NATS Redundancies

[Spambhoy]

All contractors were served notice months ago, but now the company is discussing compulsory redundancies and the union is taking a shallow view, due to the bullying culture that is beginning to surface.

https://www.pcs.org.uk/latest-update-on-aviation-group-covid-19-discussions-with-employers

[Count von Altibar]

Bloody'ell not ATC also, the UK government has really played this pandemic badly and the 14 day quarantine has scared the airlines into threatening more redundancies and the public not to travel. We need a vaccine asap to get the aviation world going again.

[kontrolor]

that is capitalism and deregulation my friend....

[parkfell]

The Oxford teams vaccine trials looks promising, and provided there are no hiccups, it should be available later this year.
Prof Sarah Gilbert one of the leading lights.

Nine other teams also working on vaccine trials, so the odds may well be much better than 50:50.

[Denti]

It is puzzling how different the response to Covid-19 is compared to the continent, where governments spend billions on direct aviation programs, not to mention the fully government funded furlough programs until the end of 2021 for all businesses. Which allows stuff like one month furlough, one month full work which keeps aviation workers current in their job and saves the companies half their wages.

[escaped.atco]

Ultimately NATS is now a commercial business and as such has to return a profit to the shareholders. If your customers have decreased their own business dramatically and as a result you are struggling to raise revenue then redundancies and cutbacks are inevitable. The airlines that are making massive changes at present are a pertinent example and I feel desperately sorry for those affected.

In my humble opinion, national infrastructure like ATC should be a government role. What happens if NATS goes under? What happens if the revenue incoming is drastically less than company outgoings, not just for a few months but potentially a few years?

I have no idea how many staff NATS employ. I have no idea how many of those staff are ATCOs and how many are office types. I have no idea of how many they are wishing to sack. Did NATS not go through this process a few years ago with airport controllers? IIRC they got rid of quite a few not that long ago.

[kcockayne]

The Oxford teams vaccine trials looks promising, and provided there are no hiccups, it should be available later this year.
Prof Sarah Gilbert one of the leading lights.

Nine other teams also working on vaccine trials, so the odds may well be much better than 50:50.
Yeah, wake me up when they have got one. I could do with a long sleep !

[homonculus]

I suggest you read the science kcockayne. The virus is a single strand of RNA that has only mutated once. It is amenable to vaccines. There are 9 leading projects using at least 5 different methods. We know patients often produce antibodies and we also now know that if re exposed the antibodies respond. All this suggests one or other vaccine will succeed and GAVI and the major players such as AZ and Sanofi are building capacity.

Separately there is possibly an evens chance the virus may simply disappear as did SARS and although we may get a resurgence of cases from easing lockdown too early, there is no evidence of the mythical second wave.

I would put money on a vaccine by Q4 and the end of new medical cases in 2021. The economic issues will take longer to resolve especially if idiots apply quarantine in June as opposed to February and scatter taxpayers' money to all and sundry instead of supporting those most effected.

[Spambhoy]

Ultimately NATS is now a commercial business and as such has to return a profit to the shareholders. If your customers have decreased their own business dramatically and as a result you are struggling to raise revenue then redundancies and cutbacks are inevitable. The airlines that are making massive changes at present are a pertinent example and I feel desperately sorry for those affected.

In my humble opinion, national infrastructure like ATC should be a government role. What happens if NATS goes under? What happens if the revenue incoming is drastically less than company outgoings, not just for a few months but potentially a few years?

I have no idea how many staff NATS employ. I have no idea how many of those staff are ATCOs and how many are office types. I have no idea of how many they are wishing to sack. Did NATS not go through this process a few years ago with airport controllers? IIRC they got rid of quite a few not that long ago.


Staff costs ( from last years returns ) were running at near enough 1B per annum.

[vlieger]

In my humble opinion, national infrastructure like ATC should be a government role. What happens if NATS goes under? What happens if the revenue incoming is drastically less than company outgoings, not just for a few months but potentially a few years?


Exactly this. I have flown all over Europe and in the USA but would say that UK ATC is the best and most professional I have worked with. For them to also having to join this constant race to the bottom is heartbreaking. The logical conclusion of capitalism and deregulation indeed.
At least the winds of change are blowing all over the world, I suggest as aviation professionals we start joining and start showing a bit of unity and backbone.

[Del Prado]

Ultimately NATS is now a commercial business and as such has to return a profit to the shareholders. If your customers have decreased their own business dramatically and as a result you are struggling to raise revenue then redundancies and cutbacks are inevitable. The airlines that are making massive changes at present are a pertinent example and I feel desperately sorry for those affected.


Of course it’s not just the airlines that are the customers and NATS also has a requirement through its license to keep airspace open regardless of the number of users.
A few examples could be police or medivac helicopters, survey flights, military, the royal family and government ministers.
Which means you need a minimum number of “bums on seats” regardless of the number of flights.
If flights reduce by 80% you cannot simply reduce the number of controllers by same without closing vital airspace and breaching the company’s operating license.

Which is why, as escaped ATCO said, this vital piece of national infrastructure should not be run as a for profit, commercial company.

[The Fat Controller]

escaped.atco The last tranche of operational staff voluntary redundancies was around 5 or 6 years ago and those were across the business, both at airfields and the centres.

It does not surprise me that they are looking to withdraw from the current redundancy agreement as it is very generous, so they will be looking to reduce that bill if and when staff are made redundant.

NATS currently has very little income as Eurocontrol has allowed airlines to defer en-route ATC charges.

NATS have also temporarily stopped paying into CAAPS (the pension scheme), at the agreement of the Trustees.

I feel for all my old colleagues who do a fabulous job every day.

The one consolation is that the government cannot afford to let NATS go under, however I fear the cuts are likely to be very painful.

[GeeRam]

The one consolation is that the government cannot afford to let NATS go under, however I fear the cuts are likely to be very painful.

I wouldn't bank on that......

This Govt is probably the most anti-aviation industry Govt we've ever had.

[The Moo]

Rumour has it the Willie Walsh is taking over as CEO of NATS when he leaves IAG.

[kcockayne]

Is this just a humorous comment, or a serious suggestion ?

[terrain safe]

Just remember that once an ATCO is gone, that's it. To get a new one, even from another unit will take at least 6 months to a year to replace. If it takes 3 to 4 years to get back to where we were, NATS would still need to recruit like crazy to replace the staff who leave on retirement, If they cut back the delays could impact aviation for many years. It's not a race to the bottom, it's out of there and down the sewer to the sea. It would be catastrophic to the UK.

[Spambhoy]

Rumour has it the Willie Walsh is taking over as CEO of NATS when he leaves IAG.

Doubt it’s nothing more than trolling. Walsh would have have a clear conflict of interest. It would be akin to insider trading. As the government retains a “golden share”, they would not allow this to happen.

[Spambhoy]

I’ll back that up with the fact that the poster hasn’t voiced an opinion, on anything, in 6 years. So, troll it is.

[escaped.atco]

In as much as I believe that the WW remark is just a troll, what I will be interested in is the career of the current NATS CEO. If or when the current chief carries out a cull and if it is perceived as being unfair or otherwise amongst the remaining workforce, it will make ongoing workforce cooperation very difficult if not impossible. Workers will realise they are simply an asset to be used and disposed as and when deemed necessary by the company, this realisation doesn't exactly produce workplace harmony or a happy atmosphere.

Someone that carries out a massive chopping session may well find that they themselves will have to voluntarily move on and for fresh faces to come in and try and pick up the remaining pieces of morale in order to put what's left of the company back together again - not an easy task.

It's always easy to manage a company when it's all going well and trends are upwards, you really see true personalities when things turn sour. Words are cheap, actions always much louder.

[Spambhoy]

I’m interested to find out what the shareholders expect in the short term ? As NATS have arranged, yet another, pension holiday, there has to be some give and take regards the financial fallout. What NATS don’t appear to be doing, is conveying anything publicly since March. That troubles me a great deal, as they are quite a unique industry who have never seemed to master communication to the world in which they dominate ( by their own definition ).

[procede]

Doubt it’s nothing more than trolling. Walsh would have have a clear conflict of interest. It would be akin to insider trading. As the government retains a “golden share”, they would not allow this to happen.

The current head of the dutch air traffic control organisation (Michiel van Dorst, LVNL) is a former KLM board member and pilot. I have no idea what the conflict of interest could be.

[kcockayne]

I suggest you read the science kcockayne. The virus is a single strand of RNA that has only mutated once. It is amenable to vaccines. There are 9 leading projects using at least 5 different methods. We know patients often produce antibodies and we also now know that if re exposed the antibodies respond. All this suggests one or other vaccine will succeed and GAVI and the major players such as AZ and Sanofi are building capacity.

Separately there is possibly an evens chance the virus may simply disappear as did SARS and although we may get a resurgence of cases from easing lockdown too early, there is no evidence of the mythical second wave.

I would put money on a vaccine by Q4 and the end of new medical cases in 2021. The economic issues will take longer to resolve especially if idiots apply quarantine in June as opposed to February and scatter taxpayers' money to all and sundry instead of supporting those most effected.
Well, I really hope that you are correct in your optimism; but I guess that we will find out in the fullness of time. Let’s hope that it is not too full !

[Out Of Trim]

Time for NATS to be Re-Nationalised I think! :=

[Not Long Now]

....because governments have a great track record of managing large infrastructure projects requiring almost complete modernisation....

[250 kts]

The current head of the dutch air traffic control organisation (Michiel van Dorst, LVNL) is a former KLM board member and pilot. I have no idea what the conflict of interest could be.
I assume that LVNL is not a "for profit" business?

NATS have learnt nothing over the years about staffing. It has always irked the management that the staff they have in the summer are still there in the winter when the traffic is down by 50%. Everything is so short term in NATS and this knee jerk decision to give notice on the key agreement on redundancy is no different. Get out and borrow at a low rate and get all of the projects done that are usually constrained for 8 months of the year because of the operational staffing requirement.

[TCAS FAN]

Time for NATS to be Re-Nationalised I think! :=

The main service provider and the regulator one of the same - never going back there again!

[10 DME ARC]

I have been gob smacked by NATS last few years, the pension scheme has been paying out figure 2 or 3 times the value of a similar pension pot in local government! Then if you're old enough to retire leave and re-employed as consultant on more than were on before you took the pension pot! They seem to have been throwing away money! I won't even go into projects!!

[mike current]

Time for NATS to be Re-Nationalised I think! :=

There are 62 ANSPs that are regulated by the UK CAA...

[procede]

I assume that LVNL is not a "for profit" business?

Semi. It is a so called Zelfstandig Bestuursorgaan (Independant governing body). It has no shares, but is economically self sufficient and remains under some limited regulation and review of the government.

[Juggler25]

​​
Staff costs ( from last years returns ) were running at near enough 1B per annum.

Where's that figure from? Outgoings of ~£60m per month are more accurate, approx 80% of which is staff. I think total income last year was just shy of the £1b mark.

I have no idea how many staff NATS employ. I have no idea how many of those staff are ATCOs and how many are office types

It's about 5000 people in total. I believe about a third (happy to be corrected) of that are directly related to the operation, i.e. ATCOs/ATSAs/Engineers etc. With the rest being backroom/project staff.

This
Just remember that once an ATCO is gone, that's it. To get a new one, even from another unit will take at least 6 months to a year to replace. If it takes 3 to 4 years to get back to where we were, NATS would still need to recruit like crazy to replace the staff who leave on retirement, If they cut back the delays could impact aviation for many years.

and this
NATS have learnt nothing over the years about staffing. It has always irked the management that the staff they have in the summer are still there in the winter when the traffic is down by 50%. Everything is so short term in NATS and this knee jerk decision to give notice on the key agreement on redundancy is no different. Get out and borrow at a low rate and get all of the projects done that are usually constrained for 8 months of the year because of the operational staffing requirement.

are spot on.

If redundancies are to happen I would expect the majority to be the office staff. If you do the maths NATS can't afford to let many operational staff go. As has been mentioned there's an awful lot of retirements on the horizon (I think about a third of ATCOs are expecting to retire over the next ten years) and with a lead time of up to four years to recruit and train a fully qualified ATCO (never mind a couple more years of getting some experience under their belt) they're going to find themselves very short in a year or two once traffic is at 'normal' levels again. The CEO keeps banging on about how the size of the company will need to reflect the amount of flying going on. He seems to conveniently forget the fact we've been chronically understaffed for the past 5 years (overtime is the only thing that's stopped enormous delays over the summers) and are now probably at the correct level of staffing for what's expected to be normal traffic when all this is over. At the end of the day the funding model is flawed. The company can't grow and shrink at a moments notice to match current traffic as management types want it too. Of course none of us expect them to do the correct thing. We'll be picking up the pieces from the rash decisions currently being made for quite some time.

[kcockayne]

Twelve years retired - & nothing much changes ! Mind you, it was a lot different when I started. But, that was the good old DoTI. The rot started slowly when the CAA got into its stride & gathered pace when NATS became a “sort of” private/public company. I had left well before that, leaving some wonderful characters, ATCOS & ATCAs behind. We will never see that lot again - more’s the pity !

[250 kts]

Semi. It is a so called Zelfstandig Bestuursorgaan (Independant governing body). It has no shares, but is economically self sufficient and remains under some limited regulation and review of the government.
So similar to NATS but without the crucial need to make a profit or pay dividends.

There is no reason why a re-nationalised NATS couldn't/shouldn't be kept entirely separate from the regulator. Times have changed since the PP was initiated in the late 90's.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did come after the operational staff a la BA but fortunately ATCOs are not quite so readily available or easy to train as a pilot. I'm not sure I'd want to be an ATSA at present though

[kontrolor]

according to EU law, operator and regulator must be separate entities. Hence so many agencies (for nuclear energy, aviation....)

[Blueskythinking65]

ATCO’s could be fairly easy to obtain and train if there are plenty that have been made redundant. Just like a pilot that doesn’t have to go back to their basic training and do a PPL an ex ATCO returning to the same unit perhaps would take a relatively short time to revalidate after a year or so off. I sincerely hope it doesn’t come to this but let’s not be too complacent and let’s try to be prepared for all the arguments and possible threats that may come our way.

[T250]

So similar to NATS but without the crucial need to make a profit or pay dividends.

There is no reason why a re-nationalised NATS couldn't/shouldn't be kept entirely separate from the regulator. Times have changed since the PP was initiated in the late 90's.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did come after the operational staff a la BA but fortunately ATCOs are not quite so readily available or easy to train as a pilot. I'm not sure I'd want to be an ATSA at present though

Unfortunately Corbyn didn't win the last election, re-nationalisation is unlikely.

Out of interest, what do ATSAs do since Swanwick switched to EFPS?

[Tartiflette Fan]

"Unfortunately Corbyn didn't win the last election, "

A very large majority of the British population disagree with you..

[AyrTC]

Also remember it was a Labour government that launched the PPP, after stating “ our air is not for sale “ 🤬

[250 kts]

ATCO’s could be fairly easy to obtain and train if there are plenty that have been made redundant. Just like a pilot that doesn’t have to go back to their basic training and do a PPL an ex ATCO returning to the same unit perhaps would take a relatively short time to revalidate after a year or so off. I sincerely hope it doesn’t come to this but let’s not be too complacent and let’s try to be prepared for all the arguments and possible threats that may come our way.

I would like to think that anyone made redundant would think very hard about being taken back on, age dependent of course. There would be no guarantee that NATS wouldn't just have a reservoir of ex employees that they could dip into until they run out or have trained enough new people not to need to use them. Maybe a blanket ban on training until there is a commitment of no compulsory redundancies may be the way to go.

[mike current]

Paying people for work that is not required just in case they're required 2 years from now is an interesting concept.
What if it's 3 years? Or maybe just 1? That's the difficulty. No one really knows which way this is going.

[Dan Dare]

may work if they return to their previous unit/sector, but an experienced ATCO going to a busy new unit will take around a year to qualify and many years to be experienced. You can’t just switch on the taps and train all of the shortfall either only one trainee at a time can be in position and the qualified ATCOs also need to have a go sometimes to keep their recency. A 10% staff shortfall could take a year or two to replace even using experience trainees. If we’re looking at traffic returning towards capacity then we’d better start recruiting now before redundancies have even been “offered”. Most ATC units were quite short-staffed before COVID19, relying on overtime to make up the shortfall. See also units with a change of ANSP contract taking years to return to safe staffing levels. NATS also has a retirement bulge looming in part caused by a historic short-sighted staffing cycles.

[TCAS FAN]

Out of interest, what do ATSAs do since Swanwick switched to EFPS?

FIS on "London Information" for starters.

[kcockayne]

may work if they return to their previous unit/sector, but an experienced ATCO going to a busy new unit will take around a year to qualify and many years to be experienced. You can’t just switch on the taps and train all of the shortfall either only one trainee at a time can be in position and the qualified ATCOs also need to have a go sometimes to keep their recency. A 10% staff shortfall could take a year or two to replace even using experience trainees. If we’re looking at traffic returning towards capacity then we’d better start recruiting now before redundancies have even been “offered”. Most ATC units were quite short-staffed before COVID19, relying on overtime to make up the shortfall. See also units with a change of ANSP contract taking years to return to safe staffing levels. NATS also has a retirement bulge looming in part caused by a historic short-sighted staffing cycles.[/QUOTE]
Completely agree with all of this - but; do not rule out fundamental changes by the "authorities" to what are mandatory requirements, in order to make the system work - if it suits them to do so. I have seen a lifetime of what were absolutely essential rules, regulations & requirements go out of the window when it suited !

[The Fat Controller]

I do wonder if that "retirement bulge" is likely to be flattened as many of those considering leaving are probably the same people who transferred their pensions out of CAAPS and now find their "pots" are considerably smaller and they are invested in companies who will be paying smaller or even no dividends.

[Spambhoy]

I visited one of the financial companies, prior to drawing my pension and the nervousness of the agent made the hair on the back of my neck stand to attention. Being reasonably fiscally savvy, that was enough for me to walk ( with the paperwork provided ). I’m fortunate enough to have a chartered accountant as a close friend and he literally balked when he read the attached risk. I’m now furnished with the news that one ex colleague has lost 130k from his LTA and another 60k. Bearing in mind the management fees are between 80/100k over a decade, that’s a substantial risk in anybody’s book. I also understand certain individuals were coercing members of staff to “jump ship” and join them for a finders fee for the firm in question. I hope they are “outed”, but it didn’t help that NATS set the ball in motion, by incentivising staff to leave CAAPS for a 25% pay rise !

[Juggler25]

Anybody know what percentage of staff are left in CAAPS? If it's now below 50% I'd be amazed if it survives this mess.

Out of interest, what do ATSAs do since Swanwick switched to EFPS?

FIR and Flight Plans. They also man certain sectors but not all like in days gone by. When on sector 95% of the time they're say twiddling their thumbs. However, on the days the sh@t hits the fan they're invaluable and worth their weight in gold. It would be extremely short sighted for them to disappear.

[Spambhoy]

According to a press release by CAAPS ( as of last December ), it services 5700 current and retired NATS employees. It’s anybody’s guess how you could break that number down ?

[Juggler25]

Not including retirements, before people starting taking their money out of CAAPS I know the split was about 80% in, 20% in the DC scheme. I've no idea how many took their money out and thus what the current figure is though... Worth remembering there's also been a lot of new trainees joining the company since so the balance will be significantly different.

[250 kts]

I'm not sure where the losses could have accrued-can you explain please. If what you mean is their SIPP has lost 130k, then in the recent turmoil that's pretty good!

[Spambhoy]

I frequently meet some of the retirees and they loved ( past tense ) throwing in the odd “made 30 grand last month alone” , which always came across as being very superficial as it’s the traders who make the profits and the players get a dividend. My understanding is that , it’s the value of the life time allowance ( LTA ) - now in a SIPP or equivalent- that is being increased/decreased ? Could be wrong.

[escaped.atco]

The LTA amount will always remain largely the same, I believe it increases yearly by a small amount equivalent to inflation.
The money that was withdrawn and reinvested in a sipp will go up and down with the markets. Certainly in the last few months this will have been dramatic, I know mine has scared me!

Its all relative though. I heard stories of some ATCOs cashing in their pot with upwards of £1.5mill, a fall of 130 thousand on this amount is less than 10%, probably par for the course with any personal pension at the minute. However someone losing £130 thousand is not leaving them destitute if they have started with a huge amount. Plus a savvy financial advisor will be buying in again at a much lower cost thereby hopefully recouping the losses. The small print is always there though, the value of your investment may go down as well as up and you are not guaranteed to get your original amount back - or words to that effect! :cool:

[The Fat Controller]

Plus a savvy financial advisor will be buying in again at a much lower cost thereby hopefully recouping the losses.

Only if they sold investments at the right time and/or a significant amount of the pension was being held in cash.

Just about all of those I know who took their CETV out of CAAPS were very near or above their LTA already, so putting more in may not be tax efficient.

[escaped.atco]

Those that I know off did exactly that, they were approaching LTA some years ago and took the money. That amount invested since will have made a good return, a few months hit will not, or should not, have taken them below that initial amount. I know of several IFAs that cashed out pensions recently when things started to go wrong and that has proven to be the correct call., they are now waiting the right moment to go back in to the markets again - fortune teller territory! Again a good IFA will keep you right on tax implications, I am sure there are lots of people within the industry, particularly those newer members of staff who probably see this in a different light. I don't know what the industry accepted pension standard is these days, I'm guessing anything above 7% and 7% would be seen as generous?

However, we have digressed from redundancies into financial talk! Apologies for that!

How long before NATS show their hand and announce a "business review"?

[DaveJ75]

... and as such has to return a profit to the shareholders

And that is the problem. the aviation industry is busy firing the people they'll need in 2 months time.

[mike current]

Airports and airlines right now: we need to lay off thousands of staff.

ATCOs: hold on, let me check my 1.5 million pound pension pot.

[chevvron]

ATCO’s could be fairly easy to obtain and train if there are plenty that have been made redundant. Just like a pilot that doesn’t have to go back to their basic training and do a PPL an ex ATCO returning to the same unit perhaps would take a relatively short time to revalidate after a year or so off. I sincerely hope it doesn’t come to this but let’s not be too complacent and let’s try to be prepared for all the arguments and possible threats that may come our way.
ATCO training doesn't work like that.
The controller will have to do a certain number of hours depending on the complexity of the task and then only 4 hours per day will be 'claimable' against the minlmum number required and that will be subject to that unit's SRATCOH breaks which could mean anything between 1 and 2 hours 'actually controlling before taking a mandatiory break.
Assuming an MER reduced to (say) 60 hours/4hours per day is a total of 15 days; ATCOs can only do operational task for 6 consecutive days then there must be a 60 hour break between ...
Sod it you work it out.

[chevvron]

I assume that LVNL is not a "for profit" business?

NATS have learnt nothing over the years about staffing. It has always irked the management that the staff they have in the summer are still there in the winter when the traffic is down by 50%. Everything is so short term in NATS and this knee jerk decision to give notice on the key agreement on redundancy is no different. Get out and borrow at a low rate and get all of the projects done that are usually constrained for 8 months of the year because of the operational staffing requirement.
They thought of that one back in the '50s.
'Why not detach all the winter surplus ATCOs to Australia to service their summer' they said.
Then someone asked how many were likely to return to the UK the next summer.....

[Blueskythinking65]

As a current ojti, initial board examiner , uce and ojti assessor I am fairly Au fait with how the training system works. People need to realise that all of the current and past rules from our rosey past may well change significantly because of this.

As I said I sincerely hope they don’t but as our airline colleagues are finding out if the executives decide to go for our terms and conditions we may be in a fairly precarious position. It’s no good keep chanting about how different we are from pilots etc etc when the reality is we are just as expendable short term and that’s all our management have ever cared about , the short term gain they can make to improve their cv’s. It’s someone else’s problem what happens 5 years down the line when we are short of ATCOS.

[escaped.atco]

Airports and airlines right now: we need to lay off thousands of staff.

ATCOs: hold on, let me check my 1.5 million pound pension pot.
I can assure you not all ATCOs have that sort of pot, its the lucky ones that were in the old NATS scheme that benefitted from that. Those staff probably now in their late 40s are without doubt financially secure beyond the dreams of the average UK worker. I know a lot of ATCOs with only a fraction of that amount and they will have to save hard and invest wisely to even get to half of that amount over a long career.

[250 kts]

And anyone who took the CETV whilst still in their 40s were probably poorly advised to do so anyway. I know an IFA who advised a number against leaving the scheme, only for them to go elsewhere to get the answer they wanted to hear. Giving up the security of a DB scheme so far out from retirement would be taking a massive risk-especially with regard to widows benefits etc

[250 kts]

Maybe this would be better now moved to the NATS section? Or at least the ATC section?

[eastern wiseguy]

Concur.........

[escaped.atco]

If it goes across to NATS private section I will bid you goodbye. I am no longer part of that club. There is life outside thankfully!:cool:

[The Fat Controller]

Move it to "ATC Issues" as the NATS situation in the UK is going to affect every pilot and airline flying using their various services.

I think this thread should stay in the open forums, just in case NATS' treatment of staff heads in the BA direction.

[Spambhoy]

concur.......

[250 kts]

And I do too-stupid idea by somebody:D

[Nimmer]

Whilst I concur with everything that has been said concerning controller training, and recruitment. In the Middle East an experienced controller is given a maximum of 40 days to validate. This obviously means you can get the required numbers of staff operationally very quickly.

I don’t believe NATS can afford to go down the route of controller redundancies again. We must thank the “experts” whose predictions were so wrong a few years ago. I do think this is an opportunity for NATS to “streamline” the workforce though, and utilise ATCO skills and knowledge for non operational work as-well as controlling. Do we need a full time “ops” office, investigation office etc etc.

[ATC Watcher]

East an experienced controller is given a maximum of 40 days to validate..
Whow ! ..also in Dubai or Abu Dhabi Approach, or ACC for instance ? In my old unit ( MUAC) it took and it still take around a year to be fully qualified . It is roughly the same in the major German units so I would expect the same in LATCC , but wait to be contradicted.
in a small Tower with less than 100 Mvts a day, possibly yes. but for en-route ? You can probably train someone in one sector only in a short period of time but he/she will become useless most of the time in a large Centre.

Stopping recruitment and letting older staff go in time of crisis has been done before , even massive lay off . ( e.g. PATCO USA 1981) it always took years to rebuild to previous capacity levels as the vast majority do not come back . In USA it took 2 decades to rebuild the system to his previous capacity. 6 days on one day off and 50h weeks were the norm` for many years in most units in the US .. .in Belgium it was even 11 days on one day off to cater for staff shortages...

The future does not look too good for ATC in the next years... I feel sorry for you guys still active...

[10 DME ARC]

In the Middle East an experienced controller is given a maximum of 40 days to validate.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]

Not in DXB! You're in the SIM for three weeks come out and do Modules 2-5 in live traffic each level 50+ hours so minimum two cycles per module!

[Jump Complete]

Leave it on R&N so we all see it. We should regard what happens to ATCO’s just as relevant as what happens to pilots in another airline. More relevant than 50 posts asking why Airbus didn’t see fit to make the A320 capable of withstanding sliding down a runway at 200 kts on it’s engine cowlings.

[Nimmer]

Wow, how times have changed then. 40 days in my day. Must admit the change is for the better.

[mike current]

I think this thread should stay in the open forums, just in case NATS' treatment of staff heads in the BA direction.

That claim is a bit excessive.
At the moment BA staff would probably be over the moon to receive the same treatment as ATCOs.

Nimmer - a lot of the non ops positions you refer to are already covered by non operational ATCOs, due to loss of licence, medical etc..

[terrain safe]

mike current : In fact, most are done upstairs by ATCOs on a break or by support staff if you are at an airfield. In fact, investigations are done by support staff with occasional ATCO input.

[Nimmer]

Nimmer - a lot of the non ops positions you refer to are already covered by non operational ATCOs, due to loss of licence, medical etc..[/QUOTE]

yep and I imagine in this new tough world, there maybe a thought of do we need to pay ATCO Wages for an admin role??

[Nimmer]

I don’t disagree with you, however some of those responsible for restructuring or cost savings might.

