NATS Pensions (Split from Pay 2009 thread)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Northerner/Junior X
Valid comments - however as we have to AAVA to fill WPP for all sectors, it would just be a case of management massaging validations to reduce the shortrfall in some sectors.
The fact of the matter is, The 3 core sectors need the people they have at the moment, and more, to fulfill WPP. So apart from a buggeration factor, their would in actual fact, be no real gain in manpower.
Sure, during the next year/18 months whilst traffic levels recover (and they will recover and go beyond the previous peak), it might work, but long term, the shortfall is still there.
Of course, that would mean looking at manpower issues long term, which of course we know NATS is not particularly adept at!!
Valid comments - however as we have to AAVA to fill WPP for all sectors, it would just be a case of management massaging validations to reduce the shortrfall in some sectors.
The fact of the matter is, The 3 core sectors need the people they have at the moment, and more, to fulfill WPP. So apart from a buggeration factor, their would in actual fact, be no real gain in manpower.
Sure, during the next year/18 months whilst traffic levels recover (and they will recover and go beyond the previous peak), it might work, but long term, the shortfall is still there.
Of course, that would mean looking at manpower issues long term, which of course we know NATS is not particularly adept at!!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hants
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anotherthing,
Completely agree, but my point is that saying you are going to give up extra validations is not as straightforward as it may seem. Some people who intend to do this need to be aware that by doing so they are potentially putting themselves in danger of having to retrain. Like I said in my post earlier, it's something to bear in my mind before people make knee jerk reactions if the vote doesn't go the way they hope.
Completely agree, but my point is that saying you are going to give up extra validations is not as straightforward as it may seem. Some people who intend to do this need to be aware that by doing so they are potentially putting themselves in danger of having to retrain. Like I said in my post earlier, it's something to bear in my mind before people make knee jerk reactions if the vote doesn't go the way they hope.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: swanlake
Age: 54
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bottom line is that this is probably the most important benefit that people work for. Closing the scheme i believe was inevitable but one step too far with the cap which unless payrises stay below rpi+.5 then we stand to lose out. This has left people with the good will and effort that they have put in ie extra sectors, meetings/working groups as a kick in the teeth and inevitably the withdrawal of this by some individuals inevitable if a yes vote. Also the union are probably aware of the possibility of potential subscription cancellations as a result of how strongly some feel. Yes working to rule is a form industrial action, but people who decide their rostered time off is now more important to them, than a working group meeting it is very difficult to pin on anyone.
As for the vote myself either way it goes i will respect the majority, even if I feel we have lost the hold on the dearest thing to most of us.
As for the vote myself either way it goes i will respect the majority, even if I feel we have lost the hold on the dearest thing to most of us.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Rebel HQ
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure that all postees originally applied to NATS for a job, and not NERL/NSL.
Sorry to add to this, but I feel that if the vote is no, the ultimate result will be that NSL employees lose their jobs. How will you all feel about that?
The fact is, that regardless of the vote result, then most of us would expect to join our comrades in the union in whatever balloted action is required to save jobs throughout the company should NATS use the result as an excuse to sack people. So, I would hope most of us would stand by our colleagues in NSL, even taking appropriate industrial action in NERL if that is what is needed. Who knows, maybe our national Prospect officer would even feel able to support us in taking industrial action ... as long as we weren't fighting for something which gets us something better than Prospect have got for anyone else, in which case there's no way he could stand up and defend us ... if you believe what he said at the Pensions briefings.
NSL are also in some way falling victim to a corporate management who seem to always want to negotiate an airport contract at a going rate which is less than it actually costs the company (allegedely). How can anyone survive in business if everything you sell is a loss leader ??
There are still staff shortages in NERL at all the ACC units, which cannot operate efficiently without AAVAs and staff goodwill. I'm sure that any NSL staff would be assured a warm welcome to NERL to help us attain our agreed operational strength if their posts disappeared at any particular airport.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NSL are also in some way falling victim to a corporate management who seem to always want to negotiate an airport contract at a going rate which is less than it actually costs the company (allegedely). How can anyone survive in business if everything you sell is a loss leader ??
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Surrey
Age: 46
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fenella
I'm sorry to point out, but I feel that if the vote is yes, the ultimate result will be no NSL at all!! As was stated at my briefing, the union see it as highly likely that NSL will start giving up "loss making contracts" once the deal goes through, and when asked what's to stop them giving up ALL of their contracts and effectivly selling off NSL, their reply was that "yes, that is entriely possible"!!!
Voting yes for this deal makes the company much more financially attractive to any potential buyers and as soon as the deal goes through, an attempt to sell off the whole NSL section will quite possibly happen and where will all your NSL colleagues jobs (and indeed pensions!!) be then?!? It certainly seems a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation, but its a situation of management's making and they can damn well sort it out themselves!!
FB
Sorry to add to this, but I feel that if the vote is no, the ultimate result will be that NSL employees lose their jobs. How will you all feel about that?
Voting yes for this deal makes the company much more financially attractive to any potential buyers and as soon as the deal goes through, an attempt to sell off the whole NSL section will quite possibly happen and where will all your NSL colleagues jobs (and indeed pensions!!) be then?!? It certainly seems a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation, but its a situation of management's making and they can damn well sort it out themselves!!
FB
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fenella
Why would people who worked at an airport that NATS suddenly lost it's contract for lose their jobs?
Will the airport close for 2 years or so while people are recruited and trained?? Of course not.
The employees may well find future Ts and Cs changed, but you cant just draft in some ATCOs from Poland and start doing the job... who would train them?
The fact of the matter is, NATS has long term loss making contracts at several airports - the reason they have negotiated those contracts in that manner is known only to the management people.
To put it another way - why should I lose out on my pension because NATS chooses to lose money on its contracts?
The fact of the matter is, I believe that NATS will only ever be 'A World Leader In ATM' if it continues to have controllers/ATSAs/ATCEs at Area and Airfield units... it would be a sad day if we started shedding too many contracts.
However a 'yes' vote makes the sale of NSL even more realistic as it reduces the pension liability to any future buyer.
I suggest anyone who has any doubts about the possibiility of the sale of NSL or part of it, need to look at Mr Barrons previous employment history.
He specialises in taking large companies, splitting them into smaller entities, then selling off the bits he does not want. He then closes the pension scheme of the parts of the company he holds on to.
He has a proven track record of this, he is very good at it. Maybe looking at it purely as business, you have to agree that what he is doing makes sense... (but not in a way that would maintain our standing as a good ANSP).
Oh, and once he has done the hatchet job, he leaves the company, negotiates a golden 'hello' in the form of a lump sum (to cover loss of pension contributions), then transfers his pension into the new company (before changes to his old pension take hold).
Sorry to add to this, but I feel that if the vote is no, the ultimate result will be that NSL employees lose their jobs.
Will the airport close for 2 years or so while people are recruited and trained?? Of course not.
The employees may well find future Ts and Cs changed, but you cant just draft in some ATCOs from Poland and start doing the job... who would train them?
The fact of the matter is, NATS has long term loss making contracts at several airports - the reason they have negotiated those contracts in that manner is known only to the management people.
To put it another way - why should I lose out on my pension because NATS chooses to lose money on its contracts?
The fact of the matter is, I believe that NATS will only ever be 'A World Leader In ATM' if it continues to have controllers/ATSAs/ATCEs at Area and Airfield units... it would be a sad day if we started shedding too many contracts.
However a 'yes' vote makes the sale of NSL even more realistic as it reduces the pension liability to any future buyer.
I suggest anyone who has any doubts about the possibiility of the sale of NSL or part of it, need to look at Mr Barrons previous employment history.
He specialises in taking large companies, splitting them into smaller entities, then selling off the bits he does not want. He then closes the pension scheme of the parts of the company he holds on to.
He has a proven track record of this, he is very good at it. Maybe looking at it purely as business, you have to agree that what he is doing makes sense... (but not in a way that would maintain our standing as a good ANSP).
Oh, and once he has done the hatchet job, he leaves the company, negotiates a golden 'hello' in the form of a lump sum (to cover loss of pension contributions), then transfers his pension into the new company (before changes to his old pension take hold).
During the recent Irish dispute the IAA threatened to take the union to court because staff were not accepting overtime. The jist of the argument being that although it was a voluntary agreement, management had a right to expect overtime attendances because that had become normal working practise.
I can't find the reference but the thread's here
I can't find the reference but the thread's here
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ISZ - not the end of the world, but you can see it from here.
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another thing to consider that the only bit of NATS business that is ringfenced and subject to economic regulation is the Area functions, provided from the centres (Including TC), and services to North Sea helis, provided by both Area and Approach rated controllers up here in the frozen (Although less so today) north.
That is the only bit of the business that is subject to the price cap, NSL can charge what they like, as long as people are willing to pay the price (Ie not Manchester)
As I understand it, any new business, be it Area or Approach based that NATS goes after and subsequently provides will have to fall under the NSL banner.
Ergo, the only way we can pull ourselved out of the current mongolian clusteryouknowtherest is by growing the NSL side of the business.
