Nats Pensions
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BDiNOU - some salient points, however
your fact number 2 - NATS should never have been put in the position of being so financially bereft in the first place before 9/11. The Labour (our skies are not for sale) governement put us through PPP then to cap it all saddled us with 100s of millions of pounds of debt.
your fact number 2 - NATS should never have been put in the position of being so financially bereft in the first place before 9/11. The Labour (our skies are not for sale) governement put us through PPP then to cap it all saddled us with 100s of millions of pounds of debt.
Fact number 3 - Pensions and passing through of costs. We are a service industry, our pension contributions come from profits, we make profits by charging customers. It's semantics by the regulator - pension costs for any company are met by charging the customer.... whetther it's called pass through or not. Barron states that the airlines will not stand paying for our pensions... why not? We as passengers pay towards the pensions of the airline industry!!
Because NATS is a monopoly, regulated by government, it cannot charge what it likes and it would like to include pension costs but the regulator has already clamped down on that for people joining as at 1st Jan 2006. The regulator decides on what NATS may charge. Airlines are not regulated by government in this way and any pension charges they make are (as you rightly state) in the ticket price. Remember that the airlines have to be competitive or they go out of business, so they're squeezing pension costs hard (those airlines that have such schemes).
Hope that makes things clearer.
BD
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BD.
I Do not agree with your "deductions"
Yes, NATS must pay into CAAPS.The rest of the sentence doesn't make sense (nor is it strictly gramatical)
CAAPS is actually performing VERY WELL. There is no evidence that it will not continue to do so. Just becasue other schemes etc etc....
More supposition, or if you prefer, guess work. It can equally be argued that there will no need to increase contributions. (Don't forget NATS has had a pensions holiday because CAAPS is doing so well)
"If" NATS goes bust, bears some examination. Would any UK government let NATS go to the wall? I think not, especially as it owns 49% of the company.
NATS does not need to make HUGE profits. The regulator is there is ensure that NATS does not abuse it's monopoly in trying to do so.
NATS can well afford it's CAAPS obligations, now and in the future. It might be squeezed a bit (or might not) and might not be able to make big a profit in the future.
BEX.
I Do not agree with your "deductions"
NATS is legally obliged to continue payments into CAAPS but has offset its costs somewhat recently by ploughing the surplus back into the fund but given the money markets fairly dismal performance that surplus is likely to dry up somtime.
CAAPS is actually performing VERY WELL. There is no evidence that it will not continue to do so. Just becasue other schemes etc etc....
no reduction in its contributions to CAAPS and a highly likely need to increase them.
How will CAAPS be able to pay out pensions if NATS goes bust
NATS does not need to make HUGE profits. The regulator is there is ensure that NATS does not abuse it's monopoly in trying to do so.
NATS can well afford it's CAAPS obligations, now and in the future. It might be squeezed a bit (or might not) and might not be able to make big a profit in the future.
BEX.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAAPS is actually performing VERY WELL. There is no evidence that it will not continue to do so. Just becasue other schemes etc etc.....
More supposition, or if you prefer, guess work. It can equally be argued that there will no need to increase contributions. (Don't forget NATS has had a pensions holiday because CAAPS is doing so well).
"If" NATS goes bust, bears some examination. Would any UK government let NATS go to the wall? I think not, especially as it owns 49% of the company.
NATS does not need to make HUGE profits. The regulator is there is ensure that NATS does not abuse it's monopoly in trying to do so.
NATS can well afford it's CAAPS obligations, now and in the future. It might be squeezed a bit (or might not) and might not be able to make big a profit in the future.
NATS can well afford it's CAAPS obligations, now and in the future. It might be squeezed a bit (or might not) and might not be able to make big a profit in the future.
Am I missing the point somewhere?
BD
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
"If" NATS goes bust, bears some examination. Would any UK government let NATS go to the wall? I think not, especially as it owns 49% of the company.
One word. Railtrack.
"If" NATS goes bust, bears some examination. Would any UK government let NATS go to the wall? I think not, especially as it owns 49% of the company.
One word. Railtrack.
Losers were those who held large amonts of shares in Railtrack, not the workforce.
Am I missing the point somewhere?
Smaller profits are more of a worry to businessmen like barron, whose whole philosophy leans towards maximising profit at all costs.
BEX
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The regulator is there to make sure NATS doesn't abuse it's monopoly status. There is no evidence to suggest that NATS cannot fund its CAAPS obligations without "pass-through", it simply won't be in a position to make BIG profits.
Smaller profits are more of a worry to businessmen like barron, whose whole philosophy leans towards maximising profit at all costs.
Smaller profits are more of a worry to businessmen like barron, whose whole philosophy leans towards maximising profit at all costs.
BD
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One the one hand you acknowledge that the regulator regulates what profit NATS makes but on the other you state that Paul Barrons intent is to maximise profit. Which is it because both cannot be correct?
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If he's leaving a company, who's profits are regulated, why bother to attempt to maximise them when there will be no benefit to him?I really don't understand what your view is and I'm certain everyone else is getting as bored as I am with this exchange.
BD
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: London Control, UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest, this is one of the best discussions I've experienced about the pensions issues. I'd like to congratulate both of you on what is a very measured and deep exploration of what both management and unions are trying to establish as fact.
Please don't feel you have to stop on our behalf.
Please don't feel you have to stop on our behalf.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BD
I have to take issue with some of your supposed 'facts' 
1) The regulator has NOT said that NATS must reduce its pension costs. If you think otherwise, please, please tell me where and what they have said !!
If you have taken the time to read cp2 and the Airlines response to it, you can see what was actually said.
"For instance, it would be unacceptable if NATS were able to benefit from savings in operating expenditure such as those that could be made by cutting back on pension contributions, at the expense of higher costs in future."
ie. don't cut back on contributions now, then ask us to make them up in the future. It doesn't say you must cut your pension costs !!
2) All companies pass their costs onto their customers, pensions included. NATS is no different in this. More so, NATS only pay a rate of 12.2% into pensions. This is considerably lower than most companies. To save money on pensions, this rate would need to be reduced even further. So just how little do they want to pay towards pensions??
3) Yes, the AIrline Group 'bailed' NATS out after 9/11 BUT with the help of our pension fund. NATS rate before 9/11 was about 16%, they then paid 0% for several years and now are only at 12.2%.
4) NATS are NOT pumping huge sums into the pension scheme. They contribute 12.2% (about Ł30 million) a year into a fund worth over Ł2000 million.
5) The surplus has dropped due to lower NATS contributions, Pension Holidays, Equity market crash in 1990 and 9/11. Yet, it still is in surplus and subsidising NATS conributions which are lower than they were prior to 9/11 (12.2% vs 16%). Also, the markets are reaching their highest levels since the 'crash' and there is no reason to believe that after the triennial revue, the SURPLUS WILL HAVE INCREASED to well over Ł200million.
The market performance is better now than 10yrs ago when our pensions subsidised NATS.
I thank you for your time and indulgence
1) The regulator has NOT said that NATS must reduce its pension costs. If you think otherwise, please, please tell me where and what they have said !!
If you have taken the time to read cp2 and the Airlines response to it, you can see what was actually said.
"For instance, it would be unacceptable if NATS were able to benefit from savings in operating expenditure such as those that could be made by cutting back on pension contributions, at the expense of higher costs in future."
ie. don't cut back on contributions now, then ask us to make them up in the future. It doesn't say you must cut your pension costs !!
2) All companies pass their costs onto their customers, pensions included. NATS is no different in this. More so, NATS only pay a rate of 12.2% into pensions. This is considerably lower than most companies. To save money on pensions, this rate would need to be reduced even further. So just how little do they want to pay towards pensions??
3) Yes, the AIrline Group 'bailed' NATS out after 9/11 BUT with the help of our pension fund. NATS rate before 9/11 was about 16%, they then paid 0% for several years and now are only at 12.2%.
4) NATS are NOT pumping huge sums into the pension scheme. They contribute 12.2% (about Ł30 million) a year into a fund worth over Ł2000 million.
5) The surplus has dropped due to lower NATS contributions, Pension Holidays, Equity market crash in 1990 and 9/11. Yet, it still is in surplus and subsidising NATS conributions which are lower than they were prior to 9/11 (12.2% vs 16%). Also, the markets are reaching their highest levels since the 'crash' and there is no reason to believe that after the triennial revue, the SURPLUS WILL HAVE INCREASED to well over Ł200million.
The market performance is better now than 10yrs ago when our pensions subsidised NATS.
I thank you for your time and indulgence
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to take issue with some of your supposed 'facts'
1) The regulator has NOT said that NATS must reduce its pension costs. If you think otherwise, please, please tell me where and what they have said !!
If you have taken the time to read cp2 and the Airlines response to it, you can see what was actually said.
"For instance, it would be unacceptable if NATS were able to benefit from savings in operating expenditure such as those that could be made by cutting back on pension contributions, at the expense of higher costs in future."
ie. don't cut back on contributions now, then ask us to make them up in the future. It doesn't say you must cut your pension costs !!
1) The regulator has NOT said that NATS must reduce its pension costs. If you think otherwise, please, please tell me where and what they have said !!
If you have taken the time to read cp2 and the Airlines response to it, you can see what was actually said.
"For instance, it would be unacceptable if NATS were able to benefit from savings in operating expenditure such as those that could be made by cutting back on pension contributions, at the expense of higher costs in future."
ie. don't cut back on contributions now, then ask us to make them up in the future. It doesn't say you must cut your pension costs !!
How do we know what the future markets will be giving in the way of returns on investments? Since the impact of reducing future pension costs will take years to achieve I think action has to be taken now. I note you make no mention of the regulator ceasing to allow pass through of pension costs for new employees. Why did they do that do you think?
2) All companies pass their costs onto their customers, pensions included. NATS is no different in this.
More so, NATS only pay a rate of 12.2% into pensions. This is considerably lower than most companies.
To save money on pensions, this rate would need to be reduced even further. So just how little do they want to pay towards pensions??
3) Yes, the AIrline Group 'bailed' NATS out after 9/11 BUT with the help of our pension fund. NATS rate before 9/11 was about 16%, they then paid 0% for several years and now are only at 12.2%.
4) NATS are NOT pumping huge sums into the pension scheme. They contribute 12.2% (about £30 million) a year into a fund worth over £2000 million.
5) The surplus has dropped due to lower NATS contributions, Pension Holidays, Equity market crash in 1990 and 9/11. Yet, it still is in surplus and subsidising NATS conributions which are lower than they were prior to 9/11 (12.2% vs 16%).
Also, the markets are reaching their highest levels since the 'crash' and there is no reason to believe that after the triennial revue, the SURPLUS WILL HAVE INCREASED to well over £200million.
The market performance is better now than 10yrs ago when our pensions subsidised NATS.
The market performance is better now than 10yrs ago when our pensions subsidised NATS.
I thank you for your time and indulgence
Its a first BD
Last edited by BDiONU; 18th Nov 2006 at 18:21. Reason: Smelling pistakes.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep it up lads... if nothing else its getting everyone (me included) aware of all the arguments on either side, and also clearing misconceptions up 
BDiNOU
an old chestnut but in your rebuttal to Jonny B, one of the things you said was
You are 100% correct, it is a monopoly, it always has been and it probably always will be. Thats how succesive Governements set it up. Thats how it was when it was sold (against all the experts wishes), thats how the regulator has always known it.
The fact it is a monopoly and therefore not regulated by competition is not our problem. And it is certainly not any kind of excuse for management to p
around with our pensions. 
BDiNOU
an old chestnut but in your rebuttal to Jonny B, one of the things you said was
But NATS is different in that its a monopoly and its regulated by the government, other companies are regulated (for want of a better word) by market forces. In addition the regulator has stopped allowing NATS to pass through pension costs for new staff. No other company has this burden AFAIK.
The fact it is a monopoly and therefore not regulated by competition is not our problem. And it is certainly not any kind of excuse for management to p
around with our pensions.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T.C.
Age: 56
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to all for explaining how NATS makes it money!!!! To be totally honest I don't care. My job is to control planes in "a safe and orderly" way. With the invaluble help of ATSA's and Engineers we provide an ATC service.This is what NATS does, this is what it's function is.
At the end of each month I receive a nice wage, and at the end of 30ish years work I WANT to receive a nice pension, after all I will of earned it.The pension scheme is in profit, leave it alone.
These are the basic facts, forgotten by all management types especially "the Barron"
At the end of each month I receive a nice wage, and at the end of 30ish years work I WANT to receive a nice pension, after all I will of earned it.The pension scheme is in profit, leave it alone.
These are the basic facts, forgotten by all management types especially "the Barron"
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Not quite sure anymore
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ask the question...If NATS pays 12.2% salary into the pension fund, how much as a percentage of pay do they pay into Paul Barron's pension pot? You can get the company accounts online as we are a PLC, but I seem to recall a figure in excess of 250K per annum! Nice work if you can get it!!!
Anyone who thinks that this is a course of action that can be got away with is quite frankly mad. I cannot think of a single issue that is more likely to unite NSL and NERL and have us ALL out on the picket line if neccesary. Divide and conquer my aŁ$e. Light the braziers, I'm ready to rant!!!!!!!!!!!
PS...Join the union now!!! If there was ever a time to stick together, this is it...
Anyone who thinks that this is a course of action that can be got away with is quite frankly mad. I cannot think of a single issue that is more likely to unite NSL and NERL and have us ALL out on the picket line if neccesary. Divide and conquer my aŁ$e. Light the braziers, I'm ready to rant!!!!!!!!!!!
PS...Join the union now!!! If there was ever a time to stick together, this is it...
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ask the question...If NATS pays 12.2% salary into the pension fund, how much as a percentage of pay do they pay into Paul Barron's pension pot? You can get the company accounts online as we are a PLC, but I seem to recall a figure in excess of 250K per annum! Nice work if you can get it!!!
BD
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Not quite sure anymore
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, jealousy is not a reason to strike. Hypocracy is though.
Besides, I did negotiate great terms and conditions before I agreed to join NATS. Part of this was the NATS pension scheme. This is under threat and I and many others think this calls for action. IMHO!!!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pikman
My understanding is slightly different to yours and I would like to be clear...
I was party to a discussion about this with a NATS senior manager last week. Now I know he is NATS management and he will be spouting the company line but he did clearly state what I have heard on many occasions from other quarters...
The only risk to CAAPS and current employee's pensions is NATS going bust. Anybody who has a pension in the current scheme is protected by act of parliament. It would take a new act of parliament to change that or 100% vote of the members.
Assuming that to be correct, it seems to me that our pensions are not at risk. What is at risk are our future terms and conditions of employment because it seems NATS will use these to try and lever us out of the existing pension? So any future fight will be over pay rises, not pensions.
If that accurately sums up the position then it seems to me that any industrial action cannot be over pensions? If those in the existing scheme strike, won't management ask "What are you striking for, your pension is not affected." What answer would we have to that?
.4
My understanding is slightly different to yours and I would like to be clear...
I was party to a discussion about this with a NATS senior manager last week. Now I know he is NATS management and he will be spouting the company line but he did clearly state what I have heard on many occasions from other quarters...
The only risk to CAAPS and current employee's pensions is NATS going bust. Anybody who has a pension in the current scheme is protected by act of parliament. It would take a new act of parliament to change that or 100% vote of the members.
Assuming that to be correct, it seems to me that our pensions are not at risk. What is at risk are our future terms and conditions of employment because it seems NATS will use these to try and lever us out of the existing pension? So any future fight will be over pay rises, not pensions.
If that accurately sums up the position then it seems to me that any industrial action cannot be over pensions? If those in the existing scheme strike, won't management ask "What are you striking for, your pension is not affected." What answer would we have to that?
.4