NATS - Are You Happy?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flower - you can comment, retiree or not - after all, we are bemoaning the reduction in Ts&Cs, so having some people around who can help put it into perspective is no bad thing.
However, I do take umbrage with some of your post...
Sorry, but as much as I feel for those people, that argument does not wash with me.
Provision of ATC services is still very much an 'in demand' commodity, and there is still a huge shortfall in ATCOs worldwide (I know ATC is more than just about ATCOs, but lets stay with this for a moment).
NATS are about to announce some very nice profits - a record year in fact.
Inflation is still in the positive percentages.
All those things combined mean that I want a pay rise - 3 to 4% minimum.
I'm sick of people who try to compare apples with pears - I don't care if firemen etc get paid a lot less than me... footballers get paid a lot more for kicking a ball FFS, but the jobs are incomparable. When it comes to my pay rises and Ts&Cs the following is what counts:
1. I work for a profit making business, which has turned several years of good profit.
2. This company 'sells' a highly demanded and extremely good product, mainly thanks to it's workforce.
3. I am highly trained and people like me are in demand around the world.
That means that my situation has nothing in similarity with a shelf filler from Woolworths etc.
You state:
So the NATS you no longer work for has gone downhill in the past six years... does that mean we should continue to allow a degradation in our Ts&Cs??
That's a bold statement from someone who no longer works for the company.
The fact is NATS is a strong company, who allegedley have given the airline group another nice dividend on the supposed 'not for profit' investment.
It is wholly acceptable that we as a workforce should expect a fair pay deal.
However, I do take umbrage with some of your post...
However before folks go around demanding 4% pay rises perhaps they should switch the news on and see all of those folks losing their jobs and homes and even taking pay cuts just to try to keep in work.
Provision of ATC services is still very much an 'in demand' commodity, and there is still a huge shortfall in ATCOs worldwide (I know ATC is more than just about ATCOs, but lets stay with this for a moment).
NATS are about to announce some very nice profits - a record year in fact.
Inflation is still in the positive percentages.
All those things combined mean that I want a pay rise - 3 to 4% minimum.
I'm sick of people who try to compare apples with pears - I don't care if firemen etc get paid a lot less than me... footballers get paid a lot more for kicking a ball FFS, but the jobs are incomparable. When it comes to my pay rises and Ts&Cs the following is what counts:
1. I work for a profit making business, which has turned several years of good profit.
2. This company 'sells' a highly demanded and extremely good product, mainly thanks to it's workforce.
3. I am highly trained and people like me are in demand around the world.
That means that my situation has nothing in similarity with a shelf filler from Woolworths etc.
You state:
It isn't the NATS it was say even 6 years ago but as T&Cs go it isn't half bad,
That's a bold statement from someone who no longer works for the company.
The fact is NATS is a strong company, who allegedley have given the airline group another nice dividend on the supposed 'not for profit' investment.
It is wholly acceptable that we as a workforce should expect a fair pay deal.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think I said you should accept a reduction in your T & Cs far from it. I was amazed to see the result of the pension vote but then I am often amazed at what we voted through often for a small bung from management.
Since leaving I have come to the conclusion that those of us who post on here are firebrands in comparison to the majority of NATS employees who seem to sit back and take what they are told.
I'm just saying that whilst you are demanding what you see as a valid rise in your income many of your airline colleagues are wondering if they will even have a job next year and in that sense the T&Cs that you have are OK.
We haven't as yet seen the real bite to the economy, when we do lets see how many more businesses fold and then how it affects the airline industry, that will be what your paymasters will be looking at. It will be fascinating to see what they offer and why they offer it and whilst anotherthing you may not compare yourself to a fireman or a shop employee I bet your paymasters do.
Since leaving I have come to the conclusion that those of us who post on here are firebrands in comparison to the majority of NATS employees who seem to sit back and take what they are told.
I'm just saying that whilst you are demanding what you see as a valid rise in your income many of your airline colleagues are wondering if they will even have a job next year and in that sense the T&Cs that you have are OK.
We haven't as yet seen the real bite to the economy, when we do lets see how many more businesses fold and then how it affects the airline industry, that will be what your paymasters will be looking at. It will be fascinating to see what they offer and why they offer it and whilst anotherthing you may not compare yourself to a fireman or a shop employee I bet your paymasters do.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flower - I have no argument nor gripe with you...
You may well be correct... however if Tescos staff go on strike, I would go to another supermarket for my groceries...
If firemen strike, the Armed Forces get lumbered with the job.
If NATS staff strike, the country is buggered.
I would go even further and say that some people who spout off on this forum are keyboard warriors...
I was appalled at the turnout for the pension vote - regardless of how one wanted to vote, the apathy shown for such a huge issue was terrible.
However I also heard of people who admitted to voting 'no', but when asked if they would have gone on strike if push came to shove, they have stated they wouldn't. That would have been playing right into the managements hands. It would have given them carte blanche to push anything through.
For the record, I voted 'no' because I truly believed that NATS could offer more and that their roadshows did not do a good job of persuading me otherwise.
I would have also been happy to strike over the issue.
If I was senior NATS management now, I would be rubbing my hands with glee.
A seemingly apathetic workforce and an economy that is undoubtably still to bottom out before the inevitable recovery.
People being made redundant on a daily basis. Therefore no public sympathy for our cause (not that I care).
Regardless of the 1.9% offer on the table a couple of months ago - if I was them, I would be pushing for a pay freeze now because they have us over a barrel.
They will argue that the situation is worse now than when the initial offer was made. They will say that if they knew then (when the initial offer was tabled) what they know now about the economy, they would not have offered a rise at all.
Ops Managers are already walking around Ops rooms at Swanwick sowing the seed for redundancies and harping on about pay freezes and even pay cuts.
Mark my words, scare tactics will be employed by NATS.
If NATS want to save money, start with getting rid of Swanwicks' Safety and Training manager posts and the Ops manager Posts - a complete waste of money and duplication of effort. In fact posts that could be covered by 2 people, not 10.
That would save about £1.75 million a year right off.
...anotherthing you may not compare yourself to a fireman or a shop employee I bet your paymasters do...
If firemen strike, the Armed Forces get lumbered with the job.
If NATS staff strike, the country is buggered.
...that those of us who post on here are firebrands in comparison to the majority of NATS employees who seem to sit back and take what they are told...
I was appalled at the turnout for the pension vote - regardless of how one wanted to vote, the apathy shown for such a huge issue was terrible.
However I also heard of people who admitted to voting 'no', but when asked if they would have gone on strike if push came to shove, they have stated they wouldn't. That would have been playing right into the managements hands. It would have given them carte blanche to push anything through.
For the record, I voted 'no' because I truly believed that NATS could offer more and that their roadshows did not do a good job of persuading me otherwise.
I would have also been happy to strike over the issue.
If I was senior NATS management now, I would be rubbing my hands with glee.
A seemingly apathetic workforce and an economy that is undoubtably still to bottom out before the inevitable recovery.
People being made redundant on a daily basis. Therefore no public sympathy for our cause (not that I care).
Regardless of the 1.9% offer on the table a couple of months ago - if I was them, I would be pushing for a pay freeze now because they have us over a barrel.
They will argue that the situation is worse now than when the initial offer was made. They will say that if they knew then (when the initial offer was tabled) what they know now about the economy, they would not have offered a rise at all.
Ops Managers are already walking around Ops rooms at Swanwick sowing the seed for redundancies and harping on about pay freezes and even pay cuts.
Mark my words, scare tactics will be employed by NATS.
If NATS want to save money, start with getting rid of Swanwicks' Safety and Training manager posts and the Ops manager Posts - a complete waste of money and duplication of effort. In fact posts that could be covered by 2 people, not 10.
That would save about £1.75 million a year right off.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Land of the sand people.
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anotherthing... couldnt agree with you more.
If times are THAT tight, lets start by getting all these mickey mouse managers back in the ops room and earn their keep. Only when NATS start to show willing to actually cutting their costs and stop wasting money on these ridiculous managerial position, armies of admin staff at CTC and crap projects will my ear begin to be a slight more sympathetic to their plights of poverty.
As it stands, they can ram it up their arse and if the big RB ever returns his emails I will tell him that in person.... but i guess he dosent need to engage staff anymore.... he has us where he wants us. Funny how his secretary was more swift with her responses BEFORE the pension vote. Too busy popping the bubbly and shopping with our pension money at John Lewis these days!
If times are THAT tight, lets start by getting all these mickey mouse managers back in the ops room and earn their keep. Only when NATS start to show willing to actually cutting their costs and stop wasting money on these ridiculous managerial position, armies of admin staff at CTC and crap projects will my ear begin to be a slight more sympathetic to their plights of poverty.
As it stands, they can ram it up their arse and if the big RB ever returns his emails I will tell him that in person.... but i guess he dosent need to engage staff anymore.... he has us where he wants us. Funny how his secretary was more swift with her responses BEFORE the pension vote. Too busy popping the bubbly and shopping with our pension money at John Lewis these days!
Last edited by privatesandwiches; 7th Jan 2009 at 17:05.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So in answer: Less than 60k, I often exceed the European working directive and we we do is NOT easy. I appreciate what ATCOs do and I have 35 years in ATC - like it or not - civil and mil - area and towers (and mobile radars up mountains - tent city etc. Just stop slagging off something that you dont understand - or find out!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As usual anotherthing, your comments are right on the money. 
Mr Barron is no doubt unable to answer your e-mails because
A) He can't be arsed
B) Why should he? He's ruined the pension...job done
C) His 5 a side team were busy thrashing the Starbucks Over 50s All Star XI on that particular day
D) The DB9 was being washed and valeted by some hard up ATCOs in return for some Aramark canteen vouchers
E) Strictly Come Dancing was on
No doubt he'll get back to you soon though!
As it stands, they can ram it up their arse and if the big RB ever returns his emails I will tell him that in person.
A) He can't be arsed
B) Why should he? He's ruined the pension...job done
C) His 5 a side team were busy thrashing the Starbucks Over 50s All Star XI on that particular day
D) The DB9 was being washed and valeted by some hard up ATCOs in return for some Aramark canteen vouchers
E) Strictly Come Dancing was on
No doubt he'll get back to you soon though!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To set something straight, any engineers on here who are based at CTC... I dont count engineers as CTC monkeys and neither do any of my colleagues in the ops room that have ever spoken to. It is a job vital to the operations of ATC.
However, If engineers get bees in their bonnets and start mouthing off about how would us ATCO's survive if we didnt have our nifty radars and kit that they provide and maintain you will get a short answer.... in the nicest way,we are not that bothered.
If my radar, RT or phone line goes down and cannot be fixed I will move to another console. If that is not possible then everything grinds to a halt and I catch up with some sky sports until I have the equipment to do my job.
It's the company that will take the hit and unfortunately engineers are the ones who will be under pressure to get it fixed asap.
I will take a pager and you can call me when its fixed and I will casually wander back and get on with it.
I used to care about it a lot more but at the moment my enthusiasm has gone, I turn up for work, talk to planes and go home. You can thank the RB for that
However, If engineers get bees in their bonnets and start mouthing off about how would us ATCO's survive if we didnt have our nifty radars and kit that they provide and maintain you will get a short answer.... in the nicest way,we are not that bothered.
If my radar, RT or phone line goes down and cannot be fixed I will move to another console. If that is not possible then everything grinds to a halt and I catch up with some sky sports until I have the equipment to do my job.