And they can't do that if NSL is sold off.
I'm leaning towards a no at the mo, and I am one of a peculiar bunch of miscreants who have a foot in both the NERL and the NSL camp. And as a unit we're making a profit at the moment.
That is the only bit of the business that is subject to the price cap, NSL can charge what they like, as long as people are willing to pay the price (Ie not Manchester)
As I understand it, any new business, be it Area or Approach based that NATS goes after and subsequently provides will have to fall under the NSL banner.
Ergo, the only way we can pull ourselved out of the current mongolian clusteryouknowtherest is by growing the NSL side of the business.
And they can't do that if NSL is sold off.
I'm leaning towards a no at the mo, and I am one of a peculiar bunch of miscreants who have a foot in both the NERL and the NSL camp. And as a unit we're making a profit at the moment.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Much has been talked previously about how NATS is essential to running of country etc. Something that occurred to me over the weekend...if in the worst case scenario NATS do go on strike, how much non-UK air traffic would be impact?
Presumably a fair amount of trans-atlantic flights that are not to or from UK are controlled by NATS at some point. If NATS is 'off air' is there a fallback plan for these?
Presumably a fair amount of trans-atlantic flights that are not to or from UK are controlled by NATS at some point. If NATS is 'off air' is there a fallback plan for these?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ProM
Majority of European transatlantic traffic would be affected, inbound and outbound flights.
If they managed to get round the 'not flying through UK airspace' issue (possible), it could incur huge costs in extra fuel.
Upshot would be either a huge loss in profit for the airlines, or a big increase in ticket prices for those days. That in turn would mean less people would fly because of the hike in cost...
Because of the position of the UK and it's airspace, any closure not just of the major airports in the UK but the airspace itself, would have an enormous knock-on effect for mainland continental Europe and US/Canada.
The UK is a major hub, in both terms of airports and airspace.
Cuddles
there are many reasons why NATS should keep NSL and maintain a very strong presence in airports... your point is on of the more important ones. Unfortunately, NATS has quite a few loss making contracts on its books - I suppose it's a fine balance of getting contracts or making money.
I for one would happily see the company lose some money in some areas if we made an overall profit - it it meant that NATS could continue to be a 'leader in ATM'.
As soon as NATS stops or drastically reduces the number of coal face workers it has at either an airport or area unit the knowlwedge will go, and we could no longer be the expert we aim/claim to be.
If we don't have people doing the job on the coal face at airports, how can we convince customers that we are knowledgeable in the field, and therefore why would they come to us for other services borne out of experience of actually doing the job?
The sale of NSL would be a great mistake, I honestly believe that reducing pension liability i.e. voting 'yes' is one step further down the road to doing that.
Majority of European transatlantic traffic would be affected, inbound and outbound flights.
If they managed to get round the 'not flying through UK airspace' issue (possible), it could incur huge costs in extra fuel.
Upshot would be either a huge loss in profit for the airlines, or a big increase in ticket prices for those days. That in turn would mean less people would fly because of the hike in cost...
Because of the position of the UK and it's airspace, any closure not just of the major airports in the UK but the airspace itself, would have an enormous knock-on effect for mainland continental Europe and US/Canada.
The UK is a major hub, in both terms of airports and airspace.
Cuddles
there are many reasons why NATS should keep NSL and maintain a very strong presence in airports... your point is on of the more important ones. Unfortunately, NATS has quite a few loss making contracts on its books - I suppose it's a fine balance of getting contracts or making money.
I for one would happily see the company lose some money in some areas if we made an overall profit - it it meant that NATS could continue to be a 'leader in ATM'.
As soon as NATS stops or drastically reduces the number of coal face workers it has at either an airport or area unit the knowlwedge will go, and we could no longer be the expert we aim/claim to be.
If we don't have people doing the job on the coal face at airports, how can we convince customers that we are knowledgeable in the field, and therefore why would they come to us for other services borne out of experience of actually doing the job?
The sale of NSL would be a great mistake, I honestly believe that reducing pension liability i.e. voting 'yes' is one step further down the road to doing that.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cuddles
Well what if just the unprofitable parts are dispensed with then?
Ergo, the only way we can pull ourselved out of the current mongolian clusteryouknowtherest is by growing the NSL side of the business.
And they can't do that if NSL is sold off.
And they can't do that if NSL is sold off.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Home
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand NSL are having some success in seeking to re-negotiate some of their more challenging contracts.
I'm afraid you can't hang the emotional blackmail of suggesting that if we vote no and insist on NSL paying 42% pens conts, people will lose their jobs. These contracts have been loss-making in some cases while NSL has been paying 12% contributions.... So the fault is not with the pension.
