What happens within NATS after the pension results are in??
 

The NATS Pension thread has been one of the most subscribed-to threads in ATC issues, but is now dying a natural death.

Putting aside cries of 'Vote Yes' or 'Vote No', what do you think is in store for NATS in the near future? Below are my predictions, starting with my predicted vote result...


Prediction 1.

'The Vote'

62% Yes
38% No

Prediction 2.

Swiftly followed by a complete shafting on the annual pay award (I reckon 3% - which would be less than RPI)...

Prediction 3.

3-5% overall reduction in NATS staff by Jul 09.

Prediction 4.

Departure of Mr Barron within 18 months of changing the pension scheme.

Prediction 5.

Break up and shelving of some NSL contracts within 60 months of pension scheme change.

You heard it here first...

Firstly, good idea to start a new thread...the other was getting a bit stagnant, there's only so many times you can say "Vote No/Yes" !

I agree with nearly all your predictions, although I think that the pension vote will be more like 55/45, no idea which way its going to swing.

Also, I think if we get a payrise of 1.5% ( a flat 1.5%, not RPI + 1.5%), then we'll be doing "well", particularly as several members of management have mooted a pay freeze and the Union aren't exactly refuting this.

I'd like to know timescales involved if it turns into a "NO" vote...

Anotherthing - Don't forget there are 3 ballots going on, we could have a situation with a 62/38 Yes vote, but the proposal still fails.

In fact, if every one just votes randomly for Yes or No, there is only a 1 in 8 chance of passing the proposal.

My prediction would be 55/45 No vote, but i'm sure at least one of the ballots will produce a No vote (probably the ATCO branch). :)

Dee Mac wrote:

This is a rumours site after all so I'd like to throw this in for all the non ATCOs here who will believe any possible management guff thats states job losses are due (in part or wholly) to ATCOs not accepting the proposals.

There is a very strong rumour, that at this point in time, regardless of the outcome of the proposals, there is an exercise taking place within NATS to see where savings through job cuts can be achieved.

Any job cuts that may or may not happen are totally seperate from the pensions issue.

Affleck

I understand the mechanics of the ballot, I stand by my predictions. That number is stated will be the overall vote, as for how it breaks down into the different groups, I am not sure. I think the ATCO vote will be very close either way, the other 2 will be a solid 'NO'

Dee Mac,

I don't think management can in all reality put other groups on the new arrangements and keep the ATCOs on the current. The proposal is for all NATS employees, so no matter how invincible you think you are if you wear a headset, it goes through for all or it goes through for none.

IMHO, if the ATCO branch of prospect tries to do its own thing, then don't expect to see support forthcoming ever again from ATSS or PCS colleagues next time management try to chip away at your ATCO related Ts & Cs.

Anothering - predictions look about right, although I reckon the overall vote will be much closer. With regard to prediction 3, I reckon that's very likely - the bar stool session yesterday at CTC covered downturn and NATS "coping with the loss of renevue" until things pick up again - losing staff is probably one of the most likely ways and I think was infered to in the Q & A session at the end.

Best keep my Starbucks breaks to a minimum, make sure some of the other dross at CTC gets canned :}

Just wondering how the other two will be a solid "No" with ATCO branch being close, yet still end up with a 62/38 yes/no split, unless ATCO branch numbers are hugely dominant? Ears on the ground in ATSS branch suggests majority yes.

RS

Don't worry RS, they'll still need somebody to manage/preside over photo of the day! (said with tongue firmly in cheek, before all of CTC has a pop at me)

I agree that there's no way that they'll have the ATCOs on a separate scheme and everybody else on the SMART one...alhough they'd probably quite like that...Barron's apparent disgust for ATCOs is legendary and any way they can promote a division between us and you is only going to benefit them in the long run.

Interesting you mention job losses. As much as I don't want ANYBODY to lose their job, I can't believe the penny has only just dropped with regards to this. This must surely have been coming for a while, or perhaps its only people below management pay grade that have ANY idea what's going on.

Excellent idea - finally I get the power to ban the Rusty Chains! :E

Radarspod, fair enough I was trying to stir things up a bit with that suggestion. Interesting times ahead. I sincerely hope no-one loses their job.

If the vote is yes, I predict NSL will be sold off and our Pension will be reduced to 50% final salary scheme, as opposed to the 66% which it is now.

If the vote is NO, I predict NATS management will come back with another offer, perhaps cap at RPI + 1%, then NSL may be sold off. Any attempt to reduce to 50% will be met with strike action:eek:

VN :ok:( for the benefit of RS :))

Vote No,

With all due respect, this thread is "What happens within NATS after the pension results are in??" and thus assumes people have made up their mind and voted, and would like to discuss what is going to happen.:confused:

Putting VOTE NO in really big letters is IMHO voting propaganda I'd prefer left in the pension forum. :ooh:

Then again, this is PPRUNE and everyone has a right to post what they like.......I'll go back to my latte. :}


RS

I haven't actually heard that before (although someone probably mentioned in one of the 1800+ posts in the pension forum). Where has that come from? I assume that it's because he can't really make changes or reduce numbers that easily to meet profit targets, etc., and ATCOs cost so much to be trained.

Happy to be enlightened,


RS

Radarspod

Glad you have moved on:E

Firstly ,what has got to do with this thread?

Secondly

If you use a little of your limited imagination you will realise I have not used any "vote no" propaganda.
I merely used my forum "name" after my prediction!
Unless of course I can't comment on here because of my forum name :)
If it will help, I will abbreviate my name as you have done.

VN :ok:

point taken I hope ? :)

Annoyingly, yes :ok:

Although I would still like to know the answer to my last question, even if it is thread creep - after all, we don't have a "Baron ATCO hating" thread running to ask it in.

If the vote is YES, then Barron can go to the next board meeting and be congratulated.
If the vote is NO, then Barron can go to the next board meeting and ask for guidance. I can't see that the Airline Group will accept the role of enthusiastic lobbyists for pass-through of a more expensive pension scheme, but those of you who are closer to these things (i.e. further away from Starbucks) may have evidence to the contrary.

Merry XMAS RS :)

VN

So this time staying on thread :E...

FYI, the question was asked again yesterday at the CTC bar stool session about what happens in a NO vote - Mr B stated he didn't know and nor did the NTUS - should be interesting what happens next.

Question for debate - ignore PCS for a moment - what does Prospect as a union do if (a plausible scenario) the ATCO branch is NO and ATSS branch is YES. What does this mean for next step? If it comes to industrial action road does Prospect decide as a union the action for all NATS members regardless of branch - surely that would be in internal conflict of interest? Never got involved with union stuff in depth to know the answer - anyone care to suggest?

RS

my plausible solution... If ATSS vote yes, then the whole thing might only need a tweak, perhaps RPI +1% pensionable (or max payrise will be RPI +1%), limit cap to 10 years, improve the protection for those employees post PPP and write in 'if we wish to sell NSL off during the 10 / 15 years, you will all get a large bung'.

That to me doesnt seem like a too big a step...

LOA


ps they could sort out banding too!!! :}

Well, the weak knee ATCOs could get up of their bums, stop pontificating on Pprune & do something.
I can't remember in over 35 years when they have ever stood up to Management. Meanwhile the French ATCOs strike almost every Easter, the Spaniards have their share & the Greek ATCOs are on the verge of a walk out now.
It's very sad, but these days if you really want to keep something you have to stand up & fight for it.
If you want a zero pay rise, a shafted pension , & poorer conditions then just carry on as you are now. The RB has very successfully managed the unions expectations, they now expect nowt-so won't be disappointed.

Agree A Tis 100%. And my point re Barron's attitude towards ATCOs is that it is well known that he would love to get rid of each and every one of us as we cost the company so much money....one slight problem, as much as he would like to think otherwise, NATS is still in the business of providing ATC.

RS


Mr Barron has openly stated that he believes ATCOs are overpaid by about 20% (I think that's the figure he stated).

Furthermore, about 14 months ago he made a very disparaging set of remarks about ATCOs during a speech he made to a bunch of Private Flyers. The transcript of which was obtainable at the time.

That's by the by though. He can think what he wants... He doesn't really know what ATCOs, or ATSAs or ATCEs do, nor the support staff at CTC, though is probably more in tune with them.
He knows in principle, but he has never actually shadowed them properly for any length of time, and to be fair, he doesn't need to, he is intetrested in NATS as a business, he doesn't really care about what the workforce do. As far as he or any head of a major business is concerned, the product could be anything, the principle of running the business remains the same - cut costs, increase productivity to be very simplistic about it.

Yes he attends ANSP meetings in Europe etc, but he does that as a business man with a view to building partnerships etc- he doesn't understand the nitty gritty of our business and the day he tries to interfere with it is the day he should leave - that's why he has amanagement team (several layers of in fact).

landedoutagain

The possibility of raising the cap to RPI+1% is feasible I suppose. However we have been told that it is the actuaries that insist on a 15 year review period as that is what is needed for them to work their figures. If ther review period is reduced, then it indicates to me that someone is telling porkies.

I fully understand why management would claim they can only afford RPI+0.5%, because it is their job to try to give away as little as possible. The 15 year period however is totaly different.