[justbeingnosey]

overall for us ATSA’s uncomfortable reading, cant help thinking our position will be permanently lost

[250 kts]

That's exactly why it's so important for a 100% union membership. If nothing else this crisis has surely highlighted just how quickly any of us can go from a seemingly comfortable and almost untouchable position to, potentially wondering where the next pay cheque is coming from. If non-op/support staff are considered to be fodder in any way then it only takes a loss of medical or competence to become one of them and hence fodder too. But for the grace of God comes to mind

[chevvron]

I think this thread should stay in the open forums, just in case NATS' treatment of staff heads in the BA direction.
Should be moved to 'ATC Issues' so everyone can still read it.
Judging by the fact the last posting in the NATS forum was by myself on 1 Jan 2020, I'm guessing it's not widely read anyway.

[jmmoric]

Hopefully it can be moved to the trash bin in near future.... So we all can forget this ever happened...

[escaped.atco]

Maybe I'm cynical, but I would guess the figures are being done with a number of permutations calculated to work out how many people can "leave the business". No doubt just as the Statutory Redundancy or whatever has been renegotiated comes into force then thats when the major cull will begin. As has been said before on this thread, the easiest target is T&Cs, I'm familiar with the natsags that have been more than generous to employees over the years, you only have to look at how the airlines are targeting pilots to have an indication of how this will soon filter through the ATC world. Its been some time since I've been in NATS HQ but always remember the "no expense spared" atmosphere and general luxury that existed there. Hundreds and hundreds of staff employed doing things that I would never dream of and yet they wouldn't know the difference in an A330 and a DH8. Will this continue while they chop ATCOs? Who knows!

As for moving it to the trash bin - I really don't think thats an option, unfortunately.

[250 kts]

I'm assuming he means the trash bin because he hoped the issue will quickly go away, not that it shouldn't be being discussed.

Unfortunately I can't see any way that the customers(Airlines Operators) are going to allow NATS to continue without also suffering in a similar way to the cuts they are being forced/choosing to make. The businesses are so closely intertwined that it would be seen to be almost immoral that one part of it is seen to get away with little or no pain. That said, it is imperative that NATS ensure the AOs are aware that just getting ATCOs off the shelf is not the same as requiring 100 new B738/A320 pilots and filling the vacancies quickly with little conversion required.

[terrain safe]

But there will be no losses until May 2021, when the current agreement will expire, unless management wants to payout in line with this, and its associated costs, then operational and the higher paid staff should be safe. Hopefully by May 2021 traffic will recover to a level that it would be impossible to make any member of staff redundant without affecting the operation. Of course, training may be stopped at any unit that makes a member of staff redundant as how can you say you don't need a member of staff while training a new one. Really think this is a kneejerk reaction from senior management as they wish to be seen doing something, but the longterm damage has exceeded any benefit. I think there are people in senior positions who should resign because of the complete mismanagement shown here.

[250 kts]

I hope so too but: The agreement they want to ditch applies to CR only doesn't it? What if NATS let it be known they will be making people compulsorily redundant from next May. In the meantime they offer VR at much reduced rates to those of a few years ago. There may well be plenty of staff with many years service that would take the offer knowing they may get little after May. As I said upthread, BA/VIR pilots probably thought they were safe 6 months ago and look where they are now-ATCOs are no different unfortunately except for the ability to replace quickly.
Only time will tell if this is mis-management but I suspect any replacements may well be far more ruthless than someone whose brother is actually an ATCO and probably gets a good insight to the operation. Be careful what you wish for.

[63000 Triple Zilch]

The line that NATS management have decided to take over working together and withdrawal from the current redundancy agreement must be questionable. It is my understanding that Enroute charges are levied by Eurocontrol and then distributed to member nations including UK NATS according to an agreed formula. Unless the mechanism has been changed since I left, the charges are around 12 months or more in arrears. Therefore NATS should not experience the loss of revenues until early 2021 at the earliest. This also ties in with the withdrawal from the redundancy agreement also in early 2021. NATS have suspended their DB pension contributions for at least 3 months, strange if they are not yet in a significant revenue loss. I feel that this may be part of a much larger plan to downsize the operation and move away from working together to a style more akin to BA

[Gonzo]

As soon as traffic started to drop off, it was agreed that airlines would not have to pay those fees owed from last year, so ANSPs across Europe are not getting the revenue they were expecting. There is a loan agreement now in place for Eurocontrol to pay up to 50% (I think - this is off the top of my head) of what was owed by airlines to ANSPs, and the remainder that was going to be paid this year is deferred to next year. ANSPs are hurting now.

Devil's advocate view is that, yes, while NATS senior management appear to have handled it poorly (i.e. why not give the union, say, a week's notice of withdrawing from the redundancy terms agreement?), if you were in charge what else could you have done? If you're trying to persuade the Govt. to prop you up, they sure as hell are going to ask what you've done as an organisation to try and put yourself in the best possible position in terms of financial viability.

[250 kts]

But it's the way it's done that is crucial and helps to keep the mindset that "we're all in this together". All it needed was a grown up conversation with the unions to give a warning and reasoning of the decision. I thought one of the pillars of Working together was that would be no surprises from either side. Indeed it may well have made the conversation with the Govt easier by going to it knowing you've covered all the bases first.

[terrain safe]

250KTS has hit it on the head. When asked what the company has achieved they could have said, by lots of voluntary actions by staff, we have saved x million and everyone is on board with saving the company. Instead of which we have a situation where they can say, next May we can get rid of staff cheaper, and we've wound them up a bit. No savings ATM though. Oh, and if we get busy again, we have no overtime agreements so delays will go up if anyone is sick.

Anyone externally looking at the company would go "how stupid are you?". We have a union that works well with management. But they and we are hacked off. If they wanted to change the agreement just talk to the union and see what can be done, not act in such an authoritarian way.

[escaped.atco]

But it's the way it's done that is crucial and helps to keep the mindset that "we're all in this together".
But you arent "all in it together". Thats a myth that management have sold to your union for years to prevent any dissent in the ranks. Prospect have always had the name of being very comfortable in management company and have had their belly tickled over the years. Its only at times like this that suddenly realisation hits and actually the reality is that management will screw everybody and anything over if need be "for the good of the business". You're not a valuable team member - you're an expensive asset that is first in the firing line when things get tough. Wake up and smell the coffee folks!

Hopefully that management action will have been the wake up call for Prospect that is long overdue, maybe they'll find the will to actually put up a fight.

[250 kts]

I was actually referring to the Govt line-not NATS. I think youre being a bit disingenuous towards our reps though. I think generally they put on the pressure when it's needed and that what has led to the salaries, time off and other benefits we enjoy-it doesn't just happen, most of the pressure is behind closed doors and the normal member sees none of the work. We all know it's not going to be perfect but for an organisation that has lost 95% if its' income to still be paying upto 100% of salary with furlough included, it stands among very few I would think.

I'm not sure which fight it is you refer to, but with nearly 100% membership rate and not many seeming to resign, the indications would be that the balance is about right most of the time

[justbeingnosey]

The hard reality is the salaries, time off and other perks you mention are clearly not sustainable in the current climate, if the union elect to fight this purely to endear themselves to the membership it will end up doing more damage. I’m coming up 8 weeks of furlough, sitting in the sunshine and every day that passes the reality becomes more stark

[escaped.atco]

Salaries and other perks will be first in the crosshairs of management I would suggest. Ultimately any large business is run by accountants for one reason - to make profit. NATS is duty bound to show itself as a good investment and to return profits. Simplest way to achieve this when your income stream has taken a hit is to pass the problem onto the workers by reducing company costs - if this means redundancies and reduced T&Cs then that is what will happen. All this teamwork talk will soon be shown for what it was - a box ticking exercise by HR managers to show that they "care" about their workers. Newsflash - they don't. And this applies through all large companies in case anyone thinks I'm having an unfair pop at NATS, its standard practise, the problem is that this is probably the first time that many NATS workers have been exposed to this harsh reality and they can't really understand it. Those of us that have worked both for NATS and other ANSPs have maybe more real life experience than an ATCO that has been sheltered in the NATS bubble for their entire career.

I have many contacts both inside and outside NATS. For as long as I remember, NATS was always the benchmark that other ATCOs aspired to, NATS T&Cs, NATS pensions, NATSAGS covering a multitude of payments that would make others eyes water, and yes, the NATSAG that covered redundancy was unbelievable. I recall NATS ATCOs telling me the amounts they were getting in voluntary redundancy some years ago even though they were planning to retire within 6 months anyway! The amount of seemingly disposable money was unbelievable, when times were good it probably wasn't a big deal - however times have changed. To steal a line - winter is coming.

[4runner]

The North Atlantic is over complicated and bureaucratic. Then I realized that Canadians and Brits run it and that explained everything.

[Commander Taco]

Are you employed in the industry 4runner? Or just SLF? The NATS is the busiest oceanic airspace in the world and remember, it’s a non-radar environment. If you’re SLF, that means lots of rules required to keep your bottom safe on a crossing.

[250 kts]

escaped.atco

Nice statement, and much of this I do agree with, but, what fight are you referring to suggesting the unions need to grow some? Your statement suggests an inevitability of losing many key T&Cs. As justbeingnosey alludes to there seems to be an acceptance that this will happen. But there are ways and means to minimise the impact which may hurt staff in the short term but are recoverable over a period. An example is taking a pay cut now that is made up when the situation improves.Another way would be to negotiate that the retired staff get say a 10% reduction in pensions being paid to alleviate the drain on the fund on the guarantee that it is made up later. None of this is either desirable or palatable for either side but clearly cash flow is the biggest issue and any short term action may help guarantee the continued viability of the company

[Blueskythinking65]

As neither a retired staff member or a member of caaps I am still astounded that you suggest that retirees could take a 10% reduction in their pensions. They have served their time for caa/NATS and are living on a fixed income. Anyone still working for NATS can choose to not retire at 55 and continue to get a very good income until such time as they are able to retire . Those that have already left have made their decisions based on the figures they have been promised. It is typical of the attitude of some that feel that if they are maybe having to suffer so should everyone else. If the pension scheme were to allow this where is the stability for those in the future if they know that the members of the scheme will just dip into their pensions if times become hard again.
I am realistic enough to know that pay cuts are likely for us all but believe that the pensions being paid already are sacrosanct.

[250 kts]

I merely put it out there as an option with the caveat that the difference would be made up-something you chose to ignore and not comment upon. I won't repeat it but maybe you should read all of the post and context before having a go.

None of this is nice to deal with but it is reality and if the worst came to pass and NATS became unsustainable the pensions we are all keen to defend to the hilt could be hit considerably harder than the figure I put out there as an example. This is not about everybody suffering or not, but potentially about the very survival of the company. And remember that as of next May there is maybe no enhanced redundancy on offer and so the ability to "continue to work until such time as they are able to retire" may well not be an option for some.

Tough times for all and let's hope we can all get through it relatively unscathed

[escaped.atco]

I'm not having a go 250kts but some things will inevitably change. One of the problems Prospect, or any other union in a large organisation will have, is to compromise without capitulating. The nightmare scenario will be agreeing to a pay cut on the premise there will be no job cuts, a year later management say it isn't enough and people have to go. There's an agreement to temporarily shelve NATSAGs, a year later those NATSAGs are no longer affordable to bring back. Etc etc and the rot has set in. Good luck with the suggestion of shafting the pensioners! They've paid into the scheme in good faith and the current pickle is not their making. What I could see happening though is the 9% and 18% contributions being changed. How does 7 and 7 grab you for new starts, maybe even 6 and 6 - sure it won't affect any current employees so why not. A few years later though, the 9 and 18 is no longer affordable so the 7 and 7 is being rolled out across the business. NATS management will be in a position to benchmark themselves against other ANSPs now instead of the other way round. I know what T&Cs some of them have but not all and few even come close to what NATS employees have, particularly pensions.
You only need to look at the reason NATS Solutions came into existence to realise that senior management were only too aware of the unsustainability of bidding with proper NATS T&Cs for new contracts. Don't recall much protest from the proper NATS units that others were being brought into the NATS group under different T&Cs, the same principle will apply now. Rather than bring NATS Solutions up to NATS standards, management will be working out how to reduce NATS to a Solutions model.

[Blueskythinking65]

Your argument is spurious at best! I read the entirety of your post but ignored those parts where you contradicted yourself . As you say let’s hope we all get through this but maybe not drag the people who have left the company into it .

[250 kts]

escaped.atco

We seem to be agreeing on most things. I'm trying to look at ways to work through the immediate crisis whilst having negotiated a way to get back to "normal" when possible.
At no stage was I suggesting "shafting" anyone. The current problem is no one's making but the after effects could go beyond the present workforce if it all goes horribly wrong. You're right that the pensioners have paid in,as we all have, and at some stage in our careers we all have already had the goalposts changed in some way be it LTA caps, retirement age etc.

Let's hope we all come through this but it's best that we have the debate before it comes down the track to see what may or may not be acceptable-no matter how reluctant we may be to accept it. Personally I think there's loads of things NATS can do to keep cash in the company and future dividends would be first on the list

[escaped.atco]

I'm not trying to pick holes in other peoples opinions, we're all entitled to see things from our own particular perspective. Yes, I've had goalposts moved during my career, final salary pension changed to money purchase, money purchase amounts changed to name a few. OT agreements changed, working practises changed. It happens across every industry, all I've been trying to say is that some NATS employees will never have seen any upheaval or change in their career, some have had very long careers and believe that they will retire without any hassle and that the company views them as essential to a successful business.

Future dividends fall into that unfortunate category of business and profit. If NATS suddenly said theres no dividend for the next several years, however we will continue to honour all current agreements and T&Cs even though they are way more generous than any other ANSP, shareholders will start asking awkward questions. Perhaps thats why such an important piece of country infrastructure might be better as a government role - not that it'll be run any better - just that a continuous profit isn't required regardless of the circumstances.

[Gonzo]

Rather than bring NATS Solutions up to NATS standards, management will be working out how to reduce NATS to a Solutions model.

Which is sadly exactly what the airport customers, and airlines, want.

When I described what had happened a few weeks ago regarding NATSAG01 to a friend who works for a UK international airport and is very familiar with NATS, the response was 'Welcome to the real world'. Imagine working for an airport where maybe 60% or more of operational staff are currently being made redundant, and those that are left already had their pay cut by up to 30% a few months ago (and those on furlough are getting the Govt. minimum payment based on their new, lower salary), while their jobs are being merged with those in different departments to ensure that the role changes by more than the minimum forcing everyone to apply, rather than just keep their old job. And if I was in that position, and in the lucky few who have remained in employment, amongst my now-doubled workload is the task of re-negotiating the ATC contract. Where so far, apart from contractors, the worst that's happened is the company have served the previously-agreed 1 year's notice period for withdrawing from the redundancy payment agreement, I wonder what I'd be thinking?

