Nats Pensions
 

WILL be changed, irrespective of what Management or union says.

Watch this space. Probably be an announcement within 12 months.

Most likely closing present scheme to new entrants, then giving current members the option to move from the less well supported scheme to the less good one.

Someone somewhere let something slip.

Welcome to the rest of the world mate. Virtually every other company with a defined benefit pension scheme has had to pump huge amounts in to support their pension scheme and employees are expected to take some of the pain as well. Consider yourself fortunate if your employer permits existing members to continue to accrue albeit reduced future benefits. Many schemes have not only closed to new members but have also terminated future accrual to existing members and replaced it with a money purchase scheme.

Maybe ,at last its time to unleash the powder:}
AyrTC

The CAAPS Nats pension fund is well run and in surplus due to the excellent stewardship of the Trustees. I believe that the savings to be made by changing the pension scheme would pale into insignificance against the costs to the airlines of selective strike action as mandated by the membership to the unions. I would have thought that it is about time that the various airline managements started to make representations to nats management about the costs to them of a strike (short or long term) and how it might affect them. One thing you can be sure of and that is Paul Barron will not be affected by any of the issues arising from the pensions situation as he will ride off into the sunset with a large amount of money for his performance in ruining a pension fund that was paid for and used for the benefit of the workers.

Ah but the NATS scheme is in healthy surplus, shows no signs of going into deficit and NATS has enjoyed long contribution breaks because of this.

Closing it is more to do with keeping a bunch of crystal-ball-gazing actuaries in the credit rating agencies happy than a sensible response to increasing longevity.

I am just guessing but another reason for attempting to close the scheme might be to steal the huge pension surplus that there is at the moment. Incidently this is not some obscure or esoteric exercise, as an ordinary worker who has been working for nats for 25 years I went onto the CAAPS website recently and I have in my personal pension "pot" between £500,000-£750,000. These are huge amounts of OUR money that the management is attempting to "reform"

I don't believe an all out strike would get much sympathy from the general public.
However, if we all turned down overtime, refused to train, left all aircraft on standard routings (and at standard levels), provided real spacing on approach rather than what we get away with now and demanded proper flow and sector closures when short staffed, we'd cost the airlines a huge sum without the emotive media images of picket lines manned by some of the higher salary earners in society.

I just don't believe strike action would achieve our objectives in today's world where public perception can be so easily manipulated by a media savvy management.

Del Prado

maybe no public sympathy... but so what?? When have we carried out industrial action? One day (yes ONE day) would let the public know what ATCOs (and ATSAs and ATCEs) really do and how essential they are to the running of this country.

It would also put Barron in the know about what the coal face workers actually do.

Doing what you suggest is worth naught... downing tools totally is the only way to make a point. Yes there may be no public support, but we are not like the cheese eating surrender monkeys, striking every other day. We are not interested in public support at this stage, but should be interested in showing our power

With reference to the initial post on the thread, can anybody shed light on where this information came from and just how it "will" be changed "irrespective" of what anyone, i.e. the members, say ?

Spin, Spin, Spin. The baron really has got his teeth into this one hasn't he? Float lots of rumours about the "inevitability" of closing the scheme and do it often enough and people will begin to believe its true. IT IS NOT

FACT: CAAPS is well run and meets all of its obligations and is likely to in the future. There is NO evidence to suggest anything else.

Just becasue other schemes aren't doing so well, this has no bearing on CAAPS.

FACT: The current NATS management teams main interest is increased PROFIT. Anything that MAY threaten the great god PROFIT has to be dealt with. Hence the cheap shot at CAAPS.

UK government continues to hold 49% of NATS. Despite assertions to the contrary, the UK government still has responsibily for SOME of NATS and CAAPS.

The baron and his henchmen will continue to float stories about CAAPS being doomed. When you hear these "fictional stories", just remember who is telling them and ask yourself what their true motivation is. Not staff welfare that is certain.

Should push come to shove, single shift strikes are easily do-able at each NATS unit without too much pain to each individual Union member (one shift). The effect on the airlines would be paralysing of course.

This is one that that some senior managers are becoming aware that they should back away from. They are being driven by the baron's lust for profit.

Rgds BEX

I am afraid I am with Anotherthing on this one. The threat of one days selective strike action (LHR on day, Swanwick another day, ScATCC etc, etc) would be enough. The management would cave in as it would be seen as not cost-effective to pursue it with the effect it would have on our "customers". This is provided that the unions carried through the threat that they have been mandated to do and did not come up with this "working together" nonsense. I consider public "sympathy" and their holidays a complete irrelevance when it comes to my future. To quote an American General (Patton or McArthur, I think) who said "You find the word sympathy in the dictionary between **** and syphilis.

