How would we have ever found out it didn't work without putting in that effort? What if it did work and there were capacity gains?
There is a very old saying "Nothing ventured, nothing gained".

BD

Perhaps we should vote NO if we don't want to NATS split up and NSL sold off. This would take the argument to a logical next step.

Nice to see you've resurfaced again BD old buddy, old pal:}

Does your above comment also refer to Destinations and Vision 2011? I cannot see how they have ANY effect on the daily provision of Air Traffic Control which, and I'll whisper it quietly coz I know its a dirty phrase outside the Ops rooms, IS OUR BUSINESS :E

TCNE development - a few years ago colleagues proved that the reliance on PRNAV was a folly and that fundamentally the design idea was flawed. These were people who work the airspace day in day out. Were they listened to? No. Several years and several million pounds later, oh, it's failed.

Central airspace. Just recently failed the 3rd simulation attempt. Fair enough one go and it fails... during round 2 - the guys from AC were all saying that the process was not being run properly and that corners were being cut - which could be detrimental... lo and behold RTS2 failed.

Bring in TC for RTS 3. Every ATCO stated that the timescale was too tight (Mar 09). 9 months for a major airspace change?!! Staff numbers for the Real Time Simulation etc were fudged, again against the wishes of the ATCOs who stressed theneed for proper testing. A rush job and guess what - it fails again... this time on issues that may have come to light before the expense of running a full time sim during one of the busiest times of the year.

Now it's full steam ahead for the 4th attempt - guess what - to be implemented by mar 09. Sounds like clutching at straws to me - not a good use of company money. The cost so far?? Several millions.

I fully agree that we can't get it right first time every time, but we are not learning from our mistakes. We are employing 'project managers' who have no ATC/engineering experience and all they are interested in is the deadline, they have not got a clue about the real problems and brush them aside when they are brought up by the experts.

I agree theses developments are expensive, but if we took the time to listen to the experts we have in the company (ATCOS/ATSAs?ATCEs etc) then we might just save some money.

Don't get me started on the new layers of management, but just for tasters we thought when TC moved to Swanwick that we were going to streamline watch management by having one combined AC/TC manager per watch. We did that but then a few months down the line, conjured up new management jobs that we never had the need for before!!

This company wastes money left right and centre, until it starts to sort that out, why should it be left to the employees to bail NTS out again??

I been on holiday in the highlands of Scotland, drove there though :}
The daily provision of ATC is a part of our business, its what everything else is (or should be) aiming towards. But you've also got to maintain your systems and you've got to plan to replace them as they reach the end of their life or as technology moves on. You've got to plan how to pay for maintenance and replacement. You've got to plan how to integrate all of the replacements throughout the company. You've got to plan changes forced upon us by outside agencies or other ANSP's changes. You've got to recruit and train staff. You've got to pay everyone. And so on and so on.
So whilst you may feel, at the sharp end, that these 'management initiatives' have no effect on you doing your daily job in the background it does impact on the support tail.

BD

So, as we approach one thousand posts on this subject, how are people feeling now that the nationwide briefings are coming to a conclusion?

The little survey on the NATS section shows overwhelmingly - NO. However the majority, I beleive, voted in this poll before any of the "joint" briefings.

Maybe we should be looking to the way opinion has (if at all) changed.

Unscientific I know, but I'll start it off.


After the "Joint" briefing at my Unit I'll be voting :-


NO. NO. NO. NO.

Maybe we should have a new poll once the round of briefings have completed.

Not had mine yet, but going to take a hell of a lot of convincing to vote 'yes'.

AS with Terrain Safe above..apart from potentially reduced income come retirement, the prospect of NSL being sold off (and this is partly what it is about, after all) will be a factor in my decision.

NO!
But will it make any difference as PAUL BARRON will get this through anyway:uhoh::uhoh:

I still don't understand why some people seem happy to sit and accept that we cannot pass through charges to our customers.

NATS is a business - something that has been hammered into us in the past few years, so why not run it as a business?

This may be a simplistic view but I thought businesses worked out money in the following way.

