Nats Profit 2008/2009

[ilras]

lOOK AT NATS.CO.UK £135.5 PROFIT

[mr.777]

Delay seconds down.
Profits up.
Debt down.

Expect the 9% payrise to be confirmed along with more obscene bonuses for management.

Thank you very much Prospect.

[Flight Plan Fixer]

Page 28 of NATS Annual accounts 2008/2009....Chief Exec accrued long term incentive bonus 2009 was £235,000.

See, he was right - a 9% bonus WAS a ridiculous statement ! Try 52% !!

[ayrprox]

***k ***k ***k!! i knew it!
company is in a difficult financial position, my ass.
i'm sorry there's too much financial instability for us to give you a properly funded pension, or a decent pay rise, but hey we're posting a great profit in a recession with decreased traffic, and bonuses will still be paid, so tea and cakes all round, infact make that champagne and caviar.
To those people who didnt vote in the pay ballot, for whatever reason, :ugh:
Mr.B must be laughing his ass off at us, but we deserve everything we've gotten from him.
:mad:

[Hold Short]

From Barron's statement;

"That the group has maintained safety standards, continued
to reduce air traffic delay and posted pre-tax profits of
£135.5m is an achievement of which the entire organisation
can be rightly proud. I would like to thank all of our employees
for working so hard to achieve these outcomes."

With a rubbish pay deal and a constant hammering down of T&C's resulting in lower morale.

Thanks :mad:

[121decimal375]

So profits up! Costs down...we get shafted yet again in a paydeal

but just to make everyone feel better

Page 28 of the reports and accounts
Paul Barron get a salary of £450K and bonuses of £220K ----- £670K
Since 2007 PB has received £685K in bonuses!

If you combine the executive directors bonuses these total is over £1.3m for the last 3 years

Thank you again to Prospect and the other unions for negotiating such a pathetic paydeal!

[Weirdo Earthtorch]

Well, look on the bright side - there's only a £69.4m pension deficit according to the Brothers Grimm accounts, not c. £800m as advertised during the pension MOU debacle. Oh wait, depends whose accounting rules we're using, right? :rolleyes:

[Vote NO]

Air Traffic Business Posts Year-End Results - NATS (http://www.nats.co.uk/article/253/280/air_traffic_business_posts_year_end_results.html)


NATS, the UK’s leading air navigation service provider, has reported a strong set of financial results for the year ended 31 March 2009. The group also maintained its safety record, provided customers with good operational service and continued to deliver on its critical investment projects.
NATS is focused on reducing its operating cost base in its en route business - from levels previously planned - by £45m in the next two years.( there goes our Terms and Conditions)http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif This will ensure that the charges for its economically regulated services for the period 2011 to 2015 are held as low as possible.



NATS Group profit before tax (£) wait for it........................



£135.5 Million http://www.nats.co.uk/uploads/PaulBarronNatsCoUk(1).jpg :ok:

Now, where are all those monkeys that voted yes?
Your'e fired! http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:RYP901AAhRlsSM:http://newsjunction.co.uk/news/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/sir_alan_sugar.jpg

http://www.bayjenweb.com/r/docs/2187/monkey_office_man.jpg

[121decimal375]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23712551-details/High-flying+profits+as+NATS+shrugs+off+the+downturn/article.do (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23712551-details/High-flying+profits+as+NATS+shrugs+off+the+downturn/article.do)

High-flying profits as NATS shrugs off the downturn

http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/std/siteimages/eveningstandard/columnists/rosamund.urwin.gif Rosamund Urwin (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-home/columnistarchive/Rosamund%20Urwin-columnist-1167-archive.do)
26.06.09


Fliers may be grounded by the recession, but profits have taken off at air traffic controller NATS.
The part-Government owned group, in which seven airlines also hold a stake, said today pre-tax profits soared to £135.5 million in the year to the end of March from £66.7 million the previous year.
Revenues were up 3% to £767.3 million despite the company handling fewer flights.
The number of flights in UK airspace fell in the second half of its financial year as the downturn took its toll, but chief executive Paul Barron said the group benefited from cutting costs, renegotiating contracts, lower financing costs and linking its prices to inflation.
NATS was also boosted by the sale of the former Heathrow (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-home/related-2098-articles-reviews/London+Heathrow+Airport/related.do) control tower, from which it pocketed £43.5 million. The company will distribute profits from the sale to shareholders as a dividend.
Lower traffic volumes helped the group reduce the average delay per flight for which it was to blame to just 19.3 seconds, from 26.8 seconds last year.

[mr.777]

Somewhere around page 59 it states that Mrs PB received £129k for "work" approved by Ian Mills....but it gets better....last year she only got £76K!! £53K increase!!!

[Quincy M.E.]

FFS the f***ing b*****d, I hope PB reads prune and see how much he is hated. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

I want to break things.

[Disillusioned]

Well there's a shock. Who'd have thought it. Barron shafts his staff again.

To all you people who voted YES, would you have done so had you know this before you cast your vote?

I cannot believe that the union organised the ballot to finish a week before this information was published. Why?!?!

An absolute disgrace. I am disgusted with the whole affair. £200m profit in two years, and after all the povert claims, threats of NATS going bust, we end up with 2% over two years.

I actually feel sick to my stomach that we have let management shaft us yet again, and basically thanked him for letting us keep our jobs.

Shocking.

[Vote NO]

Time to dump Prospect :mad: and PCS

And before any bleeding reps start ............I am one !!

[Me Me Me Me]

I did give fair warning.... :uhoh:

I'm a rep too... I'm currently trying to decide between standing for higher office to sort them out, resigning my post and going back to the membership masses, or cancelling my sub and leaving completely.

On it's own, it's great to see our company still performing well in such tough times... but when you put it in context it's a horrific slap in the face for the employees - including the 100s told they dont have jobs anymore since we're so skint.

[mr.777]

A serious question to you reps...why on earth was this pushed through by Prospect when the people at grass roots who have their fingers on the pulse, and who really matter, i.e local reps, were seemingly against it??? I just don't understand. I really think its time for a new Union or some form of change at the top level of Prospect....because this is just incompetence at worst.
A blind man could have seen this coming, but no, lets close the ballot a week before the financial results are announced.:ugh:

Angry, of Swanwick.

[10W]

For the grass roots people, there can be no surprise that NATS posted record profits. We've been predicting it for months. There is also no surprise that these record profits have resulted in a derisory pay award for the majority of staff, whilst Barron and his cronies help themselves to obscene increases over the same period. Serious questions about the blindness of the Prospect BEC to these matters need to be asked.

Barron and his cronies did not come to save NATS, nor turn it into an ANSP to be proud of. They came to cut costs to the bone, increase profits, and then rape the company before moving off with their golden handshake to do the same to some other poor bunch of mugs. The sad thing is that we have all let him. Oh, and he also made sure that his own 'family' made a pile of money from us as well. Typical example of the greed which is prevalent throughout the UK government and those it appoints (like the Robber Barron).

For years those who have had doubts about Barron have been pilloried by the 'yes men' in NATS. In spite of pointing out his track record for screwing people, companies, and pensions in to the ground, the NATS 'yes men' assured us he was the saviour and would take us on to great things. Well, here's some news for you .... he is a serial offender. He's screwed us and will move on. Those who toadied to him and expected rewards, will also probably be screwed .. and hopefully for the rest of us, they will move on (via a P45).

Best not do any more bar stool session Mr Barron old chum. You're lower than a snakes belly.

[northernmonkey1261]

Is it fair to assume then, that we will all shortly get an email saying that the freeze on selling our NATS shares has been lifted? Or is the £140mill not enough to fund that?
Give me strength.

[expediteoff]

Good luck to 'em at the top of the tree.

They knew exactly what they wanted to achieve, and they set out to get it - THAT'S THEIR JOB!

We are getting exactly the pay rises and terms and conditions we were prepared to fight for - YOU DON'T FIGHT, YOU DON'T GET.

I still can't figure out where all those YES votes ever come from, but I'd be genuinly interested in the views of any YES voters who feel they can still justify such a decision.

Remember boys and girls, the aaVa agreement has a large "V" in it - the solution is still in our own hands.

[45 before POL]

THe yes voters??? hmm let me see...how many atco's/senior managers still hold their prospect membership???? theres quite a few there for starters.....but at the end of the day when 29% can't be ars@d to mark an X and send back their forms it is asking for trouble.....bet after the last vote on pensions with similar numbers not voting management must have been confident on this one............ANYONE GOT ANOTHER UNION I CAN SUBSCRIBE TO?(SO I CAN COVER MY ASS IF EVER A DISCIPLINARY OCCURED) THIS ONE HAS SERIOUSLY FAILED ITS MEMBERS:{:{

[barstewards]

DISGUSTING

As a hardworking member of staff I am truly disgusted.

Bad enough that my colleagues had the wool pulled over their eyes with the pension issue. I am lost for words that the pay cut was voted through and now we make hundreds of millions of profit.

Are the rumours true that NATS are not paying the extra into the pension to deduce the deficit?
If not, are they legally obliged to do so?

[Minesapint]

High-flying profits as NATS shrugs off the downturn | Business (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23712551-details/High-flying+profits+as+NATS+shrugs+off+the+downturn/article.do)

POWDER STILL DRY THEN :mad: :suspect:

THIS IS A SMACK IN THE FACE FOR THE 2% ERS.

[Minesapint]

New Union Now - Air Traffic Controllers Engineers And Specialists

Atcesu

Bastards!

[fly bhoy]

It's probably going to p!ss people off even more but I feel I have to point out that our illustrious leader actually earned £484,000 in bonuses...£285,000 for his long term incentive bonus and £199,000 for his performance related bonuses!! Coupled with his £450,000 salary it takes it up to almost £1mill when you also include his Benefits (???WTF???:mad::mad::mad:)

And don't even get me started about the £13000 for relocation costs!!! Why exactly, is this clown still being paid relocation costs when he joined the :mad:ing company nearly 5 years ago?!? Is it honestly legal to get all you mates to vote for your terms and conditions and give you a fortune in bungs for various things?!? Outrageous!!!

Total pay (not including long term incentives mind!!!) for 2008=£646,000
Total pay (again not including long term incentives) for 2009=£670,000
% payrise=3.7%....for 1 year!!!!! Good to know that that c:mad:t is worth a 3.7% rise for 1 year, yet the frontline staff earning the company the record profits are only worth 1% per year!!!

Where's that contact email for serco in dubai cos i'm off!!

FB:ok:

[Track Jitter]

New Union Now - Air Traffic Controllers Engineers And Specialists
I would vote YES for that!

[Ceannairceach]

Is anyone really surprised by this?

This "economic downturn" favours the rich throughout society, not just NATS, who use it as an excuse to tear out what they see as "dead wood" from their huge moneymaking empires.

The rich get richer still whilst the relatively poor get shafted. And it will be ever thus.

Oh and to all of the "welcome to the real world NATS" people - I hope you can see now that you're argument has been significantly quenched. Not many companies in this real world you speak of report profits of £135m on one hand, and plead abject poverty and cost cutting to their staff with the other.

I also don't blame anyone who voted yes. They were acting on union advice after all. I blame the union. And in turn every one of it's members including me.

We only get the union we work for, stick together for and therefore deserve.

And finally, on a personal level, I'm absolutely appalled. It's an absolute disgrace. And words cannot express my anger at the whole rotten mess.

[10W]

PB must be in with a shout of being an MP now ... he certainly knows how to get the most from the system and not give a damn for the downtrodden masses :\ shame his good friend Tony Bliar ain't around still to smooth his passage.

[Hootin an a roarin]

Well f**k my old boots!

A ****e pay deal and record profits, now there's a surprise.
As i've previously stated I have become resigned to the fact that there are too many fannys in NATS who do not have any balls or cannot see for themselves when they are being led down the garden path. I don't believe a change in union would help as it is us the workforce who voted this galling paydeal through.
From a company point of view the smiling viper deserves his huge pay deal as he has achieved record profits whilst minimising delays and screwing over the staff and we have let him. We never ever learn.

There will always be someone to come in and do AAVA's, proving you don't need the leave (which i'm sure will be next to be whittled away) and bailing these arseholes out. Some think they are helping out our customers but it is our management whom we are helping as any delays and penalties will be felt by them. Like volunteering to do meteorology observations on a night shift in lieu of an ATSA. Hmmm, let me think,,, were is that going to lead?

One thing to maybe throw into the argument is should anyone involved in management be part of our union hierarchy such as the branch chair etc? As far as can recall they have always been in bed with each other and a lot of senior managers are ex union and know all the tricks.

The only ammo we have is industrial action and we can never find any grounds to exercise this huge power that a lot of us don't realise we have until it is far too late. And it's happened yet again. :D

[Ceannairceach]

I've long been of the belief that anyone in a management position should not also be involved at a senior level with any union.

[kats-I]

Having seen the Profit/Bonus result, :mad:furious at the pittance the workers have got in comparison to management!
The yes voters were truly led by the nose, but who are they? The older ones who just want to make sure they get a bit more to go with in the near future and the newer ones in that don't want to rock the boat, or people that just don't care..about theirs or their colleagues future T&C's and pay.

Surely they and the union bods realise that by sticking their heads in the sand they are giving management a bigger target to kick them. They have certainly been scoring bullseyes on everything so far!!:rolleyes:

When it all goes wrong (which probably won't be long now) there will be a few folk out on their own with only themselves to blame. Expecting co-workers to bail out those who refused to acknowledge the writing on the wall will be a bit too much.:=:ugh:

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but of no use what so ever:*

[Vote NO]

Why didn't our glorious Unions make a proviso in the pay deal, that if NATS profits exceed a certain amount then the pay deal should increase likewise, or at least to an acceptable level ? This would have at least flushed management out of the undergrowth :mad:

[anotherthing]

Hold at SATAN


Actully old chap His salary in 2008 was £400k basic compared with 2009's £450k. That makes it an annual payrise of 25%.
Actually makes it an annual pay rise of 12.5%, not 25%!

Still obscene whatever way you look at it, especially considering all the other perks such as increased bonuses and the huge increase in his wifes NATS pay packet.

The problem is, the fat cats that run the airlines won't target Barron because they are all the same; they think it is acceptable to plead poverty make people redundant, and give low pay awards, yet at the same time make sure they feather their own nests.

[ADIS5000]

10W Hear, hear, excellent posts.

hootin an a roarin - PM for you.

I blame the union hierarchy who are so close to the senior management that they can't see the wood for the trees. Also I believe that anyone who is promoted above Watch Manager level should not be in the union as this leads to a serious conflict of issues when it comes to voting on matters such as ATCO pay and T&Cs.

Regards, ADIS

[kats-I]

ayrprox
Mr.B must be laughing his ass off at us, but we deserve everything we've gotten from him.

..its the Yes Voters who have got what they deserve.:p
We No voters deserve so much better than management have given. Thats why we voted NO...but its we who will suffer. :{

[kats-I]

Cynic that I am I have said all along that a "POSTAL" vote equates to a "YES" vote regardless.
I'm just p...ed that those I (dimwittedly) thought had, not only their own interest, but possibly that of those they work along side, couldn't be bothered to vote and make a stand. And Yes I do know a few of you..Thanks.:E

[hold at SATAN]

Anotherthing Actually makes it an annual pay rise of 12.5%, not 25%!

Dur! You're quite correct. Back to school for me! In fact, with my maths skills I should apply for a management role (or lead the union!)

I'll rephase it! That makes it an annual payrise of 12.5%. Twelve-fu<king-point five percent. Fricking hell, we are all c*cks.

Lawrence Hosking basic £282k to £325k equals over 15% His total including bonuses £442K to £505k 14.25%

The bonus and other crap are just the icing on the fricking cake and help make the overall percentage increase appear less, like FB calculated.

These ba$tard$ are helping themselves and screwing us in the process. They use accounting techniques and "that's what you have to pay to get the best talent" bo!!ock$ to justify these huge payrises.

Everybody...stop doing f**king AAVAs! Dammit! Put on flow! Give up extraneous tasks!

Jeez! This is unbelievable!

[White Hart]

'Jeez! This is unbelievable!'

maybe so, but the question now is what do you do about it? Whatever it is, you have all got to work together on getting a resolution, and for the very first time in the history of NATS, everybody on the shop floor must stop the bickering, the infighting, the derisory perception of others and their place/task in the Company, and STAND UP TOGETHER to the Mgmt.

If you don't, expect more of the same with brass knobs on.

Here's wishing you all the best :ok:

[hold at SATAN]

what to do? No AAVAs/overtime, no bandboxing (or flow if staff shortage and not cry over missig out on early goes (if any)), no additional validations, take 30minutes responsible free breaks.

Basically, just do the bare minimum of your job and no more :ok:

[Ceannairceach]

But that will always be undermined by those colleagues who'll pick up what they see as "slack" in order to improve their future career prospects. So they think.

Sad but true.

We have mostly zero solidarity.

[Mr A Tis]

It is reported that Nigel Turner , BMI's CEO & a NATS board member has said that Anybody in this industry who thinks he or she deserves a pay increase this year must be insane
I presume, he wasn't talking about NATS Directors then :eek:

As for starting a new union, what is the point?? The membership returned a YES vote for the Pensions con & also a YES vote for the pay rise con, so how would a new union make things better:confused:

It really is down to the membership to stand up IF they want change, as our colleagues en France do. You can't blame the union(s) when you either vote YES or in so many cases can't be arsed to vote at all:rolleyes:

[autothrottle]

Clever. Back to Mr Barron, he took two payments in MAY THIS YEAR OF £235,000 AND £77,000! He literally is laughing all the way to the bank. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: :mad::mad::mad:

[hold at SATAN]

Mr A Tis
As for starting a new union, what is the point?? The membership returned a YES vote for the Pensions con & also a YES vote for the pay rise con, so how would a new union make things better

We need a representation of operational staff only. If the office folk are "happy just to have a job" then good for them. That way we won't have our ballots "hi-jacked". Although a big chunk of our operational brothers and sisters (management sycophants) could also steer the union ship towards the jagged rocks of NATS management.

[hold at SATAN]

Autothrottle, it's not just Barron -it's the rest of his ilk as well that are helping themselves.

I find it incredible that these bastardinos can just change their targets from unrealistic to realistic ones when it suits them. In fact Overheard at the watercooler, that since it appears to be impossible to hit the heathrow staffing figures due to the haemoraghing of staff to the middle east and the lack of validations, management are planning to drop the OR by 5, and in doing so hitting thair targets and collecting nice little bonuses. Instead of pissing about with targets, they should address the real issue of staff retention, in fact as Fly Bhoy put it earlier, current events mean that more people will just pack it in and get on the phone to Serco Middle East or any other aerodrome or ANSP

[kats-I]

Mr A Tis

You can't blame the union(s) when you either vote YES or in so many cases can't be arsed to vote at all

I DO blame the unions ..they were the ones who recommended "YES" unfortunately there were those who REALLY believed that because the union recommended it then that MUSTbe the way to go and didn't really listen to any of the arguments against. Like..:hmm:..wait til financial report/RPI is out.!!! :(:=

I can't believe that some people didn't query the timing of the pay ballot (Same with the Pension) A 7 year old could have worked that one out..mind you going by some of the comments on these threads there are some children about. :ouch::rolleyes:

[Minesapint]

This is exactly the point! The unions have been completely out managed by these experienced commercially minded hatchet men. Either the unions need to harden their stance (stable door - horse %^*%$£ off) or we need a new union, not unions. The only way to deal with these fat cats is to expose them to grief, like industrial action. Even the threat of it will have the airlines quaking, they are on a knife edge as it is, if we all take a Monday or Friday off they will too realise why the Heathrow CTB cash should have come to NATS. For its staff and pensions. How much would the airline group lose if ATC stopped for 24 hours? :E:E:E:E:E

[EGLL19791986]

Strange how many posts are mysteriously vanishing from this thread. Could it be 'Censorship' by any chance? Never really thought I was living in a police state until today!

[eglnyt]

The unions have been completely out managed by these experienced commercially minded hatchet men.

At the risk of being very unpopular can I point out that we won't know that with any certainty until the annual report for 2009/2010 is published in 12 months time.

There are three possible scenarios:

First the retained profit from 2008/2009 plus income from this new financial year is insufficient for NATS to pay its bills and fund its revised investment programme. That won't be good for many of us but in that case the union probably got us a better deal than we had any right to expect.

Second the retained profit plus income is pretty close to the money needed to pay the bills and fund the revised investment programme. In that case the deal was just about right.

Third the retained profit plus income is more than enough to pay the bills and fund the revised investment programme and NATS reports another big profit in June 2010. In that case the deal was lousy and we've all been screwed.

I don't see how anybody can say which is most likely at the moment.

[roidster]

Digging through the financial report and found that PB paid his wife's company £133k this year and £75k last year. The work was sponsered by one of his Alstom mates.

So next time you are looking to split the sector but there is not enough staff.......just imagine........if only we could afford a few more ATCOs.

Unbefu:mad:inglievable.:yuk:

[Minesapint]

This is not surprising at all, this is just another fat cat with his nose in someone Else's trough. He will leave in April 2010, the yessites will wish him a fond farewell and we will get another greedy to$$er to 'manage' the company. He will do more of the same and PB will be off into :mad: *anking or :mad: PolItics. Being so greedy being a Tory MP may suit? :*

Is it totally legal for him to use his own wifes company :suspect::suspect::suspect::suspect:

[2 sheds]

You get the impression that if it is declared, then it is viewed as OK. Would have thought that it was a distinct conflict of interests meself. Wonder what I could get the trouble-and-strife to do for the company for an extra hundred grand income?

[ImnotanERIC]

how about k-m-t?

[Vote NO]

You get the impression that if it is declared, then it is viewed as OK. Would have thought that it was a distinct conflict of interests meself. Wonder what I could get the trouble-and-strife to do for the company for an extra hundred grand income?



Its called having a brass neck :*

The get out clause is "Any potential conflicts of interest were put aside, and I exercised probity throughout when conducting business for and on behalf of NATS" :\


Er.....yes.......right :=

[Me Me Me Me]

SATAN

We need a representation of operational staff only. If the office folk are "happy just to have a job" then good for them. That way we won't have our ballots "hi-jacked". Although a big chunk of our operational brothers and sisters (management sycophants) could also steer the union ship towards the jagged rocks of NATS management.

99.99% of the "office folk" aren't in Prospect. Had Prospect ATCOs returned a No vote, then the whole deal would have fallen. Prospect Operational ATCOs voted by a majority... YES.

So a new union would achieve **** all. Some new leadership of the existing ones might help though... The divisive attitude only assists management in shafting us all even harder in future.

[Cuddles]

To every single one of you who isn't in the union.

Stop bitching when the union membership vote goes the way you didn't want it to.

You decided not to have a say, maybe if you'd got off the fence and joined, things would be different now.:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[radarman]

What's the name of the guy who grassed up MP's expenses to the Telegraph? Can we get him to look at PB and his mates?

[White Hart]

how many staff are actually not members of either Union? Not that many, I would have thought. I cant believe that had they all been members, that it would have made much of a difference to the outcome anyway.

[Avoiding_Action]

Only needed 80-something votes.

[FDP_Walla]

And the Union recommended a 'Yes'. At least not bieng in it dissassociates those from these 'working togther' recommendations.

[10W]

Strange how many posts are mysteriously vanishing from this thread. Could it be 'Censorship' by any chance? Never really thought I was living in a police state until today!

Oh the angst and gnashing of gums :hmm: :rolleyes: .... this is a privately owned bulletin board. Folks who use it play by the rules and accept them when they sign up.

The posts which were deleted were cryptic crossword clues alluding to what Mr Barron might be called ... insulting and rude names without exception. Whilst most of us don't like him and see him for exactly what he is, we're not stooping to the gutter and allowing a free for all where obscenities and name calling are seen as acceptable posts. Most of us are professional when doing our jobs, so why drop those standards just because you're hiding behind an anonymous name and have the opportunity to call Barron names which I guarantee you wouldn't use to his face if he was sitting opposite you in the canteen ?

If you don't like that position of our police state, it's simple. Go elsewhere.

