anotherthing

eglnytMethinks you are looking at this the wrong way. The way you are speakng, one would think that we have no pension at the moment and that this ofer was a proposal for a scheme to be introduced. If that was the case, then your statement would have some credence. However, the way I am looking at it is they are taking a pension that is perfectly viable, and trying to reduce our benefits.


Completely wrong; it has nothing to do with immediate fixes and all to do with the future.

The cap only comes into force in future pay rises, and only if those pay rises are greater than RPI+0.5%. Putting a cap in place, if it never gets used because pay rises do not go above RPI+0.5% is merely a paper exercise and makes the pension look affordable on paper. i.e. it makes NATS more attractive to potential buyers of NSL.

It makes NATS look healthier on paper in the future but does not actually achieve anything if in reality we get low pay awards.

NATS is financially healthy, so I do not even know why you mentioned that... our management are the ones who keep banging on about our A* banking rating etc.

Putting this cap on does not mean that NATS wil immediately start saving money. This cap will only save NATS money if any pay rises are greater than RPI+0.5%.

The 'Yes' voters tell us on the one hand that the cap is no big issue because pay rises greater than RPI+0.5% will be hard to come by in future years (which means no actual real savings for NATS), yet on the other hand they say things like
so which is it guys???

ImnotanERIC

I didn't mean for my last post to seem "ball-less". I am still certain of which way I am voting but having heard that the ballot is all but irrelevant as the proposals are coming in anyway i am becoming disilussioned with the process.
vote yes and it happens. vote no and it happens. why have a vote?

eglnyt

You either haven't been to a briefing or you weren't listening. The cap has an immediate effect because it allows the actuary to make different assumptions. Those different assumptions have a very big difference on the predicted liability which in turn reduces by some margin the underlying contribution rate. That was explained at our briefing very carefully by the actuary and given that there was an individual slide for it I can't believe it wasn't explained at all the briefings.

BDiONU

On paper maybe but I think you'll find out just how financially tight things are over the next few months as the hatches are battened down and projects get cancelled or shelved TBN.

BD

eglnyt

The proposal is not an alternative to our current pension it is an alternative to an unpredictable future which might include the loss of our pension. Are you willing to take that risk ?

Del Prado

There's no guarantee with the new proposal and imho there are even bigger risks to the company and our pension. Another major terrorist outrage causing a huge drop in transatlantic traffic, mismanagement of large scale projects costing hundreds of millions of pounds in penalties and most likely, the complete sell off of NATS.

Hardly an alternative to a risky future.

Vote NO

I really dont think the present management team are looking beyond the date by which we will be owned by someone else, probably 2010. NATS is being fattened up and getting ready for market to the highest bidder.
A fifteen year pension capped deal is therefor essential,a bit like safety belts on a car, maybe even an A.M. DB9.

If you want to be owned by SERCO or whoever then vote yes, although you won't know what's hit you . Projects and those involved with them (I know they are essential to NATS ) should be even more worried, as they are not top of SERCO's priority list which is "pushing tin" Their ethos as far as Air Traffic Control always was and still is, if you work for us your job title must have the words "Air" and "Traffic" in it , and you should be pushing tin

Otherwise Vote NO

expediteoff

VOTE NO has hit the nail on the head.

We are being set up for a sell off down the line.

A "Yes" vote sorts the company out for a sell off. The new owners will not be interested in anything other than "minimum " numbers of support staff

If you work in the CTC or if your job does not involve separating aircraft you have no alternative other than to vote "No".

If you vote "Yes", worries about your pension will be irrelevant - you won't have a job!

Vote NO

Thats my point, think about our jobs, all of us, better to Vote No and stick with our present bumbling leaders who then can't sell us off and wont be able to fatten their wallets

ProM

Not sure about SERCO, they might find you a bit much to swallow for the next year or two given the credit crunch. I could see a few other bigger players being tempted though

anotherthing

eglnyt

I know exactly what the cap does which is why, in my post, I stated all it does is make NATS look healthy on paper, (based on assumptions).

