Government Shareholding in NATS to be Disposed of

[radar707]

Chancellor announced in Budget that Government Shareholding in NATS to be disposed of.

Had to happen eventually!!

Anyone got a few million spare?

[Mr A Tis]

Not much of a surprise, been on the cards for a while.
The question is, who wants it ?
The airlines are strapped for cash & given a chance, The Airline Group would sell their shares too.

[Roffa]

I'm sure there's a private equity firm, with a short term view, out there somewhere. We do have some assets worth stripping.

[5milesbaby]

Awesome, bring on making money in a non profit making organisation.

I feel safe already :mad:

[Spitoon]

We do have some assets worth stripping.Ummm???????

[Ali Bongo]

Ummm???????

The pension fund for a start ....

[rab-k]

Yeah, that'll be the only reason anyone wants to buy us.

Anybody seen that dry powder anywhere? Remember that stuff? Anybody? Hello?..

:hmm:

[DC10RealMan]

Any new owners of NATS would only be entitled to take any pension contribution surplus that they have accrued and I do not believe that the Civil Aviation Authority Pension Scheme (NATS Section) is in surplus.
I would think however that in the event of a takeover the right of existing employees to be members of the CAAPS would be under great threat.

[rolaaand]

The dry powder blew away in a light breeze when 30% of members couldn't be arsed voting one way or another to stop our pensions being changed.
Todays announcement was widely expected but it was the only line in the budget that made me wince.
It's probably downhill from here as far as our Ts and Cs are concerned:mad:

[Minesthechevy]

<<< It's probably downhill from here as far as our Ts and Cs are concernedhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif >>>

No change there then from way way back.

[mr not grumble]

No doubt the "union" will rage against this. But as seen in the past the Union is very similar to a chocolate teapot and as much use.

[rab-k]

rolaaand

The dry powder blew away in a light breeze when 30% of members couldn't be arsed voting one way or another to stop our pensions being changed.


Turnout for the last Unite/BASSA vote was 71% - wonder if they're still going on about the 29% who "couldn't be arsed"?

The Budget document states in the section "Asset Sales" that

"as part of a wider programme of asset commercialisation over the next 12 months the Government will:

explore with other shareholders the options for a potential sale process in NATS".As a shareholder, I look forward to being consulted.


Budget 2010 .pdf (http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_188581.pdf)

[Mr A Tis]

Who would buy into a company that was not for profit? Unless of course the goal posts were to be moved again.

[anna_list]

Exclusive: Gatwick Owner Plots Bid For NATS | Gatwick | Air_Traffic | NATS | Kleinman | Sky News Blogs (http://blogs.news.sky.com/kleinman/Post:b717dae9-766d-4fdd-9265-c1d4d3c04aec)

[2 sheds]

If they've got a growing aviation sector then they may get a lot out of coming into NATS who are well respected worldwide. They could gain a lot of valuable expertise for their own sectors by _______ our company.

Note : Insert suitable adjective to the above blank space.

I think you mean "verb" - present, continuous, active!

2 s

[chevvron]

I was told by a trustee of the IAL pension Scheme that SERCo only bought IAL because of it's pension scheme; he was on 'gardening leave' (minimum pay after a job in the middle east)due to his refusal to let SERCo get their sticky fingers on the money!!

[PeltonLevel]

I wouldn't worry too much about a prospective purchaser planning a raid on the pension fund! The latest valuation gives:

The value of the assets is £2,804.9M
The technical provisions (the assets needed to meet member benefits if the scheme continues as a going concern) are £3156.0M (funding ratio 89%)
The value of the solvency liabilities (the assets needed to buy insurance policies to provide member benefits earned to date) is £4,433.6M (statutory estimate of solvency 63%)Any new owner will have to match the new employer contribution rates (36.7%), rather than being able to draw on any surplus. I don't think that Schedule 22 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 offers any quick wins for any new owner here!

[call100]

No doubt the "union" will rage against this. But as seen in the past the Union is very similar to a chocolate teapot and as much use.
The Union is only as strong as it's members. If they are chocolate can't be arsed members then don't blame the organisation.....Having been through what you are about to go through, my condolences for your T's & C's. Your pension will end up being a lot less than you had planned for....Unless of course there are not so many chocolate warriors out there and you are prepared to fight for them.:hmm:

[Standard Noise]

The Union rules state that if the govt announces a sale of the rest of it's shareholding (or part of) then the union shall ballot for industrial action. It's there in the standing orders, there's no way round it (unless members vote to give it up). Each member needs to let their rep know what they want to happen should the govt push the plan further, rather than bleating about what has gone before and fighting amongst ourselves.

[Ali Bongo]

The Union rules state that if the govt announces a sale of the rest of it's shareholding (or part of) then the union shall ballot for industrial action. It's there in the standing orders, there's no way round it (unless members vote to give it up).

Was that the same standing order that said if they tamper with the pension fund then they ballot the members?:hmm:

[Conspiracy Theories]

I am a little confused not to mention worried to some extent with regards to this. So the government wants to sell the shares that it holds within NATS (either all or part of them).

It seems like if it does happen, there will be a lot of changes to everything from Ts and Cs to pension and eventually to service provision i think. Lets just hypothetically say that "a company" comes in and the first thing they do is change the Ts and Cs to go in line with all the employees and they then start with the pensions too and then eventually move on to service provision and possibly safety.....etc. i think there will be a lot of staff looking to become controllers elsewhere. it could leave NATS embarrassingly with no staff at all.

privatisation hasn't helped with projects around NATS struggling to get them complete in both ops rooms and all this as traffic is slowly getting busier and the olympics looming over the horizon. What will the new buyer do when it finds out how much money has been spent on these projects that are yet to see the light of day in the ops room?

If the pension is altered again or our Ts and Cs are changed......i think i will be looking at other ANSPs i think.

[Hooligan Bill]

The Union rules state that if the govt announces a sale of the rest of it's shareholding (or part of) then the union shall ballot for industrial action. It's there in the standing orders, there's no way round it (unless members vote to give it up). Each member needs to let their rep know what they want to happen should the govt push the plan further, rather than bleating about what has gone before and fighting amongst ourselves.

Not quite true, Section A3 3.1 (xii) of the Branch handbook stated that "The BEC shall ballot members for industrial action should the Government announce that it is to sell off its remaining stake in NATS".

However, Motion 5 at Conference 2009 "Conference instructs the BEC to lobby Department of Treansport and Industry to allocate a portion of any future sale of shares by H M Govt for the exclusive purchase by NATS staff.", was passed and the procedural attached to this motion was the deletion of A3 3.1 (xii).

So it appears there is no such manadate.

[radar707]

There's always the option of a special delegates conference to determine policy on this issue should enough of the membership feel it appropriate and call for one

[call100]

Not quite true, Section A3 3.1 (xii) of the Branch handbook stated that "The BEC shall ballot members for industrial action should the Government announce that it is to sell off its remaining stake in NATS".

However, Motion 5 at Conference 2009 "Conference instructs the BEC to lobby Department of Treansport and Industry to allocate a portion of any future sale of shares by H M Govt for the exclusive purchase by NATS staff.", was passed and the procedural attached to this motion was the deletion of A3 3.1 (xii).

So it appears there is no such manadate.

Hopefully that would be shares with full voting rights??? Otherwise it's just a bribe!