Sorry to hear that

Sorry ain't good enough.

Management want to cut staff to maintain profits.

Aren't we a not for profit company?

Take a long hard look at the proposals for H24 Engineering and imagine those principles applied to ATCOs.

When there are no more Engineers to cut who will they come looking for?

office staff, by the nature of the business, atcos have to be last.

Ive had enough of this, its time to make a stand and stop the rot.

Ive played ball in my management job role and despite reservations about the nature of the companys direction in recent times, I have stuck by the party line.

But this is seriously pushing my buttons now and I will be fighting for my pensions come oct30. They better have something earth shattering to change my mind. I doubt it.

Regardless of the outcome in tha ballot, I am done with NSL vision 201111111111 and all the other b******s.

I shall be looking after no1 and my nearest and dearest from here on in.

I though that as part of PPP profit would not be put before safety:

Getting rid of 20% of H24 engineers,
Low morale at the units,
Threat to our pensions,



We have a serious problem here

Not forgetting of course that those engineers who are made redundant will get paid less following the companies clever manipulation of the recent changes to age discrimination laws.

Surely though no NATS permanent engineer should go whilst we are paying for contract staff in any of our engineering depts. Where the heeck are the union in this.

Sooner the 'No' vote the better or any of us with anything like any time invested in the company are going to get shafted.

Like I said in my previous post......


The Airline group need pressure put on them from the majority shareholders, the Government. The Newspapers need to be stirred up also !
Don't rule out NATS becoming fully Nationalised again, I seem to remember happier times.........

Nationalised Air Traffic Services How does that sound Mr Barron

I think we need a united stance from here on in!!

Having spoken to a few engineers, not only do they ensure the smooth running of the day to day operation, but when things really go wrong ie last week, they are invaluable. Does reducing engineer numbers reduce safety????

um........

Perhaps we should be looking to the Whiteley activity centre for cost savings!

GMWTB

engineers are vital to the safe running of an ops room. H24.
Being told that something can't get looked at because there is not the staff is not going to cut it. If something is not right in the ops room or behind the scenes it needs attention immediately.

This is the letter my MP has sent to Alastair Darling.

Dear Alastair

I write on behalf of several of my constituents who work as Air Traffic Controllers

My constituents are concerned at proposed changes to their pension scheme. Their primary concern centres around a limit on future pensionable pay increases. Effectively, they feel, this does away with the final salary scheme as it stands at the moment. It is undoubtedly the case as it amounts to a devaluation of their retirement income, since it will no longer be linked to their salaries.

My constituents were under the impression that their pension benefits were protected by an Act of Parliament. This appears to be at odds with the proposed changes. Can you clarify the situation?

I am aware that the possibility of industrial action has been mentioned. My constituents feel that this would be a very damaging course of action for all sides. Nevertheless, they are of the opinion the longer the continued uncertainty goes on, the more attractive industrial action will look to their colleagues.

I would be grateful for your thoughts on this matter

Rt Hon Malcolm Bruce MP

I still don't remember those happier times. The same exercise to reduce H24 engineering staff at the Airports happened prior to PPP as did the closing of regional maintenance bases. In fact staff cuts were made to Operational Engineering all through the 90's.

It's also worth remembering that contract staff and those at Whiteley are real people with families and mortgages too. Many of the contract staff in engineering departments were hired to avoid the redundancy and pension liabilities and will be far worse off than the permanent staff if they are laid off.

Were you employed by NATS before it was part privatised, or were you with another company ?

My happy times were with NATS , when PPL was part of the cadetship, when XMAS parties with booze were allowed in the canteen, when we had plenty staff, when managers were good guys you could respect, when EG's were the norm, when the car park wasn't full of office workers cars MON-FRI and empty at the weekend when we are working our bo**ocks off..........need I go on?

20. NATS | Best 100 Companies - Times Online

Prom, And your point is?

That stuff was well over a year ago, it's now we're talking about

the good old days Air Farce 1.

even have memories of the office staff taking their coffee back to their office so that the operational staff could have a table in the coffee bar at LATCC.

sod all chance of that now!

Well I just ran the handy gadget that HR have posted on their site on NATSNet that lets you work out what effect all this will have on your pension as an individual.

http://natsnet/humanresources/pensions

Mine comes out as a 13% reduction in annual pension at age 60 [but I do get an extra £30 per year ]

That's the equivalent of the annual SAGA holiday shot in the arse then. Mrs Boffins will be ever so pleased

Beginning to think that the argument for a "YES" vote is going to have to be really convincing to get me to cut my own leg off.

At least we have now got a shiny book full of hard information so that we may better inform our collective decision. Can't wait for the tale of woe which will seek to gain our allegiance...

Surely the company should be doing all it can to retain (sorry this is about ATCO's) ATCO's and offering a better pension deal. If any more leave then all this saving will mean nothing to the fines imposed for delays. And if it offers a better deal it should be for all employee's. nuff said

Thanks for the link Dances with Boffins

I am about £3,000 a year worse off on my pension under the proposed new scheme.
I intend to live until 90, so I will be about £100,000 worse off. That's £100,000 less for my children/grandchildren.

They can shove it !

Saw the link in work today - at last some hard information.

If I go on until 80 years old I'll be £8000 a year worse off!
That makes £160,000 less in pension payment during retirement!!
The only way they'll get my Yes vote is give me a lump sum of £160,000 now.

Younger staff are gonna lose far more than me in retirement - They'd be CRAZY to vote Yes.

Spot the deliberate mistake .....