NATS Pensions (Split from Pay 2009 thread)
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PB has invited you to phone him and talk to him. Are you going to take him up on the offer? Its all very well to bluster and bombast on faceless inter and intranet forums but are you going to do it face to face? You can talk the talk but can you walk the walk or are you going to continue to skulk on the Wide World Interbweb Net Thingie?BD
Last edited by BDiONU; 23rd Oct 2008 at 17:05. Reason: Forename deleted
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I actually don't think that anything said was out of order. These 'rumours' of Aston Martin etc have been flying round for ages, I'd say that they did Mr Baronn a favour by bringing it to his attention so he could refute the allegation.
He has a very valid point though when he takes issue with Mr Baroon re the fact that Mr Barrron states his bonus depends more on the well being of the company - if he can srcap our pension for a cheaper alternative, then the company will, financially, be even better off and this will, therefore, look better when it comes to handing out the bonus.
To say the two are not linked is complete fabrication.
Mr barron has a history of closing pension schemes (whilst getting a hand out to cover his own pension), and of cutting up companies into saleable pieces (Alstom anyone??).
Is it just me being paranoid, or does anyone else find it suspicious that this man - a good friend of Tony Blair by the way - was given the top job at NATS at the same point in time as Labour (Our skies are not for sale), sold us and saddled us with debt?
NSL is being set up as a seperate entity - anyone denying that is blind. The reasons for this could be numerous, however the coincidences regarding Barrons' track history, his friendship with Labour top dogs, and the obvious benefit (in a purely cynical, financial sense) of selling of a large part (or all) of NSL is just to much for my little brain. Our skies are not for sale can so easily be changed to our airports are not for sale - just change the puppet master; Barron, not Blair and the year ;2008, not 2000.
Any erosion of trust and goodwill is entirely down to what has gone before with a history littered with broken promises
He has a very valid point though when he takes issue with Mr Baroon re the fact that Mr Barrron states his bonus depends more on the well being of the company - if he can srcap our pension for a cheaper alternative, then the company will, financially, be even better off and this will, therefore, look better when it comes to handing out the bonus.
To say the two are not linked is complete fabrication.
Mr barron has a history of closing pension schemes (whilst getting a hand out to cover his own pension), and of cutting up companies into saleable pieces (Alstom anyone??).
Is it just me being paranoid, or does anyone else find it suspicious that this man - a good friend of Tony Blair by the way - was given the top job at NATS at the same point in time as Labour (Our skies are not for sale), sold us and saddled us with debt?
NSL is being set up as a seperate entity - anyone denying that is blind. The reasons for this could be numerous, however the coincidences regarding Barrons' track history, his friendship with Labour top dogs, and the obvious benefit (in a purely cynical, financial sense) of selling of a large part (or all) of NSL is just to much for my little brain. Our skies are not for sale can so easily be changed to our airports are not for sale - just change the puppet master; Barron, not Blair and the year ;2008, not 2000.
Any erosion of trust and goodwill is entirely down to what has gone before with a history littered with broken promises
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, need to set something straight.
Anyone who is in CAAPS now CANNOT be forced out of the scheme. The Trust Deed and Rules gives every member this protection whilst you are an employee of NATS. If you don't believe NATS or NTUS, get in touch with CAAPS and ask for a copy of the Trust Deed and Rules and ask what it means.
The bit about being an employee prior to PPP (July 2001), means that if NATS, or any part of it, is sold, then you retain the right to remain in CAAPS, or a scheme at least as good. This cost has to be paid for by the new employer and the sale cannot be agreed unless the new employer agrees to join CAAPS or provide an equally good scheme. If you joined the company afer that date, you do not have the same protection.
Misunderstandings like this is why it is important to attend the briefings and to ask questions there. If you still vote NO, then at least it will be from an informed position, rather than voting on hearsay, mis-information and rumours.
Anyone who is in CAAPS now CANNOT be forced out of the scheme. The Trust Deed and Rules gives every member this protection whilst you are an employee of NATS. If you don't believe NATS or NTUS, get in touch with CAAPS and ask for a copy of the Trust Deed and Rules and ask what it means.
The bit about being an employee prior to PPP (July 2001), means that if NATS, or any part of it, is sold, then you retain the right to remain in CAAPS, or a scheme at least as good. This cost has to be paid for by the new employer and the sale cannot be agreed unless the new employer agrees to join CAAPS or provide an equally good scheme. If you joined the company afer that date, you do not have the same protection.
Misunderstandings like this is why it is important to attend the briefings and to ask questions there. If you still vote NO, then at least it will be from an informed position, rather than voting on hearsay, mis-information and rumours.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BDionu
For a bloke or woman who likes to provoke and wind people up from the comfort of your leather clad chair most likely made from operational staffs hides, you really have hit an all time low.
For sandwiches (with an H) to come on hear, face down the wrong end of the gun barrel to clear a few things up is pretty admirable, as people like YOU seem to enjoy stating false facts such as apparent meetings that have already happened that in reality have not, is hardly any cause for blatant attack and naming real names is it? it clearly shows guts, and an understanding of the bigger picture as its OUR future that is on the cards here and if it takes a few to step forward and hopefully show barron the real issues i think is pretty necessary.
I can only imagine that when the atco in question is next in work he will receive any email from barron and respond appropriately, he has already mentioned on here the need for barron to show his mug and answer some of our questions. if it takes a phone call from him to get barron to any of our units im pretty damn sure i can bet my pension that he will, and for the only reason that it will benefit ALL staff rather than a one on one pointless exercise where im sure barron will excel against him as he is well practiced at meetings and getting his way.....
so BDionu, what is your real name and position you chicken s
t.
and no, i wont be surprised if you tell me your name is Mr P Barron, CEO.
and radar, i apologise if this one is close to the line on personal attacks, but naming someone on here is not fair game.
For a bloke or woman who likes to provoke and wind people up from the comfort of your leather clad chair most likely made from operational staffs hides, you really have hit an all time low.
For sandwiches (with an H) to come on hear, face down the wrong end of the gun barrel to clear a few things up is pretty admirable, as people like YOU seem to enjoy stating false facts such as apparent meetings that have already happened that in reality have not, is hardly any cause for blatant attack and naming real names is it? it clearly shows guts, and an understanding of the bigger picture as its OUR future that is on the cards here and if it takes a few to step forward and hopefully show barron the real issues i think is pretty necessary.
I can only imagine that when the atco in question is next in work he will receive any email from barron and respond appropriately, he has already mentioned on here the need for barron to show his mug and answer some of our questions. if it takes a phone call from him to get barron to any of our units im pretty damn sure i can bet my pension that he will, and for the only reason that it will benefit ALL staff rather than a one on one pointless exercise where im sure barron will excel against him as he is well practiced at meetings and getting his way.....
so BDionu, what is your real name and position you chicken s
t.and no, i wont be surprised if you tell me your name is Mr P Barron, CEO.
and radar, i apologise if this one is close to the line on personal attacks, but naming someone on here is not fair game.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wow! Thats certainly provoked a 'mad dog' response. My name is hardly a secret, my picture is on the picture thread. I'm an ATSA grade as I've previously mentioned, although by profession I'm an ATCO. I am very sorry for not kow towing down and tugging my forelock to the ATCO's on here and daring to speak my mind, how very dare I!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South of UK
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, now, everyone - let's not let this descend to the levels of the Natsnet comments pages - we have standards on PPRUNE 
Last edited by Radarspod; 23rd Oct 2008 at 17:08. Reason: can't spell!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current downturn in traffic is nothing to do with the credit crunch.
It's folk reading stuff from the so called air traffic professionals on here and thinking there's no way they're going to go flying with this lot "in control".
I wouldn't blame them, I've seen more mature five year olds.
It's folk reading stuff from the so called air traffic professionals on here and thinking there's no way they're going to go flying with this lot "in control".
I wouldn't blame them, I've seen more mature five year olds.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yahoo and ViaEGLL - why should I? He came on here with the probationary pprune name of privatesandwiches.
The Intranet thread is still up and running, and the name is readily available on it.
Nothing has been disclosed that is not readily available in the public domain.
The NATS intranet does not afford annonymity - whereas PPRuNE does, I'm sure he is clever enough that he has used the 'privatesandwiches' moniker as a one off on here because he knew what what he wrote on his opening post on this thread would give away his true identity, thus negating the annonymiry that PPRuNE offers users.
Tell you what, I'll ask him when we are next sat beside each other on console... if he's offended then i will do as you ask. As PPRuNE is an anonymous forum, I don't know who either of you are... however if you worked with the chap, wehich i doubt, you would know he wouldn't give a stuff... maybe you shouldn't!
The Intranet thread is still up and running, and the name is readily available on it.
Nothing has been disclosed that is not readily available in the public domain.