[escaped.atco]

I know exactly what any other normal person would be thinking! Something along the lines of “What planet are these deluded ATCOs on!”. That’s probably the polite response.

Which all poses another snag for Prospect, sympathy from public and indeed other aviation colleagues will be limited at best, more than likely non existent. We read daily about hundreds of aircrew redundancies and pay cuts, try telling them your sob story about the redundancy NATSAG. Good luck with that!

[Nimmer]

This current situation is definitely an excellent opportunity for NATS to re-asses and re-evaluate the “business”. There is a huge non valid support network, how many of these are essential and also could be employed as and when on a contract basis.

i still don’t believe NATS can afford to cut ATCO numbers, not after the last 2 years have been run with constant overtime. Factor in the number of impending retirements, and IF all the trainees validate controller numbers wI’ll break even. Yes some working practices can be changed and need to, plus there is an opportunity to utilise valid ATCO skills more.

The latest news from the travel industry would indicate the public’s appetite for travel is very high. Traffic could ramp up very quickly.

[250 kts]

I know this is probably too sensible, but I wonder if NATS have actually bothered to ask their staff what their retirement intentions might be. If they haven't maybe that would be a good place to start. Or the TUs could initiate a survey unilaterally.

[escaped.atco]

Way too sensible and also in this crazy time we live in, probably against some human rights rules and regulations now theres no official retirement age I believe!? :ugh:

[250 kts]

It's asking about intentions-no different to asking how you may vote. No commitment having given an answer

[63000 Triple Zilch]

As the DB pension scheme closed around 15 years ago to new employees roughly what percentage of NATS workforce is still on a DB pension? Despite the agreements made at the time of privatisation I am sure that NATS would be looking very closely at closing the scheme to all employees as it is an area that divides the workforce and probably could be pushed through in today’s economic climate.
I agree about freezing future dividend payments. NATS is “a non profit making organisation” where did that go? Public ownership is the only realistic way forward to avoid any more issues related to a downturn in traffic

[terrain safe]

Under the terms of the PPP the DB scheme cannot be closed to present members except by NATS closing down unless those members agree to it. That is my understanding anyway.

The reason the RA is so good is that if you are a controller, especially in area, and you were made redundant where else could you work? Nowhere in the UK and could be tricky abroad as well as licenses have still not harmonized. Therefore it is a big commitment to work this job despite the relatively good salary. It has no real skills that could transfer to another job so it is expensive to try and provide protection to staff. Comparing to pilots is wrong as if you have a type rating in a 737 you can work in almost any airline in the world and just need a short course to get up to speed on SOPs. ATCOs either need to revalidate somewhere or completely retrain and then revalidate, which is why most countries don't poach ATCOs as it generally is cheaper to start from younger people on lower starting salaries.

Just some thoughts.

[63000 Triple Zilch]

Terrain safe,You are quite right about the terms of PPP not allowing the DB pension to be changed for existing staff, however we live in a very different world and if that same govt has to financially support NATS I am sure it is a question that would be asked as there are very few DB schemes left operating

[eglnyt]

There are three ways the DB scheme can be changed. Every single member agrees to the change, an Act of Parliament reverses the protection in the original Transport Act, or NATS goes bust and enters Transport Administration. The first is not going to happen. The second might, for the first time since PPP there is a government with both the inclination and the necessary majority to do it, but it would depend on them finding parliamentary time and they have other pet projects to favour. Even if they change the legislation it is possible that the agreement NATS signed to get previous concessions might still stop them closing the scheme. The third is likely unless either NATS cuts its costs to match its income or finds a generous benefactor willing to stump up the cash.

In the last Annual Report 1990 employees were members of the DB scheme against an average of 4464 employees in total. Those figures are a year old and a new Report is due soon.

NATS would dearly love to close the DB Scheme. It's size relative to the size of NATS means that if the scheme falters because of factors completely outside of NATS control the NATS balance sheet takes a big hit and last year its contribution to each DB Members pension was >40% of pensionable salary. The fact that it hasn't been able to do so is testament to the provision of the protections in the Act for which members can thank the late Lord Brett previously the General Secretary of IPMS, now Prospect.

Public ownership may be the only way forward but if you are an employee be careful what you wish for. Take a look at how public sector worker salaries have fared since 2008 and compare them with those in NATS. It is very likely that public sector workers will be those footing a lot of the bill for the money the government has recently been throwing around.

[63000 Triple Zilch]

I see that NATS have today agreed to resume payments to CAAPS and to pay the shortfall for the three months in September. NATS must have also found the magic money tree as well, although it is good news

[Spambhoy]

It appears to be based on some agreement, with their European [sic] partners, regards user charges ? As previous posters have suggested, it looks like ( IMHO ) NATS have offered the first “olive branch” in any pending negotiations with Prospect ? Could be wrong and September will probably shed more light. I for one complained strongly to the CAAPS trustees that yet another Pension Holiday could be very damaging, as the last one ( from memory ) was taken because the fund was in surplus ? We all know what happened next. In my heart, I would hope, that many more recipients took a similar stance and the Trustees made our reservations known. I can but hope. It’s going to be a very taxing year, in many different ways. I very much doubt that the profession will be anywhere near the chaotic strike action of the early eighties because there is far more at stake here.

[Gonzo]

Just to clarify, this wasn't a pension holiday, where the employer is not liable for paying in for a period, but a deferral of payments, which would have all been paid in but at a later date.

[justbeingnosey]

i still fear for ATSA’s like me, 8 years service after re-locating to the region

[250 kts]

I feel for you in these times. Support staff must all be feeling vulnerable.
Gonzo is right this is not a holiday like the one in the early 2000s. But it cant be overlooked that the cost to NATS for that holiday was that the abatement rate was significantly improved.

[Roger That]

as the last one ( from memory ) was taken because the fund was in surplus ? We all know what happened next.

Like you, I recall that the fund was in surplus, but that the surplus was split between members and the company. So whilst it’s true to say/suggest the company benefitted, it’s probably also fair to say that members benefitted too through improved accrual rates (again, from memory (?).

[250 kts]

The accrual rate reduced to 58ths meaning people were fully funded earlier. The impact was of far greater benefit to the members in the long run than it was to NATS in the short term.

[Spambhoy]

I’d love some clarity on the NATSAG thing ? How can something, which appeared to be enshrined in stone by the late Bill Brett, be cast aside without judiciary ?

[eglnyt]

The pension arrangements were protected in the Transport Act but most terms and conditions weren't. Gordon Brown was desperate to complete the sale but not so desperate that he would accept constraints that would scare off most bidders. The current Redundancy Agreement was introduced when the previous one was considered to fall foul of Age Discrimination Legislation. At the time it was less advantageous to many than the previous agreement but an incentive was offered and the majority voted to accept the new agreement. Part of the agreement allows it to be reviewed at the suggestion of either party, amended by agreement and terminated by either side with one year's notice. NATS has exercised that right.

At the end of the 80s the Government started taxing pension surpluses. The threat to the CAAPS surplus was addressed over a number of agreements aimed at reducing the surplus with the benefit to members being a reduction in the contribution rate and an improvement in the accrual rate. These were in place before PPP and became protected by the legislation. NATS took its share by reducing contributions but as it underwrites the scheme has since paid back a considerable amount to address the deficit whereas the members continue to benefit from their part even though there is no longer a surplus.

[Spambhoy]

Thanks for that.

[atce101]

I'm impressed, quite a lot of knowledge about NATS here.

So firstly, there are no compulsory redundancies, there is a small risk there might be next year if there are not enough voluntary redundancies. With the generous package I don't think they will be low on uptakes.
They are changing the redundancy terms, they cannot come into effect for 12 months due to union negotiations so they'll be ready for any future redundancies.
Expecting maybe 350 redundancies from a company of around 5000 employees (but this includes all the branches), controllers are not being offered redundancies as far as I am aware - could change?), as mentioned above it takes years to train them and it would be short sighted.
Regarding shares, yes NATS are a private company, most things operate this way now, efficiencies etc. But the UK Government own 49% so it's basically nationalised, just a more efficient and held to account structure. To properly nationalise it now would be pointless, to what benefit. We sell our services all over the world now, the government usually get profit from us every year. To save cash, clearly needed, no dividends are being paid for the foreseeable future - common sense really.
Further comment on share dividends, NATS likes to always pay dividends twice a year, they like to keep to the same amount to try to keep the company image as stable as possible (this is my personal opinion I must make clear). My observations of this throughout the years has been that the owners are happy to receive this but usually have other interests. You see NATS is owned by the Gov (I'm sure they don't push hard for dividends as such), 5% for employees and the rest is mostly airlines. So the owners are also our customers, so they are usually more interested in cutting the fees in the first place and especially cutting fuel by improving flight paths and gradual airport descent etc. Ryan air have some opinions on our fees haha
We do not control our income, the EU controls our income (well Eurocontrol) so we get whatever they give us based on flight data.
Many contractors were let go many months back, mostly project workers, most staff are not allowed on any of our sites, hence catering companies etc don't need as many staff.
Immediate finances are improved with the use of furlough. Also the pension is being paid again and fully backdated. Redundancies are going ahead as income is expected to be hit for the next 2 years, just like many companies right now, money out must be balanced with money in.
We do have an ageing work force so there is going to be a lot of retired staff in the coming few years, it's been a worry for a while.
Someone said there is a bullying culture, that just sounds ridiculous to me, come work for NATS and you'll see a very desirable company, I've been here for over 10 years and see no bullying etc. The thing is, if one person interpret one activity wrongly and thinks it involves bullying then bam all of a sudden the whole company suffers from bullying. Not true at all.
Staff (in engineering at least) were asked last year what their retirement expectations were, in answer to a question above. NATS wanted to know who was going soon, in the next 5 years or no current intention. From an engineering point of view many engineers will retire when the equipment they are experts in is replaced, they are at the door of retirement so don't want to invest years learning and working on the new systems - understandable and logical.


These are all my personal opinions and information that is not sensitive and/or publicly available.

[Del Prado]

This could be a great time for employees to be allowed to increase their holdings in the company, particularly if any of the airline group want to sell.

[atce101]

That's been on the wish list for years but never seems to happen.

[LeftBlank]

Found this thread by accident. It’s been a while since I left but I keep in touch and some things haven’t changed or have got much worse.
atce101, I’m guessing you have not been to an operational unit other than maybe Swanwick for some time? If you had you would have very different opinions and views.

[eglnyt]

Someone said there is a bullying culture, that just sounds ridiculous to me
There certainly was under a previous regime. Just because you and I don't see one now doesn't mean it hasn't persisted in places, some of those who prospered in that regime still hold influential positions in parts of the organisation.

We do not control our income, the EU controls our income (well Eurocontrol) so we get whatever they give us based on flight data.
I wouldn't disagree with the first bit of your statement, NATS is a regulated monopoly so of course it shouldn't, but please don't blame the EU even though it has become fashionable to do so at the moment. There are two parts to charging, the Unit Rate mechanism, and the setting of that Unit Rate. True the Unit Rate mechanism is a Eurocontrol thing and it doesn't necessary reflect the actual cost of providing a complex service but any mechanism that did would be a nightmare to administer and you would lose all the benefits of using the Eurocontrol Route Charges Office if you wanted to use it. I also didn't see NATS complaining too much about that mechanism when all those 747 and A380 overflights were ringing up the tills. The NATS unit rate is set in the UK by the CAA with the UK Competitions and Market Authority as arbitrator so NATS income in normal circumstances is set by the UK not the EU although the EU liked the UK approach so much they are now forcing it on all the other states.

I have no idea what line the Government appointed Non-Executive Directors take on Dividends but please don't assume they aren't the ones pushing for Dividends to be paid when profits are made. Although it's currently throwing money at all and sundry that isn't the Treasury's natural state and in normal times it likes to take money in wherever possible. Most people don't seem to realise that prior to PPP NATS was required to make a certain percentage return each year that went straight to the Government so why would you expect the situation as shareholder rather than owner to be any different.

[triploss]

This could be a great time for employees to be allowed to increase their holdings in the company, particularly if any of the airline group want to sell.
As an employee, about the last thing you'd want to do is invest in the company you work for.

Not only is that that a bundling of risks (so when the holes in the cheese line up, you're both out of a job and your stock has gone down - or even to zero) - it's also disadvantageous from the perspective of reducing your ability to trade (because you cannot trade on inside information, and are likely to have blackout periods where you can't sell the stock you own).

Arguably the above doesn't apply to those in control of the company, but that's a handful of people.

[Spambhoy]

Quite.

It was most definitely a mitigating factor in jumping ship while I could. Encountered it in two separate areas of the business and it wasn’t very pleasant. Reported it on the first occasion and it was swept under the carpet until others decided to speak up. It’s there alright and I’m surprised, after 10 years, ATCE101 is still enjoying the honeymoon period ?

[Saintsman]

Staff (in engineering at least) were asked last year what their retirement expectations were, in answer to a question above. NATS wanted to know who was going soon, in the next 5 years or no current intention. From an engineering point of view many engineers will retire when the equipment they are experts in is replaced, they are at the door of retirement so don't want to invest years learning and working on the new systems - understandable and logical..

The problem here is that with all the contractors laid off and Projects having taken a hit, these new systems are not going to be introduced particularly quickly. Are people really going to hang about or will they take the option of redundancy / retirement earlier than expected?

[Spambhoy]

I think the decision is now out of their hands as ( previously stated ) the long standing T&C’s agreement walks out of the door in 8 months. No doubt preceded by 100’s of long serving staff, who have nothing to incentivise them to remain. Sad really, never thought I’d see the job disintegrate in this fashion. Ironically, Bletchley Park is very close to administration.

[justbeingnosey]

I’ve been back 2 weeks and we are operating at the capacity of a night shift (without the sleep). My ATSA colleagues are adamant all is well because we were told operational staff were safe, but seeing it and doing it first hand my opinion is no way can it continue for long.

[escaped.atco]

So that’s the trainee problem sorted for the foreseeable future.

Who’s next to be sacrificed to save the company?

[1985]

Well it won't be any of the many many pointless middle managers

[macdo]

One of my sons friends, who is nearly at the end of training, has just been let go. Very sad.