Interesting point made about management pushing the pension plans on this forum. may i suggest(after reading a number of his/her replies) that BDIONU may be a manager trying to "sell" the pension plans????

What are the grounds under which NATS would be entitled to offer different pay awards to ATCOs on different pension schemes? Wouldn't that be a form of discrimination?

.4

LOL!!! :) Just because I have formed a different opinion from most posters in this thread doesn't make me a person trying to "sell" anything (nor am I a manager by any description). We're all entitled to air our own views, thats what this forum is about.

BD

..... yes entitled to your opinion, and I'd support that, but most people are starting to become aware that it's very much a minority opinion.

BEX

;) But at least I'm arguing my position, as opposed to just saying "They're not messing with our pensions!" then sticking my fingers in my ears and going "Laa laa, laa laa, I can't hear you". ;)

BD

Who's the bigger fool? the fool or the fool that listens to him?

BEX

The regulators (CAA) contributions to CAAPS are funded from the route charges NATS levy.
I'd have thought so but I don't know what the CAA position is vis a vis its pensions.

BD

Whats wrong with sticking your fingers in your hears and saying your not messing with our pensions???

The facts are it is a good well run pension scheme. I personally want to keep it as do many others. So its hands in ears and LAA LAA don't mess with my pension and if you do "everybody out"

The regulator though has to raise its own charges to cover its costs and such like. You want something done by the CAA, you have to pay them...isn't that where they should be covering their own pension costs rather than from NATS route charges?

I didn't realise that NATS was effectively funding the CAA's pension costs, I find it quite surprising if that's the case.

My understanding is that NATS Doesn't fund the CAA through their charge. The total amount levied for the UK element of a flight's ATS bill includes an amount for the CAA, an amount for Eurocontrol and an amount for NATS.

As previously stated NATS don't/can't and aren't intending to mess with current employees pensions. They want to close the scheme to new employees and give them a different scheme.
If no action is taken the regulator will (Because they've told us so) further cap and reduce route charges and will cease to allow charge through of pension costs to the airlines. NATS income will be reduced but staff costs and pension costs won't be. Eventually NATS will go bust and there will be no more contributions to CAAPS and the pension scheme, which I'm looking forwards to drawing in retirement, only has whats in it at that time. En route ATC in the UK continues because the government does a railtrack but are not obliged to contribute to pensions because that was a NATS obligation and now they've ceased to exist.

Fingers in ears won't work unless you want to lose your pension.

BD

You've fallen for the management line (again).

All true. But if NATS management weren't quite so interested in making a huge PROFIT out of "the business" and would settle for a small profit the there would be no problem.

(Whatever happened to NATS, the not for profit organisation?)

. Pure supposition. Would UK government allow NATS to go Bust? Dunno.... and neither does anyone. Comparisons with RailTrack don't add up.

Why deal with this (possible non) issue at this particular moment in time? Well could it be something to do with the end of "Destinations" next year, and the probable departure of the Baron soon after. His reputation in the rail industry preceeds him.

No fingers in ears, just a very healthy suspicion of anything that comes from NATS management who may well have ulterior motives.

Do you really TRUST The baron?

No, i thought not.

BEX

Yeah of course.
NATS aren't allowed to make a huge profit, the regulator sets the charges. NATS is a business and businesses make money and profit, otherwise they go bust.
They knew Railtrack were going under and they allowed it. I don't trust Tony and his cronies one inch.
Because its going to take years and years (10, 20?) for results to show and its got to be done before the start of 'negotiations' for CP3.
Nor do I trust the government and I am VERY worried about my pension. I don't want it jeopardised because we've failed to take action NOW!

BD

Classic tactics. Frighten people and then they'll accept anything. Tony's lot do it, and the baron uses the tactic too.....

So, you DON'T trust the Government, but you DO trust The Baron. Yeah, of course, he always tells the truth. Ask any ex Alstrom employee. :rolleyes:

BEX

I don't need to trust him, all the information is available to read for yourself and make your own mind up. The pension situation for other companies in the UK has been in the media for years.
What I do believe is that the Red Barron is trying to take action to protect the company (and my pension).

BD

There you go again, comparing CAAPS to "other" less well run schemes, and like the baron, "the media" are always right as we all know.:rolleyes:

If the info is all so unequivical, how come so few people (including the Unions advisors) actually believe the barons tale of woe?

Pensions are LONG TERM investments. There aint no rush.

