Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Ground & Other Ops Forums > ATC Issues
Reload this Page >

UK - NATS Pay negotiations - latest rumours

ATC Issues A place where pilots may enter the 'lions den' that is Air Traffic Control in complete safety and find out the answers to all those obscure topics which you always wanted to know the answer to but were afraid to ask.

UK - NATS Pay negotiations - latest rumours

Old 22nd Apr 2011, 11:00
  #1921 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my garden shed
Posts: 230

er no! 5.2% 0ver one year, then a maximum of 5% (less if RPI takes a dip) in year 2 on basic salary only and not ASAP which means less than the headline year 2 rate across total year's salary.

The lower your salary, the smaller your net year 2 payrise as ASAP makes up a larger proportion of your total take home

if year 2 RPI hit govt target of around 2-3%, then that's what we'll get next year on our basic salary only, and 0% on ASAP

Last edited by hold at SATAN; 22nd Apr 2011 at 11:20.
hold at SATAN is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2011, 11:00
  #1922 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: soon to be homeless
Posts: 18

There we are folks. Can't be arsed but hey, you're alright aren't you. Too many folks like you out there and that's why it will get a yes vote
Can't tell you how that post makes me feel.
oneowl is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2011, 11:07
  #1923 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: sunny south
Posts: 18
Conspiracy theories,

Thank you! I only hope that all those others have a read and hopefully come to the conclusion that we just cannot let this happen! It does raise ones spirits slightly though.....
southoftheborder is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2011, 11:14
  #1924 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my garden shed
Posts: 230
given that there are more airports which will not be affected by the MET provision, and those airports are the bigger units on the whole in NSL, then worries are that the vote may still go through due to the apparent greed (that has been shown time and time again) of ATCOS
any NSL guys thinking they're getting free money for someone else doing met is misled. You will be giving up the right in future to negotiate a settlement if management want you to take up met tasks

I think that the recommendation from the union is their way of showing management that they are not being obstructive. WE as the membership are well within our rights to say NO and give the Union a renewed mandate to go back to the table having guaged the feeling of the membership
hold at SATAN is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2011, 11:16
  #1925 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: behind the fruit
Posts: 233
Would much rather take 4% with no strings attached than a 5.2% with strings. That's why I will vote NO.

A pay offer should be exactly that: a PAY offer. Not blackmail over terms and condition in return of an extra 1% (which in my band 2 world equates to about 20 quid a month difference!)
LEGAL TENDER is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2011, 11:30
  #1926 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: S.England
Posts: 13
It is not a 10.2% pay rise, it is a 5.2% pay rise for year one, year 2 will be RPI for August 2011 (capped at 5%) on basic pay only.

I'm sure Prospect will try and "dress" it up as a 10.2% rise at the forthcoming briefings.
LateStay is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2011, 11:32
  #1927 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 531
Just a question for those who say the "big NSL units down south" will vote this in as they don't do met.

Met units (I think these will be eligible for Met)
London City

Non-met units

Do the bottom 3 really have more members than the list at the top?
GT3 is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2011, 11:40
  #1928 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: UK
Age: 44
Posts: 6
It isn't 10.2% !!
We need to stop referring to it as such. Most people get shift or non op pay so a large proportion of your salary will see no increase in year 2. You'll need to get your calculators out to calculate your real rise but it can't mathematically be 10.2%.
That figure sounds good though doesn't it? All depends how things are presented I suppose. Same deal could be described as one which may be less than the cost of living increase at a time of continuing profits. So we may be about to trade met and aava for another below inflation pay deal. Brilliant.
And that's without even considering the guys who'll lose their 2% allowance at the airports.

Last week felt things were finally going to change and as a trade union we were going to fight for our rights. What happened in a week? What were the significant changes?
You may now enlighten me.
Westenders is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2011, 11:49
  #1929 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Not quite sure anymore
Posts: 47

I am getting more and more annoyed by the minute by everbody referring to the crux of this matter as "doing the MET"!

This is about reducing ATSA numbers at NSL regionals to the point that there will be no ATSA on the nightshift.

This is not just about MET. This is about operational plugged in ATCOs having to answer incoming calls from the public with noise complaints, UFO sightings, wrong numbers for Pizza delivery, bomb threats et al. Sending NOTAMs and SNOTAMS, formulating ATIS broadcasts, sorting out stand allocation problems and everything else (including help when there is an emergency) that the ATSA staff do now and seems to be overlooked.

To NSL management this is about saving money and I'm sure they would even pay a bit more to achieve their goal.

To NSL regional ATCOs it is about providing a safe service without being lumbered with a raft of additional tasks (otherwise known as operational distractions!!!)

That is why I will be voting NO and will vote NO regardless of percentage points so long as "MET" is part of the deal.
pikman is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2011, 11:49
  #1930 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: solent-on-sea
Posts: 440
This is all very well lambasting all the band 5 roll overs etc, but let's just remember one thing. An AAVA is still voluntary, so if you're not happy about it, don't do it. So basically one of the big 'strings' attached is that if I don't want to do overtime in perpetuity, I don't have to. No too stringy for me.
Not Long Now is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2011, 11:49
  #1931 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Age: 50
Posts: 91
An engineer told me last night there was absolutely no chance of their offer being accepted. He said it wasn’t so much as an offer as an assault on their T&Cs with the NSL engineers being particularly targeted and he doubted it would even be put to a ballot.
Mantovani is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2011, 11:50
  #1932 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: S.England
Posts: 13
"What happened in a week? "

Prospect caved in............again .
LateStay is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2011, 11:50
  #1933 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The land that taste forgot
Posts: 199

Gibraltar's "NSL" staff doesnt qualify for any UK pay Deal or T&C's.

Prospects and PCS negotiated a 9% over 3 year deal for us. When the members rejected the unions view was take it or leave it.
man friday is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2011, 11:56
  #1934 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 531
Yeah I wasn't sure about Gib, hence the ? after it
GT3 is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2011, 12:48
  #1935 (permalink)  

Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
100% no vote here and very disappointed with my union.
Roffa is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2011, 13:12
  #1936 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 1,996
Amazed to see that yet again, the votes will be counted by Prospect,
at Prospect HQ, probably behind closed doors.
As with any election the votes should be counted only by independent scrutineers.
Then, and only then, should the results of this ballot be accepted.
Thanks again to 9th Dan for the detailed banding explanation.
Good points from pikman too, more Ops room distractions for NSL ATCOs certainly.
Definitely a NO from me.
ZOOKER is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2011, 13:48
  #1937 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Global Village
Posts: 8

Maybe the powder is being kept dry(!!!!!), but Prospect have caved in again...

Utterly spineless

I'm voting NO

ps....anyone know why the rosters were late out(with union agreement)?????
OurSoul is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2011, 14:00
  #1938 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,294
As an aside if LTCC had an infinite number of ATCOs their total score would only come down to around 482.
Just as I've always thought.

I'm now incandescent with rage not only over this pay offer, but all that has gone before. Clearly TC should be band 10
anotherthing is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2011, 15:01
  #1939 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Madrid FIR
Posts: 291
man friday's post shows that Gib has already been shafted by its caring, sharing unions. But it raises a point. Is it mandatory to reach an agreed settlement? If there is a 'No' vote, could Management/Prospect/PCS just tell everybody 'We made you an offer, you turned it down. Tough. See you next year.'
radarman is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2011, 15:17
  #1940 (permalink)  

PPRuNe Bashaholic
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,439
Very disappointed in the BEC for caving in and allowing non core pay issues to be included in the deal. I guess the track record with the pensions should have been ample warning that they are not a million miles away from NATS Management on most issues, and we, as members, never seem to learn that defeat is usually always grasped from the jaws of victory.

The deal should have been solely about core pay, across the whole of NATS as a single workforce, and the BEC should have been pushing for a deal which at least matches inflation and compensates for the real term pay reduction we have effectively had over the last few years. No strings attached.

As others have said, don't be fooled by the headline 10+% over 2 years. It's only a guaranteed 5.2% for this year. It could be a very small increase next year depending on the financial performance of the country. Alternatively, if the country goes to the dogs and inflation jumps up over 5%, we could be tied to a less than RPI increase, or an effective pay cut. Smoke and mirrors again, and all the hallmarks of the pension briefings and that sellout to NATS Management.

The AAVA agreement should have been kept as a totally separate issue, and one which should only be up for debate when the existing agreement ends at the end of this year (albeit currently suspended - I expect a cave in on this too by the end of the month). Why do the BEC want to renew it anyway ? I would rather have correct numbers of staff in place than have to rely on people giving their time up for the Kings Shilling to bail out the ineptitude of NATS Management. If they do want to renew it, why make it a perpetual agreement at a rate which was set about 5 years ago and has never risen ? Maybe their thinking is to make the agreement unattractive to members so that no one does any ? If that's the case, they have underestimated the attraction of a few quid to a lot of members, some of whom would sell their grandmothers to the devil. NATS Management will of course be rubbing their hands in glee at the bargain basement cover they have negotiated once again with our 'Working Together' BEC. Cheap ATCO labour on tap = a big bonus for the executives.

MET should also play no part in this deal. That should be a sectional pay claim matter for those staff affected, done on an individual unit basis if need be, to keep it fair. It's nothing to do with NERL or the bigger NSL units (for the moment) so why are we getting a vote on it ?

If you can't tell by now ... I'm a NO !!
10W is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.