No, you've got it the wrong way round. If you divorced the two, only cost-of-living has a cap imposed at all. So any salary increase directly attributed to cost savings etc wouldn't have a cap in place. It's theoretical only, as management wouldn't allow such an easy circumvention.

I also never proposed one-off payments as being a good idea - its just the way I see things going. Put yourself in their shoes for a minute and see what makes business sense. Doesn't mean it's right... but it's the way things will go.

We still have "team building" trips to Prague and Brittany going on... and... and... oh where to start!

Interesting little missive from the CAAPS NATS Section Trustess was waiting for me at work last night. Amongst other things, Richard Mountjoy ( i think that's his name anyway...it was 3am when I read it!), the head of the Trustees, said that the Scheme did not require ANY PRESENT ACTION but would be reviewed again on December 31st 2008 . Totally at odds with what the Union have been saying.
Mr Barron has now also used Pulse to air his views on the subject of pensions...I have cancelled my subscription with immediate effect...

mr 777

Just to add to the figures being thrown about here, you've got to remember that the £10k the modeller says you'll be short is actually based on todays prices (thanks for FINALLY clearing that up Hold At SATAN!!!) so if, as predicted, come rough retirement time in 30 years our final salary is 4 times what it is today (i.e £250k-ish) the difference in pay is actually going to be 4 times greater (i.e £40k!!) and not just £10k!! Another excellent managment tool for trying to force through the deal...tell someone you're only going to be ten grand worse off is a lot more sellable (if that's even a word!!) than telling them they're going to be FORTY grand worse off!!

Took the time to go to my second briefing yesterday (on my well-earned day off as well...aren't I the dedicated one!!) and again asked my questions and I still don't buy it. One question I asked management was why, even though it became apparent to them 2 years ago that there was a problem with the scheme (so much so that they sought negotiations with the union to change it) did they not feel it prudent to start paying the correct underlying rate, regardless of what the trustees said they could or couldn't do in terms of paying less. I think I'm still waiting for an answer!! Even a simple "we ed up and should have" would at least have calmed me down, but not even an acknowledgement of the error was made!! So i'm sorry, until the company can clean up their own back yard (in terms of not paying enough into the pension in the first place, wasting money on needless things like overnight stays and hotel bookings for conference rooms instead of using the perfectly suitable ones at the units etc etc) they can't expect to start messing with mine!!!

Still a NO!!

FB

VOTE NO.....

eglnyt

I have followed your posts with much interest as you seem extraordinarily well informed but I have to say I will be voting NO.

Leaving aside all the arguments from either side it all boils down to one simple question… Do I trust NATS management? The answer to that is a resounding NO.

Why do I not trust NATS management? The BONUS CULTURE.

Just look at what the BONUS CULTURE has done to the Banking Industry. There’s hardly a bank in the US or UK with a pot to piss in. Their managements were far too busy lining their own pockets to ever worry about the underlying problem of bad debt.

Do you really think Cost Pass Through would be a problem if Senior NATS managers were offered a £500,000 BONUS to convince the CAA to allow it?

When NATS gets rid of its BONUS CULTURE then I can start trusting the Management again.

had the pensions roadshow today.

the presentation from mercia and the nsl guys was polished with wonderful graphs and powerpoint slides, all very convincing 'bout the state of poor old nats, and that they had to make a profit accompanied by a weasel speak explaination as to why.

and yes bonuses are paid, but only minimal in regards to the figures bandied about!!

the whole thing had a timeshare sales feel about it, yes of course i'll screw my own retirement to help a company thats in so much trouble its paying its fat cats healthy bonuses

LIKE FCUK I WILL

VOTE NO

I don't think it would make any difference. Regulators always make decisions following the guidelines in the legislation that created them. Not to do so would just see their decisions overturned at the next stage. Where they do have some discretion their decisions can appear illogical but they tend to plough their own furrow entirely unswayed by lobbying. Rather like Senior Civil Servants and high ranking Academics they cherish their independence which is unsurprising really because most were civil servants or academics.

The idea that senior managers in any regulated industry could influence the regulator more if they are sufficiently incentivised isn't supported by history. I'm pretty sure that BT managers had every reason to resist the removal of their monopoly on the "local loop" but they didn't manage to. BAA management had a lot of incentive to try to prevent the forced sale of any of their airports but they don't seem to be preventing that at present.

I don't think we have anything like the bonus culture that the banks had. That culture was rewarding risk taking rather than performance. Like most in NATS I'm intrigued as to what wonderful thing the Chief Executive did to deserve such a large performance related element but I don't see any evidence that it has encouraged an irresponsible attitude to risk. If anything the opposite is true. As we enter the downturn that some seem desperate to deny it will be interesting to see what happens to those bonus payments when NATS makes little or no profit.

The Government did promise no fat cats when it part privatised NATS and you might struggle with that when almost immediately after PPP the renumeration committee decided that the senior executives were paid too little but that promise did mean that there are no share options in the executive package. That is significant because it is that sort of reward that normally drives the worst management behaviour and without share options it is far harder for the management team to benefit from the sale of the company.

The collapse of sterling has certainly made our en-route charges far more competitive:

Feb 2007

UK 82.79
Spain 76.64
Bel 70.95
Swi 70.39
Ita 67.66
Ger 67.37
Fra 60.79


Nov 2008

Spain 79.61
Swi 74.94
Bel 69.52
UK 68.46
Ita 67.07
Ger 64.93
Fra 58.63



Pity it's also made the average UK atco around 25% poorer relative to his continental cousin paid in euros.

Alfie, How much of your monthly expenditure is in Euros?

Gonzo,

Do you consider atco earnings outside of the UK relevant to recruitment, retention and pay scales within the UK?

And to answer your question directly can I suggest the next time you empty your shopping bags you take a look at how much originated outside the UK and then consider the impact of a weakened sterling on the costs of those goods.

ATCO earnings outside the UK haven't gone up though, have they? It's rather specious to claim so.

Fly Bhoy – good question, shame it’s not been answered.

The fact of the matter is that the Pension Fund is an investment fund, based on trading stocks and bonds. NATS pay in X% and the staff (who are also shareholders and fund members) pay in Y%.

When the stocks and bonds performed well, the investment grew. So NATS decided to make it’s contributions X-??%, whilst the staff had to continue to pay the same (Y%) percentage as they always have.

On other words, when our money (our investment) produced a financial gain, NATS took advantage of this by reducing its contributions; meanwhile the staff did not receive any benefit from the fact the stocks and bonds were in profit.

Now that the stocks and bonds are in decline, NATS are asking the staff to make a huge contribution to bring it back into line, whilst trying to minimise the amount it, NATS, has to pay. Is that entirely fair??

Also, as you stated in your question, why did NATS not increase its contributions to the proper level when this problem was first noticed?

Secondly, SMART pensions. These have been around for years. Why has it taken until now for NATS to look into them? (A case of incompetence, indifference or something more along the lines of wanting to make the scheme unviable so it can be closed)?

Why are NATS even waiting for the resolution of this negotiation before implementing SMART pensions?

If SMART pensions had been introduced years ago, and the contribution rates had been brought up to the correct levels when an issue was first spotted, we would be in a healthier position today.

The fund would probably still need help, but not to the tune of £60Million a year that the (management) are quoting.

Since Barron has joined the company, I have felt that the level of trust has eroded. It is almost conceivable to my mind that NATS have let things run this far (i.e. not used SMART pensions etc), because it suited them to run the pension fund down, as they want to close it.

Anyone, even the ‘YES’ voters can see that a company that has closed its final salary pension scheme (and/or reduced the benefits to existing members), reduces its costs. Now it obviously is good business sense for a company that is out to make profits, but why should a ‘not for profit’ company have to do this if the scheme is actually, in reality, still viable (as ours is)?

Or is closing the pension fund a way of making NSL etc more attractive to potential buyers?

Either way, we should have implemented SMART pensions years ago. We should have beefed up the NATS contribution as soon as doubts about the viability of the fund were raised.

And we should never, ever, aim to run the fund at just 100% - where is the flex in that for days when investments turn sour? It is not prudent financial management to run things so tight when they rely on the performance of the stock market etc.

If operational staff where so incompetent or slack, they would be sacked by now… why are our ‘financial’ experts still in situ?

Finally, to those who are worried (i.e. believe the scaremongering) about NATS going to the wall – for the sake of £60 million do you honestly think NATS (a company upon which the UK economy is utterly dependant on) will be allowed to fail by a government that has ploughed £billions into banks etc?

