NATS Pensions (Split from Pay 2009 thread)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Prospect ATCO's Branch Handbook 2008.
Section D3 Superannuation, para (x) page 52.
"(x) The BEC shall ballot immediately for industrial action whenever NATS makes any move to re-negotiate the Pension Scheme that may detrimentally affect new or existing
members.
That seems pretty straight forward to me......
DD
Section D3 Superannuation, para (x) page 52.
"(x) The BEC shall ballot immediately for industrial action whenever NATS makes any move to re-negotiate the Pension Scheme that may detrimentally affect new or existing
members.
That seems pretty straight forward to me......
DD
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It isn't just a question of sticking to our pension. It's still not clear to me what keeping the pension exactly as it currently is really means. If it was a straight choice between choosing a degraded pension and the current pension and nothing else changes then it's as pretty simple choice and everybody votes No. However if it's a choice between a degraded pension and everybody keeps their job or the current pension and some NATS staff lose their jobs then it isn't such an easy choice. I'd find it quite hard to vote No if it meant somebody else losing their job even if I was pretty sure I'd keep mine. I certainly wouldn't vote No if it meant me losing my job so that somebody who's paid many times the national average and enjoys exceptionally good working conditions can keep his pension exactly as it is.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Winchester
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Excellent work by barstewards"
As the person who actually did the research which uncovered the statement by the Deputy Chief Whip to the House of Lords, and who posted a question to Mr Barron last week before releasing it into the Swanwick Ops Room, it is intriguing to see another person claiming credit for the work.
Never mind, so long as it is brought to the discussion, the effect should be the same.
As the person who actually did the research which uncovered the statement by the Deputy Chief Whip to the House of Lords, and who posted a question to Mr Barron last week before releasing it into the Swanwick Ops Room, it is intriguing to see another person claiming credit for the work.
Never mind, so long as it is brought to the discussion, the effect should be the same.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It could be a covert way by Prospect to get new members. Perhaps if the make noises that this ridiculous pensions proposal is a good idea, folk will join purely to get a vote.
As I said before this is about 3 executives believing it is an acceptable proposal-let's wait for the briefings.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Lymington
Age: 59
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the person who actually did the research which uncovered the statement by the Deputy Chief Whip to the House of Lords, and who posted a question to Mr Barron last week before releasing it into the Swanwick Ops Room, it is intriguing to see another person claiming credit for the work.
have a pat on the back. excellent work by whoever did it. we could do with this being the first of many "uncovered gems"
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely, surely, surely......
After 18 months of negotiations and consultations with many pension experts within the UK, it would be naive to think that every counter argument had not been explored to the nth degree....
The way I see it is that everyone is jumping to their own conclusions before they are fully aware of the facts!! Lets wait for the 3 months of briefings and then see the outcome. I may well be proved wrong, but there is always a slim chance of a YES vote.
GMWTB
After 18 months of negotiations and consultations with many pension experts within the UK, it would be naive to think that every counter argument had not been explored to the nth degree....
The way I see it is that everyone is jumping to their own conclusions before they are fully aware of the facts!! Lets wait for the 3 months of briefings and then see the outcome. I may well be proved wrong, but there is always a slim chance of a YES vote.
GMWTB
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: swanlake
Age: 54
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good digging about the statement by the chief whip...not only that the transport Bill 2000, heavy reading but...
pension entitlement of present
and former employees of NATS 65-(13)
"No amendment may be made to a relevant scheme which would result in a reduction of the accrued or future rights of protected beneficiaries, nor in the contributions by protected beneficiaries who are active members"
I think thats pretty clear...so how do they think they get round that with a pension cap rpi+0.5percent, not even union agreement can overturn this.
pension entitlement of present
and former employees of NATS 65-(13)
"No amendment may be made to a relevant scheme which would result in a reduction of the accrued or future rights of protected beneficiaries, nor in the contributions by protected beneficiaries who are active members"
I think thats pretty clear...so how do they think they get round that with a pension cap rpi+0.5percent, not even union agreement can overturn this.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These aren't exactly uncovered gems and they don't really take much digging, the pension protection is clearly included in the index to the Transport Act and you ought to be able to find the Act on google in about two seconds. Even without reading the Act if you'd attended any of Paul Barron's roadshow briefings when he first announced his intention to do something about pensions a couple of years ago you'd have heard him say that any change to pension benefits would require an Act of Parliament.
That suggests that what they are proposing isn't a change to the protected benefits. If you really want to do some digging you need to find out exactly what the Trust Deed says about benefits. Alternatively you could wait for the meetings because a number of people are going to ask that very question.