It's the company that will take the hit and unfortunately engineers are the ones who will be under pressure to get it fixed asap.
I will take a pager and you can call me when its fixed and I will casually wander back and get on with it.
I used to care about it a lot more but at the moment my enthusiasm has gone, I turn up for work, talk to planes and go home. You can thank the RB for that
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right guys we all know we have been shafted but to be honest who's fault is that???...every one I speak to says they voted no!!!...therefore I guess someone is telling porkies??....if we had been like the French we would have walked months ago and got what we wanted....a bludy good pension scheme........that said no bickering on here will reverse that now , we have been shafted for good.........maybe now instead of the constant bickering between departments and grades you could take a moment out to think about the 30 ATSA grades that will no longer have a position on entry to NPC....and then the other 40 that will no longer have a position once electronic strips come in........after 30 plus years of service I can tell you many are pretty peed off!!!....think about that next time you stash your £500 for the next AAVA you do!!!!!!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mixmastermike,
From 1st April the current pension scheme will close, and new joiners will be on a new, defined contribution, scheme. Admittedly not quite as good as the current defined benefit scheme, but still very, very good when compared to other pension schemes. Ask any IFA.
Not quite sure of the details off hand, perhaps some kind soul will post some information. If not, I'll try and get some tomorrow.
From 1st April the current pension scheme will close, and new joiners will be on a new, defined contribution, scheme. Admittedly not quite as good as the current defined benefit scheme, but still very, very good when compared to other pension schemes. Ask any IFA.
Not quite sure of the details off hand, perhaps some kind soul will post some information. If not, I'll try and get some tomorrow.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought maybe Yahoo might have given you more info, mixmastermike, hence I 'un-ignored' his/her post.
Never mind. To answer Yahoo, of course I had details of the new joiners pension scheme when I met with my FA, to ask his opinion. I'm sure you did too, when you went to see your FA. I don't have those details with me right now. Hence why I wrote: "Not quite sure of the details off hand"
mixmastermike, here's a brief rundown from my memory and some notes I found on my computer:
Never mind. To answer Yahoo, of course I had details of the new joiners pension scheme when I met with my FA, to ask his opinion. I'm sure you did too, when you went to see your FA. I don't have those details with me right now. Hence why I wrote: "Not quite sure of the details off hand"
mixmastermike, here's a brief rundown from my memory and some notes I found on my computer:
- Defined contribution, NATS will pay up to 18% contributions.
- Employees pay default 6%, max 9%, min 4%
- NATS match cost 2:1
- Choice of what the money is invested in (i.e. higher risk, higher return to begin with, changing to low risk low return nearing retirement).
- SMART pensions
- Dearth benefits to spouse/family.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 5116N00044W
Age: 76
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if you pay 9% Nats would have to pay 18%.
terrain safe, are you a NATS employee? From your other posts you would appear to be, but you don't seem to have grasped the pension proposals you were objecting to!
Last edited by PeltonLevel; 7th Jan 2009 at 22:03.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Seaworld
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I remember from the briefings, that is correct. They will pay up to 18% as this is still reducing the liability and guaranteeing it at 18%. Still not a final salary scheme mind you, but fairly good.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite. I think it is 1:1 otherwise if you pay 9% Nats would have to pay 18%.
Also there is nothing to stop an individual contributing more than 9% of their salary but NATS will only go to a max of 18%.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: swanlake
Age: 54
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Terrain safe ...new pension is 2:1 so max contibution is effective to 27% of salary based on contribution of 9% by the employee. current contributions are 6% employee and 20%? employer(correct me if wrong) The difference being that the employer contribution is certain to rise higher in the near future for current scheme, something the company have little to control.(apart from the cap) The new scheme will go no higher than the combined total of 27% and is based on a fund value which is exposed to risk to the employee not the company, whereas the old scheme is defined benefits and leaves the employer liable, something the company wants to get away from.
