Remaining 49% of NATS to be privatised
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Down South
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would disappear on the basis that a DB scheme wouldn't be in the best interests of whoever took it over and if I understand correctly, and it's possible I haven't, (in which case ignore this whole post) that a new employer only has to undertake to maintain the terms and conditions you were working under before.
The DB scheme would be a bit of a millstone to any prospective buyers though so it works both ways
The DB scheme would be a bit of a millstone to any prospective buyers though so it works both ways
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: etha
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The DB scheme isn't in the best interests of the current share holders but they still have to maintain it. Any new share holders will not be able to close the scheme or stop paying into the scheme, so I don't see how it could "disappear"?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would disappear on the basis that a DB scheme wouldn't be in the best interests of whoever took it over and if I understand correctly, and it's possible I haven't, (in which case ignore this whole post) that a new employer only has to undertake to maintain the terms and conditions you were working under before.
A shareholder with that big a holding could put pressure on to the board to make any number of changes that might improve their return on investment, but they would have to know what they were getting themselves into when they first bought. That also assumes that one investor would buy the 49% as a whole, which I think is unlikely.
Finally, nobody 'takes over' the pension scheme. The responsibility for it rests with the trustee. The money in the pension scheme cannot be removed by anyone for any other purpose and hence it cannot 'disappear'. If a new shareholder did not demonstrate as much support for the scheme in the future then it could result in some difficult conversations between NATS and the trustee about making good any deficit that might exist.
Last edited by hangten; 7th Dec 2015 at 09:16. Reason: Clarity
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't get it, how can a privately owned company have any interrest in stocks from a company, that's not allowed to generate a profit? Other than what is needed for investments in future upgrade/development?
Doesn't ICAO state you're not supposed to take more from the airliners than needed to keep operations running (included future investments)?
(Enroute that is, I suppose TWR/APP part is a little more on normal business terms)
Doesn't ICAO state you're not supposed to take more from the airliners than needed to keep operations running (included future investments)?
(Enroute that is, I suppose TWR/APP part is a little more on normal business terms)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Down South
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you're getting mixed up with the laws of TUPE. A new owner of 49% of NATS' shares is not a new employer, it's the same employer with a new shareholder. Every time IAG shares are bought and sold on the stock exchange the staff don't have to worry about a new employer.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this getting our knickers in a twist over whether or not security would be compromised is just noise... the fact is, as mentioned above, that the money raised by a sale of NATS is peanuts compared to the money the government will get if they hold onto their share and continue to get dividends.
The sale price would be surpassed almost within the term of a government. The sale does not, apart from getting a quick buck, make any financial sense.
The sale price would be surpassed almost within the term of a government. The sale does not, apart from getting a quick buck, make any financial sense.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sarf England
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....the fact is, as mentioned above, that the money raised by a sale of NATS is peanuts compared to the money the government will get if they hold onto their share and continue to get dividends.
The sale price would be surpassed almost within the term of a government. The sale does not, apart from getting a quick buck, make any financial sense.
The sale price would be surpassed almost within the term of a government. The sale does not, apart from getting a quick buck, make any financial sense.
I'm not saying it would be a great decision but I can understand why they would give it some careful consideration.
LTP
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gonzo, I'm sure there are many roles and tasks that NATS undertakes that are of a sensitive nature as far as civil defence and intelligence are concerned. Would it really be in the UK's best interests to have that information passed to a foreign government?
Wasn't there a spying/bugging scandal with Huawei or another Chinese mobile phone manufacturer in the U.S.? (Implying clear links with commercial companies and state espionage agencies)
Wasn't there a spying/bugging scandal with Huawei or another Chinese mobile phone manufacturer in the U.S.? (Implying clear links with commercial companies and state espionage agencies)
So are our security processes in such a poor state that, say, a group of executives from the Universities Superannuation Scheme can walk into Swanwick and come away with sensitive documents?
Where do we think these future shareholders will be getting all this classified information from?
Where do we think these future shareholders will be getting all this classified information from?
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not saying think it good idea - don't think it good we sold all of those off to Germans, Spanish, French and Chinese already - even just down to fact that all those profits go out of the country, but in reality there no issue who owns air traffic and remember already NATS is partly privatised - there many options as to how it could be sold and split up. And the regulation of it always be government.