NATS Pensions (Split from Pay 2009 thread)
StandupfortheUlstermen
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Peoples' Democratic Republic of Wurzelsetshire
Age: 53
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During discussions at work yesterday, someone told me that something has to be done about the pension and then tried to convince me that the recently announced ideas were a way forward. A lot of it was a carefully trodden line but when I agreed that yes, something has to be done to keep the pension fund viable, but that the first avenue to explore should be NATS putting in everything they failed to pay in during the 'pension holiday' plus any amount that would have accrued from those contributions had the 'pension holiday' not taken place, there was no answer available. Then there was talk of NATS not being able to fund the pension and going bust and us all working for another provider who won't have a good scheme to offer us.
I think we know where this is going - if they don't tow the line, scare'em into it!
I think we know where this is going - if they don't tow the line, scare'em into it!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Costa Packet
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like the reps have been groomed to convince us during their "working together" sessions, no doubt using the current Global financial crisis to strengthen managements case and frighten us by weakening our resolve. Dont listen to them, use the ballott 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Groomed or better informed ? Personally I won't be making up my mind which way to vote until after the briefings when I've asked some questions of those advocating a Yes vote. In the interest of fairness perhaps those advocating a No vote can provide some answers to the other questions I have to ask
If NATS putting back the money from its pension holiday really is the answer exactly where is it going to get that money from ?
Even if the regulator allowed pension passthrough do you really think the airlines could afford it ? What would be the effect on the industry of a 30% increase in fees ?
If there is a strike how long would NATS remain solvent before it goes into Aviation Administration ?
I accept that Band 5 ATCOs will probably survive administration but what about NSL staff, ATSAs, ATCO trainees and non ATCOs ?
If NATS putting back the money from its pension holiday really is the answer exactly where is it going to get that money from ?
Even if the regulator allowed pension passthrough do you really think the airlines could afford it ? What would be the effect on the industry of a 30% increase in fees ?
If there is a strike how long would NATS remain solvent before it goes into Aviation Administration ?
I accept that Band 5 ATCOs will probably survive administration but what about NSL staff, ATSAs, ATCO trainees and non ATCOs ?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Costa Packet
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there is a strike how long would NATS remain solvent before it goes into Aviation Administration
NATS Holdings Ltd is the holding company for NATS Group. It owns NATS Ltd, which in turn owns two operating subsidiaries: NATS (En-Route) plc (NERL) and NATS (Services) Ltd (NSL). The Airline Group Ltd, a consortium of seven airlines, has the majority of voting rights and 41.9% of the shares of NATS Holdings Ltd. The Secretary of State for Transport owns 48.9%, BAA plc 4.2%; and NATS Employee Sharetrust Ltd 5%.
The Government is the major shareholder (48.9%) and NATS cannot go into aviation administration. There is a good reason why they still part own it... because NATS is essential to the UK both economically and from a safety aspect, thus NATS will not be allowed to go into administration -even if it could.
There is a an underlying trend now and a wish for re-Nationalistion of industries (Northern Rock and now as I type ! Bradford and Bingley) which previously were in the private sector, and since NATS is only 51.1% private dont rule out going full circle to where we were before.
If I recall things were much better for the staff then.
In the current USA economic climate anything could happen, especially when there is a dramatic downturn in the aviation industry (trans-Atlantic especially, as this is NATS biggest earner) which always was and always will be volatile, nothing new here.
Last edited by Air.Farce.1; 27th Sep 2008 at 20:59.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m very disappointed with the union for recommending the new pension proposals. As far as I’m aware the members did not request that the union entered into talks with management regarding pensions.
Since much of the information has been kept from the public eye due to confidentiality agreements only a few individuals have been privy to the full details. It seems these people have had there minds changed (remember one nats one pension??) and their opinions are set to shape future union policy. My concern is that many union members will go along with whatever is recommended by their union (which after all is supposed to have members best interests at heart.)
We have gone from one nats one pension to recommending a two tier pension AND worsening the terms of our current pension.