Anyways, its the closing of the fund to newcomers that is the biggest issue that people seem to have papered over. Once that happens, if the vote is yes, the pension fund as we know it for current memebers will die.

And I agree with Mr A Tis - I think that we could be led down th eroad of pay freezes etc - though the least we should ever accept is RPI, otherwise we are accepting a degradation in living conditions.

Anotherthing,

I'd be quite interested in reading that transcript if you can point me in the right direction (yes, I know its off topic but lighten up guys...its Xmas after all:))

Mr777

it was floating around at the time, paper copy, not sure of any interweb link

I think I had a few exchanges of email after that speech with Mr. B., can't really remember what it consisted of though.

What happens next ?
 

My prediction .....

PCS vote yes 60/40
ATCEs vote split 50/50
ATCOs branch vote no 60/40

overall numbers 55/45 yes vote
management press on with changes
much grumbling but no immediate action
reduction of extra duties, ojti, aavas
morale down resentment up

more militant new blood voted into ATCOs branch
annual pay negotiations become less working together and more them+us
worldwide ATCOs shortage starts to drive demands for higher pay
union less willing to accept lower paydeals (to compensate for pension loss)
yearly disputes over pay become commonplace

Current state of worldwide ATCO recruitment.

Mr Barrons speeches ...
 

I believe it was a speech to the Aviation Club (October 2006?) and in it he criticised ATCOs for being loyal to their licence and not the company ! :ugh: Can't find it anywhere .... keep googling ....

Here is one of his speeches on SES. Anything in that to worry you ?

Not only does Mr B have a chip on his shoulder about how much ATCOs earn, but the pension briefings gave me the feeling that the Prospect and PCS officers do too. :rolleyes:

Yep, I think whatever the outcome of the ballot Management will impose the changes. Let us not forget it is just part of the legally required consultation.

And if they get away with filleting the Pension Scheme they'll be absolutely no stopping them.

Anyone who thinks Management have No Plan B is soft in the head.

I read that particular speech....what a load of cr*p. He comes across as being on some sort of half-arsed crusade to save the aviation world.:ugh:

A quote from Mr B.!
"I was brought into NATS specifically for my experience of bringing about change. In my view, change is easier when the employees can see a burning platform or they realise the business is broken, but this is a very difficult concept in our industry where nothing is broken or burning."

Mr B is trying very hard with our pension to make the company look broken!
The pension issue is now burning too!
I think he has now found the solution to a difficult concept in our industry.

Lots of Love and Christmas Greetings

MR. B.
XXXXXXX

From that speech about SES, where he quotes (wrongly) Emerson Fittipaldi (actually it was Gilles Villeneuve) " If everything feels in control, then you are not driving fast enough"...would he say, "If the staff aren't bleating, then you are not screwing them enough!"

Interesting reading the links about PB speech.His company Alstom was under investigation for killing 15 people,and injuring 28 in 2003 when a walkway gave way on the construction site for the QM2.I note that he said nothing about that one in his little talk.At least I,as an overpaid parasite ATCO hasn't KILLED anyone.
PB if you are an engineer,then my late granny was a cowboy.I studied engineering and you certainly couldn't hold any spanner anywhere anytime.Spiv boy yes,chop up companies and pensions yes,engineer bl:mad:dy disgrace.

In the past the ATSA grade have had the balls to strike......16 weeks in all...!!! I fear our ATCO's do not have those same balls....shame really!! Just look at all the money grabbers doing AVA's....it is these folk that in the end have shated us all and will always be willing to do the same!!!!:(

Fisbang, you might want to retract that last bit, we ATCOs have many and varied reasons for doing AAVAs, just as my colleagues have many and varied reasons for doing VAPs and overtime.

Thanks for that little snippet Zooker. Maybe NATS should be run by ATCOs, they couldn't do a worse job than the so called "businessmen" who have landed us in this sh*t state of affairs.

Fishbang, ATCOs doing AAVAs are NOT the reason we are about to lose our pension. If only it were that simple...

NATS run by ATCOs? We couldn't afford the management wage bill :E

Maybe I should re-phrase that to read "run by ATCOs/ATSAs/ATCEs"....that should keep most of us happy:ok:

This isn't a strong rumour surely... It's fact. We, along with everyone else, are facing a significant downturn in income. In that climate, any company would be looking to tighten its belt. Staff costs are a huge part of that. Same thing happened post Sept. 11th.

I look forward to reading the first set of ATCO/ATSA/ATCE-generated Regulatory Accounts.

:hmm:

FFS, get a sense of humour mate :ugh: