argument always makes me think about the bitter (not aimed at you) people who always argue that footballers get paid too much. Actually, no...they dont at all...in fact they do not ever get paid what they are worth. A friend of mine who works high up for one of the biggest companies in the country told me once 'employees can never, in a capitalist system get paid what they are worth to the company...because once they do get paid that amount, they are not worth that amount to the company'. What he meant was no company in the history of the world would ever pay any employee more than he/she is worth to that compamy. Take the footballer example...Mr D Beckham when he was at Man U for example asked for 100k a week. Now Utd would not pay him 100k a week if he and his name and talent did not bring in greater than 100k a week...and he knew that. Footballers get paid how much they are worth to a football team, every employee does.
ATCO's and ATSA's will always simply demand that we get paid what we deserve and are worth to the company, and NATS will never pay us more than that. Its simple...but its true!
Now, its easy to say something like 'oh well the credit crunch changes everything'...well that is an nelievably simplistic viewpoint and i urge fellow prooners not to bite because if people truly believe that, then they will never be pursuaded otherwise!
One thing trafficnotsighted said about the analogy with rail workes could be poignent. I admit im really not conversant with previous pay negotiations etc, but from what i could see, the last pay negotiations went VERY well for ATCO's...at expense of trainees :8 so one could argue to expect an increase on TOP of what was (arguably) a very good pay deal in the first place is unrealistic. Arguably :\

[kinglouis]

trafficnotsighted.

As an outsider can i assume you know nothing if not very little of our current pension changes of recent?
We have just bailed out NATS to a princely some of tens of millions a year when certain high end figures still receieve a 13% pay rise.
We have always, on insistence of the company taken the previous years RPI as the base of the following years pay deal. Historically that has not been high, now it is and the company doesnt like it.... they cant have it both ways!!!
We fully expect the pay deal in a years time to be bugger all as it will be based on this Augusts RPI.
We do not live in a cocoon, but we all worked our nuts off last summer and this pay deal should reflect that.
Then take into account the recent pension changes, the sectors that us area ATCO's do that is above MUR... to you that means that we do extra work for FREE and above what our contract states (if we were to give these up, which we are perfectly entitled to do NATS would be screwed) and, the fact that NATS continues to post record profits on its intranet for all us to read then you may be able to see why we will fight for a respectable pay rise.

NATS love to use scaremonger tactics. It worked during the pension deal and they are simply trying it all over again.

If the profits are so bloody great, how about rewarding your workforce?

[atcodownsouth]

Ive been sitting on the sidelines for some time now but i cant hold it in any longer.........

the harsh reality is that the people that voted yes to the pension deal (for which i wasnt one!!) were duped and conned by a scare mongering company which was very quick to tell you about the company going bust and everyone worse off if you didnt say yes but strangely not too quick to mention......where should we start.....heathrow tower 45 milliion......120 million to the spanish as compensation......record profits.....paying off the airlines............the list goes on.

unfortunatly NATS as we knew it has changed, it is now a business as we keep getting told.

well its a two way street, you wanna be a business thats ok with me.

NATS employee's need to now treat their employer as a business. so i want a pay rise for the work i do, i know the economies in the real world arnt great but thats not my problem and while my business, sorry company, can afford to give the fat cats 13% and million pound handshakes it can afford to give me a fair pay deal!!!

furthermore.....after being screwed on the pension i will in future years be looking to make up my pension shortfall.....

NATS in the recent pension briefings said that they werent allowed to pay into pension etc something to do with non profit making crap. well, were a business so lets act like it. lets actually grow some balls and say to those who need to be told....."instead of spending money on this really expensive project that has cost millions that probably wont work if it gets to fruition, why cant we spend it on looking after our professional hard working staff!!!"

AMAN.......oops typo ment amen - do you think praying is more or less effective than AMAN

rant over and feel better now..thanks

[GAPSTER]

....long time employee,first time poster.

Regarding the pension vote; after attending two briefings,talking at length to union reps and fighting my way through the paperwork I came to the conclusion that yes was the way to go.Albeit with a shorter time to serve than many it was not only for selfish reasons.I would be interested to know how many of the more strongly opinionated of us (I include myself in that) particularly those who have voiced pretty strident criticisms of the part the union has played in negotiations both past and present are continuing to take AAVAs....and also act as OJTIs and LCEs.

I have never done an AAVA as a point of principle though I do not criticise those who do,it is after all agreed by the union (ie.you and I).I have also withdrawn from training.

If you guys really want to play hardball and protest about the pension vote but more particularly about the pay rise or lack thereof I would suggest that far from sitting back and letting our reps take all the flak it is time to use your own dry powder and refrain from taking the thirty pieces of silver (overtime) that mask the true state of the staffing situation.

We all know that this would send a greater signal to management about the feeling on the shop floor than anything else...but is a few hundred quid here and there too much of a price to ask?

[kinglouis]

Gapster.

I am with you on the withdrawl of AAVA's.
Unfortunately though, untill the union lead the charge and we as a collective stop doing AAVA's there will always be someone to pick up the slack and do it.
If a handful of people stop doing them then that isn't really going to make much of a difference. This is why we have a union.
Personally, I am waiting to see where these pay talks go and what result we get before I do anything rash such as giving up my 2nd sector, training etc, etc... Although I must admit I have slowly started to withdraw from anything 'extra curricular' since the pension result. But I am biding my time for giving up the 'big' things.....

[aaaabbbbcccc1111]

People on here saying they will stop doing AAVAs, give up the 3rd sector etc etc, will not make a blind bit of difference to the grand scheme of things. It must be a very small percentage of ATCOs who use these forums, as according to PPRUNES unofficial ballot, the pension was a definate NO vote. Ones person refusing to do an AAVA is an extra AAVA for someone else. One person giving up a 3rd sector, is another person not getting an EG. Refusing to train a TATC, well have they not been screwed enough over the years by ATCOs.
Bottom line is, we are like every other work force in the UK . Management are the enemy. We can moan all we like and threaten to do this and that. All this and that will achieve though is we will end up shooting ourselves in the foot (early gos ETC). We probably had our chance on the pensions and we blew it big time. I believe we had management rattled for a while, CEO special visits, extra pension briefs,CEO responding on the intra net. We wont get that chance again.

[GAPSTER]

Dead right KL...especially re collective will to stop doing overtime.

Regarding training,LCE,second sectors etc. I don't necessarily see those as the first line of attack/defence (depending on ones point of view).

My real beef lies with AAVAs and unfortunately I can't see the union being able to fight that one as the agreement lasts until 2011 (as you have probably worked out I am a bit fed up with all the union bashing going on but this I didn't agree with or see the sense in) although they can withdraw from that agreement I understand with some amount of notice.This would most definitely be seen as an extremely hostile stance and I don't think the time is right for that so back to us as individuals.

I have been around long enough to know that there are always those willing to take the cash but if we really feel as unhappy with - let's be honest - not just the pension/pay issues but the direction this company has headed ever since PPP now more than ever we should be standing up for ourselves.

[GAPSTER]

Oh jeez!.....first post today and starting to feel like one of those mad ranters on Talk Radio but if you really think that EGs are the issue here well let's give up the fight right now to ensure a 21.00 hrs go.

Last one for today,thanks for listening.

[aaaabbbbcccc1111]

Getting an EG is not an issue for me. All I am saying is that no matter what we do, we wont all do together. I dont do AAVAs, but one person giving them up will not be noticed as others will step in.. Not everyone will give up that 3rd sector and others will begin training on a 3rd sector, so the only effect of one or two giving up a 3rd sector is less EG and less breaks, and that wont really hurt management. We had one chance to do something together as one and 60 percent went one way, and 40% went the other.

[anotherthing]

According to the Prospect January newsletter which is floating around various OPs rooms, there is a huge gulf between management and the Union with regards to pay.

It goes on to say that talks are scheduled for Feb and March. If management do not look like budging from their hard nosed stance, I as a Union member would like to think that things were progressed (whatever way) quicker than March :=

It seems an awful long way off to me. It's obviously not going to happen this year, but just once in my career, I'd like to see a pay rise come in on time instead of always being months late... it's not as if the pay negotiations come as a surprise when they are due :ugh:

GAPSTER

You say you voted 'Yes' for the pension (as is your right), but then you go on to say you have given up training, and the way it is written, it comes across as though you have done so as some sort of stance. Surely the two actions are at odds with each other?

If not, and you have merely given up training because you no longer wish to do it then is it not a little hypocritical of you to say what you have??

I have never done an AAVA as a point of principle though I do not criticise those who do,it is after all agreed by the union (ie.you and I).I have also withdrawn from training.

If you guys really want to play hardball and protest about the pension vote but more particularly about the pay rise or lack thereof I would suggest that far from sitting back and letting our reps take all the flak it is time to use your own dry powder and refrain from taking the thirty pieces of silver (overtime) that mask the true state of the staffing situation.Especially as you voted 'yes'!

[Gonzo]

What's it going to cost NATS to retain some of these guys, particularly at a busy little airfield on the western edge of London?Good question. We asked that of senior NSL management, and the answer was that they were investigating various options, all of which seemed to end in the phrase "to try and stop people leaving", rather than "to try and tempt/entice/persuade people to stay"

Might well backfire; some who have never seriously thought about leaving are doing so now, and others might well decide to definitely get out while the door is still ajar.... :eek:

[45 before POL]

Gonzo...I wouldn't be surprised if the company tried going down the road many airlines do with their pilots, bonding ATCO's for a specific period of time. It will not stop the current situation...but will stem the flow.......or they could bring salaries in line:E:E:E i know what my money would be on:(

[Dan Dare]

Or they could say that they won't buy your electronic (off the shelf) data system if you keep poaching our controllers - oh, they've already done that one. Or they could make approaches to the adjacent UACC urging them not to keep recruiting LACC valid controllers - ah, it can't be more than a decade since they did that. Not sure what pressure they can put on the sandpit, but you can be sure they'll do something in the background to stem the flow long before they every consider the market value of their staff.

[throw a dyce]

The minimum experience for the sandpit was 4 to 5 years.If Nats bonded people,then their bond period would probably be over by the time Serco might be interested.
Nats can't retain people if they are not interested in staying,for whatever reason.Controllers are leaving from other stations to go to the sandpit,not just Hounslow aerodrome.Would they get any incentive not to leave.I doubt it.

[GAPSTER]

Fair point....I did not give up training as a protest against the pension issue,nor because I don't really want to do it anymore.I have had for a long time a growing sense of disillusionment with the company for whom we work.You and I both know what I mean by this....Destinations,Vision 2011...just read the AMAN thread on Natsnet for a classic example of management speak...the growing lack of recognition of ATC as our "core business",and the aggressive stance taken by all tiers of management towards operational staff.Frankly after nigh on 30 years here I have had about enough and made the decision that it was time to withdraw from certain voluntary tasks.No big deal as far as I am concerned,and maybe I am taking a stance....but if more of us did perhaps we might make a little more progress as a body.I do strongly believe that there is a responsibility on us as individuals to take action as well as via the union.

[anotherthing]

Gapster -

Thanks for the reply! I agree with your regarding taking a stance, but feel that it needs to be done en-masse.

Totally agree wrt to the way the company is going - I have been reading both the AMAN and Vision2011 threads on NATSNET with interest.

I find it unbelievable that some people in the CTC actually think this bullsh!t bingo that has crept into our communications is a good thing. We have a perfectly acceptable and useable language (English).

If they spent more time on getting projects right, and less on trying to fit as many OK-ya phrases into everyday speech, then we would be onto a winner.

There are obviously some very clever people in our company - their time and effort should be diverted from thinking up new sh!t phrases to ironing out huge problems elsewhere!!

A campaign for a return to plain English within NATS is one initiative I would 'buy into'(:yuk:)and 'take ownership'(:yuk:) of...

[Minesapint]

:suspect: Good point! Lets have a 1:1 and have a 'conversation' about that. :E

[The Many Tentacles]

But who would your "stakeholders" be???? :yuk:

The one that annoys me is being referred to as a customer of the IT department or a customer of the training department. I am NOT a f:mad:king customer, I'm a colleague. I'm a customer of the canteen as I pay them money for the service they allegedly provide, but I can't recall paying our training department to train me.

Management bollocks really winds me up. To be honest I couldn't give a flying rats arse about Vision 2011 or that Destinations crap, I want to move planes. I like doing that, I like working with the people around me and I don't like the way the insidious management bullsh:mad:t has started sneaking, actually I'll use the word barreling, into the Ops Room.

As regards pay, I feel anything less than RPI and the Union isn't doing their job properly. I fully expect them to come back to us, based on their last outing, and tell us that management offered RPI and that they have managed to beat them down to RPI -1% because they felt sorry for them or some similar sob story

[throw a dyce]

The Dirham is linked to the US dollar.At the moment Dirhams to Pounds is a very good deal.

[up the tower]

I wonder if anyone would consider changing the direction slightly on the negotiation and look to take a lower than august rpi increase but ask for the calculated difference to be added to trainees pay at all levels. Trainee pay scales have not been increased for about 4 years (except those at college affected by minimum wage changes). As this is a year on year decrease, many are suffering. Not all trainees are 18, single and with no responsibilities, many are supporting families and paying mortgages etc. I realise it's a choice to be a trainee etc, but they are the future of the company, so maybe it would be a generous show of support by their valid controller colleagues?

[Dee Mac]

Yes I'll take a pay cut (less than RPI) to ensure trainees, including those not even yet in the company can be paid more. If it saves the company paying the extra cash, I'm right up for it. Any more great ideas Sherlock?

[up the tower]

Maybe those who have already got through college and are working their way to validation see themselves as part of the company. It was a suggestion, and maybe a way of pointing out that those at the bottom of the ladder already in the company are probably being hit just as hard as those at the top, and maybe by extending a supporting hand, there might be some much needed improvement in morale. I'll bow out now as I've obviously touched a raw nerve.

[hold at SATAN]

A bond could only be applied to somebody newly posted, not to somone who has been valid for over a decade, unless they plonked down a wodge of crisp fifty pound notes in lieu of s minimum time commitment to NATS.... hold on! thats a retainer!

Take heed NATS management, we liked working for "old" NATS. "New" NATS seems to be going the same way as the NHS - more managers than workers - and willing to screw everyone over.... and we ain't got not loyalty to any of you.! :\

[atcodownsouth]

I hope NATS management actually read some of these threads because it is quite clear reading that people are not happy...

Its a very interesting situation at the moment with NATS and controllers looking to go overseas. ive read and heard it said a couple of times that NATS are aware and are going to do something about it.......

interesting that so far their response has been to screw us on the pension, extend a very dissappointing pay deal (so far...im sure it'll get worse!) and bring things into the ops room (while patting eachother on the back) which dont work and cause a higher workload.

then you hear the record profits and that they are paying money to the airlines.......

morale is at an all time low and its getting worse by the day.........

[Traffic is...]

I'd suggest that PB and probably others of the executive don't really care a great deal that morale is low. I always get the feeling that he sees it as some kind of personal mission to 'take on the ATCOs' and get what he can. I might be wrong of course. Can't see anything changing soon though.

[DC10RealMan]

It was reported on todays news that the vast majority of UK companies are intending to close their final salary pension schemes to EXISTING employees with the next five years. I would like to suggest that the unwritten Memorandum of Understanding needs to be watertight.

[eglnyt]

Up the tower raises a good point. Were there to be a pay freeze, and like everybody else I hope there won't be, it would affect lower paid members of staff far greater than those higher up the scale. The response whilst predictable shows a lack of compassion that I hope doesn't extend to all those fortunate enough to be better paid.

[45 before POL]

Dc D10 Realman ...the memorandum is supposed to be written into the contracts, but like the trust of promise and transport act they seem to have skirted round , i won't be surprised if they pull a fast one in the years to come.... hope you enjoying your retirement and season ticket:}

[ADIS5000]

DC10Realman,

At the pensions briefings I asked a senior member of the NATS management the question about how watertight the memorandum on the pensions agreement is going to be. Basically it is not. There is nothing to stop the Company coming back to us in 2 years and saying 'sorry chaps, this isn't working we need to re-negotiate the whole thing'. Their rationale is that the Company can't be allowed to risk going bust just to support our pensions. Enjoy!!

Regards ADIS

[anotherthing]

Theres no surprise about the MOU not being worth the paper it (still has to be) written on.

I, along with others, stated this during the debate on PPRuNe during the pension 'consultation'.

The fact that people were willing to vote 'Yes' before the MOU was even written made no sense to me whatsoever - they were basically agreeing to Ts&Cs yet to be decided. Do you honestly think management will roll over on it?

There is no consultation on the MOU, we have already agreed to it, in whatever form it takes. It is a 'negotiation' between our union and management - we've seen how well those go recently...

NATS managment will be back well before the 15 years is up, cap in hand. In fact, I would be surprised if there is not a proviso within the MOU that states that NATS has 'the right to re-negotiate at any time before the 15 year period if finances dictate'.

And finances 'will dictate' because NATS have some very clever, well paid money men who know how to siphon off certain profits in ways that mean they cannot be used for pension funds or pay negotiations.

The reports about companies closing their schemes cited the current financial climate and interest rates as well as longevity, as being the reasons.

This is depsite the fact that pension funds are long term investments that will see good economic times and bad, and despite the fact we were implicitly told at briefings that the current downturn had no real bearing on the fund and was not an issue we should focus on.

The fact is, companies are in part, using the downturn to close schemes whether they are viable or not. It is very easy for companies in this current temporary climate, to scaremoneger workforces.

[Flybywyre]

The fact is the MOU is now a complete irrelevance.
Management got their way with the pension issue, the one that we voted to accept, and therefore they can write anything they want into the MOU with impunity.
If we do not like it then that is tough as there is nothing we can do about it. As far as I can see the only course of action open would be not to sign it.
That would leave the MOU in a state of indefinite abeyance which the union, who got us into this position, are powerless to do anything about.
I should imagine that the managements stance is you either sign it or you don’t.
It makes no difference to them either way.

[Nimmer]

So The MOU of understanding is not going to be worth the paper it is written on, and we basically have signed away our final pension scheme!!!

PROSPECT negotiators you must be proud.

Our union is a waste of space, and most definitely a waste of 15 quid a month.

[opnot]

Nimmer
this is a rumour and news site .
is your posting based on rumour or factual news

[eglnyt]

The reports about companies closing their schemes cited the current financial climate and interest rates as well as longevity, as being the reasons.

This is depsite the fact that pension funds are long term investments that will see good economic times and bad, and despite the fact we were implicitly told at briefings that the current downturn had no real bearing on the fund and was not an issue we should focus on.

The current downturn has little or no bearing on the contribution rate to the fund because as you say pension funds are long term investments. However it does have a bearing on any company's ability to pay those contributions and current legislation now makes if very difficult to defer contributions. There will be many companies forced to close their schemes simply because they can't meet the contribution rate set by their trustees. Those industries worse hit by the recession will be those most likely to do this.

[Conspiracy Theories]

I'm fairly new to this rumour thing but i'm going to start with the pension deal. What was the point if for the next 15 years, the MOU which is supposed to be a legal document as opposed to trust of deeds or something like that, why not call it the same thing. i cannot help but wonder why change the name.

ooh wait a minute, maybe i can. Whats the reason for changing the whole ATSOCA phraseology? for legal reasons or insurance reasons or something like that. So a Flight Information Service is now going to be a Basic Service. A Traffic Service is now basically going to be a RIS and of course our favourite....Deconfliction Service is i think, basically a RAS. I would think its in the interest of the company hence the same for the above.

i went to the pension brief and i was very confused/worried with what was being said. Worried if the company went bust and very confused how if this is such a great pension deal, why wasn't it brought to our attention before hand. Some things were not explained very clearly and when asked if what we have signed lasts for the next 15 years, the answer was NO. eerrrrr, so whats the point in signing it? can i assume that after what we have agreed which is this MOU which lasts for a period of 15 years, (and the economy is better) we revert back to the original pension scheme after that?

with regards to the pay rise......i'm very disappointd to hear that there are a few staff that have/are going to receive a 13% payrise (i'm just going on what i have read here). Furthermore, all these developments and projects going on (which some are very costly and never see fruition).....what will these people do when all the projects are complete or not complete (e.g. ScottishACC) and there will be no more projects to do. Will job titles be invented for them. i think there are a lot of job titles already that in all honestly, i have not a clue what is their responsibility.

Another worrying rumour that i'm very concerned about is this 3 week non-payed leave. Can anyone elaborate on this please? Will everyone be able to take it at the same time? maybe in the summer/winter?

One last note, i really dont think the union went out to deceive us on the pensions, i would have liked it if they would have given us a better understanding if the vote was a NO vote. i felt that there was a certain amount of pressure to get people to vote YES and tell us what would happen if it was a YES vote. All there was about the NO vote was that the company will go bust and that this wasn't an option. Is this difinite or was it based on figures? maybe there are other places were the company could cut costs and not just the pension fund.
:*

[eglnyt]

Conspiracy Theories, such a lot of questions most of which are likely to re-open some old wounds on here. I'll answer some and wait for the inevitable response from those with different views.

What was the point if for the next 15 years, the MOU which is supposed to be a legal document as opposed to trust of deeds or something like that, why not call it the same thing.

It is a legal document but it can only ever represent the intentions of the two parties. NATS management can never give us a cast iron guarantee because without a crystal ball there is no way they can foresee what will happen to pensions in the future. It's better than nothing and we ought to get it signed quick before NATS changes its mind but for those of us in NATS at PPP the Trust of Promise and the Trust Deed still represent the best protection for our pensions. For those who joined since then the MOU gives you something you didn't previously have.

can i assume that after what we have agreed which is this MOU which lasts for a period of 15 years, (and the economy is better) we revert back to the original pension scheme after that?

The main reason that the company couldn't afford the scheme in its original form was an increase in life expectancy, a fall in long term investment returns and higher long term inflation. It is unlikely that these will ever return to their previous levels so plan on more of the same or possibly another round of changes to the scheme after 15 years.

i'm very disappointd to hear that there are a few staff that have/are going to receive a 13% payrise

The reference to 13% is the amount that PB's pay went up last year. Technically it wasn't really a pay rise because the difference was he got more bonus and one has to assume that was baecause he or the company did something much better that year. Personally I'd rather not have such a big proportion of my pay riding on a set of figures although I think I could learn to live with it if I had as large a basic salary before the bonus as he does. What he might get this year isn't public knowledge and we'll have to wait for the publication of the annual report in July to find out. Other ANSP and industry CEOs are forgoing their bonus payments this year, it will be interesting to see if our's does likewise.

Furthermore, all these developments and projects going on (which some are very costly and never see fruition).....what will these people do when all the projects are complete or not complete (e.g. ScottishACC) and there will be no more projects to do.

The "roadmap" has enough projects to keep many NATS staff employed for some time yet. After that we'll start all over again on the replacement for those systems. :) In the meantime a proportion of those staff will be working on SESAR for the Europeans.

All there was about the NO vote was that the company will go bust and that this wasn't an option. Is this difinite or was it based on figures? maybe there are other places were the company could cut costs and not just the pension fund.

Nobody should have told you that the company would go bust if we voted No. However unless something was done to control pension costs it was very possible that the cost of the scheme would reach levels that could make the company technically bankrupt. That was a very real risk to our pensions but nobody really knew what would happen.

[RPIplus1]

Quote: The main reason that the company couldn't afford the scheme in its original form was an increase in life expectancy, a fall in long term investment returns and higher long term inflation. It is unlikely that these will ever return to their previous levels so plan on more of the same or possibly another round of changes to the scheme after 15 years.

So we were led to believe... IMO...

1. Yes there was an increase in life expectancy but it was not as large as we were led to believe and I do not think that enough options were investigated to fix this (the only) problem.

2. The fall in long term investment returns is to be expected in a market - this was not a problem - all markets have ups and downs in investment returns.

3. Higher long term inflation - this was not a problem - this figure is a 'snapshot' taken at the time of the last actuarial valuation - it is calculated from differences in values of long-term bonds (gilts). I recalculated the figure and found that it had decreased from 4.2% to 1.2% but, worryingly, could not find anyone in the TU that could verify my calculations were correct!

[beaver liquor]

Voluntary redundancies to be announced this Friday - several hundred jobs to go in NERL.

[kinglouis]

several hundred jobs to go...... i guess starbucks must be downsizing at the good old CTC.

[Ceannairceach]

30 jobs from the ATSA staff at MACC and ScOACC......

[radar707]

The writing wa son the wall for the redundancies the moment the pension deal went through, what better way to reduce the now limited pension liabilty even further than by getting rid of people.

Barron must be well pleased with himself :mad::mad:

[DC10RealMan]

Radar707 makes a very good point that these redundancies are getting rid of members of the existing pension fund and all new employees will be members of the "new scheme". I would suggest that within three-four years these new members will be in the majority and therefore the unions will have to work in their interests and not the "old stagers"
I will give it 18 months before the management come back with suggestions about the "unfairness" of having two schemes and that they should be amalgamated into one (the new one, naturally)
One further thing, just to show that the redundancies were done fairly I am sure that there will be a few atco redundancies in there as well.

[radar707]

DC10, I reckon it will be even sooner than that, more likely 18 months to 2 years. With the relatively high turnover of support staff - HR etc getting a few years experience with a major organisation and then moving on - the likelihood of new members outnumbering old members is failrly high. The only major stalwarts of the old scheme will be the ATCO's, and the ATSA's and Engineers (at least those that are left after the move of MACC to PC and any redundancies that will be made from the introduction of whatever new off the shelf time and money saving [or should that read time and money wasting] systems they decide to bring in).

[055166k]

Why shouldn't there be a possibility of ATCO redundancies? Remember that NATS quote around 2000 ATCO's, but less than 1500 hold current validations.
ATCO's are heavy maintenance items!

[privatesandwiches]

the ATCOs hiding behind desks still pulling in £80 odd grand that cannot hold a validation should be in the firing line then.....

[anotherthing]

...that cannot hold a validation...
and those same office dwelling ATCO's who couldn't even sort out locker allocation in time for TCs move!!

[Spectacled Owl]

I can think of a few who'll be told back in to the ops room to revalidate or out.

Can't imagine them making atco's with validations redundant while they're still taking recruits in through the front door.

[eglnyt]

The writing wa son the wall for the redundancies the moment the pension deal went through, what better way to reduce the now limited pension liabilty even further than by getting rid of people.

The pension change is irrelevant. The writing was on the wall when those with little chance of being made redundant took the blood money to change the redundancy scheme. In previous downturns it was so expensive to make people redundant it wasn't really an option. It's still expensive but no longer too expensive.

just to show that the redundancies were done fairly I am sure that there will be a few atco redundancies in there as well.

PB told the CTC bar stool sessions that there would be no ATCO redundancies and indeed ATCO recruitment would continue through the downturn. I suspect he meant those holding ratings when he said that. That does of course mean that there will have to be double the pain in other parts to compensate if indeed redundancies become necessary.

[kinglouis]

Personally, if the freeloaders who are too **** to validate/remain valid get the big elbow im behind that, For too long its been a case of, youre **** so go prop up an office in the bowels of Swanwick and do buger all and, think about how great it is that you still get paid like a valid ATCO.
Other option is to knock the pay down by £55k for the job the are actually doing, if they are good enough to do that job of course!!!

[Minesapint]

Allegedly any redundancies will be vouluntary - to start with anyway. I doubt that desk bound ATCO's without a current validation will be responding -unless they are old enough to make it worth their while. ATSA/T&S/Engineers over 55 may be tempted though. I have heard that ALL ATCO's with a validation will be forced, kicking and screaming no doubt, to actually be an air traffic controller full time, and earn the pay! I pray that its so! :ok: :D:D:D:D:E

[Radarspod]

Minesapint - with you on that, about time too!

[autothrottle]

does that mean part time ATCO's being made to work full time? Also I heard ,they are looking for 40 ATCO's and 40 ATSA for VOLUNTARY REDUNDENCIES at Swanwick, presumably non operational ones.

[Roffa]

I have heard that ALL ATCO's with a validation will be forced, kicking and screaming no doubt, to actually be an air traffic controller full time, and earn the pay!

Not sure I want all of them back, can I have right of veto please?

Also, my little bit of Swanwick is short of appropriately valid controllers so no doubt, given the usual standard of manpower planning, we'll be asked first if we'd like to 'volunteer' :rolleyes:

[kinglouis]

separating the wheat from the chaff.... so maybe something positive in this company can happen. Its about time someone had the balls to take on the 'im to pants to hold a licence' club...... up next banding.... luton only? validate on a second sector in a given period or have a pay cut to that of a luton tower ATCO.

[ZOOKER]

Roffa,
"my little bit of Swanwick is short of appropriately valid controllers".
A shame.
Is that because your training system failed them? :E

[Roffa]

Zooker, no.

Why would you think it had?

[250 kts]

Personally, if the freeloaders who are too **** to validate/remain valid get the big elbow im behind that

kinglouis,

Well let's all just hope that you are able to keep up with the traffic well into your 50's and aren't ever in the situation of being regarded as sh*t:ugh:

Just because someone can't keep up with the traffic after 30 years doesn't mean they are a "freeloader" or have nothing to offer as an ATCO.

Although I see you're "up north" so no doubt it won't be an issue for you personally.:E

[terrain safe]

250 kts.

Sadly I have to agree with you. Some of the ATCOs who are none operational are not there through choice. Some for medical reasons and others who have done their 30 years or so and can't quite keep up at the peak periods. Not their fault at all. They have given there best years to the company and their colleagues, and must be respected and assisted by all, so that can reach their retirement with their dignity, and more importantly their health, intact.

Those who come out with these kneejerk reaction need to think a bit about how they wish to be treated in the later years of their career. Yes there are some who try to do as little work as possible, and we all know these people, but many are good people with much knowledge and still have alot of interest in their fellow younger ATCOs.

Think about yourself in a few years and how you would wish to be treated. It will arrive quicker than you think, the alternative doesn't bear thinking about.

[45 before POL]

I have to agree with the comments on those that have served many years of graft and experience to the company ,but through no fault of their own either medical or just age progression which slows them down(everyone different) should not be cast out. Many factors as an atco would stop them controlling but this would have no impact on many other careers. Remember one of us could be in that position in the future. As for those that couldn't hack it or moved sideways cos they couldn't stand the heat well before these natural age related problems happen......well time to earn your spurs and roll up your sleeves and back to the coalface. ...so thats how mangement think they can lay off 40 ATCO's and do away with overtime...hmmm:E:E:E

[throw a dyce]

At the smaller units moving sideways doesn't really exist.Any non ops jobs are promoted posts,and you maybe able to help in there for a short time.But it won't last long.There isn't corridors of little rooms people can hide in.
You have no choice but to be at the coalface.Just the situation that maybe causing the problem.Welcome to the lean mean world.:hmm:

[kinglouis]

Gents.

Lets get some perspective here. I'm not talking about ATCO's that have done their time, are towards the end of their career etc etc.... they should be respected and of course if they cannot remain competent then they should be offered something where they can apply all that experience..... and on the same pay too.
I am talking about the few that should not have had a licence in the first place, struggle to keep it and run to an office at the first chance for a newly fabricated job title that translates into nothing really. The ones that sit in front of the console and cause absolute carnage each and every time....are so scared of what they do they end up causing un-necessary delays, excessive extra track miles and are a nightmare to work with. If the LCE scheme was as great as they harp on about then this wouldnt happen, but thats another can of worms.
There are a few that I can think of here at SWANWICK, one in particular that couldnt re validate at TC and now is somewhere raking in an ATCO top of the scale salary, a right tidy sum for someone in charge of locker allocation...... couldnt even do that right.
I'm not against the older ATCO who has done the time at all, they deserve the upmost respect. Nor anyone who looses their medical.
If I were to loose my licence due to '****ness' and ended up at CTC doing an admin role, I would fully expect to get a pay cut for the job that I am doing. Why should I get paid as an ATCO if I cant do the job?

[Minesapint]

So maybe Prospect should be looking into improvements to the ATCO flexi retirement scheme. Personally I don't think it's reasonable to 'find' a post for an ATCO that can no longer be an ATCO? Not at £85k+ anyway. A better loss of licence/competency scheme maybe? Just a thought.

[Hootin an a roarin]

Personally I don't think it's reasonable to 'find' a post for an ATCO that can no longer be an ATCO

Why not offer them a post of "air traffic expert" instead of some young, dippy bird/bloke with little experience in comparison. :8

[kinglouis]

couldnt agree more.

If I remember correctly, a recently failed trainee was attempting to move to the job title 'air traffic expert'....... gotta make you think!!!

Although funnier things have happened :ok:

[Miss Direction]

Kinglouis,
I agree with you. An admin job deserves an admin salary. In other companies (or businesses or whatever category we fall into these days), if you were not able to do your job due to '****ness', as it has been called, you would be likely to lose that job. NATS however seems to give everyone nine lives on an ATCO salary. I'm all for giving people a second chance (I had mine when I was given a recourse at the college) but there are cases out there that are just ridiculous :yuk:

[letMfly]

couldnt agree more.

If I remember correctly, a recently failed trainee was attempting to move to the job title 'air traffic expert'....... gotta make you think!!!

Although funnier things have happened :ok:

Funny things happen all the time in this outfit. For example, did you here the one about the ATCO who was fired by IAL (now Serco) for being totally incompetent and having too many incidents/Airproxes, who was then taken on by NATS as an instructor at the College of Knowledge? :ugh:

[Dan Dare]

So what do you all suggest we pay all the watch managers, ops people and other necessary "evils" who dare to take a salary without talking to pilots?

They are surely admin people by definition. Would you like to be supported by admin people on admin salaries and an admin level of knowledge of aviation? Its hard enough now to get good people to take their headsets off for a VERY small payrise and all the job security risk that comes with an office. People have their own motivations for doing this, but a lot of good people are lost to the business due to lack of incintive to remove the headset and run the company properly. What are we left with? Well, young turks, screwed over by our acceptance of the T&D scale have lots of financial incentive to leap up those spine points in to a management office before they have any real idea about how aviation works and we are all lumbered with the ensuing mess.

How will the college ever get/keep good instructors if they are deemed as a lower grade and paid accordingly?

Some of you could condider what happens when you are no longer able to hold a medical or no longer feel competent to do the job (at our new retirement age of 75). Should you be kicked out witout so much as a thank-you or should the company use some of those decades of knowlege and experience to their benefit? If I am deemed worthless by NATS as soon as I don't wear a headset, then I will want to be compensated for that risk now. Put that in your business case.

Dan Dare - never previously known as a management lakkey

[Miss Direction]

I think we all agree that highly experienced ATCO's who have lost confidence and / or medical should be valued and treated accordingly. Watch management and ops ATCO's are also necessary. What most people have a problem with is the 'Here's a desk and here's 80k and hopefully someone will think of something for you to do' cases. You must be able to think of a few

[Hootin an a roarin]

How will the college ever get/keep good instructors if they are deemed as a lower grade and paid accordingly?

I find that offensive.

Do you mean deemed a lower grade such as a Band 2 Atco like myself and therefore would not make a good instructor?

It may be true on the NERL side but it is awful from the NSL side that college instructors are the highest paid when some of them, not all, cannot validate at units and hold a licence!

How about get rid of the NSL college and farm everyone through an outside source. We haven't had anyone posted in to our place for years and yet are paying for it which diminishes the profit that we do make (and we do make a profit!). It is again part of our overheads as are all the admin staff/ middle managers, chief scientist, etc etc that contribute little to the running of a regional airport. Also some have had huge pay rises (management, band 5 units) over the last few years in comparison which in turn has increased their pension rights and we have all suffered as a result.

[MrJones]

If there are going to be any redundancies then I very much doubt they will be operational ATCOs.

I would imagine Management would be looking to scale back the in-house Engineering Projects side of NATS.

All the talk of getting rid of Old Useless ATCOs is quite funny, maybe Hotel Swanwick can be converted into The Shady Pines Rest Home or maybe we could just have a Very Big Patio :)

[throw a dyce]

LetMfly,
I know about the college instructor who failed to validate at a Band 2 unit for being ''not up to standard'' (c*@p),but got to the college through the back door.
Perhaps all Atcos should be assessed to their cost effectiveness to Nats.The 40 least efficient should get the boot.:hmm:£85K to drive a desk.:eek:

[Standard Noise]

There are some more than capable ATCOs willing to give up all their validations to go full time at the College and others looking for ROVI posts who would stay part valid at their unit. Why would they do it if the instructor role pay scales were reduced? There are loads of people on here who whinge that they don't get paid enough as, or to be, OJTIs, so why would expect College instructors to be paid less?

[Medway Control]

The Red Barron has announced the beginning of the 'cost saving' exercise... Redundancies to you and me...

[hold at SATAN]

Any news on the pay negotiations :ugh: as per the thread title, people?

barron: will he cost-save down to a V8 vantage? :}

[Standard Noise]

£35M in savings from NERL. That equates to about 269 ATCOs salary/AAVA/pension payments to save it over one year. Just from NERL, mmm, interesting.

[hold at SATAN]

I'm sure much of that saving can be made by NOT moving TC to swanwick, Heathrow new Tower, New NSL HQ (Heathrow House) and all the other extra costs NATS have had to stump up in this finacial year!

[Mr Red]

Can anyone type what the chief cock has said cos I can't access my emails from home for some reason?

[Hootin an a roarin]

There are some more than capable ATCOs willing to give up all their validations to go full time at the College and others looking for ROVI posts who would stay part valid at their unit. Why would they do it if the instructor role pay scales were reduced? There are loads of people on here who whinge that they don't get paid enough as, or to be, OJTIs, so why would expect College instructors to be paid less?

Because from the NSL side of things it is scandalous that they have been placed in the top Band and the reason being because there are NERL instructors in the same building.

My whinge is against NSL and the poor treatment of lower band units. I also may be wrong but believe NSL is no longer part of the ROVI process or new applications anyway.

I would not expect a Swanwick Atco to get a drop in pay to go to the college. But why should someone get a 20 grand payrise when they cannot validate at a band 2 unit and then go to the college? I believe they should be paid as an Atco3. Same as Thames Radar being paid Band 5 money like LHR approach just because they are in the same room.

If you kept your Heathrow or Gatwick validation whilst at the college you should be paid the rate at which your validation is held. Permanent college instructors (NSL) could be paid at a lower rate. If not get rid of the NSL college as I previously stated as we are not getting the students but paying for the service and outsource or poach from other airfields outside of NATS. This is going on anyway at all units because there is no output, or not enough, from Hurn.

[Medway Control]

mr red
i stuck it into the nats section of pprune... didnt think it was right to post it here, its got some stuff that should only be kept in nats :ok:

[Mr Red]

Ok, cheers bud

[Hootin an a roarin]

As for payrise. We'll get a right royal screwing with the union/management line being as one as per usual. Dry powder?

I see the French are on strike in the next few days again. When will we learn?

[BDiONU]

£35M in savings from NERL. That equates to about 269 ATCOs salary/AAVA/pension payments to save it over one year. Just from NERL, mmm, interesting.
But the saving is over CP2 which doesn't end until 2011.

BD

[Mr Red]

Ops Managers/STM's must be shi@@ing themselves!

[MrJones]

Ok, £35m of savings should be dead easy.

I suggest they start a suggestion thread on the intranet where we can all make suggestions.

Office computers powered off at night and the weekend would be a good place to start.

How about travel expenses next, Video Conferencing?

Hotel expenses. No one put up at NATS expense.

Bonding weekends

Award ceremonies.

I'm liking this cost saving thing already :E

[eglnyt]

But the saving is over CP2 which doesn't end until 2011.

But allowing for the cost of actually making people redundant you probably need to make that number of people redundant now to make the actual saving over the remainder of CP2. In fact possibly more as the grades likely to go probably earn less than Standard Noise assumed.

[Standard Noise]

Beads - as I said, that would be the equivalent saving in one year but you could divvy it up over the next three years eg get rid of 90 now and see the savings accrue over the coming years.

eglnyt - I was looking at an average of around £130k pa (wages, AAVAs/pension) rather than the saving of making 269 top of the scalers redundant.

Cost savings - cutting out 5* hotel lash ups for up to 200 peeps for 2 days. Sacking Div of Safety in it's entirety. Car allowances for highly paid managers (can't they afford their own?)

Hootin - but when you go to the college, be it full time or as a ROVI, you become an employee of NERL so why wouldn't you get paid the going rate. Anyhoo, when you start at the College, you go onto Band 5 but not right to the top, so you don't start off in the 90k bracket, it'll take a few years to get there, and ROVIs only get a two year contract initially so it's not as if they're joining the Porsche club while they're there. They also have no guarantee of getting a place back at their Band 2 unit after the contract is up so they may have to go where the jobs are which invariably means a Band 5 unit.

[alfaman]

Thanks StandardNoise, I appreciate you, like me, have a pretty good picture of life at CATC. But just to lift a quote for a sec, if I may.

"...Why would they do it..." - - good point - why would "they" give up their validations to do an interesting & rewarding job, which relies on them passing on their years of ATC experience to the ATCOs of the future. Why would they give up a month a year for the dubious benefit of "normal hours"? Why would they endure a regime of constant change & constant assessment, no different to where they came from, but with little opportunity to actually practice their hard earned skills? Why would they work for the one company in the business that sees training as a costly waste of time, when the rest of the world sees it as a benefit?

I guess it must be the support of all those they left behind in the operational world...those who remember every ex Trainee since the dawn of time who upset them, but forget all those they work well with every day. Who remember the one guy who (15 years ago) struggled from unit to unit when he was stitched up by the ATCO2/3 shenanigans, who never claimed to be the best ATCO in the world, but forget all those others that worked at Heathrow, Gatwick, TC, Manchester, Birmingham & all across the world etc for many years, without incident. Who turn every opportunity to slag off the folks at Hurn, without ever taking the time (as I believe SN has) to find out exactly what does go on down there. Those who seem to think they got valid all on their own, with no assistance from anyone else enroute. Those who'll shout on an internet forum, but wouldn't put their own backsides in the firing line & say it to an Instructors face. Those who think Aerodrome still uses a light board, & Approach just uses strips...

Yep, that must be it...:ugh: - it sure ain't the money - the hassle & "support" wouldn't make it anywhere near worthwhile for me. Or maybe they just don't waste their time with trolls on the internet:hmm:

[Gonzo]

Mr. Jones,

How about travel expenses next, Video Conferencing?

Hotel expenses. No one put up at NATS expense.

Where do you draw the line on that?

So when I go to Amsterdam at the end of March for three days to visit NLR then I should pay the travel and hotel bill myself?

Maybe a few months ago when some of us went to Belgium to visit Barco to look at the current sim technology then we should have paid out of our own pocket?

Or next time I'm at CTC doing ATCO interviews then I should forgo the free lunch and insist I pay myself?

[eastern wiseguy]

I think Gonzo that the point is "is the journey really neccessary?"

Meetings about meetings ......excellence awards......there is scope for savings.

[Standard Noise]

As long as it doesn't affect our watch coming over to see you for an educational TRUCE visit, eastern. Video conferenced p!ss ups just aren't the same.:}

[Hootin an a roarin]

Standard Noise

We have been told up north that NSL has ditched the ROVI system so mute point from an NSL background. So leaving the college after 2 years there may be no room at band 1/2/3 units. What world do you live in?

How about going back to a band 1/2/3 unit to release desperate people who can't move on or up because we have no one coming in, especially from the college.

I say again, from an NSL point of view, the college is an overhead that does not seem to be worth the money. It's totally different for NERL.

If it is worth the money then why are we again trawling for previous failed trainees and non-nats controllers? Where are our students?

[autothrottle]

I very much doubt that ATCO's have a a lot to worry about with regards redundancy. Its the ATSA's and ATCE's that have to be worried at the moment, so when ATCO's worry about pay rises or paying for a meal in Amsterdam , spare a thought for your oppo's in the ops room who will be the ones in the firing line.

[Standard Noise]

Hootin - ROVI system isn't dead yet. ROVIs just don't work for NSL as such. The college has it's reasons for that.

I didn't say there was no room at Band 1/2/3 units, I said that ROVIs are given no guarantee that there will be a place for them back at their old unit, the one where they still hold a validation. I know this, trust me.
Take Bristol for example, we are up to OR as of last week (we weren't before NATS came along). If one of our lot goes to the college as a ROVI and the unit slides someone into replace them while they are away (which it will be able to afford since the ROVI isn't on their budget anymore), then how can they walk back in after a two year contract if there is no space for them? Or do you know something I don't?
While a two year contract on Band 5 won't turn anyone into a member of the Porsche club, it will take them above that level of a Band 2 payscale which rules out many units (including their own) as these units can't afford their salary and there are no pay protection/substantive grade type arrangements available for this sort of thing, so the ATCO has to take a pay cut and hope that there is a place for them.

Trawls are all about getting round the hassle and cost of putting someone through a college course (which isn't designed for any NSL unit less busy than Manch anyway). Why not poach people from elsewhere if they're happy to come, the rest of the world does it to NATS.

[DirtyStopout]

According to last years financial report, NERL profit before tax was £66.2 million (and this took account of £20.4 million relocation costs from WD to Swanwick).

We allegedly need to save £45m p.a which gave us the figure of a £90m saving before the end of CP2. Apparently our glorious management have already saved us £10m p.a leaving us with £35m worth of slack to pick up.

If there are NO redundancies, and instead NERL takes a £35m hit on their income, then according to last years figures, this would still give them a profit in excess of £30m before tax. This would also allow for the MACC relocation incurring the same costs as the WD relocation.

I know traffic has decreased recently. I have witnessed the downturn personally. However.... How MUCH does it have to decline before our "not for profit" company ceases to turn a profit????

Lets all not forget also, this is before any pension savings over the next two years start to show their impact on the annual profits.....

[Jungle Jingle Jim]

What next?

CX launches bad news campaign today.

Folk take a hit on “No pay rise” in fear of their jobs.
NSL go into meltdown as their customers threaten to renege on their contracts or simply will not renew at NATS prices.
Pension loses a sack full of fund value in the last quarter according to NATS valuation.
Memorandum of Understanding is erased from voter’s memory.
RB goes cap in hand about CP3 to the CAA who say cull (efficiencies) before we will consider altering CP3 proposals.

Meanwhile JJJ goes in search of a mouse!

[kinglouis]

Its been said before, so i will say it again.
NATS pulled the scaremonger tactics to the extreme during the pension pish, they are doing it now with the pay.
Next year they will do it again with another pay deal and then in a few years they will do it again to get rid of the MOU as they have seen we will buckle and take it.
I hope the union see this coming and take a hard line.
The company do not respect us anymore and it will be take, take, take from here on in!!!
Please prospect, im not unreasonable and demanding 5.8%... although that would be nice, but YOU need to get us respectable pay deal to get back some confidence for a company making record profits and boasting about it to all employees.

[Hootin an a roarin]

Standard Noise

Our union rep applied for ROVI from our NSL unit and was told NSL were no longer taking part in the ROVI scheme. I never said it was dead and certainly isn't if you are in NERL.

As for poaching people I agree we should do it. But take the college away from the overheads that we must pay out of the profit we make.

[Ben Doonigan]

Why not just sack all those pesky controllers and ATSAs ?

I mean, who needs them. All they do is grumble and complain on NATSnet, winding up the "really important people".

Think of the savings!! 2000x£60k a year plus 500x£40k a year = over £140m a year, and that doesn't include pension costs !!

And as a bonus, all the airlines stop flying - think how much good that will do our company carbon footprint !! :}

[ZOOKER]

Ben,
Assuming 5000 planes per day, with an average of 25 bods on each, it works out at less than £4 per bod per day to fly through some of the safest and most complex airspace in the world.
A BARGAIN!! :ok:

[DotMac]

What about the AAVA agreement? With the prospect of redundancies / semi-forced early retirement and who knows what else, are the TUs going to continue with the current AAVA agreement?

Sounds like time to rip it up and start re-negotiating that as well.....

Thoughts?

[Vote NO]

NATS might not need AAVA soon, if they resurrect all the "non operational ATCO's" :oh: who can pass a medical, I guess it makes sense in the current climate.
I don't know many airlines who have 2000 pilots, 500 of whom can't fly any more and still strutt about with wings on their uniforms demanding flying pay :E. Can you imagine Michael O'Leary :mad: with 25% of his pilots lurking in Ryanair HQ complaining of air sickness and sitting behind a desk :eek: It's time to get real, NATS can't stay afloat with all the dead wood on board. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic isn't going to work anymore. Yes,of course we need some guys behind a desk, but certainly not 500!, and they have to be efficient
A 10% -20% drop in traffic would probably negate the requirement for AAVA or O/T anyway

[DotMac]

Vote No: I agree with you IF they bring all of the non-ops atcos back - which they can't afford to do either. Despite what most people on these forums seem to think, it's much better having some ATCOs involved in projects from the onset, rather than just at the end in time for the mud slinging to begin!

There's already been a couple of AAVA ATCOs in AC at LACC over the past two weeks.... and that's in our quietest month.

[Vote NO]

DirtyStopout

If there are NO redundancies, and instead NERL takes a £35m hit on their income, then according to last years figures, this would still give them a profit in excess of £30m before tax. This would also allow for the MACC relocation incurring the same costs as the WD relocation

Does anyone know how many from Manch are actually relocating? Will anyone from Manch admit to relocating?
Rumour has it Scottish will struggle to cross train due lack of Manch staff heading North. There are only a few months left for them to commit to a move,or,............. :eek:

[ZOOKER]

"Does anyone know how many from Manch are actually relocating? Will anyone from Manch admit to relocating?"
TICK-TOCK, TICK-TOCK, TICK-TOCK.......:E:E:E

[anotherthing]

In his statement, nowhere does it indicate to me that we will make a loss, only that the profit won't be as large as predicted/he'd like...

Secondly, just because airlines are (quite rightly) whingeing over BAA charging, why does that mean that NATS should suffer even more at the hands of the regulator??

Quote:
...it is likely that they will put the economic regulator under intense pressure to deliver a tough settlement for NERL, particularly after the much criticised review by some customers of BAA charges...
NATS provides a world class service, often praised by its customers... BAA on the other hand...

Fair enough savings may have to be made and costs cut, but using the fact that BAA fleeces the airlines for a sub standard service is not an acceptable reason. When I buy things, I expect to pay more for quality items...

As for cost saving - only the other day on the intranet 'Pinboard' there was an advertisement stating (paraphrase)

"Does anyone require a hotel room in Fareham - we have booked one for a meeting which has been cancelled and we will get charged full rate even if we don't use it"

This 'advert' originated from the CTC.

Why are we still spending lots of money (and it is lots, I've attended meetings at the same hotel and have seen the cost) on meeting rooms when there are plenty at either CTC - (a mile down the road) or even at Swanwick (a whole 6 miles down the road)?? The meeting rooms are often greatly inferior to what we have in our own premises :ugh:

I've asked the question before and been told it is to stop interruptions caused by having meetings in your own normal place of work... complete tosh! If you are at a meeting, you are at a meeting and therefore 'out of office' - just do not accept any disturbances!


Standard Noise

With regards to instructors at the college, it should not just be about the money they will get... people should apply because htey like to teach (and are good at it). The current system whereby everyone gets upgraded to band 5 when they instruct at DAT&Sis ridiculous.

Instead, why not give every suitable ATCO, regardless of the Band of unit they originate from, the same deal? Say a yearly payment on top of their normal salary when they are at the college, then, when it comes time to leave the college, a move to whichever unit they want (this will stop people staying at the college because they do not want to lose money going back to a 'low band' unit).

This is a much fairer way of doing it than the present system whereby someone from a band 2 unit gets a £20k pay rise whereas somoene from a band 5 unit gets a £1.5k pay rise. The ATCOs would continue to receive yearly increments until they are top of their scale. This would mean that every instructor was given the same 'bonus' for passing on their knowledge.

NATS has only just managed to part company with an ex college instructor who failed to validate at a Band 5 unit (a higher band than he had originated from), despite being given numerous lives. The college should not be sen as a ticket by some, to a higher level of pay, if they are not going to be any good. Despite yours and Alfamans protestations, there are still instructors at th ecollege who should be out on their ear - people who have not been valid for years - initially through inability, then through being able to sit at the college and let life pass them by.

Hell we even take people back into the college who are acknowledged as previously being poor instructors, who then disappeared abroad and fail to validate :ugh:.

Is it any wonder that the college still has a reputation?

And yes Alfaman, before you ask, I have stated this to people at the college face to face...

[055166k]

One of the overtimers was ATCO1 working out of grade in an ATCO 2 seat and only part valid anyway....don't ask me to start saving money if management are burning it, and don't expect me to accept little or no pay rise if these wasteful practices continue unabated.

[Vote NO]

anotherthing

Fair enough savings may have to be made and costs cut, but using the fact that BAA fleeces the airlines for a sub standard service is not an acceptable reason. When I buy things, I expect to pay more for quality items...



Especially since BAA only owns 4% of NATS :*

[privatesandwiches]

In these apparant dire times, my council tax has not gone down. Maybe I should copy and paste the bosses email and say that I would like a reduction in my council tax rate as I dont like paying such a high amount for their service (as it seems if airlines dont want to pay what we charge they dont have to)..... No? I didnt think so, but I pay it anyway as I have to and funnily enough they are most likely going to up it come April this year and with no payrise, I am going to be even worse off.
(Mis) trusting NATS, they most likely got wind of something from the airlines and have done the usual spin on it to make us feel guilty and pressured into keeping the airlines and all those thousands of employees going.... what crap! We dont work for an airline and how they run it is down to them and, not my concern. Dont try and make us feel guilty for any rough rides they are getting from the economy at the moment.
NATS likes us all to band together, eg: pensions, saving all these airlines that are going to the wall (even though the majority of the ones that have gone were buggered anyway and it was only a matter of time) and now the pay deal, all when it suits them.
I bet my new crappy pension that when times are steaming ahead in a few years and we are all on the way up and the rewards promised by NATS for 'helping' them out now would come to fruition ala a bigger payrise.... we will get squat. Eerily this rings truth from only a few months ago when we were all promised what a great payrise we would get if we voted the pension deal through.
Are memories really that short?
I also fully expect any redundencies made by NATS to be blamed on us ATCO's for any pay we recieve. It's NATS' great chance to get rid of a load of staff such as our valuable ATSA's and use the economic situation to put their spin on it so it doesnt look like their fault... oh how clever mister Barron!!
Strangely enough, this is all too convenient for the date for EFDS rearing its ugly head and then management dont have to say 'ooops, we got it wrong. More of you will be forced out now, sorry'.
They have probably calculated they can get rid of more staff and again, blame us greedy ATCO's, and make everyone feel guilty, so we go for no payrise please.. all smiles for a few months then guess what..... redundencies anyway!:=
BA did it recently, a chance to offload over a 1000 middle managers ( a NATS speciality in having lots of those too) using the econmic slump as the reason.... this is a great way of cutting back on staff with no comeback from said staff.
We are still pulling in a healthy profit. They just dont like that its not enough to finance their new business model.... NATS Island...only available to senior management and families, paid for by us workers and staffed by failed trainees.
If we are still raking in the millions, i will fail to be sympathetic to their apparant poverty, bread line claims :ok:

[ZOOKER]

"My council tax has not gone down".
Well of course it hasn't!
You have to pay for more Integration Outreach Co-ordinators, who will be setting targets and working 'on solutions to challenges'
These "Quality People" do not come cheap. :}

[man friday]

i'd like to think that those tasked with the responsibility for selecting the nats web photo of the day are safe from mr barrons cost cutting.

how can you possibly provide an air traffic service without these dedicated individuals

[Ahh-40612]

I asked the RB about VR when he was at Swanwick for his bar steward session several weeks ago.
Therefore it must have been my idea and I want to be first in the stampede to get out!!!
However I expect it will various and many passengers that we have been carrying for years that will get the wheelbarrow full of £££ and disappear into the distance.
As an aside, I got my Swanwick locker and my fire training e-mail reminder was perfection!!!!!!! Well worth the top of the scale in my mind!! Never mind about inability to do the real job.

35+ years operational and I've had enough. Great job - shame about the peripheral garbage that accompanies it.

More savings identified. There appear to be a team of 3 - going by the pictures on page 2 - needed to produce Pulse. A bit OTT perhaps.

40612 now just a pile of corroding scrap in Arizona.

[FDP_Walla]

So, this thread was about Pay 2009. I believe that RPI should be paid to those who stay in the company, but we need to keep the good people and lose the shirkers. The unions imho have the wrong attitude here and insist on voluntary redundancies. Nonsense, we all know the workers from the shirkers. Let’s have the cull. Why should I have a future where I have to work longer hours with more stress because the company have allowed some of my best colleagues to go. Yes, we may cut workload appropriately, but no doubt some bright spark will then say let’s work 30% faster and so the cycle starts again.
Mgt may look at all the comments on NATSNET from staff suggesting 3 day weeks and part-time working etc and look at the depts that these people work in. If they can suggest such a thing then they aint as busy as me and my colleagues.
This is of course about ‘managing staff expectations for pay award’. Maybe we should start ‘managing customer expectations’.

[anotherthing]

FDP Walla

Extremely well said.

It would be very nice to be able to be selective about which volunteers we accept when it comes to voluntary redundancies, unfortunately of course, we can't.

Any company with balls would use this situation as an option to get rid of underperforming dross i.e. the slackers who do not carry out their duties correctly.
We all know who they are, but of course it's not going to happen that way.
In fact I would go as far as to say that the reporting system for line managers is such that a lot of the people do not get picked up for their slackness because line managers do not want to be seen to be 'horrible' :ugh:

We should be working smarter when it comes to redundancies, but of course, we won't.

[Minesapint]

The problem with this is that they would not get rid of the shirkers, They would take some bean counters word for who the shirkers are too. RPI should be paid after the first round of redundancies though - that is for sure! However :ugh: will apply.

[kinglouis]

So is anyone pissed off at how they are trying to use the big guilt trip of airlines apparant hard times to make us take no payrise?

[Vote NO]

Its all part of the psychology to brainwash us :}

Look at PB's photo on NATS intranet. Its all carefully managed (no doubt at great expense). He is not smiling or sad, more of a pissed off look :oh: . Management are using the intranet to "manage the staff". Each shafting is preceeded by bad news and hard times, with the emphasis on "we have no dosh". The comments from staff are carefully monitored to gauge the mood and to gain ideas on where to make cuts. Yet only last year they were boasting how efficient the company is, reaching out with its "tentacles" to capture business overseas.
I dont think we will get anything more than a 1% pay rise this year, despite the fact it should be 5.8% (Aug RPI+1%)

[eglnyt]

He is not smiling or sad, more of a pissed off look

I should think he's just as pissed off as the rest of us. One minute all is well the next thanks to some overpaid bankers income is down by 8% and it's all got a lot harder.

[kinglouis]

Well I hear the ATCO that got under Barrons skin before xmas on the intranet and got a rise out of him has now hounded him enough that he has a private meeting with him in a few weeks to bounce ideas and have a good horn locking session together.
Not sure if that is 100% true as heard it from a colleague on the same watch, but I beleive that Barrons latest email begging us to 'help' the airlines, solve 3rd world debt and rid the world of Aids all through us not taking a payrise will be top of his agenda.... especially if his lenghty post above is a 'warm up'.
Personally, even if it does bugger all and Barron is playing more games with ATCO's I stand behind the lad and admire his tenacity to at least take Barron up on his offer..... If nothing else, I hope he gets a good few pats on the back, may even up morale for about 2 minutes!!!! :ok:

[privatesandwiches]

I wouldnt say hounded, but i guess this is a rumour network.

[viaEGLL]

How do we help out the airline group?
It is rumoured they are being paid a 19 MILLION POUND DIVIDEND this year!
NATS employees should think about redundancy and cost cutting :mad:

[stressed]

OK enough of the chit chat and lets get back to the beginning.

What exactly are Prospect doing.

What are they asking for

When can we expect some indication of progress

The silence is deafening and I'm now ready to quit a union that seems to enjoy stockpiling powder over selectively using it to good effect.

Enough is nearly enough.

[Gonzo]

We've had an update posted on our Union notice board for a few weeks now......Not in work so I can't remember the details... I think it said they asked for August RPI+1% as a baseline, but that separate sectional claims are also being submitted.

[Mr Red]

I have just heard, from a source, that the union guys at manch are going around saying that atco's at the top of the scale are going to be asked to take v.r. as its cheaper to pay more atco's at the bottom of the scale.

what horse crap is this that is going around?

[Vote NO]

Latest rumour....

If we want a 3% payrise, we will need to lose 400 jobs,2%= 300 job losses, 1% =200 losses

Now here is the cracker :ok:.........

Pay freeze for 2 years :eek: and no job losses :D

Now I wonder who exactly will vote for 3% and who will vote for a pay freeze :E

[radar707]

I want at least a 5.8% payrise (RPI +1%)

[Vote NO]

I want at least a 5.8% payrise (RPI +1%)


That's 680 job losses :{

[Dee Mac]

I see the masters of getting what they want are at it again. Don't believe the pish that's planted out there to put fear into the workforce. I'll have my RPI +1% (August 2008 RPI) as well. Their profit? Couldn't care less.

[anotherthing]

Vote No

The company can afford RPI. All that Barrons e-mail states is that profits won't be as large as he'd like...

As for pay percentage for job losses, I'm all for cutting jobs within NATS, if it is done properly; i.e. wasters get chopped.

However there should not be a culture of 'chop more, get a higher percentage', there should be a proper study of who we need now and who we will need in the near future (taking into account the lead time it takes to train people etc)... then bin the rest.

Barron et al try to tell us that they are running NATS as a business. Until they cut out the fat, which includes the stupid, pointless ATCO management posts that keep springing up, then it seems to me that they are not doing a good job of running NATS as a business.

Barron got his pension deal, now he should cut other unnecessary jobs. That may sound harsh, but why should we carry people just to keep them employed?

We are either a business or we are not. Why should I not take a pay rise just to keep someone, who is doing little or nothing, in a job??

In the past week I have heard of people who have failed in their management post being given yet another chance with the introduction of yet another new management position. Another case of failed managers being shuffled around to keep friends in jobs.

We are either trying to save money or not. I am getting
f:mad::mad:king sick of being told we need to save money, then seeing failures keeping their high paid jobs when they could be taken back into operational employment with a pay cut:=

[Vote NO]

I could not agree more. I just hope and pray our union bods have got their act together and don't bend over again to bail out PB and co. It just gets worse and worse :\
NATS is becoming a sh**e company to work for. I don't want to hear "welcome to the real world" either. :mad:

[121decimal375]

Its about time our union proved they had some balls andpush for a decent payrise. More inportantly, lets give the company a deadline! April the 1st deal done RPI +1 or we walk?

[Vote NO]

Changing the subject slightly .....

A friend of mine flys for Ryanair, and tells me they might be struggling to survive this year and payrises are not even expected :\

Ryanair runs up heavy losses but expects passenger growth next year | Business | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/feb/02/ryanair-airline-industry)

Michael O'Leary, chief executive, described the loss of €101.5m (£91.9m) in the three months to December 08 as "disappointing", blaming it on escalating fuel costs (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/interactive/2008/sep/16/oilprice), which rose more than 70%. Ryan­air said average fares fell 9% but both revenues and passenger numbers were up.

I sympathise with the staff, but confess I hate the whole unsustainable cheap flight thing, which has rendered travel akin to a cattlemarket instead of a luxurious way to travel.

I had to laugh at this website I Hate Ryanair (http://www.ihateryanair.co.uk/) what a bunch of filthy thieving bastards!

[anotherthing]

part of RYR problem is (I have been told), that they did not hedge fuel for ages... then they did, unfortunately for them they hedged just before the prices fell dramatically, but obviously they now are suffering for the late hedging...


I personally think they will be OK, after all, when money is tight for Joe/Josephine Public, I would think he/she is more likely to use a LoCo carrier than a flag carrier...

[Del Prado]

fuel up 30% in the last 3 months of the year? perhaps he shouldn't have hedged so high?

As far as the pay issue is concerned, I'm fed up with having my "expectations managed". NATS has made a very healthy profit in the last several years and I believe they're on track to post a similar profit this year. We need to tell our union reps what we want and what we're prepared to do if we don't get it.

[PPRuNe Radar]

We need to tell our union reps what we want and what we're prepared to do if we don't get it.

Sadly, they know what we are prepared to do ... roll over and be shafted again and again :{

[eglnyt]

The company can afford RPI. All that Barrons e-mail states is that profits won't be as large as he'd like.

Given that NATS makes most of it's profit in the Summer and the recession was considerate enough to wait until October before it kicked in it's pretty likely that NATS will make some profit in this financial year. Anybody who thinks that means that there is no problem is deluding themselves. NERL income over the last two months was down 8%. Schedules will be similar through to Easter so that seems a pretty good estimate of income till then. Summer schedules are the big unknown but does anybody honestly believe that Land Rover, Honda, Woolworths and Zavvi employees are rushing out to book their fortnight in the sun ? If income is down 8% you then have to add in the RPI-x element, the annual increments that mean that NATS staff costs rise year on year regardless of pay settlements, the likelihood that pension costs will increase (the settlement was only about limiting the cost not reducing it) and very quickly the profit margin is reduced and the company is making a loss.

I don't want to hear "welcome to the real world" either.

Unfortunately not living in the real world is a privilege only open to Government, companies owned by generous benefactors (think Football clubs), Banks (a surprising new addition to the list) and companies which have reserves built up over many years. Everybody else including NATS can only trade at a loss for a very short time and PB and the other Directors are legally obliged to ensure that it doesn't. If income falls there are only two choices reduce costs or put up prices. Even if the Regulator were prepared to do the latter does anybody really think that would work ? When your customers are struggling raising charges will do nothing except reduce demand and make the problem worse. Reducing costs is the only option but however much you think might be wasted on reward ceremonies and management initiatives there is no way you are going to save the sort of sums involved without cutting jobs.

I just hope and pray our union bods have got their act together and don't bend over again to bail out PB and co.

I also hope they've got their act together but I suspect we have different views on what that means. My expectation of a union is that it represents all its members and gives the weaker members some power derived from the more powerful. I hope that for any union protecting jobs comes top of the lists of the things it does, protecting income is also important but not as important. I don't expect a union to favour improving the lot of its more powerful better off members at the expense of its weaker ones.

I'm all for cutting jobs within NATS, if it is done properly; i.e. wasters get chopped.

A very dangerous strategy and one only advocated by those arrogant enough to believe that they aren't likely to get chopped. The problem is none of us know how long we will be fit and able to perform as well as we do today and one day, when it happens again, you may find yourself in one of those posts that somebody thinks isn't important. When that time comes you'll have to hope that your colleagues don't take the same view as you are now. The only safe strategy is to fight for every post whoever fills it and whatever you may think about their abilities. I hope that is what the union will do.

[Ben Doonigan]

EGLYNTthe annual increments that mean that NATS staff costs rise year on year regardless of pay settlements

ermmm.... don't people retire ? Some popping off the top and saving top-of-the-scale wages, and then being replaced by entrants at the bottom ?

Are increments for all 5500 staff, or just ATCOs, ATSAs and ATCEs ?

EGLYNTIf income falls there are only two choices reduce costs or put up prices.
Our charges to the airlines are in euros and I understand they have been reduced by about 30% already over the last year due to the pounds deflation.

EGLYNTThe only safe strategy is to fight for every post whoever fills it and whatever you may think about their abilities. I hope that is what the union will do.
you may find yourself in one of those posts that somebody thinks isn't important

Whilst I applaud the sentiment, a $hitload of operational staff are feeling exactly that way at the moment. Do YOU feel valued by management ? Do YOU feel that they think YOU or your job is important ? I don't. I'm made to feel as if I'm an expensive overhead, not a dedicated and trusted professional. I'm expected to work with second-rate equipment, $hite radios, in a freezing ops room, with continually added and amended Operational Instructions, layer upon layer of new procedures (with minimal training), while all the time worrying about the uncertainty of my pension and the monkeys who are screwing every last ounce out of this once fine company.
So, NO, I don't believe that means we should expend energy on retaining nonsense jobs and supporting an out of control paperwork bureaucracy.

Look around at the countless layers of management at your unit - how many would $hit themselves if asked to plug in and try and validate ? How many of them couldn't wait to get out of the ops room, or couldn't validate ? How many are puffed up with their own importance and job titles ? How many are contemptuous of operational staff who object ?

And I've not even mentioned CTC :E

How many man hours go into producing website upon website with interminable guff and TLAs about 'vision', 'projects', 'purchase', 'customer', 'opportunities' etc..etc... I could go on and on. How many man hours go into 'Pulse' and how much does all that pish cost ? Does it contribute one iota to making my job as an ATCO any easier ? Does it ####.

How come the huge majority of comments on Natsnet are from CTC - surely they should be so busy creating 'opportunities' for the rest of us they shouldn't have time to fart on about bloody photos and bloody award ceremonies. BTW Hope all you poor dears made it in through the huge snowdrifts :hmm:

Someone please remind me. What is the raison d'etre of NATS ? Some job creation for trendy, stripey middle management? or to stop aeroplanes hitting each other ?


Do you know something - I'm tired of it. I'm tired of seeing "sicknotes" rewarded with promotions. I'm tired of seeing safety issues swept under the carpet because they cost too much. I'm tired of seeing $hite controllers promoted beyond their ability and then watch them swan around as if they're ####ing experts in keeping aeroplanes apart. I'm tired of continually having to adjust to the ever changing rulebook to cover somebody elses ar$e.

After only 20 years, I'm ready to chuck in the job I love.

[Radarspod]

I can't help but think that the dross that needs removing will be the very ones hiding most behind the union.........

[TALLOWAY]

We need a staff suggestion box with ideas for savings.

In addition to the old favourites of pointless and costly awards ceremonies, business bull**** bingo initiatives, etc, I am sure we could all come up with our own local savings.

I'll throw in a starter which would save maybe around £0.5M per annum. Get rid of the Watch Managers at Scottish. They are in theory aligned to a Watch but seem to write their own roster. They don't do nights, they disappear early and come in late. They are often off unit attending one or other of the Baron's junkets. Often you can't find one or they are in a 'meeting' and can't be disturbed, other days there will be 2 or 3 of them skulking around the building doing 'important' stuff. What do they actually do ? No, that's actually a serious question. What do they do for the operation ?

We had 2 Managers ATC before who looked after the non Op stuff for each room. Under them were 10 Supervisors (1 per Watch per Ops Room). Between them they dealt with everything that was needed. Things weren't perfect, but we coped and things usually got done eventually.

Now we have some sort of Business Delivery Manager (ex ATCO), some sort of Operational Manager (ex ATCO), 5 Watch Managers (allegedely ex ATCOs :p ) and 10 Supervisors. And this is more efficient and focused than the old system how exactly ??

We went through big cuts and efficiency savings in the late 90s and early 2000's. It was painful, but essential and helped us become a better organisation. Why then have people like Baron built our organisation up again in to a top heavy, multi layered management biased company who have lost sight of why we are in business ? If they were real business men, they would have kept us streamlined and efficient. Instead we are just another fat cat 'jobs for the boys' business, wallowing and ineffective in our own mire. It's time for the government to get someone to come along and clear out the dross, for someone to question what everyone adds, and to get rid of the wasteful layers of experts and managers who pontificate and spout mantras like a herd of sheep. The best place to start would be at the top ... and work down.

[eglnyt]

Our charges to the airlines are in euros and I understand they have been reduced by about 30% already over the last year due to the pounds deflation.

Charges in euros have indeed been reduced but that is only a benefit for those airlines which trade in euros. For those whose majority income is in sterling the price is pretty much the same.

How come the huge majority of comments on Natsnet are from CTC - surely they should be so busy creating 'opportunities' for the rest of us they shouldn't have time to fart on about bloody photos and bloody award ceremonies. BTW Hope all you poor dears made it in through the huge snowdrifts

The majority of people working in CTC are hard working professional people who work longer hours than operational staff without the benefit of the routine regulatory breaks that operational staff enjoy. The clue to what most of them do is in the T part of CTC rather than the first C. If it pleases some of them to take a minute or two to contribute to a tired and worn in-joke that most of us never understood in the first place should it really bother anybody else ? Maybe it's a welcome break from the pressure that most of them are under. Oh and by the way most of them did get in apart from those relying on the inadequate public transport system which management still seem to think is an alternative to the car.

How many man hours go into producing website upon website with interminable guff and TLAs about 'vision', 'projects', 'purchase', 'customer', 'opportunities' etc..etc... I could go on and on. How many man hours go into 'Pulse' and how much does all that pish cost ? Does it contribute one iota to making my job as an ATCO any easier ? Does it ####.

I think most people in NATS cringe at most of that stuff whatever job they do.

[anotherthing]

eglnyt


I'm all for cutting jobs within NATS, if it is done properly; i.e. wasters get chopped.
A very dangerous strategy and one only advocated by those arrogant enough to believe that they aren't likely to get chopped.



I'm not arrogant, though I know my job is pretty safe.

It is not arrogant to say we should cut the fat and get rid of people who contribute little or nothing to the company.

It is not arrogant to expect the company (who when it suits claims times are hard) to look at roles and decide which ones are really necessary and which can be dropped.

It is not arrogant to say that if the company wants to tighten it's belt then we should ensure that we only employ people making a meaningful contribution.

It is not arrogant to expect the company to amalgamate roles where possibly, therefore cutting some personnel and saving money.

These are things the company should be doing all the time, instead of spunking away money willy-nilly when the times are good, then bleating when the times are bad.
I've said it countless times before, I'll say it again - we are either running NATS as a business or we are not. If we are, as Management try to claim, we should stop pi$$ing about and do it properly all the time, not just in a recession...

It's not as simple as support staff versus operational - there are many staff at CTC etc who we need to retain to ensure that projects that have been started continue to have work done on them. However there are many staff, company wide, we can get rid off. There are many staff we could have got rid of regardless of the economic downturn - it's just a shame that our business 'leaders' can't be ar$ed to do it when we were making money.

NATS is now beginning to sow what it has reaped - we would have been much better placed to face financial storms if we were streamlined all the time, the way a proper business should be.

You write:

...My expectation of a union is that it represents all its members and gives the weaker members some power derived from the more powerful. I hope that for any union protecting jobs comes top of the lists...
Only the jobs that deserve saving. Lets not cut jobs for cutting jobs sake - no one agrees with that. But lets get brutal about jobs and positions that are duplicating effort and/or wasting company money. If that sounds harsh, then welcome to the real world(!) You mention Woolworths and Zavvi etc, maybe if these companies had less overheads they would have fared better... certainly the writing has been on the wall for Woolies for years.

In business there is no room for sentimentalism - The only safe strategy is to fight for every post whoever fills it and whatever you may think about their abilities. I hope that is what the union will do.We don't live in Utopia, and I for one don't see why the company should be selective about how it scrimps and saves - if the posts are not required then goodbye...

...The problem is none of us know how long we will be fit and able to perform as well as we do today and one day, when it happens again, you may find yourself in one of those posts that...Therein lies the difference between office working and ATCOs...
Maybe you think it is arrogant, but ATCO competency in later years is a real issue, and the company should look after ATCOs when some of them fail to keep up with traffic when they near retirement - the contracts are written to allow work to retirement, NATS is a safety orientated industry after all. ATCOs should not be penalised if, when they have a few years to retire they can no longer keep up with traffic which was (and will again) grow(ing) by huge amounts each year. This very small handfull of ATCOs can still give a hell of a lot to NATS in there last 2 or 3 years.

It's not the same as working in an office, If someone in an office can't keep up with the latest version of Word or Excel, then...

We are a business, lets run things like a business... that means making sure we do not duplicate or triplicate effort, that we do not employ people who have little to really do to fill their days. It does not mean we cannot look after the staff that we keep - it just means that we do not keep the staff we do not need!

It's really not a difficult concept, we are not a charity.

Just a few final points - in your posts you state...

Reducing costs is the only option but however much you think might be wasted on reward ceremonies and management initiatives there is no way you are going to save the sort of sums involved without cutting jobs.the fact is every little helps.

also

Reducing costs is the only option but however much you think might be wasted on reward ceremonies and management initiatives there is no way you are going to save the sort of sums involved without cutting jobs.
andMy expectation of a union is that it represents all its members and gives the weaker members some power derived from the more powerful. I hope that for any union protecting jobs comes top of the lists of the things it does, protecting income is also important but not as important. I don't expect a union to favour improving the lot of its more powerful better off members at the expense of its weaker ones.
andThe only safe strategy is to fight for every post whoever fills it and whatever you may think about their abilities. I hope that is what the union will do.
So exactly what are you trying to say? You reply to people who state 'get rid of unnecessary jobs' by implying ATCO arrogance, then you go on to say what you have above.

Do you think we should cut jobs or not??? Your 3 statments above are at complete odds with each other!

So where do we have a cut-off - presumably you want to ensure you are safe, what about 'the people in a weaker position than you'?

If you think we do need to cut jobs, as your first statement clearly states, are you not in danger by your very stance ands statements, of being as arrogant as you claim ATCOs to be?
You talk about protecting weaker members - what about the ones in a weaker position than you? Your statements in the very same post contradict each other!!!

No one believes we should chop people or jobs that are needed, but we should chop jobs that are wasteful. Maybe if you stopped trying to make this an ATCO versus everyone else issue, then you would see the irony in what you write:ugh:

And finally, this gem - without the benefit of the routine regulatory breaks that operational staff enjoyDo you really know what NATS core business is?
Do you really understand it?
Do you know what NATS primary function is?

The answer to the third question, in case you are struggling, is SAFETY in the provision of ATC. The breaks we 'enjoy' are as you say regulatory - they are mandated in law.
They are there for safety reasons. You spout off the management line all the time - that is your right... but at least try to understand what ATC is actually about.

[OurSoul]

eglynt,

I think you will find the recession began in July,not Oct.
I know you like to spout the management line continuously,but get your facts right first.:ok:

OS

[ZOOKER]

eglinyt,
"routine regulatory breaks that operational staff enjoy".
I believe ATCOs also 'enjoy':-
An annual check of their competence.
Annual emergency training.
A bi-annual or (depending on age), annual medical which is fairly close to the standards expected of a professional pilot.
Do those who fly mahogany bombers from Whiteley International have these hurdles, er, sorry, 'challenges'? NO.
All 4 of the above are of course designed to ensure my safety.
"A safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic" - ICAO's words not mine.

[eyeinthesky]

Anotherthing:

QUOTE
Maybe you think it is arrogant, but ATCO competency in later years is a real issue, and the company should look after ATCOs when some of them fail to keep up with traffic when they near retirement - the contracts are written to allow work to retirement, NATS is a safety orientated industry. ATCOs should not be penalised if, when they have a few years to retire they can no longer keep up with traffic which was (and will again) grow(ing) by huge amounts each year. It's not the same as working in an office, If someone in an office can't keep up with the latest version of Word or Excel, then...
UNQUOTE

Of course you need to look after people, but why should it be considered automatic that an ATCO falling into the situation you describe should continue to be paid a full ATCO salary once they are no longer doing the ATCO job? By all means have options for people to continue to work for NATS once they are no longer operational, but that may be at a salary level commensurate with their new responsibilities, not their previous ones.

You can't have it both ways:

QUOTE
We are a business, lets run things like a business... that means making sure we do not duplicate or triplicate effort, we do not employ people who have little to really do to fill their days. It does not mean we cannot look after the staff that we keep - it just means that we do not keep the staff we do not need!
UNQUOTE

[anotherthing]

eyeinthesky -

NATS primary business is safety, if an ATCO thinks he or she cannot maintain proficiency when they near retirement, how do we sort it out?

Here's a question... If they have 6 years to retirement, what do you propose happens with their pension if they take a salary cut to fill an office job? Should their pension then be reduced because their average salary in their final years has decreased?

Or should we use these ATCOs with numerous years valuable experience carrying out NATS primary function in training roles/ops jobs that require that type of experience, thus allowing them to keep their wages and freeing up some other, younger ATCOs to return to the OPs room?

Or do you propose we be dishonest about it and stick them on the quietest sector in the room and carry them?

It's not a case of having it both ways - unless you look at it simplistically. It's a case of using resources efficiently. If an ATCO has to withdraw from the Ops room, then we can look at other ATCO grade jobs (real ATCO grade jobs, not some of the made up ones we have kicking around) that would be suitable.

If that means swapping places with a younger ATCO who has gone to do a years work in Ops or the training department, then so be it.

The amount of people we are talking about is minimal - there are essential jobs out there that actually need to be filled by people who have controlled.

Working in the Ops room is not the same as working in a nice benign office environment! Safety is paramount.

[PH-UKU]

The majority of people working in CTC are hard working professional people who work longer hours than operational staff without the benefit of the routine regulatory breaks that operational staff enjoy.

You sound a bit chippy old chap. What's yanked your chain? Feeling the heat? :}

There's a teesny weensy reason for that 'benefit' that we 'enjoy'. (But thank you for your munificence anyway). :D

Concentrating on stopping aircraft hitting each other is slightly more critical and (difficult) than fannying around on a computer. :hmm:

I should know - I fanny around on the computer at home, for hours and hours. And guess what ? I don't need a professional licence to do that, or to run meetings. :ugh:

I also 'enjoy' a profession with one of the highest rates of high blood pressure, crap equipment, ever changing procedures, the constant threat of having to co-ordinate with Scampton .. oh, yes and if I screw up I'm either on the front page of the news, stabbed on the doorstep, a mental wreck for life, disciplined or all four ..... :hmm:

Next! :mad:

[Radarspod]

I also 'enjoy' a profession with one of the highest rates of high blood pressure, crap equipment, ever changing procedures, the constant threat of having to co-ordinate with Scampton .. oh, yes and if I screw up I'm either on the front page of the news, stabbed on the doorstep, a mental wreck for life, disciplined or all four .....


and get a significantly better pay package compared to the average CTCer to make up for it. :ok:

[ZOOKER]

Quite right too. :ok::ok:

[PH-UKU]

and get a significantly better pay package compared to the average CTCer to make up for it.

And here was me thinking all CTCers were above average.

Reminds me of the joke about the US Senator who got wound up by a 'concerned' constituent. The 'outraged' citizen demanded to know why 50% of Americans were of below average intelligence. :}

The aforementioned Senator then went off on one, agreeing it was scandalous ..... and even asked questions in the Senate. :ugh:

:E

[throw a dyce]

What does the average CTCer get paywise? :)

[anotherthing]

And here I thought the pay package for ATCOs was merely commensurate with other European countries, for the skills required for to do a job that not everyone can do...

The pay has nothing to do with consequences of screwing up, or the reduced life expectancy of an ATCO... But now you mention it, maybe we should ask for an extra payment to cover those things as well...:ok:

[Vote NO]

What does the average CTCer get paywise?

Not being smart :), but what do they actually do at CTC ?
All I know is there are about 1400 staff, and seriously can someone tell me what they do? None of the shop floor staff (and there are many)at my large unit can give me an answer without mentioning Latte and photo of the day.
My world is far removed from all this corporate stuff and is just plain old ATC/RADAR , keeping aircraft apart :oh:

[Radarspod]

Just heard a briefing - management looking to shed 30 staff across asset engineering through voluntary redundancy already - all @ NATS getting an email later today about various other VR requests.

happy days ......if only I had failed my degree and gone to my fallback plan to become an ATCO :{

RS

[Radarspod]

Not being smart , but what do they actually do at CTC ?

I'm not going to bite on this one as it's been done to death before on the pensions thread and this thread. *yawn*.:yuk:

I am detecting severe sense of humour failures in this thread and don't want to be dragged in :cool:

Starbucks also do cappucinos, espressos, and even tea!

RS

[Cuddles]

I'm sick to the ******* back teeth of all you ***** on here at each others throats. It's divide and rule, and it shouldn't be.

Anyone reading this thread will see us as a bunch of petty, childish spoilt, self serving fools. All of us. I'm not pointing fingers.

It's embarrassing. Sort yourselves out.

I get the feeling I've suggested similar things before

http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/344953-working-together-2.html#post4444025

[Vote NO]

I'm not going to bite on this one as it's been done to death before on the pensions thread and this thread. *yawn*.http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/pukey.gif

I am detecting severe sense of humour failures in this thread and don't want to be dragged in http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/cool.gif

Starbucks also do cappucinos, espressos, and even tea!

RS

My question was genuine. Honestly !

I have little or no interest in anything at work besides ATC, my colleagues and friends. I come in, do my job as well as I can, go home, and enjoy my family life. It may come as a shock to some at CTC, but the truth is, us ATC types are not really intersested in what goes on at CTC, I am just trying to find out !

ok quick google..............

NATS to expand Hampshire technical centre - NATS (http://www.nats.co.uk/article/221/132/nats_to_expand_hampshire_technical_centre.html)

National Air Traffic Services (NATS) is to almost double the size of its new Corporate & Technical Centre (CTC) at Whiteley, near Fareham in Hampshire.
At the official opening today of the first stage of the CTC, NATS will confirm an agreement with developers Arlington Securities, on behalf of the Arlington Business Park Partnership, to add two more buildings on the site at Solent Business Park.
These will house development engineering staff and systems moving from West Drayton and Gatwick, bringing NATS’ total CTC population to around 1,400. Together with more than 1,000 staff employed four miles away at the London Area Control Centre in Swanwick, the extended CTC will make NATS the biggest employer in the Fareham area and one of the ten largest employers in Hampshire.
Paul Barron, Chief Executive, said: “NATS is making pioneering moves to put it at the forefront of European air traffic management. We are now well into implementing a £1bn investment programme which includes new systems, new centres and a new way of working for our people. The CTC is key to delivering that.
“We’re delighted to have the first stage of the CTC up and running, with almost 750 people already relocated from sites across the UK. The CTC will be the nerve centre of our engineering prowess and we look forward to the second stage which will finally bring our development engineers together, under one roof, for the first time.”
The CTC is a critical pillar of NATS’ strategy to consolidate its operations and streamline its business. It provides bespoke accommodation for NATS’ engineering departments, previously split between five sites across the UK, to meet the complex and technologically demanding challenges of the business.
When complete, it will bring together most of the company’s project engineering staff and their equipment, and staff involved in strategic systems development work. It will also house simulators used for training operational Air Traffic Controllers, and provide operational support to the Swanwick Centre and the new Prestwick Centre currently under construction in Ayrshire.
The first three interlinked buildings of the CTC took just 18 months to complete and provide 130,000sq ft of space. The second stage will add two further buildings providing 127,000sq ft. Construction is expected to get under way in November for handover to NATS by early 2006 for systems installation and testing before staff move in.

Sounds impressive :ok: At least I got the staff numbers correct!

[DAL208]

The majority of people working in CTC are hard working professional people

A true comment and nobody would dispute.


who work longer hours than operational staff without the benefit of the routine regulatory breaks that operational staff enjoy.


That is a very naive, stupid comment...and a little offensive. Also it is a sign that you have little or no appreciation of what operational staff do. It is not a 'break' nor do we 'enjoy' it. It is a legal requirement, often a real annoyance that gets in the way, but we all understand the real neccessity for it.
Every ATCO has worked for longer and a lot harder for their position than ANYONE at CTC...notice there is a world shortage of ATCO's? Do you think that is the same for Managerial staff and the job you do?...id bet my NATS pension on it not being the same.....actually, maybe i should bet something that will be worth something in a few years...

[Dee Mac]

1400 staff at CTC? Says it all really here in my understaffed ops room north of the border we've come to the conclusion that NATS these days is really style over substance. Your jobs are safe, Paul Barron needs people around him who know as much about shifting traffic as he does.

[Medway Control]

Well anyone from Swanwick or the Ctc wanna share what has happened in work today? Email says the affected areas have been spoken to... Anyone know where or who?

[bmb7jiw]

What email? Can you elaborate? I was only in till 10am today...

[Bombay Vindaloo]

E-mail sent to Swanwick staff if I remember rightly.... entitled "Swanwick voluntary redundancies". Contained an attachment whereby you could apply for VR if you so wish.

I'm afraid I don't remember which groups of staff it was sent to, ie ops/non ops; ATSAs/ATCOs.

[Radarspod]

The company wide email didn't specify, but particular areas we were told in breifings (if i recall correctly?!?) about where Asset Engineering, ESD H24 centres engineers and ATSAs.

I can't talk for the ops areas affected, but for AE we have seen a lot of LTIP resource demand slip to the right into CP3 to make CP2 costs drop. Hence now the headcount is higher than forecast demand. Hence the voluntary redundancy request in our area - I assume the ops areas are due to expected reduction in demand due to centre merging and new system introductions, but that is only an assumption.

RS

[Bombay Vindaloo]

In addition to my previous post, for clarification, the e-mail I'm referring to was sent/received at approx. 2pm today (4th Feb).

[Flaps ten please]

NERL ATSA's got an e-mail looking for 22 VRs from across both Ops rooms (AC & TC)

Form a queue to leave this :mad: company while you can

Any other groups affected ?

[hold at SATAN]

Why the f**k are we running two NATS with 2 boards, paying fat cat salaries. One NATS needs one board of directors, get rid of this duplication as well as the duplication in the managerial levels beneath the board...and before long we'll hit that £35m saving mark :ok:
And with the multi-strata managerial system, all they do is shuffle paper up from the lower levels to the uppr levels and back down again. Take Heathrow;

GM is the main man. Up until recently the Manager ATC was the next leveldown, followed by Watch managers. Now the MATC is joined by a Business Support Manager. What the heck does he do that the GM and MATC cant do? They really need to pull their finger our and cut the fat where it ought to be cut - not the operational and support staff that keeo the good ship NATS a-sailing!

Not to mention the people above GMs - what bloody purpose to the GCAMs (Group Contract Account Managers?) serve? Account managers? when did we become a f**king sales organisations.

ATC..I say again...ATC is what we do - lets get our house in order (OR being met for example) before we chase the pipedreams of foreign contracts and whatnot. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[zkdli]

This is a sad day that I think that anyone who had been listening for the last few months was dreading. We have seen the first move in redundancies in the company. They are not just non operational staff but also operational. As people have said - our business is ATC and staff who are in the operation and the support areas that make the operation work are now been asked to volunteer to leave.

Still as some on this thread have said:

"It is not arrogant to expect the company (who when it suits claims times are hard) to look at roles and decide which ones are really necessary and which can be dropped.

It is not arrogant to say that if the company wants to tighten it's belt then we should ensure that we only employ people making a meaningful contribution."


So that is alright then:(

[autothrottle]

Agreed....A VERY SAD DAY FOR NATS, EVEN SADDER FOR THOSE WHO JUST WANT TO SHIFT TRAFFIC! THAT USED TO BE WHAT NATS WAS ALL ABOUT, BUT NOT ANY MORE. :=

[eglnyt]

E-mails asking for VR applications were sent to targetted groups. The ones identified in our meeting, which I think was the same one that Radarspod went to, were Swanwick ATSAs, Asset Engineering, Programmes, Engineering Service Delivery H24 and Technical Services which includes Operational Research and Quality Assurance. Seems to be about 10% in most of those groups although the exact numbers were restricted to each e-mail so nobody can easily work out how many in total.

It is indeed a sad day but managers are anxious to stress it isn't bad news. Apparently it's an opportunity for all those who may wish to take advantage of it

[PeltonLevel]

autothrottle has nearly got it right!
Shifting traffic is what we do.
ATC is how we do it safely

[luv pringles]

All very well, but what about MY pay rise, after all it's no secret managment always made it clear the ATSAS would go with the introduction of new technology, i'm sure most have spent the last few years updating you skills base. You did didn't you?

[zkdli]

Luv pringles - okay i'll bite - I really hope you have your tongue in your cheek and have gone for the trenches.

[Vote NO]

All very well, but what about MY pay rise, after all it's no secret managment always made it clear the ATSAS would go with the introduction of new technology, i'm sure most have spent the last few years updating you skills base. You did didn't you?



Probably the same managent that have all but destroyed NATS. With any luck there will be a clearout of all the idiots in suits together with the layers of dross posing at my unit, and the remaining 49% of NATS is taken from them and given back to HMG:mad:

[autothrottle]

OHHHH Pringles....

[Vote NO]

Must be a girly type with a name like that :E

[Ceannairceach]

Around 30 voluntary redundancies will be announced at MACC/ScOACC shortly, with at least another 30 to follow. Mostly from ATSA staff.

[11K-AVML]

mails asking for VR applications were sent to targetted groups. The ones identified in our meeting, which I think was the same one that Radarspod went to, were Swanwick ATSAs, Asset Engineering, Programmes, Engineering Service Delivery H24 and Technical Services which includes Operational Research and Quality Assurance. Seems to be about 10% in most of those groups although the exact numbers were restricted to each e-mail so nobody can easily work out how many in total.I think you mean Technical and Scientific Services of which I believe Operational Analysis, Asset Engineering and Quality Assurance are part (although P. Baron's recent news article makes the T&SS division redundant).

The powers that be are looking for Operational Analysis to lose 7 people (10%) although I think they only recently got reduced by 10%...so I guess that's really 20%.
Not sure how many QA and AE, but I believe this is also supposed to be about 10%. Interestingly Operational Analysis are generally speaking on STAR grades which are some of the lowest in the organisation.

[45 before POL]

The email was up to 22 Vr's in the ATSA grade at Swanwick TC/AC of which a stampede is expected. Curious thing is though how can this progress, as overtime is still going on within the AC ops room even in winter. This is surely a sticking point which the unions should follow up on. Or is it a case of out with the old.....4 months later bring in new personel as short staffed and on a "contract" and no pension liabilities.
Now.... i can't remember nats laying atsas off to recruit 4 months later....:E:E:E bit like the economy, cyclycle and people never learn.
Oh and a way to save money. ..the 2 new director post RB has added, and 5 Safety managers along with the WM's cut to 2 each.(being kind)......that would save ...(directors £120k+pension cont= £150k each(conservative guess) 3 safety managers +3 WM's £100k+pension cont... low and behold £1.05m not a bad start and would not be missed. Some might say 5 WM's and Safety managers= even bigger savings:ok::ok:

[anotherthing]

Yahoo

We could easily (at swanwick) get rid of all of the Training and Safety Managers (5). They are only duplicating what is already done by a GS/LAS training manager and a GS/LAS Safety manager on the watches.

The Ops managers (a layer above watch supervisors) - cut 'em down from 5 to 3. One to cover mornings, one afternoons, one to cover a core day, say from 9-4. They can rotate shifts amongst themselves.

The one covering the afternoon shift is on call overnight and at weekends (that's one in 3 weekends on call - still less than shift workers). This allows for leave to be taken as well.


The people in the above posts are all PCGs - removing their posts is extremly easy because of that fact. These cuts would save even more than 45 before POL's idea and is extremely workable.

It's not pie in the sky knee-jerk, it is a totally workable solution.

Also, has anyone else noticed that the great OS&I dept has been reshuffled, yet again, and that a manager who did not perform so well has been given a sideways move into a new managerial post. This was announced 6 days ago. So much for saving money!!

[Vote NO]

Around 30 voluntary redundancies will be announced at MACC/ScOACC shortly, with at least another 30 to follow. Mostly from ATSA staff.



Has it gone up from 45 to 60, or is that a mistake? My nephew works there and was told last month 30 this year and 15 next year.

[anotherthing]

I'm all for thinning out jobs that are not required - as any business should do on a continual basis, but how do they arrive at the number of ATSAs they are asking for at Swanwick?

Are they all operational ATSAs?

Operational ATSAs are essential to safety - our number one priority. How come we can suddenly afford to lose so many without impacting on service delivery?

If we truly can lose so many without an impact on service delivery, why has it taken a recession for management to take this step?

If we can lose so many operational ATSAs, just how many non-Ops staff does that mean we truly don't need?

If we have been grossly overstaffed, then the heads of management should roll for being incompetent.

I just hope that once the dust settles, we are left with good ATSAs... there are a couple on the watch I am on in TC who would not be missed - generally the younger ones.

Unfortunately the older ones (who at least on my watch) tend to be more diligent, are probably the ones who will find VR terms more atractive - especially with rental allowances coming to an end this year after the TC move from WD.

[eglnyt]

If we truly can lose so many without an impact on service delivery, why has it taken a recession for management to take this step?

We almost certainly can't afford to lose that many at the moment but in a post i-facts world it's a different story. In Asset Engineering staff have to agree to go by the end of March but won't necessarily go until their current projects are complete. NATS will make special provision for those redundancies from whatever profit is left this year and therefore avoid paying some tax but the people may go sometime later. The same may well apply to the ATSAs, they may not go until later in the year.

[fchan]

How many non valid ATCOs does NATS have and how many do we need? Each is expensive compared with engineers etc., who are being asked to take the brunt of the VRs. Arguably it's non/less technical staff who do the jobs at CTC that many here bleat about, but they aren’t the ones being pinpointed for VRs.

I appreciate that ops staff do a vital job that is the core of NATS, but remember that without the engineers you would never get your equipment, and everything out there like radars, updated or fixed. It takes a lot of (CTC) people to do all that and write all the documents that the UK and EC regulators demand. I’d love not to have to write another report, but someone has to do it or the regulators would close us down. Could the non valid ATCOs do it after 20+ years of rarely/never having to write long reports?

It’s 7.30 pm and some are still here at CTC, probaly having worked a 9-10 hour day with very short breaks to write to pprune, etc.

[terrain safe]

The problem with making valid ATCOs redundant is that you also have to stop all training as these trainees will replace the now redundant ATCOs. And that is illegal I believe. So valid ATCOs are generally safe. Even units which are probably overbearing due to the fall off of traffic cannot loose ATCOs as if there is an increase you cannot bring any trainees in for 3 years I think. However this may be complete rubbish so I await someone who knows a lot more to post so that I can be educated as well.

[anotherthing]

TR

If the company was to ask for volunteers within the ATCO community for redundancy, then would this not get round the fact we are still recruiting and training?

If no volunteers came forward, then NATS would not be able to just bin people, but a volunteer is a volunteer? I could be wrong.

The facts are that there is a downturn in traffic at the moment - if (supposition), a load of ATCOs who were 2 or 3 years from normal retirement volunteered to go early, it would not really impact on the company.

This is because when traffic rises again (which it will) in a couple of years time, the current college trainees will be just validating at units. The ATCOs who volunteered would have been retiring anyways, so would not have been able to cover the return of traffic!

The problem would lie if ATCOs with quite a few years left to retirement left on VR, then in 2 years time we would be down that number, plus the natural losses through retirement. We would then be playing catch up - something the chaps and chappesses at Heathrow tower could tell you about - still suffering 20 odd years after a large (shortsighted) cut in ATCO numbers.

fchan

You have a valid point - but the majority of Non valid ATCOs we have are in posts of such seniority that the pay is not ATCO pay as such, but PCG. The pay wouldhave been at about that level whoever was in post.
They (ex ATCOs) are generally in those posts because a prerequisite is to have been a valid ATCO. Most of those types of job have (quite rightly because of the knowledge required) that prerequisite.

The real question is not who should fill them, but which of those posts are actually required e.g. at Swanwick, do we really need 5 (or any) Safety and Training Managers (to give just one example from many)?

If no, then what becomes of the people in the jobs? Do we take them back into Ops rooms to try and re-validate them (when we are trying to cut costs), or do we show them the door, which is perfectly legal with PCGs?

The problem those people have is they chose to stick their head above the parapet when they took a PCG. Many a wise ATCO has stated that when you give up your license, you are losing a fair bit of protection. It may be galling to some, but ATCOs with a licence are fairly well protected because of the nature of the job.

These aren't good times and I don't like seeing anyone losing their jobs, but NATS needs to streamline, and has done since well before the current financial climate kicked in.

(Management - take note) - Streamlining does not mean getting rid of people/roles that are required in a mindless cost cutting exercise, but does mean evaluating roles and numbers correctly and then adjusting employee numbers. Unfortunately, this is not something that NATS has historically been good at.

[Glamdring]

I think TR has this right. Redunancy is redunancy wether voluntary or not. It is the position that is being made reduntant, not the person. Hence it would be illegal to hire any more staff with the same job description and title.

[zkdli]

Anotherthing - that is one of the best well reasoned posts that I have read on here for sometime:ok:

[anotherthing]

Glamdring -

I'm not sure about the legalities - you may well be correct... I had been informed by a well placed rep that any ATCO redundancies would be through VR (if any).
I assumed that if this was the case then what I stated must be a possible way of making it above board.

Of course, we could ask for ATCO area VRs and recruit trainees for Tower/APP... then realise (in huge inverted commas obviously), that we got the numbers wrong and we now need to change the stream from TWR to Area!!!

Or, if we are really being pedants - if we were to get a qualified ATCO to VR, is a trainee ATCO really considered the same?

After all, the trainee would not be a direct replacement for the post which has been closed via VR, but is in fact recruitment in anticipation of a new post/requirement in 2 or 3 years time... If we only need 100 ATCOs now, but need 120 in 2 years time, are those extra 20 new posts, or posts which have lain dormant for 2 years?

My head hurts...

[eglnyt]

I think TR has this right. Redunancy is redunancy wether voluntary or not. It is the position that is being made reduntant, not the person. Hence it would be illegal to hire any more staff with the same job description and title.

To stop companies using fake redundancies as a way of avoiding unfair dismissal claims somebody subject to compulsory redundancy can claim unfair dismissal if the post is filled too quickly. In voluntary redundancy scenarios those rules don't come into play. As long as it is a truly voluntary agreement the employee will have agreed to leave and therefore waive any right to claim unfair dismissal. NATS can quite legally move people into the holes created and has made no secret of the fact that it will do so if that is the most effective way of making the savings.

The facts are that there is a downturn in traffic at the moment - if (supposition), a load of ATCOs who were 2 or 3 years from normal retirement volunteered to go early, it would not really impact on the company.

We were told that a business case will have to be completed for every person that goes. Will those only 2 or 3 years away from retirement make enough saving to justify the cost ? And of course they won't impact at all on CP3 costs which according to PB's e-mail is one of the drivers for this.

[Min Stack]

NATS will be skating on thin ice if they get rid of any ATCOs. It will be short term gain for long term pain in my opinion. We're still bringing in AAVA's at ScOACC, we're in the winter season of staff sickness, the economy will recover in time and the airlines will too, albeit leaner and better prepared for the future. If you cut staff numbers now, there will be no opportunity to release controllers from rostered positions to cross train so they will go into the summer and beyond still holding only one or two validations. Without a bit of slack in staff numbers you're not going to get people trained so that they can replace ATCOs at normal retirement date and over the next few years here at Scottish there are going to be quite a few of those who hold multiple validations. :hmm:

[Gonzo]

Before you get rid of any down there, could you send them up here? We'll need a net gain of 15-20 over the next 6 years if we get another strip of tarmac.:}

[aaaabbbbcccc1111]

How much would an ATCO get if they did take voluntary redundancy, and what would happen if an ATCO took VR 20 years before pensionable age, what would that cost NATS, would they be able to, could they take VR and then bugger off to Canada/Dubai. It is not even an option for me I am just curious.

[055166k]

You will find a redundancy payment calculator on NATSNET.

[Vote NO]

Maybe its time for NATS/HMG to admit the private side isn't working, and indeed that it should never have been part privatised. I have never known morale to be as low at work as it is now. Unforunately nothing is likely to wake HMG up until and if something really serious does occur, but by then of course it will be too late :(
Morale at Northern Rock however is the highest it has ever been, and they cant cope with the demand for business :oh:.
Amazing how things can improve when you are state owned.

[Standard Noise]

A Labour govt admit a mistake!? You live in a parallel universe, don't you?
You looper!

[Vote NO]

Just a realist ! Unlike you :suspect: perhaps. I dont care if its Browns lefties, or Camerons Etonian hooray Henry twits, privatisation was a mistake.

[hold at SATAN]

Problem is that the Whitehall W&nk£r$ won't pay attention or even admit there's a problem unless they fear for their popularity.

Take the London Cabbies yesterday, for example, they saw that the groundwork was being laid for mini cabs to encroach on their territorty (waiting in a rank) that they converged on Trafalgar Square and brought the centre of London to a standstill for a few hours.

Did the public go on about overpaid (I know one who pockets £6000 per month net) folk whining about the potential of taking a hit on their income? Did the public go on about Cabbies having to understand that it's credit cruch time and they need to to put up with it?

Like heck they did - most members of the public were quite supportive of the Cabbies and understood why they were striking.

Heck if we have to go down the route of sensationalism then so be it: I'm thinking "danger in the skies, who's watching the planes?"

or "ATC... Railtrack part deux"

It's time for us to stop taking this $hit and make some noise :}

[Vote NO]

Now you are talking :ok:

[jamiesonjs]

Recent legislation has changed the concept of retirement age in any case. Can someone enlighten me as to what ,in terms of retirement
age,redundancy really means these days :confused:.

[Vote NO]

Redundancy - Working Rights (UK) (http://www.workingrights.co.uk/Redundancy.html)

Enter Age Discrimination Legislation

Age discrimination legislation, introduced in 2006, made it illegal to put lower age limits in job adverts and refuse jobs on the basis of age, in other words, age discrimination. Employers cannot treat people differently because of their age, for example in situations of redundancies, by selecting all the staff over a certain age. The upper age limit for workers' rights such as unfair dismissal and redundancy rights was removed and all retirement ages below 65 were banned, unless they could justified, for example on health and safety grounds. (might apply to ATC)

The age discrimination legislation also introduced a responsibility for employers to listen to employees' requests to stay on after retirement age as part of workers' rights and to notify them of retirement dates at least six months ahead to give them time to plan.


There is a wealth of info on that site, hope it helps:)

[Minesapint]

I work in the 'systems' side of things - not an ATCO. ATCO's doing a VERY similar job are paid around £30k a year more than me - do the maths. All ATCO's with a validation get back in the opsrooms, back in the 80's ATCO's did the wings, FIR, flow etc so I don't think there will be an ATSA shortage, just an increased utilisation of available staff. I understand this plan is already in motion.:D

[Vote NO]

I think the situation is now being reversed. ATSA grades are taking over posts filled by ATCO's driving desks in offices, and on half the salary :ok: The office ATCO's will be issued with a headset and told to earn their keep :}
Flow, and ops room "man management" with the aid of tools is not rocket science,and is easily within the grasp of experienced ATSA's. You dont need to pay someone £85k pa to watch a red light flashing to work out when you are SRATCOH'd :oh:. Better to giv em a headset and radar to play with. You know it makes sense:E

[Minesapint]

And there will be more space in the CTC carpark for our old cars - we poor T&S types can't afford to run large motors - that makes us even cheaper to run! Hey, that makes us vision 2011 compliant too - green!!!

My point was that if opsroom ATSA's take redundancy, and that leaves us short when the traffic picks up, there will be two basic options. One is ATSA's on short term contracts (from where?), or new toys like EFD and IFACTS to be in place and ready. I understand that a number of projects are being delayed so maybe this is not the case.

[Vote NO]

ATSA's who have retired or taken VR will be asked to come back part time. Manch has been running like that for some time

[eyeinthesky]

I hear that the number of Swanwick ATSAs offering themselves for VR is greater than the planned number of redundancies by a ratio of 4:1!!

So much for outraged indignation expressed earlier in this thread at the gall of the company for even suggesting that they should make cost cuts!!

[autothrottle]

Maybe they have just had enough and want to get out before NATS change VR terms. Back in the late 80's (1989 actually) some friends of mine worked in the pits of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. The Coal Mining industry was dying and they took VR. Now they are ALL airline captains with VIR and BMI. Maybe nows the time for ATSA's to get out , retrain ,get a frozen ATPL and when all thats done get a job flying as the cycle will be on the upward curve by then.

I am not surprised so many peole want out.

[Flybywyre]

Having spoke to ATSA's on various watches over the last few days it would seem that the 22 VR's required should be met without a large surplus, if any surplus at all.

[anotherthing]

Maybe they want to get out before the goal posts are moved on the pension again.

The MOU is still not written, and Mr Barron has recently publicly stated that, even with the changes, the pension will be difficult to fund in the short to medium term.

Does anyone else believe that further changes will be requested by management within the next 2 years? For example closing the scheme to all people, even those already in it?

That has to be the ultimate aim. I'm afraid once we voted to have a two-tier system, we simultaneously voted in the demise of the current pension.

[Vote NO]

Mr Barron has recently publicly stated that, even with the changes, the pension will be difficult to fund


I would suggest the above quote is coded language for your suspicion that the Pension is in extreme difficulties.
If that is the case, which it probably is, I doubt that NATS private side (49%) will survive in the near future.

I don't think the fact that 40% of the staff couldn't be arsed to vote on the pension helped either, and as for those who voted yes, you reap what you sow :{

[Flybywyre]

The writing is on the wall ....................

BBC NEWS | Business | Final salary schemes 'face axe' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7846122.stm)

[hold at SATAN]

the pension will be difficult to fund in the short to medium term.

if NATS took heed of the story of Joseph and his multi coloured dreamcoat (inspiration for the NATS corporate colours?) and stocked up during the good years for the lean years - i.e. not taking f*cking pension holidays - then maybe we wouldn't be finding the funding of the pension fund quite so difficult.

[hold at SATAN]

FBW, from your link:


A quarter of major private sector firms expect to close their final salary pension schemes to existing members in the next few years, a survey suggests.

Which means 3/4 are not closing - we shouldn't let NATS management select the juicy bits of news, good or bad, to drive their own agendas to the detriment of staff.

A lot of folk are in a panic about this "credit crunch" but a lot a of firms are using this as a on-size-fits-all excuse to slash pay and conditions - certainly NATS has and much of the crap we're in is, whilst precipitated by the ecomic slump, is a direct result os poor, short-sighted management by NATS.

[DC10RealMan]

You the employees, could always say "No, we refuse to accept any further deterioration of our terms and conditions and any further erosion of our pension terms will be met with strike action"
I should point out however that this would require you all growing a pair of balls!!!

[Standard Noise]

No, it would require the union to grow a pair of balls and lead us in that direction, rather than them being a load of old bollocks.

[autothrottle]

Well said DC10! By the way , how's life now you are free of all this bull@hit?

[DC10RealMan]

Autothrottle.

I am just peachy thank you. It was all this bull**** that prompted me to bail out. Nowadays my life revolves around flying aeroplanes, football, and fishing. I still care very much about friends and colleagues having to put up with this crap hence some of my postings.

[privatesandwiches]

If only the union had the balls and led with this feeling that the majority of employees seem to feel and tell NATS to stcik it where it doesnt shine or we walk.
But my confidence in the union sadly does not match my feelings with the regards to the company and their blatant bully and scaremonger tactics.... I feel as strong as the employees do feel, the reality is that we will be dealt another crap management originated blow as once again the union buckles and are far to 'cosy' with what management want and let them take, take, take.....
When is it going to end ?
Hopefully, later this year may see a good change of personel in the union with new people coming in of which I will happily put my name forward for. It's not that historically they have underperformed, but the recent issues of pension and pay seem to show that a changing of the guard may do us all some good and hopefully a fresh and harder stance with management and represnt what the members actually want!!!

[eglnyt]

A quarter of major private sector firms expect to close their final salary pension schemes to existing members in the next few years, a survey suggests.

Most pension scheme members do not enjoy the protection in legislation that we do. Even if NATS management wished to do that they cannot and they are well aware of that. In the absence of the MOU they could try to force out those who've joined since 2001 but the majority of those are controllers (most other branches have been under a recruitment freeze for much of the time since then) so they aren't likely to do that.

If NATS took heed of the story of Joseph and his multi coloured dreamcoat and stocked up during the good years for the lean years

Thanks to Gordon Brown's £700 million looting of NATS, an RPI-x regulation and years and years of little or no investment under Government ownership there haven't been any good years in which to stock up.

So much for outraged indignation expressed earlier in this thread at the gall of the company for even suggesting that they should make cost cuts!!

Whether or not those going are going with a smile on their face is irrelevant. Those jobs will be gone for good whatever happens to income in the future and those left behind will still be expected to deliver exactly the same with less staff.

[DC10RealMan]

In my opinion the criticism of the unions (plural) is unfair. The PCS union is organised and led by very able and experienced negotiators whose knowledge is encyclopedic. Individually they may not be liked by the management but they are respected due to their personal politics and philosophy. Unfortunately the Prospect people do not have any of these attributes and it is sometimes difficult to see whose side they are on.

[055166k]

Spot on old buddy. Respect to the union guys who do their best. However: as long as the outdated "officers and men" culture of yesteryear continues, there wil be no possibility of one combined ATC union. There MUST be change........or there wil be slow death by a thousand cuts. After the pension result we need to see some movement our way.......and if I am presented with another joint management-union exercise.....that will be the end of any hope that the union is focused on its membership rather than a cosy relationship with the status quo.

[Flaps ten please]

It's not often you find yourself wishing you were older, but VR is not yet an option for me.

I just hope the erosion of pension, terms & conditions etc last long enough for me to bail out.

As for Vision 2011, is this what they meant by "liberating and motivating people"

:yuk:

[DC10RealMan]

I do feel that 055166K is right, the union issue is an historical hangover which has been incorporated into NATS and its present culture. There are no officers and men any more only employees. The more that the atcos consider themselves a cut above everyone else, at least in their own minds the more the management must laugh at their pretentiousness and your collective stupidity in not having one union for all with its associated collective strengths.
I must confess that for once amongst the many management initiatives over the past thirty years I felt that Visions 2011 did strike a chord with me as I felt "Liberated and Inspired" to bail out of NATS asap.

[anotherthing]

I'm just glad we've kept our powder dry - maybe we can sell it off to the French... they must be running low on stocks by now, surely?

I think we may have forgotten where we actually stockpile our powder...:ugh:

I hope Hampshire County Council haven't used it to replenish dwindling grit stocks. We'll probably find NATS did a deal with them, but like the sale of the old Heathrow tower, we won't be told about it until any future negotiations are over.

Any news on the hugely overdue pay negotiations yet?

The pensions were cited as a stalling tactic in the first instance, now VR's are being cited.
Are management not really just making things progress so slowly because they want to make sure the economy is at it's weakest before they agree to anything (or more likely, agree to nothing)?

Great tactics by the way though - the longer we wait, the more NATS will bleat about the failing economy. Every day is another nail in the pay 'negotiations' coffin.

Pay awards should not be tied into how much we save through VR's. Redundancies or more to the point, cutting needless jobs/roles, should be done anyways, and should not be a factor.:=

[Hootin an a roarin]

Reference further changes to the pension scheme.

The NSL Chief Exec came to our place on his roadshow last week. He allegedly told management they were going to come back to us with a request for further changes and no doubt degradation of the pension scheme.

Interestingly no one turned up to either session to listen to the senior management waffle. Has the turn out been the same at other NSL units?