Income (revenue) minus Expenditure (salary/pension/energy bills/development costs) equals Gross profit.

Expenditure should be done in the order of paying bills first - salary/pension/energy bills etc then looking at what is left for re-investment.

People are saying we can't pass through pension costs, yet we are a business. What will happen next? Do we turn round to Southern Electric(or whoever) and say
"Our regulator wants us to cut costs, therefore once our annual energy bill hits £100k, we are not going to pay anymore... it is up to you, the provider to cut your costs as we are not happy to pay for your staffs' pension"

It's effectively what the regulator is telling us to do - so we have been PPP'd and are now trying to run NATS as a business concern, yet we are having to do it with one hand tied behind our back.

The only reason Barron etc are happy to comply with the regulator without a fight is because it helps them push through a pension change which makes NSL attractive to prospective buyers. Otherwise as serious businessmen, they would not be putting up with such restrictions on how to run a business.

If anyone thinks that this is not in the back of the managements minds when pensions are being looked is IMHO, delusional.

Now I'm curious. Why do you assume that NATS senior management (and the accountants) have not pushed back on the regulators capping in CP2 and the warnings that they issued about CP3?

BD

BDiONU

As usual from you, a decent, reasonable question without histrionics. Short answer - they may well have (though how stringently I do not know) - however part of the point I am trying to get across with my very simplistic take on business accountancy and the formula in my previopus post is that NATS (the company) should be paying for it's bills first, before deciding how much money it can pay out for projects/towards early settlement of loans/share dividends etc.

As it stands, looking at it that way, NATS has more than enough pre-tax profits to supplement the pension fund by the £60 odd million per annum it suggests will be needed.

I'm not one of those who thinks that we should not do something to help the penson fund, but I would like to see a lot more give from the company as I believe it can afford it. People who have been to briefings are indicating that we are not being shown what other avenues have been explored - we are being sold this one fix as the only viable option.

If that's the truth, why don't management back it up with the facts and figures to show us why all other options are doomed - then people will vote 'yes'. Being force fed one solution, when the company is, by all accounts, doing very well is not conducive to getting the workforce on-side.

The crucial thing is that Mr Barron and the rest of the management team need to be left in no doubt that the cost of our pensions is nothing compared to the costs they will incur resulting from lack of goodwill and flexibility from staff if they continue trying to screw us over. And that's without even beginning to think about the costs associated with an organised work to rule or even ultimately strike action.

I am not giving up ANY of my retirement benefits trhat I have been working and paying for for the last 20 years.

I don't care whether RPI+0.5% may or may not be an acheivable pay settlement year on year, every year. But think of this...what happens after 10 years of being screwed over by management year on year and only acheiving RPI or RPI-x%, then in year 11 if the union ever develops a backbone we make a stand to restore our pay to where it should be and we get a pay rise well in excess of RPI+0.5%? Well I'll tell you...we're still screwed cos of that RPI+0.5% cap on pensionable earnings.

Still a big fat NO

No you're right-you're not. And neither would you be under this proposal as you would well know if you had been to a briefing and asked the question.

What makes you think that we would have lost ground if we only ever get RPI + 0.5? I'm not sure what you think can be done to generate cash for rises much above that in the long term anyway.

And as for backbone-you are the union. Get involved. And just remember there was hardly a significant number of people who were prepared to show their backbone over PPP. In fact it was most of the people who are actually still involved who spent endless time lobbying politicians and the like. Without their work we would probably be SERCO by now.

another thing et all,

I agree with you and like you I am no accountant / business guru.

However, we are allowed by the Regulator to pass on all pensions costs for all NERL employees who were employed by the Company before 1 Jan 06. I suspect that this would be a large majority of the total number of NATS employees (although I don't have the figures). This is called 'cost pass through' and is permitted by the Regulator during CP2 which runs until 2011. After 2011 this will then need to be re-negotiated.

Therefore, the extra £60million per annum that the Company must find could easily be substantially reduced by £10s of millions.

I have no problem with helping the Company reduce pension costs, but the manner of the briefings and Q & A sessions with management reps that barely understood the issues and could only answer every other question really doesn't help to sell a contentious idea to a sceptical audience.

Several things struck me when I found out about cost pass through during the briefings:

1. Why were we not given any other options except the Companies preferred one?

2. Not using cost pass through for the increase in NERL pension costs is simply trying to second guess what the Regulator will be looking for during the CP3 negotiations and is a weak argument for changing one of our major T & Cs.

3. Why not use some of our large profits to assist the existing pension scheme instead of paying off loans 20 years early?

4. The reality is that whatever the Union vote, this pension change is coming in January 09, strike threats or no strike threats.

5. The only plus side is that it is still a very good pension scheme, just not the one that we all signed up for!

6. In 5 years time the management may well be back again saying that the revised scheme is now unaffordable and they need to change it again.

7. NSL is soooo going to be sold off!!

PS:- I am not a fan of airing the Company's private business on an open forum, but I couldn't get a straight answer to the cost pass through question at the briefings and cannot get one on the pensions intranet site either.

Regards, ADIS

I reckon we in NSL are safe, after all we are able to go for profit.....NERL, as a regulated monopoly are not able to do so......answer...sell off NERL! :E

I was under the impression that the CAA have made it clear that pension costs have to be addressed for CP3; that it's not NATS trying to second guess.

Anotherthing said it best...

A NO vote isn't a vote for industrial action like the Barron wants to say.

If we vote yes on this then kiss it all goodbye.

NSL will be gone in 3-5 years once the i's are crossed and the t's dotted.

Our leave will be next on the table for chopping - 3 more days at work each covers a lot of overtime / training for ifacts / OCT for PC whatever....

Pay deals will be RPI if we're lucky.

Once there is sufficient numbers in the new scheme then our new owners - cos the airline group will have cleared off by then with a healthy profit - will come back after the old scheme. Its still not working they'll cry. we have to do something. And will our colleagues in the new scheme support us???


So I'll be voting NO. If it means the BEC resign so be it. There are people here ready to step up if needs be.
If Barron wants to close it unilaterally then so be it. We'll deal with that if it happens. But I'm not going to make it easy for him.

A quote from a senior union man i was chatting to;
"would we expect RPI at least next year as a pay rise for voting 'yes'!"

Think again! The company are going for a pay FREEZE!

So voting 'yes' to a humongous issue like our pension PAUL BARRON knows we are going to do jack s#it when he offers us a pay FREEZE:uhoh::uhoh:

Which in real terms is a pay cut

Beautiful post ADIS, could not have put it better myself.

The Airline Group can sell all their bit of NATS as soon as NPC is open, that was the deal at the time.
Its obvious to anyone that the company is being shaped up to be sold by TAG, it may be piecemeal but I'd guess TAG will not be around in 5 years time.

I am astounded the unions did not mount a political campaign first before getting into bed with the R.B.
They should have lobbyed all these MPs & Ministers who gave us promises at the time of PPP. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Unions told us to hold our fire in the campaign against PPP & save it for any future attack on pensions.:eek:

250kts I have been to a briefing and asked the questions thankyou, and the answers were not satisfactory at all. No matter how you dress it up a cap on pensionable pay is a potential reduction in my pension. I am not prepared to accept that. I've seen too many times the way things have been agreed in this way and the theoretical slim possibility becomes a target for management to aim for.

We are already hearing stories of the company aiming for a pay freeze this year. Are just going to roll over and accept that one too? And what about next year? If there is a pay freeze, or even decline at any point over the next 15 years we will never recover that loss because of the RPI+0.5% cap.

I'm not saying that I expect year on year pay rises of more than RPI+0.5% every year. But you all need to think very carefully about the above scenario, as we WILL lose out badly in these circumstances.

Also, is RPI the only relevant factor affecting pay rises over the next 15 years? What if pay in other comparable professions was to rise by significantly more than RPI during this time? Would you be happy to see our relative worth be reduced compared with these other professions? I sincerely hope not. But if we were to maintain our relative position it would still not be fully reflected in our pensions.

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.