PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   ATC Issues (https://www.pprune.org/atc-issues-18/)
-   -   NATS Pensions (Split from Pay 2009 thread) (https://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/344589-nats-pensions-split-pay-2009-thread.html)

radar707 3rd Oct 2008 19:42

Thanks Jumbo Driver, I'd just finished my internet trawl and found her.

Will be e-mailing her tomorrow when the wine has worn off.

Surprised that our journo friends that trawl these pages haven't picked up on this, would make a nice few columns:

"New Year Travel Chaos As Air Traffic Controllers Prepared to Strike Over Pensions"

for anybody interested Mrs Ellman can be contacted at:

Louise Ellman MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

Tel:020 7219 5210
Fax:020 7219 2592
[email protected]
www.epolitix.com/Louise-Ellman

ZOOKER 3rd Oct 2008 20:55

Ahh, Louise Ellman, AKA the 'Red Rose'. :E - Ex head of Lancashire County Council.
I did wonder what she was up to these days. :}

Stupendous Man 4th Oct 2008 00:15


Brian helped support New Prestwick Centre, and I beleive he used to be on the Transport Committee

He will be keen to know about our pension !!
Apparently he was at Scottish the other day. It was mentioned to him about the current pension situation. He appeared unaware of it and was apparently furious with the whole scenario.

Time to get the majority shareholders involved a bit more me thinks.

Air.Farce.1 4th Oct 2008 09:11

Exactly that.

The Airline group need pressure put on them from the majority shareholders, the Government. The Newspapers need to be stirred up also !
Don't rule out NATS becoming fully Nationalised again, I seem to remember happier times.........:) :D

Nationalised Air Traffic Services How does that sound Mr Barron :E

chocolateorange 4th Oct 2008 15:18

Anyone know what's happened to the Bradford and Bingley staff pension scheme now they've been nationalised?

Air.Farce.1 4th Oct 2008 16:03

I am not sure you can draw any analogies between NATS and B&B pensions and Nationalisation.
NATS is perhaps unique in as much as it is only part privatised and the pension is the CAA pension scheme.
I stand to be corrected though :confused:

PH-UKU 4th Oct 2008 16:44

Let us refresh our memories with some quotable quotes ...
 
Feb 2000 - Hansard Part of NATS pension debate on Transport Bill

Dec 2001 - NATS privatisation risk by BAE

Air.Farce.1 4th Oct 2008 17:00

I like this quote from above link.......


To quote the Royal Aeronautical Society's evidence to the Commons transport sub-committee last year: `Safety must always be paramount but low morale amongst controllers, for whatever reasons, is in itself a flight safety hazard.' ''

There is a lot of sense in this, lets face it, however professional an individual is when their Pension is at risk it gives cause for concern when morale is low

Del Prado 4th Oct 2008 17:22

Thanks to Barstewards and Data Dad for the excellent info on the last page. I've used it to write to my MP and urge everyone else to do the same.

Quick question. How much did NATS save during the last pension holiday?

barstewards 4th Oct 2008 19:38

A few facts from NATS website:

Yearly pre-tax profits:
July 2005 - £68.8 million
June 2006 - £80.3 million
June 2007 - £94.4 million
June 2008 - £66.7 million (reduced due to cost of closing West Drayton, staff relocation and redeeming shareholder loans)

Dividends to shareholders
2005 - £5 million
2006 - £2.5 million
2007 - nothing declared
2007/08 - interim dividend £2.5 million


Costs of staff relocation to Swanwick and redundancies from restructuring (2008) - £23 million

Pension scheme costs (2008) £54.8 million

So.... The cost of the Swanwick more than 40% of the total cost of the pension scheme in 2007/08.


If the company can absorb these restructuring costs yet still turn a good profit then surely they can afford to pay more into their staffs pension scheme now the Swanwick move is complete???





Impressive figures for a company who do not wish to reward loyalty through a final salary pension scheme.

