Well I do think there is scope for some loopholes here... If you look back at that record of average 2.5%, how much of it was straight 'cost-of-living' and how much of it was reward for working practices and the like that were rolled up into the annual deal?

Perhaps in future, increases in direct relation to major changes in working and resultant cost savings, could be divorced from the cost-of-living rise - and so not applicable for the RPI + 0.5% cap.

They do seem unduly sensitive at CTC, I am sure they have absolutely nothing to worry about, and will still be viewed as "essential core staff" by any new owners as much as they are now by NATS, even in this present financial crisis.

Thats certainly the case in the department and across the division I work in. I'm sure it'll be rolled out across the remainder of the company soon.

Apart from the Long service award celebration last Saturday has anyone else heard of anything? I haven't, those days are long gone whilst we continue to have to charge RPI -x% by the regulator.

BD

BDiONU wrote

Can you reveal your source for that? From NATS annual report 2007/8 total revenue for the year was £742m which is just over £2m per day....... Have all the planes stopped flying? Not from where I see the industry! Yes there have been cutbacks in flights but to drop from £2m to £0.5m revenue per day? UK Airports/Skies must be rather like ghost-towns

DD

This may be true...then again it may not be. I could be £100k worse off (bloody hope not!) or no worse off at all. My reason for the NO vote is that there are way too many assumptions being taken into account and used as concrete facts in this proposal. Vote NO.

NATS' Income =£2,000,000 per day.
NATS handles, say, 7,500 planes per day.
= £267 per plane (average).
Losing £1,500,000 per day means 5618 planes per day have gone missing.
=Cobblers.

October flights decline by 5% - NATS

So a 5% drop in traffic equates to a loss in income of £1.5m a day?

So by your calculations nats turns over £30m a day.

Or around £1.1bn a year.



More fantasy figures from those supporting the yes vote.

So you'd be happy with everything bar cost of living rises being non-pensionable?

That means currently all work / changes done for WP etc would be a one off payment and not an actual pay increase.

Do you think those one off payments are going to be as good as an extra 1% on your pay for the next 20-30 years? Plus that one off payment won't benefit subjefrom furtherpay rises either.

So I for one would not want to see future pay deals to include one off payments - pensionable or not.

The impact of even 0.5% of a pay rise being non-pensionable will turn a 2/3 scheme in to more like a 1/2 final pensionable salary over the course of 38 and a bit years.

If you don't believe those figures then work it out for yourself and see how much money you'll be losing.

Of course, the 'yes' supporters will say the cap is only in for 15 years but is anybody really naive enough to believe it will ever go?

If the pension proposals had been to change from a 2/3 scheme down to a 1/2 pay or less you can be sure the reaction would have been completely different.

Not often I agree with you ZOOKER but on this occasion you're right. The number of stories that have appeared on NATSnet, coincidentally as the pension briefings are taking place, smacks of propaganda nonsense...they are trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Funnier still, the story that was pulled from The Times about how much debt NATS was in...they can't have it both ways. We're either healthy or we're not...at least be consistent.
Traffic inevitably quietens down in November when the winter schedules kick in, especially at places like Gatwick where there is a high proportion of charter traffic...it does not necessarily mean NATS is about to go under.

If we chop out the dead wood in the company (like the ATCOs for example as they're a complete waste of space and arrogant to boot) I think it would lighten the future pension liabilities. If I'm correct then this is the direction we should be taking to help our wonderful management. I'll put my job up for review and if I'm not pulling my weight for the company - I go. Everyone else to do the same -especially the high and mighty ops rooom personnel that expect the company to revolve around them. Air Traffic - get a grip you're so 20th century. We have to develop the brand and move it forward with a dynamic world-leading yet organic capability while, and most importantly, retaining our environmental credentials, we can't do that with shift-working Trotskies moaning about their pension can we?

Profit uber alles, vote yes!

Yes, he is joking

Just think though, with CTC as the nerve centre and all us nasty ATC types out the way.........

Caffé Latte anyone?

Bring it on

The major airports remain busy (I was at one today). The Centres remain busy - It's November, the traffic always drops off - (well has done for the last 20 years!)
Don't believe the figures, don't believe the hype.

CTC, your only chance of survival is -

VOTE NO!!

what a good idea. Everyone has a job until, say, march. in the meantime, we are all under review. prove your worth or get out and go to asdas. I'm up for that.

That could well be the case in NSL.Little rumour flying around that it will be sold about that time,and perhaps not even in one lump.
Good rumour or true.Only time will tell.

Methinks like so many, you're living in fantasy land. Still, if that's what you truly believe then why stay with NATS? Surely you could be more gainfully employed with another ATC company, for example IAA, DFS, Skyguide, SERCo, Eurocontrol or DFS all of whom are desperately seeking employable ATCOs....? After all, nobody's forcing you to draw your not insignifcant NATS salary, and maybe you'd feel happier, find greater fulfillment and personal achievement, be better appreciated and more loved if you worked elsewhere....

If NATS is restricted about where it spends its profits because of 'the regulator' then the regulator (ie the government) can 'ing well top up our pension.

After 27 years of night shifts for this company my sleep pattern is completely shot to pieces - I'm lucky to average 5 hours sleep a night during the rest of my shift days and days off, regularly waking during the night at 3am and unable to get back to sleep. My days off are now wasted recovering from my night shifts and my kids probably think I'm a miserable .

It's a well known fact nowadays that shift patterns/lack of sleep shortens ones lifespan - just hope I live long enough to spend the pension that I've worked my off for.

Sorry for the rant but 'ed off with this company/government.

CAP493,
You forgot about HIAL who have a final salary pension scheme.
Certainly in this part of NATS empire the pay is about the going rate for outside.We have had guys come in from other employers,and are surprised how busy it can get.Also the pension was a big factor in recruiting them.
I think some parts of the empire are in a fantasy bubble,but certainly not this outpost.
People retire,or lose medicals.They are beginning to vote with their feet as well,and this pension issue doesn't help.Replacements? There are very few,and the part valids are keeping the system running.Then they can't get training to become fully valid Tower/Radar,which is what we require to run the place.
You are most welcome ,if you're an ATCO,to come here and validate in ''fantasy land''.

NSL is already conveniently split into 3 nice little groups and I'm sure that NATS would love to get rid of 2 of those groups asap if this farcical deal goes through.