NATS Pensions (Split from Pay 2009 thread)
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
From: In my garden shed
From NATS Accounts Page 26
This suggests that pension projections assume males to live until 87 and females 89.9 years of age. I thought the life expectancy for us poor saps 
was much less. No wonder the pension plan looks under-funded, they expect us to live much longer that we are likely to. 
The mortality assumptions have been drawn from actuarial tables PMA92 and PFA92 medium cohort (2007:PXA92 short cohort).
These tables assume that the life expectancy, from age 60, for a male pensioner is 26.3 years and a female pensioner is 29.2 years.
Allowance is made for future improvements in longevity, such that based on the average age of the current membership,
when these members reach retirement, life expectancy from age 60 will have increased for males to 27.0 years and
for females to 29.9 years.
These tables assume that the life expectancy, from age 60, for a male pensioner is 26.3 years and a female pensioner is 29.2 years.
Allowance is made for future improvements in longevity, such that based on the average age of the current membership,
when these members reach retirement, life expectancy from age 60 will have increased for males to 27.0 years and
for females to 29.9 years.
was much less. No wonder the pension plan looks under-funded, they expect us to live much longer that we are likely to.
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
From: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Ayrprox...
Absolutely brilliant post mate, summed up perfectly what I and many of my colleagues feel at the moment i.e that we have been taken the piss out of once too many times and that this is the final straw...meanwhile upper management get bonuses and payrises ad infinitum.
The most worrying thing about your post was the fact that Prospect may not support a strike if we vote no...excuse me, but what the F*** is that all about??? When it says in their handbook that any unilateral tampering with of our pension, which it would be if we voted NO, would result in balloting of their members for industrial action...why on earth are they coming out with this rubbish?? They are supposed to be representing us and if we vote NO then its up to them to go back to NATS and tell them where to stick it, not to bend over and take it.
VOTE NO.
Absolutely brilliant post mate, summed up perfectly what I and many of my colleagues feel at the moment i.e that we have been taken the piss out of once too many times and that this is the final straw...meanwhile upper management get bonuses and payrises ad infinitum.
The most worrying thing about your post was the fact that Prospect may not support a strike if we vote no...excuse me, but what the F*** is that all about??? When it says in their handbook that any unilateral tampering with of our pension, which it would be if we voted NO, would result in balloting of their members for industrial action...why on earth are they coming out with this rubbish?? They are supposed to be representing us and if we vote NO then its up to them to go back to NATS and tell them where to stick it, not to bend over and take it.
VOTE NO.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,003
Likes: 0
From: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
ayrprox,
Back in July, on the Prestwick living thread, you posted kind comments regarding a 'poem' I wrote to my learned friend, Fidgell.
May I take this opportunity to reciprocate your comments for what is, one of the finest posts I have read on this forum.
.
Best wishes for EHBK.
P.S. On the new, fully-recovered NATS website, in the downloadable "Capability Brochure", Capability Barron indicates that "We will continue to invest in our people".
(Well, until they retire).
Back in July, on the Prestwick living thread, you posted kind comments regarding a 'poem' I wrote to my learned friend, Fidgell.
May I take this opportunity to reciprocate your comments for what is, one of the finest posts I have read on this forum.
.Best wishes for EHBK.
P.S. On the new, fully-recovered NATS website, in the downloadable "Capability Brochure", Capability Barron indicates that "We will continue to invest in our people".
(Well, until they retire).
Last edited by ZOOKER; 16th October 2008 at 22:39.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
From: Scotland
Ayrprox,
Absolutely superb post......sums up my own feelings exactly.
I have to agree 100% with Mr 777 regarding the suggested non-official support from Prospect. We are repeatedly told that it is OUR Union - if the members decide that a ballot for action is required then they (BEC/whoever) can either follow the wishes of the members or get the h**l out and let someone else in who is prepared to properly represent us. Ignoring Democratically formulated Branch Policy is shocking - we may as well tear up the handbook, forget the Annual Delegate Conferences and not even bother having a Union. Shades of a certain Government - vote for us and we will do a/b/c etc but hey, we are now in power and we will do what we like.
Absolutely superb post......sums up my own feelings exactly.
I have to agree 100% with Mr 777 regarding the suggested non-official support from Prospect. We are repeatedly told that it is OUR Union - if the members decide that a ballot for action is required then they (BEC/whoever) can either follow the wishes of the members or get the h**l out and let someone else in who is prepared to properly represent us. Ignoring Democratically formulated Branch Policy is shocking - we may as well tear up the handbook, forget the Annual Delegate Conferences and not even bother having a Union. Shades of a certain Government - vote for us and we will do a/b/c etc but hey, we are now in power and we will do what we like.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
From: uk
I was 5 minutes late for the briefing,so I don't know who the people were.However you couldn't tell they were from a union.In fact they sounded more management than the management.
I left after an hour as I disliked the patronising attitude,and little micky mouse pie charts.
What puzzled me was that the figures they were producing didn't make any sense.It just looked to me that someone has done a ''Maxwell'' to come away with what they were saying.Or fiddled statistics to get pension reform through.Something very fishy going on.
I left after an hour as I disliked the patronising attitude,and little micky mouse pie charts.
What puzzled me was that the figures they were producing didn't make any sense.It just looked to me that someone has done a ''Maxwell'' to come away with what they were saying.Or fiddled statistics to get pension reform through.Something very fishy going on.
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
From: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Whilst looking for the story that was pulled from The Times website the other day, I came across this
Nats paid bonuses despite loss - Times Online
Nice to know that the pension payment holiday was used to good effect. Yes it may only be £140k but it's the general principle.
Nats paid bonuses despite loss - Times Online
Nice to know that the pension payment holiday was used to good effect. Yes it may only be £140k but it's the general principle.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 836
Likes: 2
From: Costa del Swanwick
Defined Benefit Scheme
Those paying in now are not paying fopr those on pensions.
In very simple terms, when you nare working, the investments in the scheme are in more 'volatile' investments, such as equities and propoerty, as these tend to produce larger returns. These larger returns are needed as your salary will likely increase by negoitiated pay rises (possibly above rpi) and any restructuring/regarding deals, which may also increase your salary. WHen you are retired, the investments tend to be in 'safe' investments, such as bonds. These produce low returns, but since your pension in retirement can only increase by rpi, these lower returns are enough to fund your pension.
We have few pensioners and many active employees, therefore about 75% of the scheme investments are in more volatile investments.
Trust Deed and Rules (No Decrement)
This applies to all members of the scheme, irrespective of when they joined NATS.
This is conatined in the Scheme Trust Deed and Tules, available to any member. The no decrement ensures that any benefits you have accrued and the way in which they are accrued cannot be worsened. Simply put it means all the pension you have built up is safe, you will continue to accrue more benefit at a rate of 1/58th per year, and your pension will continue to be based on 2/3 final pensionable salary (and yes, it does say 2/3 final pensionable salary). It does not say that you are entitled to, or will recieve, a pay rise each year, nor that any pay rise must all be pensionable.
Trust of a Promise
This only applies only to members of the scheme prior to PPP (27th July 2001).
This says that if NATS, or any part of it is sold, then the new employer is obliged to join CAAPS and continue to provide the same pension to employees covered by the trust of a promise. If they do not join CAAPS, they must show that the pension scheme they have is at least as good as that in CAAPS. However, there is a get out clause that talks about best endeavours when it is not reasonable for a company to provide such a pension, in which case, best endeavours only are required.
Cost Pass Through
This only applies to NATS employees in NERL who were members of the pension scheme in Jan 2006.
In CP2, NATS was required to submit what it charges would be. Within this was the cost of the pensions. The regulator then looks at the costs NATS quoted and basiclly makes a call as to if this is reasonable. The job of the regualtor is to mimic market conditions. He felt the costs eregarding the pension were acceptable and allowed NATS to charge up to 19.1% in their business plan from Jan 2008.
The cost pass through issue is seperate.
Cost Pass Through means that if the costs in NATS business plan are exceeded, then this additional cost can be passed on.
As the job of the regulator is to mimic market pressure, is it likely an actual pension cost of at least 42% will be allowed, let alone any cost pass through for CP3. In the market, companies have been made to deal with increasing pension costs by changing pension arrangements. It is likely this is what he expects of NATS.
Memorandum of Understanding
The 15 year period refers to the cap and the no pension holiday, as well as discussions with NATS about benefit sharing (as happens now).
The bit that matters most is the section in it which states that no incentivsing to move to the new scheme, nor any discrimination due to membership of either scheme, will become part of your employment contract (this is legally binding). These last to points will remain for the term of your emplyment and will not fall away after 15 years.