Air.Farce.1 4th Oct 2008 19:40

The above info is useful, also can anyone confirm NATS lost £120,000,000 when the Spanish deal fell through? Presumably NATS was accountable/responsible for this, and are we confident such incompetence won't happen again? This was all hushed up of course and needs explored further. If I remember NATS and The Spanish fell out over the future revenvue which would be generated by this joint venture, unfortunately NATS was tied into a legal contract which left them exposed, and the £120,000,000 was compensation :mad:

The U.K.'s National Air Traffic Services (NATS) and Spain's Aeropuertos Españoles y Navegación Aérea (AENA) have agreed to jointly develop what they describe as "the air traffic management system of the future."
The two air navigation service providers (ANSPs) say they will set up a commercial joint venture company to develop the Spanish SACTA (Sistema Automatizado de Control Transito Aéreo) ATC system to manage the airspace of Spain and Britain.
This is the first time that two ANSPs have collaborated in such a commercial venture, anywhere in the world.
The new-generation SACTA system will be introduced first in Gran Canaria and the Spanish peninsula in 2007; it will move into NATS' new Prestwick centre in 2009, and then into the Swanwick centre in 2012.
A memorandum defining the deal's basic structure has been signed by Paul Barron and Francisco Quereda, the respective chief executives of NATS and AENA, and the necessary contracts should be in place in the autumn.
While the Spanish SACTA system will be used as the venture's basic ATM technology, it appears that NATS will lead the effort. "We are committed to a common system as the platform for our two-centre strategy in the UK," said Mr. Barron. "Our vision, though, is for NATS to be at the heart of a collaborative venture driving change in Europe.
"Both AENA and NATS will gain from this venture to develop the SACTA system, Mr. Barron added. "NATS' brings our unique experience of managing complex airspace and large volumes of traffic, whilst AENA brings experience, and a system which has proved itself in service over the past 15 years."
Mr. Quereda said: "This is a truly ground-breaking move and we and NATS look forward to taking SACTA forward together for the future," and noted, "SACTA is flexible and adaptable and we have developed it with great care to ensure it meets operational demands whilst remaining simple to maintain. We are delighted to have attracted NATS' expertise to join us in developing the next generation system and have already established a good partnership with them."
The two companies started working together almost two years ago to evaluate SACTA's adaptability for use in the complex airspace over the UK. Definition and specification work has been under way for over a year.
NATS and AENA are also working with Germany's air traffic service provider, DFS (Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH) to evaluate options for the next-generation of flight data processing systems. 08-04-2005

SonicTPA 4th Oct 2008 19:41

If anyone has ever watched Working Lunch on BBC 2, then they might have seen a chap from The Pensions Advisory Service. He really knew his stuff, so I had a look at their website:

The Pensions Advisory Service (TPAS)

It had some interesting info, such as:

Section 262 of the Pensions Act 2004 outlines the requirements if changes are made to an occupational pension scheme. Under these requirements, if changes are made which affect a member's or their survivors' 'subsisting rights' the member's consent must first be obtained or the trustees must ensure that:

- a written explanation has been given to the member and opportunity allowed for them to make representations;

- satisfied themselves that the actuarial value of the member's benefits will be the same, or greater, as their subsisting rights before the change;

- they have obtained a statement from the scheme actuary certifying the actuarial value of the benefits has been maintained.

(Subsisting rights, means any right to future benefits that has already been built up and any entitlement to a pension in payment.)

This basically means that if we don't agree to any changes the company wants to make to our pension, then there is nothing they can do to it that would make it worse. So just say no....!

TPAS is a very good free service, and they know their stuff, so I'm going to forward them a lot of info (that's already available on the internet) and see what they say.

Someone else has also made a very good point, which some of you may have read:

"Once agreement has been reached to change any part of the pension scheme, the Deed of Trust is removed forever"

Is this true?

