So what you're saying then (those of you that are worried about your image, that is) is that its ok to lose our pensions, just so long as we look good on TV?? :ugh:

I think that the comparision with PATCO in the US is misleading. I believe that they were not allowed either by law or by temporary Presidential decree from striking and they did and unfortunately Reagan sacked them.
If we were to strike then provided that the unions had fulfilled all the legal requirements of voting, consultation, period of notice, then we have a legal and moral obligation to strike.

The fact we (NATS) have people earning well under £30k as well isn't something the media would be interested in.

An unsympathetic media would contrast an ATCO at Swanwick, on £90k a year... driving into work in his Porsche to do an extra shift for £550 on top and then threatening to ruin your holiday plans because he wants his gold-plated pension scheme to be paid for by customers - which then passes on through the airlines to passengers - against a background of credit crunch, meteoric fuel price rises etc etc.

However, that doesn't mean to say the decision to strike wouldn't be right and justified... the trick is to communicate why it is so.

Ah, but if said ATCOs hadn't been doing the AAVAs in the first place then said public may well have had their holiday ruined anyway by the excessive delays the airlines would have had due to the under staffing. In fact the unit has been running on AAVAs for months, keeping delays down and potentially saving NATS £££ fined by the regulator.

It is all about how the story is put across. NATS values an extra day at Swanwick at £550 which is less than £70 an hour-cheap compared to how much a "professional" in other areas would charge. £200 an hour for a decent solicitor down here, and we are supposed to be the best in the world. NATS have continuously failed to sort out it's man power issues and there is no sign of that improving in the medium term. AAVAs are a cheap way for NATS to staff the ops room.

A few points

What the media writes / broadcasts has nothing to do with the truth, or indeed public opinion. Does what the media "say" really matter? No, thought not. (One Mr. O'Learly certainly doesn't bother much with the media's pieces, doesn't seem to have done him much harm)

ANY industrial action will damage NATS. Perhaps irrepairably.

The management, who are directly responsible for this sorry state of affairs need to recognise that fact, and start thinking a little more about ways to keep the CAAPS as healthy as possible, rather than concentrating on profits and the sale of NATS for the best price.

NATS staff have some very dry powder. Time to point out to management that it only needs a small spark to set it off, with consequences that can't be good for them.

BEX

We don't need to strike. Stop AAVAs/overtime and coming in on days off. It really is that simple, or am I missing something here ? :confused:
If "management" ask, just say we need our days off due stress related Pension issues.
No need for public sympathy, NATS would go the same way as ZOOM :} without Government intervention if we just turned up and did our job which is moving aircraft safely and expeditiously. And what is wrong with that I ask?
Unfortunately some types have jumped on this nauseating Barron "three wheels on my wagon" band wagon. :yuk:

I find the whole idea that a bad Press/Public opinion could work against us quite farcical.

We are fighting for our pensions. Management are looking to optimise profits.

It's a no brainer no matter what the Management Lackeys here say.

Bring it on , we have nothing to lose.

As this is a rumour page...... I heard that NATS have set aside £1m for the PR fight. shame they can't just start bunging it into the pension to help make up that "holiday fund" they owe.

So the NTUS published (from what I heard, totally out of turn and against principles/wishes of the management) a report that said the group would meet again last Friday to continue negotiations. Why haven't we heard anything since about that meeting? If the unions are being silenced then they have lost power already. A report/minutes should be made available about EVERY meeting that takes place, so, has anyone heard anything, seen any reports?

Another meeting planned for the 5th I believe from the notice put out last week.

Someone a few threads back wondered how the CAA part of the CAAPS was performing?

According to minutes of an Aviation Group meeting I happened to come across today they declared it was performing well ( as is ours) and they will be keeping it open to all new entrants.

But here's the rub, no one brought a hatchet man in to fatten the CAA up for sale to the highest bidder.

Sorry, I wasn't cynical in my last job.:}

Quote:
According to minutes of an Aviation Group meeting I happened to come across today they declared it was performing well ( as is ours) and they will be keeping it open to all new entrants.

Apart from the need for NATS to reduce its overhead, one of the main reasons for them attacking the pensions is due to our customers being unhappy with their route charges supporting such a costly scheme. (statement, not necessarily my view). Why then are they, and indeed NATS, not challenging the Regulator to reduce its costs similarly?:( The CAA are remaining mute and watching with interest.
When NATS do close the scheme, watch the junior stafff chase the money and vote with their feet to sunnier climes. What staffing problem?

2.5

Quite right. Allegedly the CAA don't think it's right that NATS are passing the pension costs onto the customer (isn't that how these things work in every other industry though?), yet the sole aviation regulator for the UK can continue to fund its own pension by passing its own costs on to the very people it is regulating and telling to trim costs!

The problem, anotherthing, IIRC, is that ERG has allowed airlines to criticise NATS pensions costs one or more times in the past, and by 'allowed' I mean they have not corrected the notion.

I think you might have to wade through old minutes of ERG meetings, and written submissions by airlines to get a good feeling for it, but basically I'd say the die was cast years not months ago.

It requires a complete reversal of sentiment by NATS executive and ERG for the pension to survive 'as is' and for them to condone passing on the costs to the airlines...


But I am still not actually convinced by the bleak projections by 'the actuaries'. Can a £3,000,000,000 fund be so vulnerable? Part of me cannot help but think the warnings about upping contributions may be an elaborate smoke screen / red herring affair.

At any rate, I sincerely hope you don't get done up like kippers :}

I was lead to believe that there was a further pensions meeting with the management yesterday, if so has anyone any news?

if that is the case that makes 3?? further meetings since the union announcement that was floating about the briefing room, WHY NO FURTHER NEWS??

No news means "Working together" :* which I believe is only in the interest of Management and Union types seeking promotion :yuk:

Resign from the union and go and negotiate your own deal then if that's the amount of faith you have in them.

I did, years ago :ok: