There is no need for such foul language, how unprofessional of you. . And no, really, I do not wish to represent anyone, and I am sorry to let you down, but again thanks for your support

Good grief haven't people worked out that voting no will get you no worse a deal than voting yes if all the bullt is true and there is no more on the table!!??????

In the post today, voted no.

No vote posted back today to Prospect HQ. Who's running this vote? Robert Mugabe?

'No' vote sent.

How can the paperwork be called propaganda!! FFS calm yourselves......

Propaganda

Propaganda is the dissemination of information aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people...


Propaganda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia










Would you like to borrow my tin foil hat?

also from Propaganda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well there wouldn't be much point in appealing to the latter, would there?

However, I'm not convinced that any (or all) of the actuarial assumptions have changed enough in the last year to cause such a large jump in the underlying rate but I believe that, in the medium to long term, no organisation will be willing or able to support a scheme as expensive as ours.

Latest from the scientific Pension vote poll

Poll Results latest


NO ....81%....87

YES....19%....20

Looking conclusive so far......and remember this, Management have gone from "there is no other option if you vote no" to "It depends on the size of the No Vote" ... FACT not fiction ! So what does that tell you? Basically, they have another option and have been , lets say, economical with some of the facts and will be caught out if the no vote prevails!
If you vote yes, you are a turkey voting for XMAS



Vote Here
http://snappoll.com/poll/301858.php

VOTE NO

MERRY XMAS

NO in the post

“Air traffic is projected to grow from 740 million passengers last year to one billion in 2015, and double today's levels by 2025, the FAA said.”

Quote above from recent article on thread ref Satellite Navigation.

Not all long term doom and gloom then if you believe that the same will happen in the UK?

Therefore, surely we would be foolish to sell ourselves short during a short-term recession.

At least you got an envelope with your voting form. A mate of mine didn't, though the letter from the union was in there

Sorry but you really will have to remind us what the recession has to do with the pension proposals?

If you have been to a briefing it should have been made very clear that this is about the on-going underlying rate that NATS will have to pay ie. around 42%. If it wasn't made clear there it has been plenty of times on here. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

Although traffic has sharply dropped off lately, the summer was getting towards max capacity for a lot of the time. As all the redevelopment plans seem to have been dropped, and significant increase in demand will mean nothing as there's no roo for it in the sky.

The facts are that last years figures show that if NATS hadn't:

1) Repaid loans when they didn't have to;

2) Paid early repayment charges when they didn't have to;

and,

3) Discounting the exceptionals that will generate even more profit in future years...


...then NATS can afford to pay even their worst case underlying rate.


They just don't want to use that profit for pensions when it can be used to improve the bottom line even further.



That said, if you can afford to hand over tens of thousands and in many cases hundreds of thousands of pounds from your pension so that NATS profitability can be increased then by all means vote 'Yes'.

250

You say remind 'us'. So you claim to speak for the whole forum then?
Do I think that there is a connection between the proposals and the current set-backs? Yes, I do, hence my post. Yes, I did go to a brief and as for facts, then I did not take everything that was briefed as fact(s). Did you?

Again you're trying to represent your speculation and interpretation of a small part of a complex financial picture as fact when it is nothing of the sort. There was 39 million spent last year on exceptionals so at best there was that extra money available to fund other things. That doesn't come near to paying the extra likely to be required to fund the pension even if you assume that amount will be available every year and that the exceptionals are discretionary spending.

As NATS and the unions have been negotiating for close on two years if this has much to do with the current recession they must have been psychic.

And again I notice you attack the poster rather then the post.

Are the 3 points I made factually correct, Yes or No?

The forum is wise to your dissembling and spinning now.