hold at SATAN

Inflatin is at 5.2% at the moment. Sounds great, right? However, most analysts (guessers?) are certain that by next year inflation will easily be sub 2%. So unless we expect no more than about 2.5% (RPI=0.5%), then we will certainly be worse off under the new proposals. Let's take a longer term view and not be misled by NATS management using the current trough in the economic CYCLE to screw us over.

VOTE NO

PS: the CAA employers contribution rate stands at 6% not 20-odd% NATS pay

Stupendous Man

Don't lose sight of things in the briefings. There will be lots of figures thrown about to prove the managements various points like how the £48 million pension holiday wasn't a lot of money, yet the 0.8% saved by smart pensions is.....
Here are some figures worth remembering:

Barron said: “Our results are very creditable given the costs of the West Drayton transition. So Paul - if we're making good money having spent a lot on moving WD then next year we'll have more profit and once MACC/PC is sorted we'll have even more profits - guess where you can invest it mate!

Keep the discussions going in work/the canteen/where ever. The Union isn't providing a counter arguement - so we have to!

Some people I know at Swanwick aren't that up to speed on the issues. Mainly the younger guys with less than 5 years in. Get them up to date. Make them use the modeller to let them see how worse off they'll be.

Remember after the Maxwell / Pensions fiasco pensions are deemed deferred wages. So you are being asked to vote Yes to a paycut.

Stupendous Man

From http://www.publications.parliament.u...bacc/80/80.pdf


In my mind they are responsible for the risks they took on and therefore they should be providing the funding to ensure the fund - not the staff.

250 kts

Compared with what exactly?? And remember the modeller doesn't take into account any lump sum you will almost certainly take and so the headline figure of what it would cost you is higher than it would be in reality.

I have around 10 years to go and frankly have no idea what my pension will be based on at that stage. Will it be £50k more than now or £100k. So if I don't know how will someone with 30 years to go? All you can do is have a gut feel for where you think it could be.

Has anyone thought just how rises above RPI are going to be achievable in the long term without major changes to WP, leave, shift length? In my view unless we are prepared to sell these "high value crown jewels" then rises will be lucky to be above 0.5 above RPI anyway. So little or no change to most of us even in the medium to long term.

Stupendous Man

The modeller shows you what your pension will be based on final salary X (RPI + X) figure that you put in and also shows what it would be X (RPI + 0.5).

So if you put in 1.5% like the acturies use or 2.5% (which is what we ATCOs have had on average over the last 10 years) then it will give you a rough idea what you'll be on. With 10 years to go I guess you are top of your scale. If not it allows you to add in incremental rises and factors it in.

So anyone can work out what they'll roughly retire on if the status quo remains Vs the proposed deal.

It also shows the SMART pension benefit. I'll be a whole £44 better off each year!!

You're right about the lump sum though. It would be nice to see what the reduced pension would be reduced to further!

So for myself:
As it stands based on
RPI + 1.5% I'd be 10k worse off at retirement
RPI + 2.5% id be circa 15k worse off.

Would I vote for a paydeal that was between minus 12-15%? No chance!


Try it and get others to try it. Even if all it does is highlight and provoke discussion.

Stupendous Man

If so then why bother with the cap. If only the odd pay rise will be above +0.5.

Not all changes to WP are bad, but I agree with the leave. In no way should that even be put on any negotiating table. Unless it has "we want more" put in front of it!

viaEGLL

STUPENDOUS MAN!!

Have you been eating those blue smarties again

250 kts

You obviously haven't been to a briefing yet-or if you have you didn't bother to listen!

And my point is that without having any more to sell except the "crown jewels" we aren't going to realistically get much , if anything, above RPI+0.5%.

I for one can't see us getting anything like the rises we have had in the last few years and I'll be interested to hear the rationale from anyone who really thinks we will.

kinglouis

I went to one of the briefings yesterday and was a firm 'no' man.
lots of things considered, i am now unsure..... im thinking its still a no vote, but things that will start to make me think will be:
1) barron and his cronies NOT getting any bonus this year and for some time after that.
2) the company starts making a certified and visual effort to the workforce how they are tightening belts and trying to save money, rather than the staff picking up the slack via this pension deal, and i dont mean by sacking 'necessary' people needed to keep the ATC cog turning
3) the compnay regains its sight back to air traffic and the business of moving planes (non profit, naturally) and culls all these make believe jobs that serve no bloody purpose, e.g safety and training manager, operational information leader.. saw that one on the wall outside an office in the corridor today!!!!

im looking forward to what comes up over the next few weeks befre i make my fial decision. although i spoke with my financial advisor today who confirmed that we are pretty much between a rock and a hard place and any no vote may be in vain if there just isnt any money in the pot (hence point 1 above).

the company got us into this mess with underpaying pension costs since 2003 and is now trying to get us to bail them out. if tey cant show me how they are trying to help themselves, i will vote no.

Gonzo

As I understand it, this average ATCO pay rise that's being quoted of RPI+2.5 over 10 years consisted of quite a few 'spine points' over and above the annual increment.

If, as part of the ATCO pay deal we were all given a spine point increase in January, would this be included in the 'cap' of RPI+0.5?

250 kts

A spine point is usually worth around 4%. Promotions and "normal increments" are not included in the cap.

So if the 2009 pay rise equated to a spine point ie. 4% and RPI was 3.8 then the whole of that rise would be pensionable. It is best not to look at the pay rise as a spine point as the salary structure would not be changed by a normal pay rise

Mr A Tis

Well, if the company stopped trying to be a "world beater" & wanting to take over every Euro ATC agency, things may be different. Oops, I forgot we are the only ones privatised in Euro land after all.
Maybe, if we dropped the "brand value" nonsence, the endless committees worried about litter picking, the endless shuttling of staff between Southampton, Manchester & Prestwick to talk about leadership or recycling, we maybe would not be in this position.
Since the Red Barron took over, non operational posts have rocketed to levels never seen before in this company. The company, IMHO has forgotten why we are here. NATS is now just a commodity, that has to make a "profit" & can be bought & sold at a drop of a hat when it suits.
It now takes 6 people to produce an ATC operational roster, when it used to only require one, in fact it requires 6 people to do almost anything in NATS now, where it used to only take one........and don't even get me started on the wasted man hours required to operate NIBS................The Board have a lot to answer for, whilst the staff are going to pay for their mismanagement.

ZOOKER

Tried looking this up in the AIP, Graham Duke etc, but no luck.
What is NIBS?

Track Jitter

Nats Integrated Business System

INCA9

Although i've not yet been to a briefing, that's close to my stand-point already.
I'm realistic enough to appreciate that it's not simply going to be just a case of digging our heels in and refusing to budge on anything. But, that said, i expect this to be a negotiation with a little give and take on both sides. So far, i see little 'give' on the part of the company, but a whole lot of 'take'. Hence i'll be saying 'thanks but no thanks' unless they can demonstrate some serious changes on their part to assist with addressing the shortfall!

P.S. Don't interpret this as 'non-ops' bashing. I'm fully aware that there are a whole raft of non-ops people who are essential to the successful function of this company, BUT, I'm also under the suspicion that there are a fair few who are currently involved in projects that, if they were culled tomorrow, not many would miss. If you're happy that you provide an essential and important function to the company, then there would be no need to be either looking over your shoulder...or attacking me for my opinion!

Beejam

According to our union reps the give and take part has been done. From the starting point things have moved a long way in our favour apparently.

It concerns me that some people do not trust the union reps at all and think that us voting no IS our negotiation. ie. we vote no to successive offers until we are happy. The negotiation is done and as far as our reps are concerned this is the best we can get.

It also worries me that people only seem to be thinking about how strong our position is. We may have a strong position but the figures presented to us in the briefings speak for themselves. There is no point digging our heels in to "beat the enemy" when there is nothing left for them to yield. The kind of cuts some people are talking about are negligible when compared to the billions of pounds involved in covering the pension liability.

For me it comes down to whether you trust the people representing us. If you do then deciding how to vote becomes quite straightforward.

If not then it becomes very difficult, almost as difficult as becoming a financial expert in time for the ballot.

It's also clear from coffee lounge conversation that some ATCOs have completely lost touch with what it's like in the rest of the working world.

50 PENCE

Hey Guys, I've been a lurker here for a while but never registered as I basically couldn't be arsed- until now.
The Pension is something we all really need to think long and hard about. OK there's a shortfall but we're living in troubled times, there's a downturn in all investment packages at the moment. Why have we been investing in such High Risk areas? Mis-management perhaps?
Were we to do nothing and the market return to its previous heady heights BEFORE the 18 month deadline for NATS to go to the Wall would we have our previously, very well performing pension reinstated? I think not.
This has been an area that the Barron administration has been tasked with destroying, not necessarily by HMG- our majority shareholder, but by the Airline Group- with the desired outcome of making us a reduced risk, more deisirable investment opportunity. The AG then has a chance of making a killing on the initial paltry sum the shelled out for us at PPP. Recent financial and market downturns have contrived to give PB exactly the scenario he wanted to achieve this goal. A quick look at Business consulting services - NATS
lets us know the real agenda. Oh, you'll need to look at the comments bit on the pensions issue on natsnet to see what I mean. There have been changes made to the "Operational Change" sub-heading since their original content was highlighted in the pensions comments.(original text available on request).
Anyway, there is no doubt that, as it stands, our pension scheme needs a helping hand. It is very doubtful however that a 2-Tier scheme is going to be beneficial to any employee.
We need to vote a resounding NOto the current proposal. This is the first attack on the scheme. Were we to roll over this time the next assault would not be far away- long before the proposed 15 year review.

50 PENCE

BEEJAM:

One of my union reps supports the work already carried out by the negotiating team. The other 5,6 or 7 think it's pants. They know something has to be done but think we're in a worse position now than when NATS first made a proposal to change to pension.
Don't know if you're in Prospect? If so have a look at the Union Handbook to see what they should have been doing.

radar707

Talking to the guys at my unit not one is going to vote in favour of this, simply because they've looked at the figures relating to their potential pensions compared to the capped version and the figures speak for themselves.

As an example one of the uys will be £11k worse off, but if he puts an extra 6% into AVC's which is what is being proposed through this scheme, then he stands to be only £10.5K worse off.

Assuming he lives for 10 years after retirement that's a whole chunk of pension to be losing, plus the reduced spouses pension after his death!!!

One question that hasn't been answered so far is by how much will any potential lump sum be reduced by this cap?

055166k

Controllers do not possess easily transferable skills,especially when working for a monopoly provider.....unlike pilots and managers for example. When the carpet-baggers moved in and gradually swelled out the middle and top ends of the organisation with an insulation layer of drones, it was to enhance their CV's in preparation for the next job. Remember that in a recession or downturn in the economy there is no safer place to be than a comfy little office in Hampshire.......prepare for even more departments to be created as "buddies" in the the cold outside commercial world start to look for alternative post-redundancy jobs.
Anyway, it was mentioned on Day One of new-NATS that we do our job in spite of management, and that we might take all kinds of crap....which we do....BUT IF YOU TOUCH THE PENSIONS you paint us into a corner. When all the present managers have moved on [not just the regular six monthly managerial musical chairs merry-go-round] the "core-business" workforce will still be at various stages of their 40 year careers.
If this isn't worth fighting for.....what is?