I don't want to see anybody lose their job.
I'm afraid you can't hang the emotional blackmail of suggesting that if we vote no and insist on NSL paying 42% pens conts, people will lose their jobs. These contracts have been loss-making in some cases while NSL has been paying 12% contributions.... So the fault is not with the pension.
I don't want to see anybody lose their job.
Eglnyt said,
I thought the current contribution rate was 12.2%. If NATS can afford 30% contribution rate and they've wanted to address the underlying rate for several years then why haven't they been paying 30% since they discovered there was a problem?
Surely not to run down the scheme until we were forced into accepting changes?
Some of the briefing material includes predictions by Mercer of the likely underlying rate with the proposals in place. I don't have access to that material right now to quote the exact rate but it is up at about the 30% which is 10% more than present. It stays quite high for quite a long time and then slowly starts to come down as the balance between people on the two schemes changes.
I thought the current contribution rate was 12.2%. If NATS can afford 30% contribution rate and they've wanted to address the underlying rate for several years then why haven't they been paying 30% since they discovered there was a problem?
Surely not to run down the scheme until we were forced into accepting changes?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Del Prado,
come now, behave.
That would imply that Barron et al have been very clever in this affair
What would someone who gets bonuses based on the financial health of NATS gain from closing down an expensive pension scheme and replacing it with a cheaper one?!!
come now, behave.
That would imply that Barron et al have been very clever in this affair
What would someone who gets bonuses based on the financial health of NATS gain from closing down an expensive pension scheme and replacing it with a cheaper one?!!
anotherthing, at least we're safe in the knowledge they haven't been able to make the pension look even worse by changing life expectancy assumptions used to calculate future liabilities.
For that they'd need to have NATS board members on the board of trustees.
I wonder what life expectancy is being used to calculate future liabilities and how that compares to other pension schemes.
For that they'd need to have NATS board members on the board of trustees.
I wonder what life expectancy is being used to calculate future liabilities and how that compares to other pension schemes.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Del Prado
I know what you mean
I know this is not just about ATCO's - I know NATS is about a hell of a lot more than just ATCO's.
However it is a fact that shift workers - ATCOs/ATSAs/ATCEs, have a lower than average life expectancy.
However that life expectancy has risen since records began, along with the life expectancy of everyone else in the developed world.
It worries me that the 'experts' only just stumbled across the fact in the past 18 months. Of course the fact that it helps strengthen the 'we can't afford the pension' case is a coincidence.
Also, if they had taken account of the fact several years ago, the underlying rate that NATS should have been paying (but haven't been) would have been slightly higher, meaning that the difference between that rate and the new anticipated rate would not have been as large.
However, that would not have the same impact, so wasn't to the benefit of NATS!
Mind you, I'm also a bit disconcerted that our money 'experts' within NATS have only just heard about SMART pensions...
I'm not really into conspiracy theories, I don't give a damn who does the vote count and I don't give a damn about the numbered voting sheets... however I do believe that NATS have manoeuvred the company into this position deliberately.
We were being pushed into this scenario, it was a case of 'when', not 'if'.
I know what you mean
I know this is not just about ATCO's - I know NATS is about a hell of a lot more than just ATCO's.
However it is a fact that shift workers - ATCOs/ATSAs/ATCEs, have a lower than average life expectancy.
However that life expectancy has risen since records began, along with the life expectancy of everyone else in the developed world.
It worries me that the 'experts' only just stumbled across the fact in the past 18 months. Of course the fact that it helps strengthen the 'we can't afford the pension' case is a coincidence
. Also, if they had taken account of the fact several years ago, the underlying rate that NATS should have been paying (but haven't been) would have been slightly higher, meaning that the difference between that rate and the new anticipated rate would not have been as large.
However, that would not have the same impact, so wasn't to the benefit of NATS!
Mind you, I'm also a bit disconcerted that our money 'experts' within NATS have only just heard about SMART pensions...
I'm not really into conspiracy theories, I don't give a damn who does the vote count and I don't give a damn about the numbered voting sheets... however I do believe that NATS have manoeuvred the company into this position deliberately.
We were being pushed into this scenario, it was a case of 'when', not 'if'.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However that life expectancy has risen since records began, along with the life expectancy of everyone else in the developed world.
It worries me that the 'experts' only just stumbled across the fact in the past 18 months. Of course the fact that it helps strengthen the 'we can't afford the pension' case is a coincidence .
It worries me that the 'experts' only just stumbled across the fact in the past 18 months. Of course the fact that it helps strengthen the 'we can't afford the pension' case is a coincidence .