BEX

Just to go back to a point early on in this thread about the Company being media savvy....It amazes me that the union does not hire the services of some PR Guru such as Max Clifford etc in order to put the our issues in a 'public perception friendly' guise. Lets face it the Comany will have its spin doctors so why dont we????
Possible strike action was mentioned, however this will only succeed if the public are on-side which makes PR the name-of-the-game.

Just my 2p worth.
Spamcan

can someone please clarify the concept of "pass through"?
Is it the costs of CAAPS being passed on to the airlines now or is it only that the airlines are liable to fund any shortfalls in CAAPS if NATS went bust?

One of the things I find unacceptable about some of the issues raised by this pensions issue are some of the middle ranking supervisors/managers telling the workers how essential these changes are, however they personally are old enough to know that they are not going to be affected by the issues as they will have retired with their benefits intact. I am realistic enough to accept that this is part of their job, but to stand in front of their "colleagues" and mouth the managements platitudes without embarrassment is beyond the pale. Have they no sense of shame?

When the regulator looks at the costs (wages, infrastructure, investment etc) of NATS operation they use that as a basis for what they think NATS should be charging and set the levels accordingly. Prior to 1 Jan 2006 NATS were also allowed to 'add on' the costs of its contributions for all staff to the airlines. Thats whats meant by a pass through of pension costs. The airlines would not meet any costs if NATS went bust, the only people impacted would be those who currently benefit or expect to benefit from CAAPS (ie NATS staff).

BD

What is quite interesting is that all this talk of pass through to the airlines and CP3 etc is only relevant to NERL. NSL is run on a purely commercial basis, having to win contracts by signing agreements with other, external agencies, and having to sometimes compete with other companies. We have to pay for our trainees ( indeed seem to have to do most of the training on unit now!) , and have to have cost centres for absolutely everything. Actually the real answer is if the pensions were messed with would be for all staff to resign en-masse leaving a company in deep doodoo and a good store of staff for the rest of the world to poach (actually probably wouldn't happen that way but nice to dream).

Basically I work to retire, but I do enjoy my job, hate the crap from above and would love to move on but what other job could I do where I look out of the window for £55000?

What, you mean form a sort of workers cooperative, like a really really strong union?

It's a thought....

Perhaps (like me) they recognise this as a real issue and feel a duty of care towards their employees and loyalty toward a company they may have worked for 20, 30 or 40 years for. Not forgetting that they're acting to protect their own pensions as well. If NATS goes bust then there will be no more contributions to CAAPS and everyone in it will have severely reduced pensions, including, I would have thought, those currently in receipt of a pension.
Remember that the CAAPS fund has to pay out until everyone in it and their spouse is dead.

BD

Correct, NSL has competition which influences what it charges. NERL is a monopoly and its charges are regulated by the CAA. But the regulator looks at all parts of the NATS business and casts an especially keen eye for any cross subsidies as they're an absolute no no.

BD

BDiONU, anyone else who has never worked outside NATS,

Visit a non-NATS ATSU. Ask them about their t&c's, ask them about their pension etc. Ask them who they would like to work for!

Above all, listen very carefully. Having been there, done that, I know that I believe in ONE NATS, ONE PENSION (no matter when you join), not BEND OVER, HERE IT COMES AGAIN.

It started with Home to Duty, and if you do nothing it will end with NATS becoming just another ATS provider. Good news for all those other companies looking for airport contracts etc, not very good for you though.

Who will give me odds that whatever scheme Mr B & Co. cook up to replace CAAPS will be neatly packaged into a scheme for new NSL employees, a scheme for new NERL employees and a scheme for new employees at whatever the training side of things becomes.

This once big ship is being steadily broken up to be flogged off in little bits, with only NERL remaining as a sop to the back-bench lobby-fodder with their useless 49%.

W:mad:s, the lot of 'em!

would any government allow its ATC providor to go bust, especially when it came to power stating "our skies are not for sale" ????

Can't really see it myself. But thanks BDIONU for all the valuable information, however definately time for us all to stick together and protect "our" pensions and those of future employees.

As the union keep saying, the pension is in profit and very well run, if it aint broke don't fix it.

To quote Paul Barron, NATS went bust after september 11th and the government bailed it out. He stated that quite clearly at our "roadshow".
First time I'd heard it put like that.

And I'll bet he was told in no uncertain terms to restructure NATS so that should the situation ever occur again in future, any liability on the part of Govt. is limited to bailing out NERL only. NSL and the college will be out on their own to sink or swim in the 'free market'.

I personally expect Nats to close the fund to all new employees except ATCO's. This is consistent with their strategy of seperating them from other grades of ATC staff in collective bargaining. This would hamstring Prospect ATCO branch from taking any action to support other satff grades but allow the company to reduce it's cost base, with minimal risk of disruption, and reduce route charges.

It's also a strategy that would be easy for ERG to accept. ERG are part dunderheads and part straight jacketed by the rules placed upon them by the Government. Why dunderheads? Only a true cretin could allow a "not for profit organisation" to make a profit, without compelling it to return a big chunk of this by reducing charges.

I'm an ATCO, and I find the whole concept as repulsive, but that's where my money is. I could wax lyrical about this issue, but at the end of the day we are (at NATS) victims of Tony and his ignorant mates. Viz, there is a huge pensions crisis so lets have a policy to close a well funded, successful fund, so a bunch of companies (airlines) who have a disgusting record on funding their own pension schemes can become 'profitable'. W@nkers the lot of them!

And guess who one of his "mates" was who, along with 58 other 'big-hitters' from the CBI and world of business, wrote to the 'Times' in May 2001 calling on business as a whole to support New Labour? You guessed it: Paul Barron CBE, (then) President of Alstom UK.

A most errudite post indeed. That strategy would become a "fait accompli".
Regards
FBW

I wonder if members of the atco grade would be so naive?, do they really believe that the management would leave them alone once they had picked off the other grades. I have never underestimated the atcos capacity for greed and mendacity, but even they can see that "We all hang together or hang separately"

I don't even work for Nats yet... but what is being talked about seems to be very similar to what is happening to my Police Pension.

When I joined the pension you were offered was: 1/60 per year (2/60th for year 21-30) ie 40/60ths after *30* years, for 11% contribution (you can reduce pension to 1/2 and take a nice lump sum nearly 3 times your basic salary when you leave).

From 1st April 2006 (or 5th?) anyone who joined joined the NPPS (NEW Police Pension Scheme) - 1/70th per year, ie 35/70ths after *35* years + 1.5 times your basic salary as a lump sum, for 9.5% contribution (you can UP your pension by REDUCING your lump sum).

Everything goes along swimmingly for 4-5 months, then the charm offensive starts... They publish ALL the good points about the new pension scheme, ALL the bad points about the old one, and indicate how much money you can save by transferring etc etc... They have just recently sent out a pack "selling" the new pension scheme, with a form to sign to transfer over... About 1% will. However they have now reduced the cost of the police pension quite significantly.

This is very similar to what many blue chip companies have done, closed their old "gold-plated" pension (final salary, often no contributory) and changed it for a money purchase scheme (everyone has their own pot). I can only think of one company that has closed it's current pension scheme to existing employees, even then what they have earned upto that point is safe. They just are forced onto the new scheme from that point onwards - not nice I agree, but unlikely.

I just hope the change is not for a little while, to allow me to get in quick on the old scheme!

Cheers

James.

Looking at the above posts I see that most people are divided about the actions to take if the threat is realised. Thats always the problem with ATC staff when the serious issues come up. If I was Mr. Baron reading this (and if he has any brains he will look at this site on a regular basis) I would think its worth taking a chance, because as per usual we are divided.

Look at the train drivers, they don't care about public opinion, they show a very united front and it seems to me they pretty much get what they want. The French?? Christ, they strike over anything and get what they want!

We don't. And when the serious issues come up we talk a good fight and when it comes to a vote it goes through!!! This has to be the time when we say "NO! YOU AIN'T TOUCHING OUR PENSIONS!!!"

We have to send a clear signal, and say do it by all means, BUT BE AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES!!

UNITE!!!

Right. Rant over. As you were!

I'm not in the union but work for NATS (NSL). I don't know about anyone else out there, but if NATS try to mess with the pension, I will join the union and ballot for strike action with absolutely no reservations. I have absolutely no problem with downing headset on this issue. I didn't work for the company through PPP but my response would have been the same on that issue, and I beleive that this was balloted at the time and the result quietly swept under the carpet.

An ATCO's variation on a theme by Niemöller:


First they Privatised us, and we did nothing-
because we were told to;
Then they broke up the company, and we did not speak out-
because we were still employed;
Then they laid off the ATSAs, and we did not speak out-
because we were not ATSAs;
Then they outsourced the Engineers, and we did not speak out-
because we were not Engineers;
Then they messed with the Pension, and we did not speak out-
because we were bought off;
Then they came after the ATCO pay and conditions-
because we were not united, and we did not speak out.

Tired..
 

..to death of this issue.

If I had a third rate endowment sales type in my house then I'd show them the door.

Regrettably I have a Barron(n) who is worse than the above, and is my employer!

The (immediately) above WILL also be shown the door by Prospect and the PCS.

I remember in the early nineties a number of my colleagues boasting that they had got a private pension that would be far better than NATS/CAA (!). Then in the true nature of 'doublethink', those persons boasted to their colleagus about how they were getting 1000's in compensation a few years later in the so called 'pensions scandal'.

Unsurprisingly, this co-incided with the lengthy parliamentary debate about the privatisation of NATS. The NATS/CAA pension was shown to be King...and still is! (NB King is higher than a Barron(n)...true!).

Barron, we WILL strike, and you will be gone, and we will remain with our jobs, and pension, along with ALL our colleagues. You must be tired of your job to take the stance you have. Your defeat will be sweet for us.

Yours Truly

ATSA WHO :=

Who will strike? How will the union gain the necessary support (if indeed the union goes down the route of advocating strike action)? How will CAAPS be able to pay out pensions if NATS goes bust and cannot make any contributions?

Let me reiterate some of the facts from my previous posts because I formed my opinion on the basis of fact, not sure what those calling for strike action are basing their opinion on because all I've heard is a knee jerk reaction.

FACTS:

1) NATS consists of NERL and NSL with NSL operating in a competitive environment so its charges are dictated by what the market will bear. NERL is a monopoly and its charges are regulated by the CAA on behalf of the government.

2) The regulator is reducing the amount NERL may charge in CP2 by percentage reductions each year. So although traffic levels have risen considerably since 9/11 profit is not rising by the same amount. It also needs bearing in mind that NATS lives a fairly hand to mouth existence as the experience of 9/11 showed where government and the airlines had to bail NATS out to the tune of £30m each (remember that?) Although NATS has managed to better restructure its loans we should always bear in mind the fragility of the market.

3) The regulator has warned NATS that it must take action as regards pensions. NATS currently passes through to the airlines (as a part of the route charges) the costs of its contributions to CAAPS. The regulator has fired a warning shot in not allowing NATS to continue to pass through for all employees engaged since 1st Jan 2006. The regulator has made it clear that if NATS take no action to reduce pension costs it will take further action in CP3 and this may be in further route charge reductions or extending the pass through disallowance or a combination of both.

4) NATS cannot, by law, interfere with the current pension scheme and must continue to make contributions to ensure that CAAPS assets meets its obligations. The only changes which can be made to CAAPS are by a 100% vote in favour by its members. Even a single dissenter would cause any vote to fail.

From the above facts I deduced that if NATS fail to heed the regulators very clear warnings then the regulator will take action which will restrict NATS income. NATS is legally obliged to continue payments into CAAPS but has offset its costs somewhat recently by ploughing the surplus back into the fund but given the money markets fairly dismal performance that surplus is likely to dry up somtime. So NATS are faced with a reducing income but no reduction in its contributions to CAAPS and a highly likely need to increase them. Something has to give and since its the pensions which are exercising the regulator (due to pressure from the airlines) it seems sensible to me that NATS address that area. Since the CAAPS scheme is untouchable I don't see any option but to close it off to new staff.
I consider that this is protecting the company (and my pension) because if your profits are reducing but your overheads remain the same (or increase) eventually you'll go bust. If NATS goes bust then CAAPS is severely impacted because there will be no more contributions. If CAAPS is impacted then my pension (which I'm looking forwards to enjoying) will be hit and I really really really don't want that.

So thats my view but I'm curious as to what facts those advocating a strike are basing their views on?

BD

BDiNOU - some salient points, however

your fact number 2 - NATS should never have been put in the position of being so financially bereft in the first place before 9/11. The Labour (our skies are not for sale) governement put us through PPP then to cap it all saddled us with 100s of millions of pounds of debt.

Fact number 3 - Pensions and passing through of costs. We are a service industry, our pension contributions come from profits, we make profits by charging customers. It's semantics by the regulator - pension costs for any company are met by charging the customer.... whetther it's called pass through or not. Barron states that the airlines will not stand paying for our pensions... why not? We as passengers pay towards the pensions of the airline industry!!