NATS Pensions (Split from Pay 2009 thread)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: scotland
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fit_to_burst
You won't however accept a 15 year pensionable pay cap that allows you salary to rise by more but your pensionable bit to remain capped at RPI + 0.5%. Are you sure about that??
You won't however accept a 15 year pensionable pay cap that allows you salary to rise by more but your pensionable bit to remain capped at RPI + 0.5%. Are you sure about that??
The impact of the R+.5% cap on the final benefits of members in their 20s and 30s is huge.
The modeller doesn't really show the reality of a 15 year cap being compounded over a 38 year career, and that's assuming the cap is eventually removed.
The actuary accepted that is was easily conceivable that guys in their 20s and 30s will end up with at best a 1/2 final pensionable salary scheme on retirement and quite possibly much worse!
I've noticed that the Unions and management have chosen not to frame the question as...
"will you agree to a likely 1/2 salary scheme rather than a 2/3rds?"
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: .
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Actuaries don't have rose tinted specs they tend to have a gloomy outlook so they've gone out and got new pessimistic assumptions. Unfortunately those new assumptions greatly increase the cost of any defined benefit scheme and that's why generally the UK can't afford defined benefit schemes any more.
College of Knowledge, Day 1, Lesson 1:
"Assumption is the mother of all fcuk-ups".
For me it is the difference between that annual report valuation and all the other valuations that kills it. I can't take it seriously where there is a difference of 15%+ between different valuations (yes I know there are different rules etc etc). It just seems that we use the most appropriate valuation and assumptions that suit our needs ('can't afford pension' vs. 'oooh look, shareholders, how much of a surplus there is in our fund'.
I would like to see retrospective valuations using the assumptions from 2001, 2003 and 2006, and vice versa, then I can draw my own conclusions.
It will be very interesting to see the valuation presented in next years's set of accounts.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my garden shed
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From 2007/08 NATS annual report:
12.2%<26.8% n'est pas?
At 31 March 2008, measured under international accounting
standards, the pension scheme had a surplus of assets over
liabilities of £413.5m compared with a surplus of £238.6m
at 31 March 2007. The £174.9m increase in the surplus is
due mainly to a decrease in the present value of the
obligations arising from an increase in the prescribed
discount rate from 5.2% to 6.2%. The scheme’s assets
increased by just £13.1m or 0.5% to £2,846.2m in the year.
The group made cash contributions to the scheme of 12.2%
(2007: 12.2%) of pensionable pay during the year giving a
cash cost of £37.7m (2007: £32.6m). From 1 April 2008,
cash contributions to the scheme will be paid at an annual
effective rate of 20.0% of pensionable pay. This follows the
outcome of the triennial valuation performed as of 31
December 2006, which reported a surplus of assets over
liabilities of 112% and an increase in the future service cost
to 37.3% of pensionable pay (from 26.8% at 31 December
2003).
The group is currently engaged in discussions with its Trades
Unions on proposals to reduce the cost and risk of future
pension provision.
standards, the pension scheme had a surplus of assets over
liabilities of £413.5m compared with a surplus of £238.6m
at 31 March 2007. The £174.9m increase in the surplus is
due mainly to a decrease in the present value of the
obligations arising from an increase in the prescribed
discount rate from 5.2% to 6.2%. The scheme’s assets
increased by just £13.1m or 0.5% to £2,846.2m in the year.
The group made cash contributions to the scheme of 12.2%
(2007: 12.2%) of pensionable pay during the year giving a
cash cost of £37.7m (2007: £32.6m). From 1 April 2008,
cash contributions to the scheme will be paid at an annual
effective rate of 20.0% of pensionable pay. This follows the
outcome of the triennial valuation performed as of 31
December 2006, which reported a surplus of assets over
liabilities of 112% and an increase in the future service cost
to 37.3% of pensionable pay (from 26.8% at 31 December
2003).
