eglnyt

Given that the scheme was fully funded prior to the recent hiatus in the stock market the size of the deficit, if we assume there is one, is related to the funds exposure to shares and the recent fall in value of those shares.

Any deficit will be tackled by an improvement plan agreed between the Trustees and NATS and not the underlying rate. Provided that shares recover it will add to the problem but only short term. The underlying rate is driven by the other factors and it is that which concerns NATS and that which the proposal addresses.

anotherthing

Sorry, you're talking double dutch now. The rate NATS pays in has everything to do with the health of the fund at any given time along with predicted liabilities. That is how NATS managed to reduce contributions when the fund was in surplus.

This surplus, with 'predicted' trends etc is what actuaries use to predict required funding. If that is not the case, then all that NATS has done before (and that you have written) is false.

If the fund was at 150% today (as a for instance), then regardless of what the markets are doing now, the underlying rate for NATS in the future (to keep/bring the fund to 100% would be less than is being promulgated at these talks).

Exactly what people on here and the intranet are saying, yet management are using the current financial markets to cast a gloomy picture over everything.

NATS can afford to pay more than they propose under the agreement, they just don't want to.

eglnyt

I'm just pointing out the possible flaws in the simplistic argument you are making.
Defending the proposal is up to NATS and NTUS and they did a pretty good job when it was subjected to a detailed examination at the briefing I went to. So far I don't think the No argument has come up with anything that stands up to the same scrutiny.

Vote NO

But surely you must realise if this pension deal goes through, NATS will likely be sold off to the preferred bidder. I also feel you have too much unwarranted trust in Management, and its this trust which is clouding your judgement. If and when we are sold off the whole face of NATS will likely change for the worse, job losses, conditions etc. Agreeing to this deal merely opens the flood gates. If you wear a headset your job is safe, if you don't it is not so safe, it's a chance we all have to take

throw a dyce

Slider 57,
Studied Maths eh.Well on a 10 day cycle doing doggos(nights) then you are at work for 7 days in that period.Also with a random selection of my watch roster then in Nov2008,doing 2 sets of nights I work 20 days out of 30.A mon-fri 9-5 works 20 days as well.:confused.
I don't see many 9-5 workers working Christmas day,New Year's day and night shifts as well.Our hours are limited by law for safety.

Anyway I have part of my pension deferred in CAA section of CAAPS.They seem to be doing OK at looking after my hard earned money.Yet NATS section is making a pigs ear of it.How come? The pension review brochure is exactly the same,bar the figures,so it's basically the same scheme.As they say ''Taking care of business,TAKING GOOD CARE OF YOUR FUTURE''.Or in NATS case Taking holidays from business,Selling you down the river.

Gonzo

Slider57, good post.

eglnyt

Anotherthing

I will try to explain this but I would urge you to go to a briefing because the actuary at ours explained it far better and more accurately than I can and, as somebody else pointed out, she was also much cuter than me.

The pension scheme has current liabilities based on the benefits people have already amassed and the current pension pot should be big enough to fund those liabilities. The scheme is in surplus or deficit depending upon whether or not it is predicted to meet the current liabilities.

The scheme also has predicted future liabilities caused by the further benefits its members are expected to earn before they retire. The underlying rate is the contribution rate required to ensure that these added benefits are sufficiently funded as they are amassed.

The underlying rate depends upon those future liabilities and doesn't change with surplus or deficit. However if there is a surplus NATS can pay less tha the underlying rate until the surplus is reduced to the level agreed between NATS and the Trustees.

Changes to assumptions have an effect on both current and future liabilities but, because of the timescales involved, are likely to have a far bigger effect on the future liabilities thus driving the underlying rate.

A deficit is addressed in a different way. That requires a restoration plan whereby NATS will pay the deficit over an agreed period of time. Ten years seems to be figure regarded as normal. The deficit is not addressed by increasing the underlying rate.

terrain safe

Why are talking about a 15 year deal? If Nats can't afford it now fair enough, but in 3/5/10 years time what then? Why can't we have a review in 5 years to see what exactly is needed to be done. If we are deeper in the doodoo then we can try and fix it earlier, if it is all roses and sunshine then restore it to it's present level, with a small loss for most of us but at least a small loss, instead of a potentially larger one. Quite honestly I'll vote no for the above and some of my previous reasons. This is totally a personal vote and is totally selfish, because lets face it, I've been very selfish and greedy in taking all those massive pay rises and obviously it's all my fault.

NIFTY SO AND SO

Throw a Dyce...

...excuse my spelling, is the term 'assonance' appropriate to your poetry? Rita said to her prof (Micheal Caine), in Educating Rita, "the poet got the rhyme wrong!!!!!".

Assonanace (or however it is spelt) it may be...

MESSAGE PERFECT.

Cheers

NIF. (I'm not naff!)

PS Gonzo, could'nt disagree with you more.

eglnyt

Exactly how do you come to that conclusion. The proposal changes a very expensive pension scheme into an expensive one. I'll accept that makes it more attractive but it's still a long way short of making any difference.

And exactly who is this preferred bidder and what are they going to buy ? We know from the experience of 2001 that NATS can't support any more borrowing so whoever buys will have to pay cash. Even if you value NATS at the bottom end of the scale that probably rules out most of the usual suspects.

Would they buy the Government's share ? Seems unlikely as they wouldn't get control of the company. Would they buy the Airline Group's share ? Possibly but all the member airlines would have to agree and it's widely believed that last time there was any interest at least one of the airlines was not prepared to sell.

NIFTY SO AND SO

....I would like to move from NATS to Alstom, as I hear you made a better job at the employees' pension than you are struggling with, as my present employer, at NATS. Is this all true? Would my pension be better at Alstom than NATS? Only you would know. I like to keep in with people 'in the know'. There are lots of nasty people around me that keep telling me that you are destroying a perfectly good scheme. Surely with all those nice people in the unions agreeing with you then it must be alright? Only you can tell me whether I would be a naughty employee or not if I withdrew my labour to protect what some of the people around me call 'Ts & Cs'. Are they bullies?

I know you read this Paul, so please help me with my investments.

SO AND SO.

PS were you popular at Alstom?

Gonzo

Nifty so and so,

My heart bleeds.

Note that I didn't say that I agreed with it.

I thought it was a good, reasoned post that added to the debate here, rather than being an emotive post wrapped up in pejorative terms.

ImnotanERIC

eglnytplease take me up on my offer of odds of 25/1 that nsl will NOT be sold by 2015. i accept paypal or personal cheque (allow 5 days to clear)

Vote NO

Quote: Vote NO
But surely you must realise if this pension deal goes through, NATS will likely be sold off to the preferred bidder
I come to that conclusion based on common sense. I think you would have to be extremely naive not to consider that NATS is being prepared for a sell off. Once the incumbent management have done their best (and worse for us over the past few years) the logical outcome is sell for profit, it's a fact of life.


The preferred bidder could be anyone. NSL and or NERL could be bought

The Government must retain 25% leaving 70% for sale. (5% retained by staff)
The airline group cannot sell until NPC goes live, then they will sell as they wished to do so before. I am not so sure all the airlines would have to agree, some have a bigger stake than others and would have the final say. In the current downward trend of aviation movements and Airlines going bust (probably another 25 worldwide this winter "Willie Walsh" ) the revenue generated by selling NATS shares could be a lifeline to any airline in TAG. Remember BA and Virgin, part owners of NATS, have legal fines and costs amounting to £365 Million to pay soon, now where could they possibly get some cash from to pay for their dishonest deeds ??
BAA own 4% of NATS and are in financial trouble following the delay of T5 and their Spanish part owners can't finance the £12 billion loan they acquired recently (bad timing!)

I think some of us need to remove those "rose tinted specs" and wake up to what is about to happen to NATS if this Pension deal goes through, and almost certainly it won't benefit the staff !

mr.777

Last year he earned something like £450k with a bonus of £200k, that is a FACT. The figures are available somewhere and have been mentioned as much several times on this thread already.

In the event of industiral action, public sympathy has NOTHING to do with going on strike. I would say losing between £5-10k PER YEAR on my pension, which may I remind you is deferred salary, is more than losing a little.

Vote NO

Quote:

ImnotanERIC

Like I said before, you must be an ERIC if you think that

eglnyt

We were talking about a sale of NATS. Selling off NSL is a different matter. NSL is already effectively a separate company and increasingly it will separate from the rest of the group. It has to do that because unless it starts to make inroads into its costs it will soon reach a point where it isn't competitive because you can't make a profit on many airport contracts with NATS terms and conditions. Whether or not the shares are sold to somebody else or retained by NATS is largely irrelevant because the drivers on the business will be the same.

alfie1999

25/1 nsl NOT being sold by 2015?

Sounds about right.

Although eglnyt may have some bad news about the betting regulator not allowing punters to profit beyond the return of their original investment which of course means the underlying betting odds are unsustainable at somewhere around evens especially considering the life expectancy of nsl.

alfie1999

I perhaps should have added one of those wink thingies to show my last post was meant as a (weak) attempt at humour.

I think that's the one.

terrain safe

Is this the sound of frantic backpedalling??