[anotherthing]

please Sir,

I had a post deleted, and it was a cryptic clue. But it certainly wasn't alluding to what Mr barron might be called. It was a clue in answer to an earlier query regarding the whereabouts of cryptic name calling posts.

The coffee break clue was 'they protect the integrity of this forum" and the cryptic clue was "Big Brother was certainly not a punk rocker" - the answer MODerator (clever eh?).

I thought it had been binned because it was too challenging :}. Never complained though because as 10W states, it is their trainset, and the post was pretty irrelevant.

Wonder how long this one will last...

To bring it back on track, I wish that in future the union did not make a recommendation either way for voting. The way they have recently been cosying up to management it is pretty obvious that they want us to vote yes to everything. Why not just put the proposal on the table and say "vote yes or no whatever you, as an intelligent individual feels is right".

I know for a fact that some people voted yes merely because they felt that they had to to support their union who was calling for a yes vote. Not exactly playing on an even field IMHO.

[250 kts]

If you accept that the union negotiates in good faith and have access to all of the information and figures required, then they will take that negotiation as far as they believe is possible.

The recommendation will only ever be one that they believe can be achieved by such negotiation, or they will not be doing their job. They are hardly likely to say "take 2%" when they think they could have got 4. They will always push as far as they can.

There will have been information presented that none of us on here are party to and neither should we be.

And is there really anyone on here that thinks they have a right to 4.7% when the industry is in the mess it is quite clearly in?

I suspect that we would all have settled for 2% if Barron and the exec had done the same and this thread would have died a death.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy but am realistic.

[Avoiding_Action]

£135million in profit. It doesn't seem like it's in too much of a mess.

[kats-I]

250kts

There will have been information presented that none of us on here are party to and neither should we be.

Why shouldn't we be party to all information?? How could we make an informed decision with out all facts? If there is nothing to hide then all facts should be given..good or bad!:ok:

And is there really anyone on here that thinks they have a right to 4.7% when the industry is in the mess it is quite clearly in?

I'm sure people don't think a decent payrise is a right, just fair, maybe Nats would be financially better off if the airlines hadn't been given £45m as a "RIGHT" because the shareholders expected it !!;)

[eglnyt]

£135million in profit. It doesn't seem like it's in too much of a mess.

That profit was made last summer before traffic took a 12% dip. As the warnings often say previous performance should not be taken as an indicator of future returns. The desperate attempts to save cash even at the expense of increased long term cost that we've seen over the last few months suggests that somebody with access to the full figures thinks very much that it's in a mess.

Why shouldn't we be party to all information?? How could we make an informed decision with out all facts? If there is nothing to hide then all facts should be given..good or bad!

Any commercial company, and NATS is a commercial company, has information that has to be kept confidential for fear of affecting its negotiating position with customers, banks and suppliers. If a few union representatives subject to confidentiality agreements are given access to that information it is likely that it will remain confidential. If several thousand people are given access it will be public knowledge very quickly.

[250 kts]

£135million in profit. It doesn't seem like it's in too much of a mess.

And I'm sure BA thought the same in 2008 when they made £900m.

kats-i. You're being naive if you really think it right for us all to know all of the finer details.

I have the same opinion as you about the dividend. The majority of the cash should have been put away for the rainy day that will shortly appear over the horizon. The Airline Group knew what they were getting in to and management shouldn't have given in in the way they did, £15m would have been reasonable in the circumstances and the rest set aside or used for the pension.

[kats-I]

eglnyt/250kts

I didn't necessarily mean we need to know all NATs business just any details that affect us making a decision.:(

However the deed is done and can't be undone...or can it??:hmm:

[Standard Noise]

I suspect that we would all have settled for 2% if Barron and the exec had done the same
And there's the rub.

Still, don't suppose the senior management will even bother doing a Willy Walsh despite their pleas of poverty.

[LEGAL TENDER]

Can't believe someone is still defending management !

Can we not just accept the fact that our management is a lying bunch completely detached from the workforce ?

Now we even got a quiz on natsnet to find out how tuned into our "customers" we are.

Who f***ing cares springs to mind !! If I wanted to know about marketing and that kind of stuff I would have done another job.
I wonder if the people at Schmid, Raytheon, Thales or even Aramark (?!) give a f**k about Nats' business. Or they just care that their invoices are paid...

But us instead.. no. We can't look after our own, but we have to show interest in BA and easyjet.

[eglnyt]

Can't believe someone is still defending management !

Not defending management, just pointing out that there are factors which have to be taken into account.

I wonder if the people at Schmid, Raytheon, Thales or even Aramark (?!) give a f**k about Nats' business. Or they just care that their invoices are paid...

Any business that doesn't consider the needs of its customers either has an unregulated monopoly or isn't likely to be in business for long. As a regulated monopoly NATS has to carefully consider its customers because they have a lot of sway with the regulator. The tighter the price controls in CP3 the more pressure there will be on our terms and conditions so it's in all our interests that NATS manages the relationship with its customers and limits their demands to the regulator.

[250 kts]

Can't believe someone is still defending management !

I was defending reality not management.

Who f***ing cares springs to mind

Well as a service provider you should. Their requirements have and will continue to change and it is essential that we react to those changes. I'm sure if you as a customer of BA get a crap service ( I know you probably have:)) you'll be the first to moan about it.

Some of our customers have a real fight for survival and the worst thing that canhappen for our long term terms and conditions is that a major customer goes under. It ain't rocket science.

[Avoiding_Action]

That profit was made last summer before traffic took a 12% dip. As the warnings often say previous performance should not be taken as an indicator of future returns. The desperate attempts to save cash even at the expense of increased long term cost that we've seen over the last few months suggests that somebody with access to the full figures thinks very much that it's in a mess.

If it's such a mess why would they give away £43 million in dividends?

[055166k]

Well I'm glad they [management] care about something, because they care little about their staff. A controller colleague just retired after almost 40 years service.......during which he took FOUR [yes...FOUR] days sick leave....apart from a crappy watch or something after 25 years....he got absolutely F all.
He did of course take much respect and good wishes from his brother and sister ATC buddies.

[anotherthing]

Tuned into customers is a load of bull as far as operational staff are concerned.

We go in and do our best every day, because if we don't we could end up killing a lot of people, bottom line.

Tuned into customers is 100% an office based target, which is not being achieved - for axample - Operations departments who bring in changes despite the ATCOs (their customrs) telling them en-masse that the changes are not fit for purpose and are in fact more dangerous than the old procedures.

Instead of 'tuned into customers' why don't we have a 2011 vision called 'reality check' whereby staff should spend 5 or 10 minutes thinkng about what NATS is as an ANSP and then aply future policy acordingly.

[eglnyt]

If it's such a mess why would they give away £43 million in dividends?

As I've said before in another thread I won't disagree with anybody who thinks that the £43 million should have been retained just in case. That said the board gets to decide what to do with the the profit and the shareholders have a legitimate claim to some of it. I'm just thankful they didn't take any more.

Well I'm glad they [management] care about something, because they care little about their staff. A controller colleague just retired after almost 40 years service.......during which he took FOUR [yes...FOUR] days sick leave....apart from a crappy watch or something after 25 years....he got absolutely F all.
He did of course take much respect and good wishes from his brother and sister ATC buddies.

I don't see why people should expect to receive anything on retirement except thanks and good wishes from management and those they worked with. Where I work the managers make sure that people retiring are properly acknowledged when they leave but any gift comes from colleagues. It's always been like that both as a government agency and a privatised company. If you are saying that they didn't receive proper acknowledgement from their managers then that is perhaps a failing by those managers because others do it.

[Minesapint]

When I retire :cool: I don't want the thanks and respect of management - just the mates made over a 43 year 'career' in ATC. :ok: No 'managers' at my leaving party - the dogs will get them before they get in :suspect:

[mr.777]

I don't see why people should expect to receive anything on retirement except thanks and good wishes from management and those they worked with.

Knowing your fondness for all things management, I have no doubt that you would include "a good pension" in all this stuff that we should not expect to receive when we retire.:rolleyes:

[Avoiding_Action]

As I've said before in another thread I won't disagree with anybody who thinks that the £43 million should have been retained just in case. That said the board gets to decide what to do with the the profit and the shareholders have a legitimate claim to some of it. I'm just thankful they didn't take any more.

But pay rises can be capped "just in case"?

[ZOOKER]

Tuned into what?.
Let's get real.
These people are not 'customers', they're 'ratepayers'. - If they are customers they will have a choice.
I am a customer, i have choices. if I don't like Sainsbury's sausages, I can go to Waitrose, Morrison's, or even (God forbid), Tesco.
If SHT2G doesn't like the service from LAKES/S29/TALLA etc. on Monday, what will happen on Tuesday?
Answer - the same.
There is no 'choice' available, anymore than You or I can select our local authority/council service provider.
Tuned In To Our Ratepayers - Not Arff!

[PeltonLevel]

There is no 'choice' availableThat's true for flights starting and/or finishing in the UK - they have to use NATS for at least part of their route.
Overflights have a choice.
Operators take many things into account when deciding the routes to fly, including the ANS costs, the fuel burn and the ANS quality of service. When fuel costs are low, the UK mileage is minimised. When fuel costs are high, the mileage flown is minimised. When French ATC is on strike, more will bypass France by flying oceanic routes or going via Belgium and Germany.

[ZOOKER]

But why would any airline avoid UK Airspace?
Allegedly, the services available within are among the best in the world.
Pelton,
would you visit Goodman (Maddox St.) for your burger, or Ronald McD.
We're talking Quality and Service here. :ok:

[terrain safe]

Tuned into customers is a load of bull as far as operational staff are concerned.