The group is currently engaged in discussions with its Trades
Unions on proposals to reduce the cost and risk of future
pension provision.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The impact of the R+.5% cap on the final benefits of members in their 20s and 30s is huge.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12.2%<26.8% n'est pas?
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I getting paronoid 
or does anyone else think NATS have planted "someone" 
on this forum to counter the No Vote, and to continue to spread the Yes vote propaganda ?
Its a full time job keeping up with said "polite" person, full marks for consistency and determination though
Management apparently gauge the outcome of said vote with this forum as the one on Nats intranet is policed and we cant express our real views on it
or does anyone else think NATS have planted "someone" on this forum to counter the No Vote, and to continue to spread the Yes vote propaganda ?Its a full time job keeping up with said "polite" person, full marks for consistency and determination though
Management apparently gauge the outcome of said vote with this forum as the one on Nats intranet is policed and we cant express our real views on it
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody knows what the impact is. It could be nil, it could be half.
HOW CAN YOU VOTE YES FOR SOMETHING WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FINAL OUTCOME IS????? (Capital lettering intended to show utter exasperation at a certain poster)>
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can I vote Yes? I'll explain my thinking:-
I might vote Yes if I think there is a risk to my pension if nothing happens and the NATS/NTUS proposal is the only thing anybody is offering which might mitigate some of that risk.
I understand in voting Yes that I might lose some of my pension, although my estimate is not much, and that it is quite possible that another pension crisis will happen between now and then. I take the view that worrying about the next crisis is no reason for not agreeing to this proposal in an attempt to stave of the potential crisis we can already see.
The NTUS have checked the figures and I've taken a look and potentially there is a risk to my pension because NATS could be made insolvent by its pension costs. I can also see that the proposal might mitigate that risk albeit at some cost to me.
But I also have to consider the No option.
I might vote No if I think there is no risk to my pension and this is all a conspiracy by NATS to reduce our pension benefits.
I can't see why NTUS haven't seen through this if it is the case and my checking of the figures supports the view that this is for real.
I might vote No if I think NATS is lying when it says it can't afford our pensions. Again I've looked at the figures and I don't think NATS could afford a big rise in pension costs.
I might vote No if I think there is a better proposal available. So far nobody has a better proposal. The agreed long term wage deal of RPI +0.5 is the best of those I've seen and has some potential but I can't see either side agreeing to that and the proposal has to be acceptable to both sides.
I might vote No if I think NATS can be pushed further. Again I believe my NTUS reps that this is the best deal NATS will agree to because I have no reason to doubt them.
I don't consider whose fault any of this is because that doesn't affect the need for something to be done and doesn't change any of the possibilities.
I don't consider selling NATS or NSL because that is a possibility in the future whatever happens and this doesn't actually make it very much more likely.
Based on all this I have to discard the No option and end up with Vote Yes
Others may not agree with my reasoning and as I've said before I'm not telling anybody how to vote.
I might vote Yes if I think there is a risk to my pension if nothing happens and the NATS/NTUS proposal is the only thing anybody is offering which might mitigate some of that risk.
I understand in voting Yes that I might lose some of my pension, although my estimate is not much, and that it is quite possible that another pension crisis will happen between now and then. I take the view that worrying about the next crisis is no reason for not agreeing to this proposal in an attempt to stave of the potential crisis we can already see.
The NTUS have checked the figures and I've taken a look and potentially there is a risk to my pension because NATS could be made insolvent by its pension costs. I can also see that the proposal might mitigate that risk albeit at some cost to me.
But I also have to consider the No option.
I might vote No if I think there is no risk to my pension and this is all a conspiracy by NATS to reduce our pension benefits.
I can't see why NTUS haven't seen through this if it is the case and my checking of the figures supports the view that this is for real.
I might vote No if I think NATS is lying when it says it can't afford our pensions. Again I've looked at the figures and I don't think NATS could afford a big rise in pension costs.
I might vote No if I think there is a better proposal available. So far nobody has a better proposal. The agreed long term wage deal of RPI +0.5 is the best of those I've seen and has some potential but I can't see either side agreeing to that and the proposal has to be acceptable to both sides.