Shareholders
Shareholders are not required to bail out a company.
If you hold shares in M&S and it goes bust, you lose the value of your shares. Someone doesn't come knocking on your door saying you need to make up all their losses to keep it going! The same applies with the Govt, BAA, Airline Group and YOU being a shareholder.
Re-Nationalistaion
Worked well for Northern rock .. 1300 redundancies with 800 forced. There are more to come with 1/3 of the staff eventually being lost.
What pay rises do you think they will get?
The civil service is not the same as it was in 2000.
They now have 2 pension schemes and pay rises are subject to the public sector pay cap.
Would NSL be re-nationalised or just parts of NERL?
It may or may not be a better place than where we are now.
I don't want to tell anyone what why to vote, as that is what the ballot is for. All I would ask is that you understand what is being asked from you and what you may or may not be giving up.
To this end, go to the briefings, ask all the questions you can think off, including everything that is on this site, and don't stop asking until YOU understand. Everyone else will have a different agenda, you need to understand what is right for you and not what may or may not suit someone else's agenda.
jonny B good is offline Report Post Reply
Those paying in now are not paying fopr those on pensions.
In very simple terms, when you nare working, the investments in the scheme are in more 'volatile' investments, such as equities and propoerty, as these tend to produce larger returns. These larger returns are needed as your salary will likely increase by negoitiated pay rises (possibly above rpi) and any restructuring/regarding deals, which may also increase your salary. WHen you are retired, the investments tend to be in 'safe' investments, such as bonds. These produce low returns, but since your pension in retirement can only increase by rpi, these lower returns are enough to fund your pension.
We have few pensioners and many active employees, therefore about 75% of the scheme investments are in more volatile investments.
Trust Deed and Rules (No Decrement)
This applies to all members of the scheme, irrespective of when they joined NATS.
This is conatined in the Scheme Trust Deed and Tules, available to any member. The no decrement ensures that any benefits you have accrued and the way in which they are accrued cannot be worsened. Simply put it means all the pension you have built up is safe, you will continue to accrue more benefit at a rate of 1/58th per year, and your pension will continue to be based on 2/3 final pensionable salary (and yes, it does say 2/3 final pensionable salary). It does not say that you are entitled to, or will recieve, a pay rise each year, nor that any pay rise must all be pensionable.
Trust of a Promise
This only applies only to members of the scheme prior to PPP (27th July 2001).
This says that if NATS, or any part of it is sold, then the new employer is obliged to join CAAPS and continue to provide the same pension to employees covered by the trust of a promise. If they do not join CAAPS, they must show that the pension scheme they have is at least as good as that in CAAPS. However, there is a get out clause that talks about best endeavours when it is not reasonable for a company to provide such a pension, in which case, best endeavours only are required.
Cost Pass Through
This only applies to NATS employees in NERL who were members of the pension scheme in Jan 2006.
In CP2, NATS was required to submit what it charges would be. Within this was the cost of the pensions. The regulator then looks at the costs NATS quoted and basiclly makes a call as to if this is reasonable. The job of the regualtor is to mimic market conditions. He felt the costs eregarding the pension were acceptable and allowed NATS to charge up to 19.1% in their business plan from Jan 2008.
The cost pass through issue is seperate.
Cost Pass Through means that if the costs in NATS business plan are exceeded, then this additional cost can be passed on.
As the job of the regulator is to mimic market pressure, is it likely an actual pension cost of at least 42% will be allowed, let alone any cost pass through for CP3. In the market, companies have been made to deal with increasing pension costs by changing pension arrangements. It is likely this is what he expects of NATS.
Memorandum of Understanding
The 15 year period refers to the cap and the no pension holiday, as well as discussions with NATS about benefit sharing (as happens now).
The bit that matters most is the section in it which states that no incentivsing to move to the new scheme, nor any discrimination due to membership of either scheme, will become part of your employment contract (this is legally binding). These last to points will remain for the term of your emplyment and will not fall away after 15 years.
Shareholders
Shareholders are not required to bail out a company.
If you hold shares in M&S and it goes bust, you lose the value of your shares. Someone doesn't come knocking on your door saying you need to make up all their losses to keep it going! The same applies with the Govt, BAA, Airline Group and YOU being a shareholder.
Re-Nationalistaion
Worked well for Northern rock .. 1300 redundancies with 800 forced. There are more to come with 1/3 of the staff eventually being lost.
What pay rises do you think they will get?
The civil service is not the same as it was in 2000.
They now have 2 pension schemes and pay rises are subject to the public sector pay cap.
Would NSL be re-nationalised or just parts of NERL?
It may or may not be a better place than where we are now.
I don't want to tell anyone what why to vote, as that is what the ballot is for. All I would ask is that you understand what is being asked from you and what you may or may not be giving up.
To this end, go to the briefings, ask all the questions you can think off, including everything that is on this site, and don't stop asking until YOU understand. Everyone else will have a different agenda, you need to understand what is right for you and not what may or may not suit someone else's agenda.
jonny B good is offline Report Post Reply
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
From: Box Hill or Bust
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 836
Likes: 2
From: Costa del Swanwick
Is worth a listen to as well. The Today programme earlier.
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
From: .
with Deloitte on 'Pension Endgame Strategies' too:Deloitte UK, News release, Deloitte report: wake up call for companies as UK employee pension schemes face the end game - Deloitte & Touche LLP
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
From: Southampton UK
In the Today programme Ros Altmann, the former government pensions advisor says 'the only pensions that are completely immune are the public sector employees...they are bombproof, crashproof, credit crisis proof, nothing that happens in the market has affected them at all.'
The CAA i believe are public sector employees, we are in the same pension as they are, we are majority owned by the government (not as NATS like to tell everyone fully privatised). So why is their pension in such great shape whilst ours is in the s**t. Especially when we share the same trustees two of whom happen to be the NERL Finance Director and the NERL HR Director. Are they gambling with our pot whilst playing it safe with CAA money?
Or is it all to do with the fact that they aren't preparing the CAA for a big sell off?
Make your own minds up how to vote, but remember, never accept the first offer. They are using some classic negotiation techniques insisting there will be no second offer, fragmenting the proposal into many issues that dont let you concentrate on the whole picture and trying to overwhelm us all with misleading facts and figures.
Cover your noses guys, something stinks.
The CAA i believe are public sector employees, we are in the same pension as they are, we are majority owned by the government (not as NATS like to tell everyone fully privatised). So why is their pension in such great shape whilst ours is in the s**t. Especially when we share the same trustees two of whom happen to be the NERL Finance Director and the NERL HR Director. Are they gambling with our pot whilst playing it safe with CAA money?
Or is it all to do with the fact that they aren't preparing the CAA for a big sell off?
Make your own minds up how to vote, but remember, never accept the first offer. They are using some classic negotiation techniques insisting there will be no second offer, fragmenting the proposal into many issues that dont let you concentrate on the whole picture and trying to overwhelm us all with misleading facts and figures.
Cover your noses guys, something stinks.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 836
Likes: 2
From: Costa del Swanwick
The CAA i believe are public sector employees, we are in the same pension as they are, we are majority owned by the government (not as NATS like to tell everyone fully privatised). So why is their pension in such great shape whilst ours is in the s**t. Especially when we share the same trustees two of whom happen to be the NERL Finance Director and the NERL HR Director. Are they gambling with our pot whilst playing it safe with CAA money?
The CAA took on all of the pensioners at that time and so the profile was significantly different hence the fact that they are in safer havens than the NATS part.
I'm not sure this is the time to start having a go at the trustees though. We haven't made a squeak about their investment strategy till the last few weeks whn the going has go tough.
The problem is not about what is happening in the markets now it is about mitigating the underlying 42%
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
From: Home
The CAA i believe are public sector employees, we are in the same pension as they are, we are majority owned by the government (not as NATS like to tell everyone fully privatised). So why is their pension in such great shape whilst ours is in the s**t. Especially when we share the same trustees two of whom happen to be the NERL Finance Director and the NERL HR Director. Are they gambling with our pot whilst playing it safe with CAA money?
CAA section has a very "mature" profile i.e. a large percentage of its members are already retired and so no further liabilities are accrued from their earnings. Their investment strategy is very low risk/low return and so stable
NATS section is much less mature, with the great majority of its members still in employment and so still adding to the future liabilities. The investment strategy is higher risk.higher return than the CAA section - and so harder hit by economic recession.
I'm not supporting their proposal... Just think it's important that any opposition to it is an informed opposition.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 531
Likes: 38
From: Southern England
CAA staff are not public sector employees in the normal sense of the word. Since it was formed it has been a Government agency and its employees are not civil servants although for some time those who transferred from the Board of Trade were entitled to some of the terms and conditions of civil servants when they were preferable to the CAA ones. They belong to an employee/employer funded pension scheme and are not part of the public sector scheme. Their part of the scheme is no more bullet proof than ours. Eventually their part of the scheme will have the same problem of people living longer than their current contributions can support although for the reasons given by Me Me Me and 250 Kts they won't get there as quickly as the NATS part.
Public sector pensions are funded by current taxpayers not by pension pots so whilst there are enough people paying taxes they aren't subject to the same market conditions. Eventually though the number of pensioners will outweigh the funding available from current taxpayers and at that point they won't be quite so bullet proof.
Public sector pensions are funded by current taxpayers not by pension pots so whilst there are enough people paying taxes they aren't subject to the same market conditions. Eventually though the number of pensioners will outweigh the funding available from current taxpayers and at that point they won't be quite so bullet proof.
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
From: Costa Packet
Found this little gem NATS
The government retains a limited number of rights to protect its investment in NATS, including:
The government retains a limited number of rights to protect its investment in NATS, including:
- appointment of three non-executive (or partnership) directors
- veto over the Airline Group's nomination for the chair
- reserved rights relating to material changes in the business activity, capital structure and ownership
- a Special Share to give voting control in relation to certain matters.
Last edited by Air.Farce.1; 18th October 2008 at 15:24.
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
From: UK
I found this little Gem from just over a year ago Nats ready to go private after profits leap
My money's on a senior managers buyout of NSL
Why weren't we privvy to the Deloitte report? That's where most of the suspicion originates.
My money's on a senior managers buyout of NSL
Why weren't we privvy to the Deloitte report? That's where most of the suspicion originates.
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
From: Costa Packet
Nice find Steep Approach..........
Nats ready to go private after profits leap.
As I said before, if we vote Yes , we are Turkeys voting for XMAS. These briefings are there to win you over and suck you in
NATS have to get this pension deal through to sell us on, and dont rule out
SERCO waiting in the wings...
Remember this
Air traffic staff threaten Serco strike | Business | The Guardian
Vote NO
Nats ready to go private after profits leap.
As I said before, if we vote Yes , we are Turkeys voting for XMAS. These briefings are there to win you over and suck you in
NATS have to get this pension deal through to sell us on, and dont rule out
SERCO waiting in the wings... Remember this
Air traffic staff threaten Serco strike | Business | The Guardian
Vote NO
Last edited by Air.Farce.1; 18th October 2008 at 18:01.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
From: uk
Deloitte,
Ah yes,didn't they manage to lose the pension details of 150,000 rail workers,when a lap top went missing.It also contained detail of other un-named pension funds.Just the rock of a company you want to tell us all about our pension fund.
Were any of NATS employees on that computer?Maybe we'll never know.
Ah yes,didn't they manage to lose the pension details of 150,000 rail workers,when a lap top went missing.It also contained detail of other un-named pension funds.Just the rock of a company you want to tell us all about our pension fund.
Were any of NATS employees on that computer?Maybe we'll never know.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 531
Likes: 38
From: Southern England
I shouldn't put too much hope in the special or golden share. It was put in place to keep the labour rebels quiet at the time of PPP but the legality of it was dubious at the time and since then the European Courts have made the Government tear up the similar BAA share.
Having argued that the share was required for security reasons the Government is pretty unlikely to attempt to use it for anything without a very direct security implication.
Having argued that the share was required for security reasons the Government is pretty unlikely to attempt to use it for anything without a very direct security implication.
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
From: Lymington
day one of the cycle and the fun starts already
anyone read natsnet today? interesting read.
mr barrons bonus is not in any way linked to the pension deal going through. it is only linked to service provision and the future health of the company.I believe that if this proposal is rejected by the union ballot, there will be a quick renegotiation removing the cap but keeping the new dc pension.
We will think we have won. But this is in my opinion the worst part.
The cap is not as bad as i first thought and is better than having a two tier workforce.
anyone read natsnet today? interesting read.
mr barrons bonus is not in any way linked to the pension deal going through. it is only linked to service provision and the future health of the company.I believe that if this proposal is rejected by the union ballot, there will be a quick renegotiation removing the cap but keeping the new dc pension.
We will think we have won. But this is in my opinion the worst part.
The cap is not as bad as i first thought and is better than having a two tier workforce.