Only perhaps in NERL. Generally in NSL we deal with them on a daily basis, either on the phone or in person. Having worked in both there is, sadly, a massive difference in attitude between the two parts of NATS. SOME of the NERL ops staff have absolutely no idea of who their customers are and don't care either. I know that we all stop the aircraft banging together, that's a given along with expedition, but we need to know who we answer to. In TC the approach sectors customers aren't the airlines, they are the airports that they are working the approach function to, but talking to them you would think the airport is their customer. There needs to be a sea change at NERL to match that which NSL went through a few years ago and loose the old civil service attitude and realise that we all have to work together.

Please note I'm not management, probably never will be, but I do care that I do my job to the best of all my abilities.

[ZOOKER]

terrain,
Allegedly in the "old Civil-Service attitude" everyone DID work together, and as for that "sea change", it's-a-coming!
+1.8mm/p.a.!
terrain safe, - you will be! Just get that 'heat canned'. :}
Act Responsibly. :ok:

[PeltonLevel]

But why would any airline avoid UK Airspace?HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF MONEY?

[eglnyt]

I have no doubt that you would include "a good pension" in all this stuff that we should not expect to receive when we retire.

Not at all and I'm not quite sure how one implies the other. I still expect a good pension by any measure of what a good pension is. I also expect that inevitably there will be further attempts to reduce pension benefits because UK PLC which includes NATS can no longer afford the pensions it used to provide. I am very grateful to the union for ensuring we enjoy some legal protection which many company pension scheme members do not which may ultimately mean we keep our good pension far longer than most people.

But pay rises can be capped "just in case"?

Like it or not NATS has to live within its means and I happen to believe that there is little victory in a larger pay rise which ultimately has to be paid for by people losing their jobs. The board may not have been as prudent as I would like but I don't think that means we shouldn't be.

[kats-I]

eglnyt
Like it or not NATS has to live within its means

We all have to live within our means but my means are definitely getting smaller as the cost of living..food, fuel etc.. gets larger.:bored:

[Avoiding_Action]

Like it or not NATS has to live within its means and I happen to believe that there is little victory in a larger pay rise which ultimately has to be paid for by people losing their jobs. The board may not have been as prudent as I would like but I don't think that means we shouldn't be.
We are either in good financial health or we aren't. If a payrise makes jobs go on the line then we aren't in good financial health and shouldn't be paying out millions of pounds in dividends.

[LEGAL TENDER]

We are either in good financial health or we aren't. If a payrise makes jobs go on the line then we aren't in good financial health and shouldn't be paying out millions of pounds in dividends.

Exactly !!!

Double standards, that sums it up.
Jobs for the boys, money for the fat cats, and job losses and pay cuts for the staff.

PB's bonuses are almost as obscene as the RBS directors', but yet it seems perfectly acceptable to some posters on here !!!

Am away to read more about our customers now, to tune into them better !

[250 kts]

We are either in good financial health or we aren't.

We clearly were but are not likely to be in the very near future.

Just on the subject of the cutomers BA declared record profits just over 12 months ago. Speaking to one of their employees recently I asked if Willie was exaggerating the situation. He was adamant that the organisation is really fighting for survival and the situation is really that dire.

It just shows how quickly it can all turn round.

Still not happy about the dividends though.

PS. ZOOKER. STAY OUT OF IT. YOU KNOW LESS THAN NOTHING

[BigDaddyBoxMeal]

Double standards, that sums it up.
Jobs for the boys, money for the fat cats, and job losses and pay cuts for the staff.

PB's bonuses are almost as obscene as the RBS directors', but yet it seems perfectly acceptable to some posters on here !!!

Welcome to the world of the PLC. This battle was lost back in 2001 when NATS was part privatised, and all of a sudden had to become financially viable. Managers brought in were those experienced in companies that are run to make a profit, and as such have managed NATS down the road we now find ourselves on.

Its the same story in any big PLC or Ltd company, and unfortunately, NATS will be no different. It only now seems to be occuring to the unions and the workforce that it is beginning to catch up with us 8 years after PPP. But unfortunately its not going to change any time soon. Ask anyone that works in a big organisation (be it a supermarket, a bank, a train company, insurance provider etc) they'll give you the same story, people on the shop floor are shafted while management and shareholders reap the benefits.

The best we can hope for now is to pull together as a workforce and limit any further damage to our T&Cs. We can draw our own conclusions on how succesful that strategy may be, bearing in mind the recent polls on pension and pay :{

[ZOOKER]

Knots,
Thank-you for your continuing support. Ignorance is bliss! :ok:
Pelton,
Unfortunately, at this point in time, most NAT oceanic tracks start (and finish), west of UK Airspace. - What a shame. :E

[ZOOKER]

Pelton,
In post No. 82, you ask:-
"HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF MONEY?"
Several years ago, I passed a GCSE Level examination in Economics.
I am certain it was mentioned then.
Also, I was at school with 2 people (brother and sister) whose surname was Money, and of course there is the legendary 'Zoot Money', the famous British rhythm and blues keyboard player.
So the answer to your question appears to be a resounding Yes! :ok: