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