Latest rumour on 2002 pay....??!!

[nodelay]

OK, so we've all read the NATS PAY pages and the feeling seems to be an overwhelming Rejection with a capital R. I heard a RUMOUR a day or two ago that management were considering an offer of 3.7% for year 2002. I haven't heard anything else on this and do not know if it would be linked to a two year pay deal. I'm sure there must be somebody else out there that can add to this.

If not, well I did say it was only a rumour:eek:


Cotton wool for clouds and a bottle top for the sun!

[Roland Butter]

Read ya internal E-mail , the second of a 2 year deal could add up to this amount if you are lucky.

I guess you are sadly not a NATS ATCO and wanting an insight into our pay negotiations?

[nodelay]

Roland (I can't believe its not) butter

This is completey different from the initial two year deal offering the 3.7% as a second year deal. As I said initially this is a rumour that has been banded around as a pay offer for 2002 and not as the second year of a 2 year pay deal. If you'd read the post correctly in the first instance then there would have been no need for you to have wasted your time posting such a time wasting reply:D :D Stick to book keeping(profile) and chill out!!

Who said I'm not NATS?


Cotton wool for clouds and a bottle top for the sun!

[Applycarbheat]

OK, so we've all read the NATS PAY pages and the feeling seems to be an overwhelming Rejection with a capital R.

Wrong.

All you have read are comments from the usual whingers.

Don't forget that NATS consists of lots of people performing various jobs and functions, the majority of which will vote to accept the pay deal.

Regards
APC

[hatsoff]

Applycarbheat - where have you been?

I know that these forum comments truly represent the feelings of Atcos at my Unit. They are not the words of Whingers.

[160to4DME]

Applycarbheat

The 143 people out of the 166 who voted in the straw poll on here to reject the offer (85.63%) will be delighted to see you refer to them as whingers. :mad:

NATS pay proposal poll (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51174)

[2 six 4]

Nodelay ... absolutely right. I heard the same. A guy on the bus told one of the security staff who told one of the cleaners who told one of the canteen staff who confirmed it to me as absolutely true.

[nodelay]

2 six 4

Like it!!

[Applycarbheat]

Hatsoff...............

Sorry for not having been around for a while. Found much better sport on other web sites. :)

However I suspect that the pay issue should offer me some excellent opportunities. :D

Regards
ACH

[alloneword]

160to4:

who knows how many "people" have voted on this anonymous forum?

[spekesoftly]

You're not suggesting ...... oh surely not! ;)

[160to4DME]

Ah good point; I'll keep an eye out for anyone at work with 140+ different email addresses :D

[NATS_Not_Funny]

As a non-ATCO I agree. It's a secure well paid job with lots of time off and 30 minutes break every 2 hours - no matter how quiet you've been.

This will probably change when individual rostering comes in and CRATCOH is modernised.

[BEXIL160]

But then, without us "whingeing" operational ATCOs, who actually do a damn fine job (customer comments, not mine), with all the responsibilty that it entails, YOU wouldn't HAVE any job would you?

:p

Rgds BEX

P.S. CRATCOH hasn't existed for a while now. SRATCOH is what you think you mean. Pity...

[Undercover]

Oooh.. handbags everyone....!!

without each part of the company the other parts couldn't function. Fancy running the whole shebang yourself??... no, didn't think so.

P.S. the rumour about a 3.7% offer this year? No chance. Think maybe someone got their wires crossed when reading the communication about the 2 year deal.

As I heard it the reason the unions are happy to do a 2 year deal is they reckon that a certain Mr Bush may decide to destabilise certain oil producing countries even further in the coming months, leading to increasing oil prices and a downturn in air traffic due to military action... and so if we can tie up a guaranteed deal now we'll be better off. In the words of King Kenny Dalglish "mibbes aye... mibbes naw"

[160to4DME]

Oh dear, it's raining chips.

Interesting to see whose shoulders they fall on :D

160 (ATCO and team player)

[NATS_Not_Funny]

BEX I stand corrected, SRATCOH it is. Whatever it's called it will be overhauled soon - that's unavoidable. ATCO wages are by far the biggest expense the company has, so getting them working more efficiently is an obvious target for the bean counters.

Undercover is right. The working ATCO relies on a whole lot of people to be able to do the job well. Many don't seem to realise this in NATS and instead see themselves as the star of the show – an attitude which can annoy the rest of us.

NATS has a published plan to lose 1000 engineers over the next ten years or less. That’s 2 out of every three currently employed. Against this background I’m sure you can see why the fuss being kicked up about the current pay round is being described as “whinging”

[Route Papa 45]

As NNF said, half hour off every 2, surely enough time to get a small part time job in Burger king. The cash will soon be rolling in.:)

[BEXIL160]

As I've said MANY times before, I have the upmost admiration for our engineers. I have also said here that I believe the way our engineering staff have been treated is nothing short of a tragedy.

I question the need for the "other" office staff. People like the ORO for instance. Cost a fortune, contribute zero...except upsetting all and sundry for no appreciable reason.

As for individual rosters, I'm suprised that this hasn't come up sooner. Rostering depts in most of the members of TAG have pretty sophisticated tools for crewing their aeroplanes, taking into account the relevant CAP, Crew qualifications, the Route and crew preferences (bids). I'm amazed that our rosters haven't been "contracted out" to one of these depts.

BEX

[PPRuNe Radar]

Nats_Not_Funny

SRATCOH is a legal requirement placed on ATS providers by the Regulator, i.e. the CAA. It is not something NATS dreamt up for it's ATCO staff as part of their conditions. It is not something that NATS has any control over.

So what makes you think that it will be amended ?? Whatever NATS management want their ATC staff to do, it will have to be within the laws of the land.

[NATS_Not_Funny]

PPRuNe Radar

My understanding is that the current regulations were devised by the regulators in conjunction with all ATCO employers at the time.
NATS is by far the largest employer of ATCOs in the country. If they go to the CAA with new proposals which get more efficient use of the staff while maintaining safety they will ultimatly win the case. This would probably be supported by many of the non NATS employers as well.

This isn’t something I advocate or desire, it is one of the inevitable results of the privatisation. Look at any other privatised industry and the behaviour of the regulators. To believe anything else is just sticking your head in the sand.

This is one of the reasons why I think that the fuss over the current pay offer is pointless. There are much bigger issues than getting a few quid extra per month.

[Dan Dare]

Its my understanding that SRATCOH is being ammended as we speak! The current 4 pages of limitations of controllers hours aren't deemed to be complicated enough, so some wag has produced a book sized document with even more whats, ifs and buts!

From what I've seen there isn't a lot of change to the bones, but it does allow more working into the current night shifts (ie VERY early mornings and late afternoons) in the interests of more flexible rostering. This will of course be superfluous when Europe rules that night flights infringe my right to a good night sleep though.