The problem with the whole scenario is that there is no organisation/union/group that is putting an official counter-argument to the need for changes - it's just us.

But how many people in the company will just go with what the unions and/or company says, and vote yes?

Air.Farce.1 4th Oct 2008 19:47

I think it will be wise to seek professional advice, and if neccessary employ experts to fight our case.

Thanks for the above link, we can e mail them here for free advice

[email protected]

eastern wiseguy 4th Oct 2008 20:12


I think it will be wise to seek professional advice, and if neccessary employ experts to fight our case.

Which is what I would have hoped the union would have done...and if not why not?

Air.Farce.1 4th Oct 2008 20:41

I would hope they are taking professional advice, but until someone confirms this who knows ?

eglnyt 4th Oct 2008 21:10

Happier Times ? I'm still to be convinced that Nationalisation is a positive thing. You might look back on the time pre PPP with nostalgia but I remember it slightly differently. I remember years of pay rises restricted by Government pay policy because public sector pay is apparently inflationary. I remember restricted investment because of the public sector borrowing requirement. If you really think our pension will be safe back in the nationalised fold take a look at the state of the Royal Mail pension scheme, the Government is the only shareholder in that business.

I'm still waiting to see what the Union has to say at the meetings before I make up my mind.

Air.Farce.1 5th Oct 2008 08:26

Our pension is not safe now, so I think we know where part privatisation has got us.

Ask B&B and Northern Rock employees how they feel now after being Nationalised, I bet the champagne was out :)

Asda 5th Oct 2008 09:26

Over two thousand of those employees lost their jobs. I can only imagine what they think about it.

Air.Farce.1 5th Oct 2008 11:01

If they were not Nationalised they would all have lost their jobs. Thats why the Government stepped in and saved them !
I spoke to some of them on the phone, and they were very happy people :)

Anyway, lets stick to our Pension :ok:

Ali Bongo 5th Oct 2008 11:22

No doubt someone wiser than me will correct me but I thought Prospect had a mandate from the members that any:

"proposed changes to the members pension rights will automatically trigger a vote for industrial action"?:confused:

They somehow seem to have interpreted this as:

"any changes proposed by management to the the pension scheme shall be gladly received and put to the memebrs for acceptance":rolleyes:

Or am I missing something here?:confused:

Data Dad 5th Oct 2008 11:33

From Prospect ATCO's Branch Handbook 2008.

Section D3 Superannuation, para (x) page 52.

"(x) The BEC shall ballot immediately for industrial action whenever NATS makes any move to re-negotiate the Pension Scheme that may detrimentally affect new or existing
members.

That seems pretty straight forward to me......

DD

Air.Farce.1 5th Oct 2008 11:40

Maybe "working together" has clouded their judgement

eglnyt 5th Oct 2008 14:24

It isn't just a question of sticking to our pension. It's still not clear to me what keeping the pension exactly as it currently is really means. If it was a straight choice between choosing a degraded pension and the current pension and nothing else changes then it's as pretty simple choice and everybody votes No. However if it's a choice between a degraded pension and everybody keeps their job or the current pension and some NATS staff lose their jobs then it isn't such an easy choice. I'd find it quite hard to vote No if it meant somebody else losing their job even if I was pretty sure I'd keep mine. I certainly wouldn't vote No if it meant me losing my job so that somebody who's paid many times the national average and enjoys exceptionally good working conditions can keep his pension exactly as it is.

ROBSAUSTINHEALEY 5th Oct 2008 18:36

"Excellent work by barstewards"

As the person who actually did the research which uncovered the statement by the Deputy Chief Whip to the House of Lords, and who posted a question to Mr Barron last week before releasing it into the Swanwick Ops Room, it is intriguing to see another person claiming credit for the work.

Never mind, so long as it is brought to the discussion, the effect should be the same.:confused:

Air.Farce.1 5th Oct 2008 19:07

Tell us what Barron says will you ?

250 kts 5th Oct 2008 19:39


It could be a covert way by Prospect to get new members. Perhaps if the make noises that this ridiculous pensions proposal is a good idea, folk will join purely to get a vote.
and the reason PCS are recommending it would be?????????

As I said before this is about 3 executives believing it is an acceptable proposal-let's wait for the briefings.

Caesartheboogeyman 5th Oct 2008 20:10


As the person who actually did the research which uncovered the statement by the Deputy Chief Whip to the House of Lords, and who posted a question to Mr Barron last week before releasing it into the Swanwick Ops Room, it is intriguing to see another person claiming credit for the work.


have a pat on the back. excellent work by whoever did it. we could do with this being the first of many "uncovered gems":ok::ok::ok:

GM WAN TO BE 5th Oct 2008 21:26

Surely, surely, surely......

After 18 months of negotiations and consultations with many pension experts within the UK, it would be naive to think that every counter argument had not been explored to the nth degree....

The way I see it is that everyone is jumping to their own conclusions before they are fully aware of the facts!! Lets wait for the 3 months of briefings and then see the outcome. I may well be proved wrong, but there is always a slim chance of a YES vote.

GMWTB

45 before POL 5th Oct 2008 21:51

Good digging about the statement by the chief whip...not only that the transport Bill 2000, heavy reading but...

pension entitlement of present
and former employees of NATS
65-(13)
"No amendment may be made to a relevant scheme which would result in a reduction of the accrued or future rights of protected beneficiaries, nor in the contributions by protected beneficiaries who are active members"

I think thats pretty clear...so how do they think they get round that with a pension cap rpi+0.5percent, not even union agreement can overturn this.:confused::confused::confused:

eglnyt 5th Oct 2008 22:16

These aren't exactly uncovered gems and they don't really take much digging, the pension protection is clearly included in the index to the Transport Act and you ought to be able to find the Act on google in about two seconds. Even without reading the Act if you'd attended any of Paul Barron's roadshow briefings when he first announced his intention to do something about pensions a couple of years ago you'd have heard him say that any change to pension benefits would require an Act of Parliament.

That suggests that what they are proposing isn't a change to the protected benefits. If you really want to do some digging you need to find out exactly what the Trust Deed says about benefits. Alternatively you could wait for the meetings because a number of people are going to ask that very question.

barstewards 6th Oct 2008 09:55

ROBSAUSTINHEALEY said:

"Excellent work by barstewards"

As the person who actually did the research which uncovered the statement by the Deputy Chief Whip to the House of Lords, and who posted a question to Mr Barron last week before releasing it into the Swanwick Ops Room, it is intriguing to see another person claiming credit for the work.

Never mind, so long as it is brought to the discussion, the effect should be the same.http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/confused.gif
I don't work at Swanwick so do not have a clue what you are talking/moaning about.


I am spending my own time researching the protection on OUR pension (it seems like OUR union is not interested) - well done to you if you are doing the same. :D

Do not come on here and make accusations about stealing your hard work - this issue affects more than the staff at Swanwick so perhaps you could distribute your findings to the rest of your 'colleagues' (that is if our opinion matters):ugh:

MrJones 6th Oct 2008 10:41

All those against changes to the pension need to work together.

What happened to the petition to the unions?

Is anyone actively organising the No vote?

barstewards 6th Oct 2008 11:04


All those against changes to the pension need to work together.
EXACTLY!! Anybody with useful information should be posting it on here for EVERYONE to see instead of keeping it within one unit and whinging about 'somebody claiming credit for another persons work'.

Not having a crystal ball I do not know what other people have found.

Post your info here to save duplicating work.

Jobby Wheecher 6th Oct 2008 11:42


EXACTLY!! Anybody with useful information should be posting it on here for EVERYONE to see instead of keeping it within one unit and whinging about 'somebody claiming credit for another persons work'.
Exactly !! I refer the Honourable Gentleman to a previous post (reproduced below):ok:


SOME PENSION FIGURES TO CONSIDER
To get a perspective on what the current pension proposals might mean to you in the future, consider where you would stand today if these proposals had been introduced during the last recession, 18 years ago, in 1990.

£29888 - maximum ATCO2 (MACC/ScACC) pensionable salary in 1990

£73777 – maximum ATCO2 (MACC/ScACC) pensionable salary in 2008 (a rise of 147%)

79% - The amount RPI rose between 1990 and 2008

96% - The amount RPI+0.5% rose between 1990 and 2008

£58580 – The amount of pensionable salary you would have today if pensionable salary had been restricted to RPI+0.5% (as is proposed under the pension restructure)

£15197 – The reduction of your pensionable salary from what your contract of employment said when you joined and what you would get now.

£49184 – Your projected pension in 2008 based on your terms and conditions in 1990 and retiring on 2/3rds annual salary

£39053 – Your actual pension after pegged to RPI+0.5%

£10131 – Your annual loss of pension based on 2/3rds final pensionable salary

20.6% - The percentage cut in your pension due to RPI+0.5% peg

£844 – The monthly amount (at todays prices) that you would lose on your future pension.


All figures are projected and based on published NATS salary scales and published Government RPI figures. Correct as of September 2008.

Has anyone circulated this round their units yet ? Can anyone drop in their own 1990+2008 figures for ATSA2+4, Engineers ATCE2+4 and ATCO1-3 pay ?

Top-of-scale (non WM, BS etc, basic pay)
ATCO3 Edinburgh - 1990/£24566 = 2008/£.....
ATCO2 Gatwick - 1990/£32327 = 2008/£....
ATCO2 LATCC - 1990/£33621 = 2008/£....
ATCO1
ATSA2
ATSA4
ATCE2
ATCE4

I'm sure you will be interested to work out your own relative percentages.

Emma1974 6th Oct 2008 18:46

Does anyone know why the AAVA agreement is still in place,when it clealry states in the Union Handbook that any attempt to touch our pension would result in it being pulled?:ugh:

Air.Farce.1 6th Oct 2008 19:03

Thanks to Data Dad :)

From Prospect ATCO's Branch Handbook 2008.

Section D3 Superannuation, para (x) page 52.

"(x) The BEC shall ballot immediately for industrial action whenever NATS makes any move to re-negotiate the Pension Scheme that may detrimentally affect new or existing
members.



So whats going on reps ? Something isn't right here.....don't tell me "we are keeping our powder dry"

Can someone flush a union rep out from the undergrowth ?

Quite frankly I despair sometimes:ugh:

Mad As A Mad Thing 6th Oct 2008 19:07

How nice it is to see that NATS consider themselves such experts in these areas to offer consultancy services to other ANSP's

Operational Changes
  • Moving Civil Service Pensions to Private pensions
  • Managing Union expectations throughout the change
So roll up, roll up if you want to f**k over your staff, come talk to us...we're the experts!

link: Business consulting services - NATS

landedoutagain 6th Oct 2008 19:23

From the same page on that link...

"NATS is the only ANSP in Europe that is fully privatised, "

Have I missed something? I thought it was public - private - partnership?? :confused:

Air.Farce.1 6th Oct 2008 19:28

I noticed that also, I think they will need to change it :E


"Legal Status and Ownership

NATS Holdings Ltd is the holding company for NATS Group. It owns NATS Ltd, which in turn owns two operating subsidiaries: NATS (En-Route) plc (NERL) and NATS (Services) Ltd (NSL). The Airline Group Ltd, a consortium of seven airlines, has the majority of voting rights and 41.9% of the shares of NATS Holdings Ltd. The Secretary of State for Transport owns 48.9%, BAA plc 4.2%; and NATS Employee Sharetrust Ltd 5%. "

Air.Farce.1 7th Oct 2008 19:28

What happened today to affect engineers? I am off work at the moment


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:06.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.