The argument seems to be “you’d better accept the new deal or nats will go bust and you’ll all lose you jobs and pension”
Yes the pension will cost nats lots of money – but as management are happy to tell everyone we’ve made a profit for the last 5 years so I’m sure we’ve got a few quid lying about. Plus since the UK government owns a large share of us and has a legal responsibility to provide ATC for the UK are they really likely to let us go bust?
Our pensions are legally protected – if we do nothing the trustees will force nats to pay sufficient contributions. I for one would be happy to let them do so.
Since much of the information has been kept from the public eye due to confidentiality agreements only a few individuals have been privy to the full details. It seems these people have had there minds changed (remember one nats one pension??) and their opinions are set to shape future union policy. My concern is that many union members will go along with whatever is recommended by their union (which after all is supposed to have members best interests at heart.)
We have gone from one nats one pension to recommending a two tier pension AND worsening the terms of our current pension.
The argument seems to be “you’d better accept the new deal or nats will go bust and you’ll all lose you jobs and pension”
Yes the pension will cost nats lots of money – but as management are happy to tell everyone we’ve made a profit for the last 5 years so I’m sure we’ve got a few quid lying about. Plus since the UK government owns a large share of us and has a legal responsibility to provide ATC for the UK are they really likely to let us go bust?
Our pensions are legally protected – if we do nothing the trustees will force nats to pay sufficient contributions. I for one would be happy to let them do so.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UP North
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree. Our union are spineless. Year after year they get further into managements pockets.
If we vote yes for these changes to our pension management know that they will get away with anything else they wish to throw at us.
Hopefully the workforce will have the conviction to stand up to management and when the vote comes up they give it an overwhelming NO.
If we vote yes for these changes to our pension management know that they will get away with anything else they wish to throw at us.
Hopefully the workforce will have the conviction to stand up to management and when the vote comes up they give it an overwhelming NO.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boys and girls it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.
The union sold the redundancy terms to you all for £750 or there abouts.
Think about how this works with the next line below!
NSL with reduced liabilities will become a far more attractive item to sell on to a new owner, after a few years or so new owner finds current T & C's for members un sustainable and closes scheme to everyone this will happen, it goes on out there every day watch the papers and other companies.
FFS stop this two tier pension fiasco when you get the ballot paper.
X in the NO box
Gov will not let us go bust, if they fekin underwrite Northern Rock they can underwrite my feckin pension and future ATCO's pensions too. Thier pension is bullet proof WTF is that about
s.
I for one have been in long enough for it prob not to affect me, but I am prepared to fight for ATCO's future pensions.
One Nats One Pension my ARSE you know who you are
The union sold the redundancy terms to you all for £750 or there abouts.
Think about how this works with the next line below!
NSL with reduced liabilities will become a far more attractive item to sell on to a new owner, after a few years or so new owner finds current T & C's for members un sustainable and closes scheme to everyone this will happen, it goes on out there every day watch the papers and other companies.
FFS stop this two tier pension fiasco when you get the ballot paper.
X in the NO box
Gov will not let us go bust, if they fekin underwrite Northern Rock they can underwrite my feckin pension and future ATCO's pensions too. Thier pension is bullet proof WTF is that about
s.I for one have been in long enough for it prob not to affect me, but I am prepared to fight for ATCO's future pensions.
One Nats One Pension my ARSE you know who you are
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NATS can't go bust, there are clauses in the transport bill to make sure it can't. If NATS is unable to pay its bills the courts are required to make an "Air Traffic Administration Order" (apologies for incorrectly calling it Aviation Administration above). This would effectively nationalise NATS at no cost to the Government. The Railway privitisation legislation contained similar clauses which were used to bring Railtrack back into public ownership.
That may seem an attractive proposition to some but do we really understand what that means to NATS staff particularly those not directly involved in the NERL Licence ? You may not like the current management but they have some vested interest in the future of NATS and hopefully in the last few years they've learnt a bit about the company. Do you really think an accountant appointed by the Secretary of State will be better ? Our pension curently enjoys some protection afforded to it by agreements made during the privitisation process, what status do those agreements have if an Air Traffic Administration Order is raised ?
That may seem an attractive proposition to some but do we really understand what that means to NATS staff particularly those not directly involved in the NERL Licence ? You may not like the current management but they have some vested interest in the future of NATS and hopefully in the last few years they've learnt a bit about the company. Do you really think an accountant appointed by the Secretary of State will be better ? Our pension curently enjoys some protection afforded to it by agreements made during the privitisation process, what status do those agreements have if an Air Traffic Administration Order is raised ?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Costa Packet
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
circ1
ONE NATS ONE PENSION 2006...........
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'] NATS Trade Union Side[/FONT][FONT='Times New Roman','serif']
To:All NTUS Members7 March 2006
Dear Colleague
NATS PENSIONS SCHEME - UNIONS MEET MANAGEMENT
Firstly, thanks to all of you who took the time to respond to the circular dated February 2006. Your comments were most welcome and show the depth of feeling amongst members in support of defending the existing pension scheme arrangements.
As promised this is an update following a meeting between the NTUS and Senior NATS Management which took place on Thursday 2nd March.
At the meeting, Paul Barron and senior colleagues stated the following:
NATS intention is to safeguard the pensions of all our existing pension members. Existing NATS scheme members will remain in CAAPS and continue to accrue benefits on the current basis.
The Trust Deed and Rules and/or the "Trust of a Promise" protect current scheme members. This is through: a) The "no decrement" principle of CAAPS and b) the HMG "Trust of a Promise" for scheme members at the time of the PPP on 26 July 2001.
By Control Period 3 (CP3) there will be unsustainable pressure from NATS customers and the Regulator because this represents an open ended and volatile cost.
Most of the Defined Benefit "Final Salary" schemes of NATS customers have already closed.
In addition Management indicated that they had a number of concerns regarding future liabilities:
The cost of providing Defined Benefit Pensions has increased.
The ability to recover tax paid on dividend payments has been removed.
Members and dependents are living longer.
Stock Markets are down in relation to 2000 level.
Fall in Long-term Government Bond yields at lowest since 1950's.
Funding level has dropped from 144% March 2001 to 119% at December 03.
Pensions cash pass-through for CP2 only applies to NERL. (This has no implication for staff in NSL other than NATS having to pick up the cost as all staff are employed by NATS).
The cost of providing £1p.a. of pension has been increasing.
Paul Barron also stated that "doing nothing" was not an option and he invited the NTUS to work together with Management between now and 2008 to identify the choices we may have going forward. He also offered to investigate whether the next scheme tri-ennial review due on 31 December 2006 could be brought forward.
In relation to a possible new scheme for future employees NATS indicated:
Only new employees will join any new scheme, under which they would contribute at a level that is more in line with the TUC's recommended 2:1 employer/employee funding ratio. New employees would have choices from Defined Benefit through to Defined Contribution Options at appropriate employee contribution rates.
The target date for a new scheme would be April 2008.
In response the NTUS stated the following:
Welcomed the fact that Management recognised the strength of feeling amongst the membership on the matter of pensions and re-stated that we have a clear mandate to oppose any changes to the existing arrangements including the setting up of a two tier scheme for new employees.
Didn't wish the tri-ennial review to be brought forward as we have complete faith in the Scheme Trustees and Scheme Actuary who administer the scheme on a day to day basis. If at any time they identify the need to consider the existing or future viability of the scheme we would be the first to indicate our desire to have a dialogue through the existing arrangement which is the NATS Joint Pensions Committee.
Regarding the pressure being applied by the customers on the Regulator we requested that NATS arrange for representatives of the NTUS to meet with the British Airways CEO when he attends a NATS function on 8th March. NATS did not feel that it would be appropriate for a customer to debate an internal issue and declined the request.
The NTUS also finds it somewhat ironic that the Regulator is also a part of CAAPS albeit the CAA Section.
The NTUS will continue to campaign with members to oppose any changes to the current arrangements and any proposals to set up an alternative scheme for new employees.
Two further points:
Management intend to set up a Question & Answer process on Pensions. The NTUS agreed to input comments.
Paul Barron and colleagues will be conducting Road Shows around NATS within the next few weeks and they intend to raise the issue of Pensions. The NTUS welcomes this opportunity for members to be directly involved in the debate and therefore asks as many as possible of you to ensure that you attend a session at your unit.
Finally, we see this campaign to defend our pension scheme as being a marathon rather than a sprint. With that in mind the NTUS have set up a small working group to draw up a campaign strategy and should the need arise we will be calling for your support. In the meantime, as before, your comments and ideas on campaign activities would be most welcomed.
ONE NATS - ONE PENSION SCHEME
Yours sincerely
Alastair Nicolson
Alastair Nicolson
Trade Union Co-ordinator[/FONT]
ONE NATS ONE PENSION 2006...........
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'] NATS Trade Union Side[/FONT][FONT='Times New Roman','serif']
To:All NTUS Members7 March 2006
Dear Colleague
NATS PENSIONS SCHEME - UNIONS MEET MANAGEMENT
Firstly, thanks to all of you who took the time to respond to the circular dated February 2006. Your comments were most welcome and show the depth of feeling amongst members in support of defending the existing pension scheme arrangements.
As promised this is an update following a meeting between the NTUS and Senior NATS Management which took place on Thursday 2nd March.
At the meeting, Paul Barron and senior colleagues stated the following:
NATS intention is to safeguard the pensions of all our existing pension members. Existing NATS scheme members will remain in CAAPS and continue to accrue benefits on the current basis.
The Trust Deed and Rules and/or the "Trust of a Promise" protect current scheme members. This is through: a) The "no decrement" principle of CAAPS and b) the HMG "Trust of a Promise" for scheme members at the time of the PPP on 26 July 2001.
By Control Period 3 (CP3) there will be unsustainable pressure from NATS customers and the Regulator because this represents an open ended and volatile cost.
Most of the Defined Benefit "Final Salary" schemes of NATS customers have already closed.
In addition Management indicated that they had a number of concerns regarding future liabilities:
The cost of providing Defined Benefit Pensions has increased.
The ability to recover tax paid on dividend payments has been removed.
Members and dependents are living longer.
Stock Markets are down in relation to 2000 level.
Fall in Long-term Government Bond yields at lowest since 1950's.
Funding level has dropped from 144% March 2001 to 119% at December 03.
Pensions cash pass-through for CP2 only applies to NERL. (This has no implication for staff in NSL other than NATS having to pick up the cost as all staff are employed by NATS).
The cost of providing £1p.a. of pension has been increasing.
Paul Barron also stated that "doing nothing" was not an option and he invited the NTUS to work together with Management between now and 2008 to identify the choices we may have going forward. He also offered to investigate whether the next scheme tri-ennial review due on 31 December 2006 could be brought forward.
In relation to a possible new scheme for future employees NATS indicated:
Only new employees will join any new scheme, under which they would contribute at a level that is more in line with the TUC's recommended 2:1 employer/employee funding ratio. New employees would have choices from Defined Benefit through to Defined Contribution Options at appropriate employee contribution rates.
The target date for a new scheme would be April 2008.
In response the NTUS stated the following:
Welcomed the fact that Management recognised the strength of feeling amongst the membership on the matter of pensions and re-stated that we have a clear mandate to oppose any changes to the existing arrangements including the setting up of a two tier scheme for new employees.
Didn't wish the tri-ennial review to be brought forward as we have complete faith in the Scheme Trustees and Scheme Actuary who administer the scheme on a day to day basis. If at any time they identify the need to consider the existing or future viability of the scheme we would be the first to indicate our desire to have a dialogue through the existing arrangement which is the NATS Joint Pensions Committee.
Regarding the pressure being applied by the customers on the Regulator we requested that NATS arrange for representatives of the NTUS to meet with the British Airways CEO when he attends a NATS function on 8th March. NATS did not feel that it would be appropriate for a customer to debate an internal issue and declined the request.
The NTUS also finds it somewhat ironic that the Regulator is also a part of CAAPS albeit the CAA Section.
The NTUS will continue to campaign with members to oppose any changes to the current arrangements and any proposals to set up an alternative scheme for new employees.
Two further points:
Management intend to set up a Question & Answer process on Pensions. The NTUS agreed to input comments.
Paul Barron and colleagues will be conducting Road Shows around NATS within the next few weeks and they intend to raise the issue of Pensions. The NTUS welcomes this opportunity for members to be directly involved in the debate and therefore asks as many as possible of you to ensure that you attend a session at your unit.
Finally, we see this campaign to defend our pension scheme as being a marathon rather than a sprint. With that in mind the NTUS have set up a small working group to draw up a campaign strategy and should the need arise we will be calling for your support. In the meantime, as before, your comments and ideas on campaign activities would be most welcomed.
ONE NATS - ONE PENSION SCHEME
Yours sincerely
Alastair Nicolson
Alastair Nicolson
Trade Union Co-ordinator[/FONT]
Last edited by Air.Farce.1; 27th Sep 2008 at 15:01.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Costa Packet
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since our Union reps have seen fit to close the www.onenatsonepension.com web site due to embarrassment, the above will serve as a reminder
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Box Hill or Bust
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arthur Scargill wrote:
Given what has happened, some would say a complete u-turn, how the hell are the rest of us supposed to make an informed decision if we are not privy to the same information that those who negotiated the deal have been?
I wouldn't buy any other financial package without doing my homework, so why should I do so with this issue?
Since much of the information has been kept from the public eye due to confidentiality agreements only a few individuals have been privy to the full details. It seems these people have had there minds changed (remember one nats one pension??) and their opinions are set to shape future union policy. My concern is that many union members will go along with whatever is recommended by their union (which after all is supposed to have members best interests at heart.)
I wouldn't buy any other financial package without doing my homework, so why should I do so with this issue?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: South
Age: 39
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RPI+.5%
Just did sum quick sums, if you expect an average annual pay increase of RPI + 2% which I don't think is unreasonable. And a current salary of 50k and RPI average of 3%
After 10 years
Final salary £81,000 Final pensionable salary £70,000
20 Years
Final salary £130,000 Final pensionable salary £99,000
30 Years
Final salary £210,000 Final pensionable salary £140,000
40 years
Final salary £350,000 Final pensionable salary £190,000
As I said quick sums so might not be totally correct but close enough I think that’s a F@@king massive difference.
After 10 years
Final salary £81,000 Final pensionable salary £70,000
20 Years
Final salary £130,000 Final pensionable salary £99,000
30 Years
Final salary £210,000 Final pensionable salary £140,000
40 years
Final salary £350,000 Final pensionable salary £190,000
As I said quick sums so might not be totally correct but close enough I think that’s a F@@king massive difference.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Destination 22
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Existing NATS scheme members will remain in CAAPS and continue to accrue benefits on the current basis.
In relation to a possible new scheme for future employees NATS indicated:
Only new employees will join any new scheme, under which they would contribute at a level that is more in line with the TUC's recommended 2:1 employer/employee funding ratio. New employees would have choices from Defined Benefit through to Defined Contribution Options at appropriate employee contribution rates.
The target date for a new scheme would be April 2008.
Only new employees will join any new scheme, under which they would contribute at a level that is more in line with the TUC's recommended 2:1 employer/employee funding ratio. New employees would have choices from Defined Benefit through to Defined Contribution Options at appropriate employee contribution rates.
The target date for a new scheme would be April 2008.
I ask again WTF happened in those negotiations?
PLEASE make sure everyone at your units sees the (rough) figures bross_al posted. Even if they are rough ones it still makes scary reading.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Box Hill or Bust
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
boss_al wrote:
Forget about actual salary figures as they are meaningless, we never really know what our final salary is until the day we retire . However taking your figure of an average salary increase of RPI + 2%, buy my calculations this would mean anyone who had maximum years in the scheme would actually end up with a pension of 40% of their final salary rather than the 66% you would get retiring if you are able to retire now.
Just did sum quick sums, if you expect an average annual pay increase of RPI + 2% which I don't think is unreasonable. And a current salary of 50k and RPI average of 3%
After 10 years
Final salary £81,000 Final pensionable salary £70,000
20 Years
Final salary £130,000 Final pensionable salary £99,000
30 Years
Final salary £210,000 Final pensionable salary £140,000
40 years
Final salary £350,000 Final pensionable salary £190,000
As I said quick sums so might not be totally correct but close enough I think that’s a F@@king massive difference.
After 10 years
Final salary £81,000 Final pensionable salary £70,000
20 Years
Final salary £130,000 Final pensionable salary £99,000
30 Years
Final salary £210,000 Final pensionable salary £140,000
40 years
Final salary £350,000 Final pensionable salary £190,000
As I said quick sums so might not be totally correct but close enough I think that’s a F@@king massive difference.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: South
Age: 39
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Hooligan Bill your absolutely correct it was just easier for me to make my point that way. with the same assumption about average pay rise as above
10 years: 57% of final salary
20 years: 50% of final salary
30 years: 44% of final salary
40 years: 36% of final salary
compared to 66% with the current scheme
and autothrottle those are valid to all members of caaps
10 years: 57% of final salary
20 years: 50% of final salary
30 years: 44% of final salary
40 years: 36% of final salary
compared to 66% with the current scheme
and autothrottle those are valid to all members of caaps
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Up yer clunge .....
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some Pension Numbers To Consider
To get a perspective on what the current pension proposals might mean to you in the future, consider where you would stand today if these proposals had been introduced during the last recession, 18 years ago, in 1990.
£29888 - maximum ATCO2 pensionable salary in 1990
£73777 – maximum ATCO2 pensionable salary in 2008 (a rise of 147%)
79% - The amount RPI rose between 1990 and 2008
96% - The amount RPI+0.5% rose between 1990 and 2008
£58580 – The amount of pensionable salary you would have today if pensionable salary had been restricted to RPI+0.5% (as is proposed under the pension restructure)
£15197 – The reduction of your pensionable salary from what your contract of employment said when you joined and what you would get now.
£49184 – Your projected pension in 2008 based on your terms and conditions in 1990 and retiring on 2/3rds annual salary
£39053 – Your actual pension after pegged to RPI+0.5%
£10131 – Your annual loss of pension based on 2/3rds final pensionable salary
20.6% - The percentage cut in your pension due to RPI+0.5% peg
£844 – The monthly amount (at todays prices) that you would lose on your future pension.
All figures are projected and based on published NATS salary scales and published Government RPI figures. Correct as of September 2008.
Feel free to adapt the salary figures for your own trade/branch, apply the RPI %ages and circulate round your own units.
£29888 - maximum ATCO2 pensionable salary in 1990
£73777 – maximum ATCO2 pensionable salary in 2008 (a rise of 147%)
79% - The amount RPI rose between 1990 and 2008
96% - The amount RPI+0.5% rose between 1990 and 2008
£58580 – The amount of pensionable salary you would have today if pensionable salary had been restricted to RPI+0.5% (as is proposed under the pension restructure)
£15197 – The reduction of your pensionable salary from what your contract of employment said when you joined and what you would get now.
£49184 – Your projected pension in 2008 based on your terms and conditions in 1990 and retiring on 2/3rds annual salary
£39053 – Your actual pension after pegged to RPI+0.5%
£10131 – Your annual loss of pension based on 2/3rds final pensionable salary
20.6% - The percentage cut in your pension due to RPI+0.5% peg
£844 – The monthly amount (at todays prices) that you would lose on your future pension.
All figures are projected and based on published NATS salary scales and published Government RPI figures. Correct as of September 2008.
Feel free to adapt the salary figures for your own trade/branch, apply the RPI %ages and circulate round your own units.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jobby Weecher,
A superb post - some shocking & sobering numbers.
If you are an "oldie" like me who was an ATCO II until 1987 and is now an ATCO 3, Band 2, the numbers are probably even worse...
DD
A superb post - some shocking & sobering numbers.
If you are an "oldie" like me who was an ATCO II until 1987 and is now an ATCO 3, Band 2, the numbers are probably even worse...
DD