If we do go on strike all units must down tools for the same period of time on the same day.In 1981 when we were ( well some of us ) last on strike we went for the odd unit on strike while other units were working and it gave rise to comments like Glasgow should be on strike so do not answer that 'phone line ( even if the ATCO at Glasgow was not in the union and he was just doing his job) It made a lot of people very uncomfortable.

The next time everybody out at the same time and all those who do not want to strike can work with each other and probably make a complete ar$e of it.( and then watch the company "thank" them.)

I no longer give a monkey's about public sympathy.I have put an awful lot of my OWN MONEY into this pension fund.

Also while I am on a rant I do not care what companies outside NATS are like.We have fought hard and long for our Terms and Conditions.We should not be trying to emmulate poorer companies , they should be trying to get on par with NATS.

Nurse!Time to take my blood pressure:*

Rgds

AyrTC

Those who think a strike over pensions would be successful need to take a reality check. It would quite likely play straight into the hands of Barron and I am sure that he would not hesitate when his back is against the wall to do a "Regan", with the governments blessings, in order to change some of the other T & C's that he doesn't like. This would effectively get NATS off onto a new and clean slate with T & C's in line with other business's, very handy should the government want to sell its 49% stake in NATS, as it did with BP and other companies, in order to enable NATS to be floated on the stock market. He would get massive support, helped by the media, from the public who would be only too willing to put up with a bit of discomfort in order to see a highly paid workforce with excellent T & C's brought into line with what they have to put up with. Baron would win and retire in a blaze of glory with all the millions he will have made from the flotation of NATS. All sound a bit far fetched ? Maybe, but everything that is happening at the moment including employee shares, rebranding, Moody's upgrading to A3, accounts published in line with IFRS, financial restructuring, all point to NATS being shaped up for a flotation. The pension scheme is the only hurdle left to tackle.
Not that a strike ballot would succeed anyway, just listening to peoples comments when this subject is raised in the coffee lounge, rest room and other places it is clear that the majority of people would not automatically vote for a strike. Combine this with the timing of things, the workforce just having moved, settling into new houses in new areas, younger members getting mortgages for the first time, getting used to the new workplace and its surroundings, creating a new circle of friends and social life, getting the children settled into new schools etc. Vote for a strike that you know you may not win and then suffer the financial consequences, with all that lot on your plate ? I don't think so.
My view is from an ATCO's perspective. ATSA's, Engineers and others would be insane to even consider striking.
Having said all of that I am vehemently against any changes to the perfectly good and well managed pension fund that we currently have. I just do not think a strike would help our cause. Strikes are very divisive and harmful to team environments such as ATC. Even now there is still some needle amongst older members over the 1981 action.
Baron should be proud of the company pension scheme and our T & C's and hold them up as a beacon of good practice that other companies should be striving to achieve, this should be part of the "showcase" (his word on the NATS website) that we can be proud of and leaders in that area, something other companies should be aiming for. Instead he wants to dumb everything down to the lowest level he can get away with, except for his own salary, pension and T & C's that is. His motivation is undoubtedly one of greed.
I do think Del Prado's idea is a good one to start with when things begin to get serious, which they probably will at some point.
I'll get me coat,
SATCO

ah messing with my pension.. oo i feel slightly unwell.. touch of the flu... nasty, very contagious
anybody else???:oh:

I know that our scheme is well run, and has a significant surplus, and NATS pays a comparatively low level of contributions.

It seems to me there is a bit of a herd mentality going on, 'everyone else is doing it, why can't we?' type of attitude going on with our senior management.

Senior management take note.

You'll look really good in an interview when asked why you left your previous job and you say 'I mucked around with the pensions............................
everyone left to work for someone else...........................
then the company went bust.............................'
The main thing that has made me reluctant to leave NATS is the pension. No pension, nothing else really keeping me, and I suspect a large number of my colleagues think along the same lines.

ATCOS / ATSAS / Engineers can work for anyone, NATS or no NATS.

As for my source, all I have is secondhand information, but I believe it to be correct. I'd be delighted to be proved wrong.

I got it from someone who was present at a meeting when someone from HR said too much. Apparently senior managements faces told the FULL story.

Obviously names and places can't be mentioned eithere here or by PM.

co ord unaffected
If your info is second hand how can you believe it to be true.
Deal with the facts not second hand information

I agree with most, but not all, of what has been said. However, when all is said and done, we have but three choices:

1. Get lubed-up, bend over, then prepare to get royally shttp://milbut.org/smilies/gob_icon_censored_sm.gifd by our very own contender for "Employer of the Year". :yuk:
2. Tell Mr B where to stick the proposed changes to the scheme, (whatever they may be), and point out to our customers that the pittance they/their SLF pay towards the NATS Employee Pension Scheme is but a 'bladder full of piss in the Pacific' when it comes to the financial penalties of being unable to move a single aeroplane through NATS controlled airspace/airports for a week.
3. Take one's money and run and go work for someone else, somewhere else, while throwing as much £/$/€ into your own private pension as you can afford.

Personally, #2 gets my vote...

The thing we have to do over the pension is stick together. I do think a strike, or just a threat of strike action would send warning bells throughout the aviation world, most if not all airlines could not afford a day without flying.

As for public support, forget it. Most of the public reckon that ATC is the reason that their plane is delayed and they have to miss out on a few hours of sun and drunkeness on their annual two week binge. I am sure many of us have heard a pilot blame ATC for late arrivals or departures!!

As for the promise that if you are already in the scheme then your pension is not under threat. How long before the members of the "new scheme" out number the members in the "old Scheme" and vote to close the "old scheme" down???

Another question. If the pension goes what will the difference be between NATS and other ATC providers? One of the reasons we all work and stay with NATS is the pension. No pension, whats to stop controllers wanting to work for other companies, especially if they bid and get the ATC contract at your unit?? Have you thought of that aspect Mr. Barron?

To strike seems like the obvious thing to opt for but I am not so sure that it should be the first step, as it exposes all of us to risks and the wrath of the public before it might be necessary. Why not first make use of the fact that we are over delivering; that we are doing such a good job in shifting this much traffic through an inadequate system should be heavily in our favour becaue it is more than management have right to expect and can be taken back without penalty.

As has already been mentioned, just let every ATCO do their sector by the book;fully man the sectors and insist on flow measures to protect it. Refuse to permit operations that expose us to acknowledged safety risks, e.g. the current fiasco in Stansted's airspace where traffic is constantly running a gauntlet for rwy05 against LC, GW and WU departures. (This issue is already the subject of a safety report which demanded correction "...on the grounds of passenger safety." It is entirely proper for ATCOs to take action to protect themselves where management have not. It is actually our duty.)

Heathrow - use 60 seconds instead of the current 45 for a one minute split; apply the minimum final spacings. When the multiple CAT Bs are in the way as they nearly always are, slow the rate to protect the system.

Refuse AAVAs.

Currently, we are making all these things work and it makes Management look good - That is fine when they are playing ball on pensions but they cannot have it both ways. Do what you are required to do, nothing more.

As I understand things, such action should lead to a significant increase in delays for the airlines, which will put management directly in confrontation with them and the regulator. That must work in our favour.

Strikes are often devisive and are a frightening prospect for many. Is it necessary, yet?

.4

Opnot

I have only passed on what I heard, although it is secondhand information, it was plausible and concerned me enough to make me feel I ought to send out a warning.

As I said before, I would be delighted to be proved wrong on this.

Fact The current pension scheme cannot be 'interfered with' by NATS, only a change in the law will allow it.

Fact Staff in the current pension schemes rights and benefits are protected by law.

What appears to be the concerns are that this scheme will close to new employees and a new scheme started up for them and/or that current staff will be 'encouraged' to leave CAAPS.

My personal opinion is that I would need a huge amount of 'encouragement' to leave the Gold Plated Rolls Royce scheme which is CAAPS.

As to closing it to new staff, well its obvious to me from everything I've read that there are very very very few companies (except for MP's) offering the Roller that CAAPS is to new staff because pensions are vastly expensive. NATS as a company will be forced by the regulator to do something about the huge cost of its contributions to the pension scheme. By forced I mean that charges will be capped and/or reduced so that income is less and less income means that something somewhere has to be cut back because NATS does not have a huge pot of gold to dip into, it runs on revenue.
So something has to be done now because of the lead time for it to have an effect. Why not close the scheme to new recruits I ask myself? Some people say we have a responsibility to new recruits, well do we? Are we their parents? They would be joining this company with their eyes open fully aware of the Terms & Conditions of employment, including pensions. Its their choice not ours to attempt to make for them!
NATS would be foolish to attempt to introduce a replacement scheme which does not compete with other companies because they could not attract staff.

Just to reiterate - Current members of CAAPS are absolutely protected by law, their terms and conditions and benefits are protected by law, NATS cannot do a Maxwell. The discussion (IMHO) centres on whether the existing scheme closes to new entrants and what decision current members want to make on behalf of future employees, whether or not those future employees want current NATS staff to make decisions for them!

BD

Thats the point though. NATS pays very little into CAAPS compared with other companies and their schemes. It doesn't pay "huge sums".

BEX

Currently 12% I believe because its using the surplus to cover the shortfall (shortfall being the difference between what NATS has to pay to keep the scheme assets the same or greater than its liabilities and how much it is paying). How long will the surplus continue to cover that shortfall? How long is a piece of string? One sure thing is that it cannot be forever, not unless the scheme trustees find some fantastic investments which no one else in the financial markets has found.

BD

What about staff who joined NATS after april 2001?, I don't think their pensions are protected by law.

BDiONU

Forgive my ignorance in this matter and explain if you can...

Firstly: I have heard on a number of occasions that if new pensions terms are given to new employees then when their number exceeds those on existing terms a vote could be taken to close down the existing scheme. Is that correct? Surely, if new employees join a different scheme they cannot then vote in matters relating to the old scheme, it would be none of their business?

Secondly: I have spoken directly with one of the IPMS team working on this and have been advised that the start-up costs for any new scheme would be significant, both to NATS and the "new" employees. Therefore, why is that still more attractive to NATS than continuing the current arrangements, which go a very long way towards keeping NATS' ATCOs quiet? In other words, why kick up a huge stink over something that is not going to be much cheaper (certainly in the short term).:confused:

.4

.4, Your first point is the crux of the matter. The estimate is something like 10 years before 'new' staff outnumber 'old', then a huge amount of pressure can (will) be brought to bear to close the present scheme. Promotion dependent on you signing up to new pension, higher pay rises for those on new scheme there are hundreds of 'incentives ' that management can use.
This has happened throughout our industry and throughout privatised companies.


Your second point, way back at the start of this thread foghorn said

As NATS is so heavily geared (and the higher it's credit rating, the cheaper it's borrowing) the company can save so much more by having a AAA credit rating than the start up costs of a new scheme.
High credit ratings are achieved by reducing long term liabilites (like pensions).

I'm just giving my viewpoint based on everything I've heard and read. Not just what NATS are saying but everything we're all exposed to in the media and from friends employed in other companies. I do not profess to be any sort of 'expert', just a bloke with a slightly different opinion to the 'One out all out brothers!' type of post which seems prevalent.
I concur with your conclusion. No one can 'interfere' with the current CAAPS scheme unless the law is changed.
If what you say is correct (and I have no reason to doubt it but the 'new' pension scheme details aren't being announced until March/April next year) then the key bit is that costs will be significant to the 'new' employees. Also the company are looking at the long term view. If you joined the company at 20 you could be employed for 40 years, so if they close the existing scheme now it'll be about 20 years until the 'new' scheme members begin to be greater than the 'old' ones. Bear in mind that CAAPS will still be paying out pensions until everyone in the scheme dies which could be a very long time for some of us.

BD

For a change to the current scheme, other than by government legislation, the members must vote on it and the vote must be 100% in favour or it fails. So if even 1 person voted against a change the scheme will stay intact. There is, to my mind, no incentive which could persuade 100% of members to vote in favour, unless the offer was to apply a coat of platinum over the gold ;)

BD

My post would have been more accurate had I said "a huge amount of pressure can (will) be brought to bear to move members to the new scheme" rather than "a huge amount of pressure can (will) be brought to bear to close the present scheme".

BDiONU, they can't close the present scheme under existing guarantees. Do you trust those guarantees to still be in place in 10, 20 years time?

Management have many tools to force members from the present scheme into a new scheme. Who's going to look after present scheme members interests when 60% of the workforce are in the new scheme? What about 80%? Your estimate of a 20 year 'tipping point' when new members outnumber old is a lot higher than union estimates.

My crystal ball doesn't go out that far ;) But I cannot, currently, envisage any situation which would move the government to make a change to the laws covering CAAPS.
100% of members have to vote for a change, lets say that the workforce stays static at 5000 and in future its down to 20% in the CAAPS scheme, a 1000 people. I still have difficulty in envisaging how you could get 1000 people to all vote the same way, particularly as many of them would be approaching retirement or could see it on the horizon.
Was just a very simplistic calculation based on all staff joining at 20 years old and doing 40 years (or 50 as retirement age moves to the right ;) ) I know that there is a big retirement bulge looming due to the big recruitment drive in the 70's.

BD

Okay

Thanks for those. It seems from what is being said that it is going to be an uncomfortable period all-round until we know the truth of management's intentions and the strength of feeling in the subsequent vote.

.4

well IMHO there appears to be a lot of hysteria and unfounded/unnecessary angst which doesn't accord with the facts, which are that the current CAAPS scheme is totally safe and ringfenced provided NATS doesn't go bust and the government does a Railtrack OR legislation is introduced which changes the laws covering CAAPS.

BD

BD

If it is as secure as you suggest, that is great. May I ask how you come to KNOW that it is that secure? Sorry - I 'm not really up to speed on the relevant laws etc myself.

.4

Had lots of briefings on this recently plus I recall all the stuff that was going through around privitisation, which is when parliament passed the laws ringfencing CAAPS.
BTW I'm not saying it is totally and absolutely 100% secure, thats just my opinion based on my knowledge, everyone needs to make their own minds up.

BD

This of course is the same parliament that previously announced "Our air is not for sale"

Hmmm,

If everythinmg is as secure as BD suggests (and I'd like to believe he is right) then why are NATS management going to all this trouble when they have NO CHANCE of getting the allegedly required 100%?

Protecting "the company?" and therefore it's employees. You're having a laugh.

BEX

Its 100% of members who have to vote in favour of a change to CAAPS (or the law would have to be changed). NATS are not proposing a change, they're proposing to close it off to new employees. From the reactions in this thread its obvious why NATS are going to all the trouble of explaining to current employees just why they want to do it, they don't want disenfranchised, hacked off and militant staff.
Sigh! The regulator has allowed a pass through of pensions costs to the airlines in CP2 (but not for those employed after 1st Jan 2006). In other words NATS are charging the airlines directly, in the form of an increased route charge, for the contributions to CAAPS. As you can imagine the airlines are less than pleased to have to shoulder this additional cost on top of what they already consider to be the most expensive ATSP in Europe. Particularly when you consider that BA has a HUGE hole in its pension fund and I doubt RyanAir or EasyJet have much of a pension scheme. The airlines are squeezed on how much they can charge because they're all in competition with each other and could price themselves out of the market. NATS is a monopoly provider, no one else can offer en route services in the UK. But NATS cannot simply charge what they like, the regulator examines the books and investment proposals and decides on what NATS may charge. Those charges have not only been capped in CP2 but are being reduced by percentages over the years.

The regulator has fired a warning shot over NATS bows in CP2 by not allowing the pass through of pension costs for those employed after 1st Jan 2006. The regulator has made it clear that if NATS do not take any action to reduce pension costs they will take further action in CP3. Further action means yet more reductions in route charges and less pass through of pension costs. The regulator has to take action because of pressure by the airlines to reduce the costs of charges made by the NATS monopoly.

If the route charges are made smaller by the regulator and pension pass through is not allowed then NATS faces a reduction in revenue with an increase in pension costs. By taking action now the company are protecting the employees from the prospect of NATS going bust and the government then doing a Railtrack (which I have no doubt they would, ATC is too important to the UK).

BD

Just curious, how does the regulator fund its own pension scheme?

Isn't what's good for the goose good for the gander?

As for being the most expensive in Europe, to quote our leader...

Beady, I don't see the threat as management making unilateral changes to CAAPS. As you've stated, present rules do not allow for that.
The threat comes when the majority of staff are in a new scheme. management are then in a very strong position to 'victimise' those in the present scheme. They will have 2 groups of staff on different terms and conditions, they will think nothing of offering larger pay rises to new staff and none to existing CAAPS members. There will be many incentives offered, both carrot and stick to get us to leave CAAPS.
Any move by management to split the workforce is very dangerous and will be exploited fully in the years to come.


I'd advise all NATS staff to be very wary of views offered both at work and on this forum. Management (down to some supervisors/chiefs) have been asked to push the board's position on this matter, what you read and hear may not be personally held opinions.

Leading the charge is the guy who was in charge of Alstom ...

... yet he quite happily let NATS pick up HIS pension shortfall as part of his incoming pay package whilst leaving his previous workers to pick up the pieces of their own crumbling fund.

As soon as he's plundered our fund, got his knighthood from his pal Tony, and put a suitable golden parachute for himself and his buddies in place ... he'll be off as quick as a flash.