The NATS intranet does not afford annonymity - whereas PPRuNE does, I'm sure he is clever enough that he has used the 'privatesandwiches' moniker as a one off on here because he knew what what he wrote on his opening post on this thread would give away his true identity, thus negating the annonymiry that PPRuNE offers users.
Tell you what, I'll ask him when we are next sat beside each other on console... if he's offended then i will do as you ask. As PPRuNE is an anonymous forum, I don't know who either of you are... however if you worked with the chap, wehich i doubt, you would know he wouldn't give a stuff... maybe you shouldn't!
Last edited by PPRuNe Towers; 24th Oct 2008 at 10:31. Reason: Name removed
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question re pensionable pay rises
I have yet to attend a briefing so have one question re RPI+0.5%. The question itself is quite possibly very stupid (just for a change).
What is the pensionable figure of RPI+0.5% based on?
The reason I am asking is, is it based on your current earnings at the time of us agreeing to this deal (that's if we do).
i.e. what happens if you are not at the top of the scale? Is RPI+0.5% based on the top of the scale for each banding or is it based on what we earn right this minute?
The obvious answer (and the one that we need it to be) is that it's based on the highest pay in your band, i.e. top of the scale, but the modeller on the intranet asks you for current pay, not projected and is therefore fatally flawed IMHO. If it's a wooly formula and is n ot tied down, could we see ourselves getting screwed over even more as with pay spine increases and annual pay awards, pay rises well above the underlying RPI.
What is the pensionable figure of RPI+0.5% based on?
The reason I am asking is, is it based on your current earnings at the time of us agreeing to this deal (that's if we do).
i.e. what happens if you are not at the top of the scale? Is RPI+0.5% based on the top of the scale for each banding or is it based on what we earn right this minute?
The obvious answer (and the one that we need it to be) is that it's based on the highest pay in your band, i.e. top of the scale, but the modeller on the intranet asks you for current pay, not projected and is therefore fatally flawed IMHO. If it's a wooly formula and is n ot tied down, could we see ourselves getting screwed over even more as with pay spine increases and annual pay awards, pay rises well above the underlying RPI.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Destination 22
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anotherthing.
The figure RPI + 0.5% is the one dreamed up by NATS to cap your pensionable pay - not any further pay rises. Its based on nothing - its just the number they want to use to reduce your final pension by.
So any negotiated pay rise - e.g RPI + 1.5% (the figure NATS and the acturies use to calculate the liability of the fund) - will only contribute to the pension fund to the tune of RPI + 0.5%
Any pay scale increase will count fully.
So when you use the modeller put in your current pay. Then you will see some boxes that allow you to add in projected pay increases due promotion or whatever over 10 year gaps. Add in to these boxes the difference between your current pay scale and what it will be in the next 10 / 20 years etc as per the pay scale you are on.
Now this is where it gets wooly. Put in the figure you think your pay will be negotiated to rise by between now and retiring.
Use + 1.5% first as this will produce the figures NATS use.
The calculator will now show a screen with your final salary at NRD and what your pensionable salary will be. In box a they will be the same and in box b they'll be different. It will also show your annual pension in both boxes based on those figures.
If you want to try +2.5% - thats what we've had on average for the last 10 years. People will try and tell you that we've nothing left to sell / WP to negotiate. But if you all really think nothing will change between now and your retirement that will affect WP then go ahead. I don't.
Now even more wooliness. The NATS modeller assumes a max pensionable salary of £117000 (or there abouts) and so any pay above that won't count to pension anyway. So for all you new(ish) guys out there with loads of time to run in the scheme (30+ years) it will show that actually the difference between the 2 is marginal and you'll think great - I'm not losing out.
WRONG!!!
Take the figures it gives you them in the CAAPS modeller on their website. It appears to make assumptions on the SLA increasing between now and being 60 and produces much different and scarier figures.
You can also use this to work out a difference in your tax free lump sum and reduced pension.
Worth doing.
I'm 35. Been in the scheme 15 years. If I retire at 60 and take my max lump sum I'll be £45k worse off lump sum wise with a £7k difference in my pension!!
Does that sound good???
Hope that clears it up. If not ask again - no such thing as a silly question where all this is concerned.
Also get everyone you know to try the figures for themselves.
The figure RPI + 0.5% is the one dreamed up by NATS to cap your pensionable pay - not any further pay rises. Its based on nothing - its just the number they want to use to reduce your final pension by.
So any negotiated pay rise - e.g RPI + 1.5% (the figure NATS and the acturies use to calculate the liability of the fund) - will only contribute to the pension fund to the tune of RPI + 0.5%
Any pay scale increase will count fully.
So when you use the modeller put in your current pay. Then you will see some boxes that allow you to add in projected pay increases due promotion or whatever over 10 year gaps. Add in to these boxes the difference between your current pay scale and what it will be in the next 10 / 20 years etc as per the pay scale you are on.
Now this is where it gets wooly. Put in the figure you think your pay will be negotiated to rise by between now and retiring.
Use + 1.5% first as this will produce the figures NATS use.
The calculator will now show a screen with your final salary at NRD and what your pensionable salary will be. In box a they will be the same and in box b they'll be different. It will also show your annual pension in both boxes based on those figures.
If you want to try +2.5% - thats what we've had on average for the last 10 years. People will try and tell you that we've nothing left to sell / WP to negotiate. But if you all really think nothing will change between now and your retirement that will affect WP then go ahead. I don't.
Now even more wooliness. The NATS modeller assumes a max pensionable salary of £117000 (or there abouts) and so any pay above that won't count to pension anyway. So for all you new(ish) guys out there with loads of time to run in the scheme (30+ years) it will show that actually the difference between the 2 is marginal and you'll think great - I'm not losing out.
WRONG!!!
Take the figures it gives you them in the CAAPS modeller on their website. It appears to make assumptions on the SLA increasing between now and being 60 and produces much different and scarier figures.
You can also use this to work out a difference in your tax free lump sum and reduced pension.
Worth doing.
I'm 35. Been in the scheme 15 years. If I retire at 60 and take my max lump sum I'll be £45k worse off lump sum wise with a £7k difference in my pension!!
Does that sound good???
Hope that clears it up. If not ask again - no such thing as a silly question where all this is concerned.
Also get everyone you know to try the figures for themselves.
Last edited by Stupendous Man; 24th Oct 2008 at 13:49. Reason: typo
Whenever we give them productivity increases in exchange for pay rises (I'm thinking changes in our T&Cs like changing to net hours, cutting our annual leave type stuff) doesn't the money go to extra spine points rather than a percentage increase?
What I mean is, if they cut our annual leave entitlement (for example) would the increase in salary fall within the RPI+0.5 cap or would extra spine points be created that wouldn't be subject to the cap?
I feel a serious attack on our T&Cs coming up and wonder how much this prepares the ground.
What I mean is, if they cut our annual leave entitlement (for example) would the increase in salary fall within the RPI+0.5 cap or would extra spine points be created that wouldn't be subject to the cap?
I feel a serious attack on our T&Cs coming up and wonder how much this prepares the ground.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stupendous Man
Thanks for taking the time out to do that - makes total sense if I had thought of it!! As long as the ay scale counts fully, though I have previously tried the calculator - didn't see the lump sum bit, but at age 38 with 18 years in the scheme (I bought in a few years with previous pension), I stand to lose £8k a year.
Will need to revisit the modeller to do it more accurately with your instructions.
Thanks again
Thanks for taking the time out to do that - makes total sense if I had thought of it!! As long as the ay scale counts fully, though I have previously tried the calculator - didn't see the lump sum bit, but at age 38 with 18 years in the scheme (I bought in a few years with previous pension), I stand to lose £8k a year.
Will need to revisit the modeller to do it more accurately with your instructions.
Thanks again
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prospect magazine 'Profile'
The magazine dropped through my door today and on page 6 there is an article regarding pensions for energy supply employees.
One of the quotes states
More can be read in the magazine and here:
Price Control Pension Principles
Does any of this sound familiar, or to close to our situation for comfort??
One of the quotes states
'Prospect responded with derision to suggestions (by the energy regulator) that statutory protections for pensions implemented when the utilities were privatised in the 1980s "might have to be bought out". This would affect 204,000 pensioners in the 22 final slary electricity supply pension schemes".
Price Control Pension Principles
Does any of this sound familiar, or to close to our situation for comfort??
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PPRuNe summary court has finished its session and the sentence of thread bans for a variety of periods of time have been handed down to posters who abuse others (provocation is no excuse) as well as those who insist on naming posters real names.
All rise .....
All rise .....
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prospect 'Profile' Magazine - Oct 2008
Anyone expecting to read something about our current situation in the latest issue of our union magazine, will be sorely disappointed.
Not a single word promoting the fantastic deal being proposed by our union negotiators.
Are we in the least bit surprised?
Other Prospect members be very afraid.
161R
Not a single word promoting the fantastic deal being proposed by our union negotiators.
Are we in the least bit surprised?
Other Prospect members be very afraid.
161R