So more conjecture thrown into the pot, I really don't understand how assumptions can be deemed to make the future rosy.

NATS only stands to gain real hard cash with the cap if a future pay rise is above RPI+0.5%.

What the cap does, is makes the pension burden more palatable for potential buyers.

If the future is not rosy, what chance have we got of a pay rise greater than RPI+0.5% anyways?? This cap is all about assumption, it is not the same as cold hard cash.

The pension fund is in trouble for many reasons, one of those is the fact that management failed to look ahead and plan effectively for the position we are in now... they merrily took pension holidays and paid reduced rates, effectively cutting the surplus (which was totally legal), however they now want us to believe that they will manage the fund better in the future? They were working on short term solutions, as usual with NATS.

I wonder why people are so cynical?!!!

Which is exactly the process the company allegedley followed when it decided to take contribution breaks and pay less than the full contribution in other years... look where it has got us now!!! (I'm not suggesting the contribution breaks and reduced levels are the only reason for our current situation, but they have had a big effect, causing us to require more drastic action)

As for setting up the company for a break up and sale of NSL - it's obviously up to individuals to believe what they wish, however is it prudent for a company (NATS) to hold onto part of it's business (which is has already split off to be a subsiduary in its own right i.e. NSL) that is making a loss?

Guys at CTC, do you really think you will all be safe if NSL was sold? Do you really think CTC would require all the staff it has, just to support NERL, DAT&S and external contracts (MOD stuff etc)?

There is potentially a lot more at stake here than just the headlines we are being given.

I repeat, all the cap does is allow NATS to make assumptions. assumptions based on conjecture - unless they (the actuaries) have already decided that the RPI we use will be 1% or something.

We are being asked to vote for this cap, do people realise the RPI used for this purpose will be set by the actuaries, and is not the governement RPI?

Do you think the actuaries are going to set a decent RPI of 4% or 5% or more?? We're being asked to vote this in and are not being given the full facts i.e. what RPI is likely to be used.

Management must have a figure in mind if they can be so bullish and say that this pension cap will definitely help NATS financially.

Stupendous Man

And who is to say that any future pay rises wiil be based on RPI + X%?

What if NATS offered a pay deal of 5% for 3-5 years? (just as an example)I think people would vote that in.
But then if RPI is down at 2.5% or even 1.5% then, ok we've got above inflation pay, but your pension is losing out on 2 - 3% each year.
And if RPI is above that then we get a below inflation pay rise

NATS aren't daft.

They could afford to give us a bigger pay rise in years to come if only a small amount is pensionable.

Stupendous Man

Arrived today from my MP - Sandra Osborne...

Dear Stupendous Man ()

Please find attached a copy of a reply I have received from Jim Fitzpatrick, Transport Minister regarding NATS Pension Scheme.

......

As far as I'm aware, the scheme can be changed, however I am not happy with the Government's reply and intend to raise this matter with the company. There is also a briefing in Parliament shortly which I intent to attend.

I will let you know when I receive a reply from NATS

Yors sincerely

Sandra Osborne MP


So...
We'll see what comes from the company and parliament briefing.


The Jim Fitzpatrick reply is pretty much a cut and paste of his reply to Cuddles here and ImnotanERIC here


Dear Sandra
Thank you for your letter dated 21 October enclosing correspondence from your constituent regarding the NATS pension scheme.

The proposal jointly developed by NATS and the NATS Trade Union Side (NTUS) forthe reform of the NATS pension scheme is a matter for the company.

I can advise you that the company, and the NTUS have parallel consultation processes in place with employees and members respectively, which have just started this week. Your constituent should ensure they take full advantage afforded by the consultations, to seek clarification, raise questions, and make their views known both to NATand their TU representative.

Should you have further questions about the consultation process, may I suggest you write to NATS at 4000 parkway, Whiteley, Fareham PO147FL either to ******* ********* - ****** who is General Counsel & Company Secretary or **** ******* who is Head of External Communications.

anotherthing

Just to follow up from Stupendous Mans' post...

If the pension does get capped at RPI+0.5%, we are possibly more likely to get slightly better pay deals in the future than if there is no cap.

If there is no cap in place the company will fight tooth and nail to keep pay rises low, to reduce the pension contributions.

What people need to weigh up is whether or not an extra half a percent here and there as a non pensionable pay rise is worth the overall reduction in pension benefit when you retire...

eglnyt

Sorry to labour the point but I really don't think you understand what the cap does. The actuaries use an assumption on future pay rises, they have to do that because the estimation of future liability depends upon your final pensionable pay. That assumption has to be pessimistic so they use RPI + 1.5%. They also make an assumption on long term RPI which is based on Government figures for previous periods, again it is pessimistic (the figure was given at our meeting and is on the slide shown at the briefings but I didn't write it down so I won't quote it here). If NATS can guarantee that pensionable pay will rise by only RPI + 0.5 % the actuary can use that figure instead and the estimation of liability comes down significantly. If that falls the amount the trustees require NATS to fund, the now famous underlying rate, also comes down by quite a lot. In the absence of any surplus the amount the trustees will require NATS to pay is the underlying rate so if it is reduced by the cap there is an immediate effect on the pension contributions. As pension contributions are effectively paid from cash not paying those contributions is equivalent to a hard cash input.

Radarspod

spot on explanation of what the cap is for - I preferred the actuary's explanation from the briefing, but then that was because she was dead cute!

jonny B good

privatesandwiches

The nurses pay rise of 8% over 3 yrs you quoted is actually a pay rise of 2.75% in year 1 (the highest public sector pay rise during the current pay round), 2.4% in year 2 and 2,25% in year 3. These rises are not RPI plus the fiqures shown but just the figures shown.

hold at SATAN

The triennial valuation of 2003 stated that the underlying costs were 26.8%, yet NATS chose to ignore that laibility and pay in much less. This mismanagement has caused our future expected underlying costs to be so high. The 2006 valuation stated that when NATS increase contribution to 20% in 2008, the surplus in the fund would be exhausted in around 6yrs. Thus from 2008, the contributions (average 20%) NATS make will be below what the fund needs. The much lower amounts and holidays in the years leading up to 2008, have cause as massive increase i the underlying rate

Furthermore, the method of projecting theses costs used by the Acutaries is the Projected Unit Method (see pensions valuations). This method requires that new entrants continue to join the scheme in order to replace those that retire so that the contribution rate calculated can remain stable. If there are no new members , the average age will increase and the contrinution rates can be expected to rise

This suggests to me that we are being set up for failure as NATS will come to use in 15 years time saying that the underlying rate is 60% and we have no option but to close the scheme or become bankrupted.

I would suggest that those who have access to the CAAPS website (all members should) www.caaps.co.uk print a few copies of the last trienial report and share it amongst your colleagues.

I for one believe that we are being sold a pup and will VOTE NO for what it's worth. Even if they put through the changes, I am fed up that NATS sticks it's nose in the trough during the good times and is not willing to put back in during the "tough" times.

barstewards

Hold at Satan said:
If this is true then are NATS management or the trustees not guilty of mismanaging our pension fund? - we need to find out more about this together with the legal obligations these people have.
Are management legally bound to follow the actuaries report/recommendations?

If they have not followed what the reports said then it is up to them to put things right - they can kiss my before I accept any changes to OUR pension

landedoutagain

Unfortunately, I think NATS are entirely within their rights to pay whatever they like if the fund is in surplus - they are only obliged to pay the underlying rate when its in deficit as determined by the actuaries.

The sticking point for me is that there is no increased protection for post PPP members to a sell-off or contract loss, so new owners can freely move those employees affected to a new scheme. Were this protection in place i think it might make a difference to how some people vote.