That suggests that what they are proposing isn't a change to the protected benefits. If you really want to do some digging you need to find out exactly what the Trust Deed says about benefits. Alternatively you could wait for the meetings because a number of people are going to ask that very question.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: here
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ROBSAUSTINHEALEY said:
I don't work at Swanwick so do not have a clue what you are talking/moaning about.
I am spending my own time researching the protection on OUR pension (it seems like OUR union is not interested) - well done to you if you are doing the same.
Do not come on here and make accusations about stealing your hard work - this issue affects more than the staff at Swanwick so perhaps you could distribute your findings to the rest of your 'colleagues' (that is if our opinion matters)
"Excellent work by barstewards"
As the person who actually did the research which uncovered the statement by the Deputy Chief Whip to the House of Lords, and who posted a question to Mr Barron last week before releasing it into the Swanwick Ops Room, it is intriguing to see another person claiming credit for the work.
Never mind, so long as it is brought to the discussion, the effect should be the same.
As the person who actually did the research which uncovered the statement by the Deputy Chief Whip to the House of Lords, and who posted a question to Mr Barron last week before releasing it into the Swanwick Ops Room, it is intriguing to see another person claiming credit for the work.
Never mind, so long as it is brought to the discussion, the effect should be the same.
I am spending my own time researching the protection on OUR pension (it seems like OUR union is not interested) - well done to you if you are doing the same.
Do not come on here and make accusations about stealing your hard work - this issue affects more than the staff at Swanwick so perhaps you could distribute your findings to the rest of your 'colleagues' (that is if our opinion matters)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: here
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All those against changes to the pension need to work together.
Not having a crystal ball I do not know what other people have found.
Post your info here to save duplicating work.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Up yer clunge .....
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EXACTLY!! Anybody with useful information should be posting it on here for EVERYONE to see instead of keeping it within one unit and whinging about 'somebody claiming credit for another persons work'.
SOME PENSION FIGURES 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 (MACC/ScACC) pensionable salary in 1990
£73777 – maximum ATCO2 (MACC/ScACC) 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.
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 (MACC/ScACC) pensionable salary in 1990
£73777 – maximum ATCO2 (MACC/ScACC) 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.
Top-of-scale (non WM, BS etc, basic pay)
ATCO3 Edinburgh - 1990/£24566 = 2008/£.....
ATCO2 Gatwick - 1990/£32327 = 2008/£....
ATCO2 LATCC - 1990/£33621 = 2008/£....
ATCO1
ATSA2
ATSA4
ATCE2
ATCE4
I'm sure you will be interested to work out your own relative percentages.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny Scotland
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know why the AAVA agreement is still in place,when it clealry states in the Union Handbook that any attempt to touch our pension would result in it being pulled?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Costa Packet
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to Data Dad 
From Prospect ATCO's Branch Handbook 2008.
Section D3 Superannuation, para (x) page 52.
"(x) The BEC shall ballot immediately for industrial action whenever NATS makes any move to re-negotiate the Pension Scheme that may detrimentally affect new or existing
members.
So whats going on reps ? Something isn't right here.....don't tell me "we are keeping our powder dry"
Can someone flush a union rep out from the undergrowth ?
Quite frankly I despair sometimes
From Prospect ATCO's Branch Handbook 2008.
Section D3 Superannuation, para (x) page 52.
"(x) The BEC shall ballot immediately for industrial action whenever NATS makes any move to re-negotiate the Pension Scheme that may detrimentally affect new or existing
members.
So whats going on reps ? Something isn't right here.....don't tell me "we are keeping our powder dry"
Can someone flush a union rep out from the undergrowth ?
Quite frankly I despair sometimes
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I Wish I Knew
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How nice it is to see that NATS consider themselves such experts in these areas to offer consultancy services to other ANSP's
Operational Changes
link: Business consulting services - NATS
Operational Changes
- Moving Civil Service Pensions to Private pensions
- Managing Union expectations throughout the change
link: Business consulting services - NATS
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 29 Acacia Road
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the same page on that link...
"NATS is the only ANSP in Europe that is fully privatised, "
Have I missed something? I thought it was public - private - partnership??
"NATS is the only ANSP in Europe that is fully privatised, "
Have I missed something? I thought it was public - private - partnership??
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Costa Packet
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I noticed that also, I think they will need to change it 
"Legal Status and Ownership
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%. "
"Legal Status and Ownership
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%. "