OF COURSE IT WON’T!!

Nice post, I just wish everyone else could see the common sense you have shown.
Do not trust management, they have engineered this whole debacle in order to strike fear and disarray into the minds of staff. Behind it all is one thing and one thing only-financial gain for those concerned. The more naive and gullible (not an insult-just a fact) amongst us will believe them.
Put your trust in people on here who really understand what's going on, in other words , Vote No

I think you'll find when NATS took the 'pensions holiday' the staff DID gain by going on to 58ths which in the long run is much more of a gain for us than the holiday was for NATS.
Agree about Baron thing though, but then when they turned a safety service industry into a profit making one, what did the government expect?

I agree that there was a clear intent by NATS board/exec to force the pensions issue by allowing the surplus to errode completely. However, this is not incompetent management, nor slack or sackable. It's 'by the book' and considered prudent fund management, sadly. We dont have a right to tell NATS how it should treat a surplus. It's 'theirs', not 'ours'. What we do have a right to is to expect them to hold up their end of the bargain and stump up whats needing paid once they've eroded it.

As to the talk of bankruptcy and re-nationalisation... Clearly NATS would not be allowed to cease doing business. HMG would have to step in, but that's not going to be all rainbows and roses. The company would be saved, but the first step after that would see hundreds of us lose our jobs, service levels would get hit and T&Cs would be attacked.

I agree totally HMG would take full control.

However I seem to remember good times before part privatisation. Plenty of staff in the ops room, managers who you could trust and who spoke plain English, a happy atmosphere, ample liaison visits, assisted flying scheme, no layers of non essential "Management" strutting about in open neck shirts and suits pretending to be cool, no bonuses, no posters of frogs and gorillas all over the walls, no ridiculous colour schemes, no ludicrous costly ideas like "Mission Values and Guiding principles", no Visions, no New Horizons, no Destinations, and no "Bar stool" sessions. Does anyone actually believe in all that crap, or worse still admit to believing it?
I actually saw a notice at one of our large units concerning a gate being opened or closed which made it part of the "Living and Breathing" some thing or other Vision I am beginning to think the lunatics are taking over the assylum
Quite frankly, if you do believe all this stuff I would seriously question your sanity, and that includes NATS management who are reading this ! No wonder we have ended up in this mess
I also remember a healthy Pension scheme, probably the best in the country. So ask yourself, what was wrong with being State owned because NATS is crucial to the security, safety, and economy of the UK ?

When we are sold off to the highest bidder,(the reason why this pension deal has to go through, otherwise NATS wont be so attractive) be it SERCO or whoever, the first thing to go will be non essential staff and assets. Then our terms and conditions would change for the worse. Each individual should consider their own position in the company,and ask youself, are you essential to the business? Is your location essential, could it be sold off as an asset?
Vote yes, and you could be voting yourself out of a job.
That is why we must all vote no.

Me Me Me Me,

We are both talking from the same hymn book and I agree that you are correct in the majority of what you are saying However I have to question the fact that it is not deemed incompetent.

As far as I am concerned, it is totally incompetent and certainly extremely bad practice for any fund manager to aim to run a fund, which relies wholly on the performance of stocks, shares and bonds, at just 100% funding.
Because as soon as those stocks and shares start to lose money (which as we all know happens from time to time), the fund is in deficit and measures have to be taken to bring it back up to proper funding levels.

Maybe it is 'by the book', but does that make it correct? That's like soldiers who commit war crimes saying they were merely 'following orders'!

The book needs to be re-written as far as investment funds are concerned because it is neither prudent, nor good practice to run a fund that can grow or shrink at the whim of the stock markets at jsut 100%.

We don't (or at least try not to ), as individuals, run our own bank accounts/overdraft facilities like that, why do fund managers think is it a sensible way of managing investment funds??

Not Long Now

Changing from 1/60ths to 1/58ths is indeed a benefit to fund members, however it had a huge, further benefit to management because it actually increased permanently (not just for the term of reduced contributions) the liability/burden on the fund, thus in turn making the funds future viabillity less stable... another way, along with not implementing SMART pensions from the outset, that management have been implicit in their intent to ensure the pension was no longer viable.

So are all payrises also a management ploy to put strain on the pension fund?
Presumably we'll be getting 15% this year just to ensure the fund is reeling....