I might vote No if I think NATS can be pushed further. Again I believe my NTUS reps that this is the best deal NATS will agree to because I have no reason to doubt them.
I don't consider whose fault any of this is because that doesn't affect the need for something to be done and doesn't change any of the possibilities.
I don't consider selling NATS or NSL because that is a possibility in the future whatever happens and this doesn't actually make it very much more likely.
Based on all this I have to discard the No option and end up with Vote Yes
Others may not agree with my reasoning and as I've said before I'm not telling anybody how to vote.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd just like to compliment some members of this forum for the level of debate generated.
However, I'm quite embarrassed to read some of the posts.
I ask myself whether some here really do work for NATS? As, apart from the rarest of exceptions, all those colleagues I've met, no matter where in the company they work, are rational, eloquent and above all intelligent people.
Eglynt, I commend you for your determination.
Vote No, in what way is the intranet thread 'policed'? Any details?
However, I'm quite embarrassed to read some of the posts.
I ask myself whether some here really do work for NATS? As, apart from the rarest of exceptions, all those colleagues I've met, no matter where in the company they work, are rational, eloquent and above all intelligent people.
Eglynt, I commend you for your determination.
Vote No, in what way is the intranet thread 'policed'? Any details?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
apart from the rarest of exceptions
Although I have to agree the Intranet is most certainly policed. Case in point...certain comments made about the inane "Photo of the Day", purely for a laugh. Next thing, said posters dragged into Watch Managers office for a talking to.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh my dear chap, couldn't possibly say in the clear!
Not really surprising though, is it? It's their ball, they can choose the rules.
Although an over-reaction there I think!
Although I have to agree the Intranet is most certainly policed.
Although an over-reaction there I think!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my garden shed
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is but 12.2% plus the amount of surplus run down over that period is approximately equal to 26.8%. In the absence of any surplus the NATS contribution rate will have to equal underlying rate.
pension commitments. The surplus is irrelevant. NATS needed to keep paying at the UNDERLYING RATE to ensure that there will be enough funds to meet future Pensioners' needs. Naturally a surplus will build up as the funds will be required at a later date! If NATS paid more than the underlaying rate, then yes, future underlying costs would drop and this fabled surplus might be 80% or more.
But as long as people live longer, and/or fewer people pay into the scheme (staff cuts/no new joiners) and/or inflation stays high (will it?) then the future underlying costs will keep increasing.
NATS are telling us of the huge increase in underlying costs, yet they have paid only just enough to make current pensioners' payments
..I hope I won't need to write another play... surely eglnyt can see...I'll keep my script writing hat on standby
Last edited by hold at SATAN; 21st Nov 2008 at 20:48.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You beat me to it chaps. Also certain grades can't post "no vote" comments on the Pension intranet site.
I am not sure if they can post any comments, and they have been told (dragged into the office) to refrain from any input
I am not sure if they can post any comments, and they have been told (dragged into the office) to refrain from any input
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my garden shed
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reckon NATS' inside man/men has/have a hidden agenda.... he/they plant fear and doubt oor wind people up that the stress brings an early death. no more pensions payout (except lump and spouse) and underlying costs decrease.
Maybe NATS should be secretly poisoning staff as they reach retirement
Beware the newly installed water fountain.......
Vote no
Maybe NATS should be secretly poisoning staff as they reach retirement
Beware the newly installed water fountain.......
Vote no
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe NATS should be secretly poisoning staff as they reach retirement
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: scotland
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eglnyt
Is it ? Nobody knows what the impact is. It could be nil, it could be half.
Is it ? Nobody knows what the impact is. It could be nil, it could be half.
Well I used the figures suggested by your management colleagues to justify the imposition of the cap.
Are you now saying that those figures shouldn't be used if they're inconvenient for the 'Yes' argument?
I'm afraid you can't have it both ways, either we all use the same figures or we don't.
Which is it going to be?