First off - I intend to vote "NO", So nothing I'm about to say is intended to support the proposal....

All of you (and the guys doing the same on the Intranet forums) are basing your calculations on how much you stand to lose out on a slightly unrealistic assumption: the modeller is based on the Actuarial standard prediction of pay rises, set at RPI + 1.5%

There's two chances of us ever getting a pay rise of RPI + 1.5% in the future... Slim and none, erring toward 'none'. From memory, in 2005 we got an increase of RPI + 0.6%, but all other recent rises have fallen within the proposed cap. If that were to be the same trend going forward, then you would not lose out at all on your future pension. As I said, that's not to try and promote the deal... just to focus on the reality of it.

I've also spoken to people who attended a pre-briefing of top managers and TU reps... they came back converted to "yes" voters by the TU presentation. I remain unmoved, but I look forward to hearing what they have to say. I predict it will be the doomsday scenario painted: "If you don't accept this, they will just impose something worse". I don't buy it.

Having just returned from 3 weeks leave, I was pretty disgusted to put it mildly to read the Union circular that was sent out regarding the pension proposals. Negotiation was a total waste of time it seems...thye are getting f**k all out of me apart from a big fat NO vote.
I too look forward to one of these briefings where I'll be told how much better off I am under the new scheme, even though there is a tool on the HR website which shows you how much you're going to lose out!!
My only hope is that Barron is there to field some questions about how exactly he manages to come out of this smelling of roses while the rest of us bend over and get royally f***ed by NATS management.

Well said PPrune Radar !! :D

Pay rise has been +147% over the last 18 years (not 10). But in that 18 yrs RPI went up by 76% and RPI+0.5% went up by 96%. (Read the earlier posts on this)

As I see it we have 2 options.

1 - Give in and accept that it is our problem to deal with the 'deficit'. Kiss bye-bye to any future negotiatiing strength. They have effectively torn up your terms and conditions and Deed of TRUST - do you TRUST them with a worthless 15 year Memo of Understanding ?

2 - Dump the problem firmly with those responsible. The government. They privatised us against solid industry advice. They saddled us with £600m debt. They skimmed surplus (about £160m ?) from the pension fund in the good days. They promised us our pensions would be safe. They have the power over the CAA to remove the unrealistic cap on our charges and the cost pass through of pensions. (Somewhat ironically I don't think CAA have such a restriction - judging by the amount THEIR user fees have risen in recent years)

I would suggest that one day of strike action would have all the airlines beating a path to GBs door saying - "you caused it, you bloody fix it".

And if we go bust or are declared insolvent ? I have a feeling the pension is still protected according to the Deed of Trust - remember the Govt are 49% shareholders.

The privatisation was all about reducing the PSBR (Public sector borrowing requirement) - we saved them a measly £0.5bn. Consider the £250bn plus (that is over 10% of annual GDP by the way) that they have just chucked into the nationalisation of Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley.

The banks are in the $hit because of their own folly.

We are in the $hit because of the Governements folly. Let them suffer the consequences.

PS What do you think will happen if the Tories get in at next election. Do you think they will sort the problem then ? Hell no, they'll just blame the previous bunch, so we better get this previous bunch to fix it .. NOW. We have one chance - vote NO. Take them head on.

The last weeks worth of posts on here have been absolutely brilliant. I commend everyone who has provided figures, information regarding ownership/deeds of trust/other current affairs that are relevant.
Thank you and I hope it continues.
Let's stick together.
NO

Does anyone yet have an answer from our 'Union' regarding why the AVAA agreement is still in place and why we have not been balloted for strike action since NATS are trying to re-negotiate our pension?

These issues are in the union handbook but that seems to have been thrown away.

Previous posters have raised these two issues but they have not been answered.


Where is my industrial action ballot form as my union says I should have one......


Trust these people at your peril - the rules only seem to be applied when it suits some people..

Point to note.. the cap rpi+0.5 .As many have realised there would be a loss to their pension. Also how is this getting round the transport bill??? Other problems with this are pay is normally negotiated 2/3 years so...what stops them offering a pay rise fo example year 1 rpi +4% year 2 rpi+2% year 3 2% below rpi.....This would be voted in by new Pension schemers as no effect on their pension but ours capped would effectively lose out on all 3 years....just a thought(even if figures unrealistic) :suspect::suspect:

Any pay increase over RPI +0.5% and I lose out using the calculator. The amount I lose starts at £2000 a year and increases the more the RPI + figure increases (as you would expect). Given that the average pay rise RPI + figure over the last 10 years or so (I am assured by a learned and respected union bod) is RPI +2.5%, then I along with everyone else stand to lose a fair bit of cash which has been hard earned over the years. Cash which is much better in my pocket than the Robber Barron's.

No way !!!

What we need is all the useful info (a lot of it on here) gathered and compiled to counter the management and union proposal. This can then be used to inform all those at various units who dont read this forum. So when they are "briefed" they will be armed with questions and counter proposals, rather than sitting there trying to take it all in and having the fear of God put into them by the "Untouchables"

Someone asked about the pension holiday amount. According to NATS, it saved £48M over the holiday period.

Couple this with the year on profits made, and there is a lot of money somewhere that could have been used to finance this 'non profit' making companies pension fund when it needs it.

Pre Tax Profits

2004 - £1.8M

2005 - £85.3M

2006 - £80.3M

2007 - £94.4M

2008 - £66.7M


Over the same period, NATS reduced it's debt from £697.6M to £538.1M (a reduction of ~£159M). So we made profits of £328.5M and put £159M in to debt reduction. Allowing some to be taken by the tax man, where did the rest (plus the £48M pension holiday money) go ?

VOTE NO!!!!!

This is the chance to tell NATS Management and the Union to get lost.

Too many people get bribed by a few quid or brown nose and cant see what is going on. Too many times we have bent over and taken it without the lube!

NOT THIS TIME!!!!!

To answer Barstewards the following has been quoted from the Union "we have a range of policy and this includes "In order to protect the long term future of CAAPS the BEC shall consider negotiation if required"". :ugh:

I spoke to someone today who had the briefing from the union and seemed to be swaying to the yes side. The briefing seemed to rely heavily on us going bankrupt which we know won't happen.

I can't believe the unions are prepared to sell us down the river.

When this is all done and dusted, and hopefully with a huge NO vote, is it not time we got ourselves a new union who are prepared to fight for the members and not just accept what management have to offer.

Prospect Union fights to save pensions :eek:

Unions to fight BAA pension cuts

10/10/2007
Union leaders representing thousands of airport workers at BAA have told the company's chief executive, Stephen Nelson, that they will fight plans to change the final salary pension scheme.
National officers from Unite, PCS and Prospect met Mr Nelson on Wednesday. They made clear their unified opposition to the proposed changes which will see the final salary pension scheme closed to new entrants from December 1.
Hands off workers’ pensions, Prospect tells Ofgem
26/09/2008
Prospect, the union for 21,000 energy professionals, has warned the electricity regulator not to intervene in staff pensions as part of its current distribution price review. The union was responding to an Ofgem consultation paper, Price Control Pension Principles

News Story

Sale of air traffic control sparks new sell-off row

10/07/2006
Ministers have been warned that any sale of the Airline Group’s stake in National Air Traffic Services would reignite the political row over its part-privatisation in 2001.
Prospect, representing 3,500 air traffic controllers and engineers at NATS, said any part-sale of the airlines’ 42% stake would contradict the guarantee made by the Airline Group when it bought its stake that it would operate on a ‘not for commercial return’ basis.

Prospect General Secretary Paul Noon said: "Speculation that the Airline Group is considering selling its stake, just five years after the privatisation of NATS, underlines the concerns the union raised at the time of sell-off about safety standards and investment.

"If the Airline Group or parts of it wish to sell their stake then the government should buy it back. There must be no ‘For Sale’ sign over NATS.

"The purpose of NATS is to provide a safe service for the travelling public, not to be a cash cow for its owners. That is the basis on which the public-private partnership was established five years ago, backed up by guarantees to parliament."

Given the growth in air traffic and other major European initiatives, the UK air traffic management system needs stability and investment to provide a safe, efficient and integrated service, said Noon.

Prospect is writing to the Secretary of State for Transport, Douglas Alexander, raising its concerns. It wants an early meeting to seek assurances that the government will boost its 49% stake in NATS if necessary, and restate its commitment to continued investment in the business.

The Airline Group is a consortium of seven UK airlines: British Airways, bmi British Midland, Virgin Atlantic, Thomsonfly, Monarch, easyJet and My Travel. They own 41% of NATS
BA chief Willie Walsh reckons at least 30 airlines will go bust before XMAS. Warning: 30 airlines will go bust this year - News & Advice, Travel - The Independent

At least 3 of the above group could "fold their wings" any time given the current recession :rolleyes:

And dont rule out BA ......

BA has already unveiled a series of measures designed to counter a crippling rise in its jet fuel bills, which are expected to total £3bn this year, 50 per cent more than in 2007.
Last month, it revealed profits during the first three months of the year were 88 per cent lower than in the same period last year and warned price increases and cuts to capacity were inevitable.

BAA owns 4% of NATS. They are struggling and will struggle even more when they have to sell off EGKK and EGP*, to reduce their monopoly.
BAA, the cash-strapped operator of seven UK airports, plunged to a £51m operating loss in the first quarter of this year, hit by rocketing security costs and £24m of one-off expenses aimed at ensuring a "smooth" opening of Terminal 5 at Heathrow. BAA's profits descend on back of rocketing security costs - Telegraph
The BAA group, is now 61pc owned by Spanish infrastructure group Ferrovial who paid £10 Billion and who are now struggling to finance this loan payment.


I suspect NATS management can feel NATS slipping through their greasy fingers.......:mad:

Who the hell are these union guys anyway? If they were representing the miners in the 80's they would have been lynched by now

Hial Flyer

In the event of a No vote I would imagine NTUS officers would consider their positions.

Do NATS management have a Plan B in case of a No vote?

I'm 9K a year worse off, my projected pension pot will be about £650 - 700K. If NATS hand that over to me NOW to invest as I deem fit for my own retirement, I'll sign on the dotted line to work for them without a peep, until my 60th birthday.

Got the following reply from my MP today:

Dear radar707
Thank you for your email.

It raises very important issues and I have forwarded it to the Minister
so that they can be very fully considered. When I receive a reply I
will of course let you know.

I spoke to a senior(ish) union person this afternoon and was told that there is no Plan B

No plan B ...

I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous post

"Dont rule out NATS going full circle and becoming fully Nationalised again"

:ok:

2 points,

1) Why isn't the issue of the pension being closed to new starters being given more air time here?

The RPI+.5 and the SMART pension are very much minor issues compared to the consequences of closing the scheme.

For example, imagine the implications in 10-15 years time when members of the proposed new scheme out number existing members! Where do you think your negotiating powers will be then?

If exisiting members will be £5k or so out of pocket due to RPI+x and SMART the consequences of the majority being in a different scheme will far out way the loss from the former.

Suspiciously looks to me like the RPI & SMART elements are there as optional for Management and are to be used during the subsequent negotiation. I.e. ok we'll drop the RPI & SMART if you agree to a new scheme to new members.

Once agreed, kiss goodbye to final salary if you have 10-15 years more to go!

This needs more discussion please!!


2) Briefings are pointless, NATS mgmt & Unions have made up their mind.
Simple choice, unless members refuse to be brainwashed at the doom n gloom breifings your pension will go the same way as Alstoms!

I will take the smart pension if they ditch the new scheme and capping of the current scheme. that is the only way they are getting a yes out of me.

NO

For information reference the Memorandum of Understanding.

A memorandum of understanding (MOU or MoU) is a document describing a bilateral or multilateral agreement between parties. It expresses a convergence of will between the parties, indicating an intended common line of action. It most often is used in cases where parties either do not imply a legal commitment or in situations where the parties cannot create a legally enforcement agreement. It is a more formal alternative to a gentlemen's agreement.
In some cases, depending on the exact wording, MoUs can have the binding power of a contract; as a matter of law, contracts do not need to be labeled as such to be legally binding. Whether or not a document constitutes a binding contract depends only on the presence or absence of well-defined legal elements in the text proper of the document (the so-called "four corners"). For example, a binding contract typically must contain mutual consideration—a legally enforceable obligations of the parties, and its formation must take place free of the so-called real defenses to contract formation (fraud, duress, lack of age or mental capacity, etc.).


Thanks to wikipedia Memorandum of understanding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
:uhoh:

Well done terrain safe you beat me to it, the most important part read:-

It most often is used in cases where parties either do not imply a legal commitment or in situations where the parties cannot create a legally enforcement agreement.

So unless it does become legally binding in our case for 15years you can fcuk your yes vote:cool:

I believe the MoU will become part of your contract and therefore would have to honoured.

Please let's just wait for the proper briefings to start and quit all this half baked speculation.

And as for a Thread to try to spot different answers around the country-well-as long as the question is phrased in exactly the same way and in the same context fine, but otherwise is this really needed?

Controversial ironic quotation Bit like the pension now then? ;);)

250 kts



7 years after being promised our pensions were rock solid safe I doubt many members of staff believe there's much honour knocking about.

Whatever way the vote goes NATS has been changed forever.

Doesnt the UK economy 'collapse' about every 15 years... 2007, late 80's/early 90's, mid-late 70's...

So management potentially wants to renegotiate again when they think they will have the bargaining chip of a duff economy to erode terms further? Or am I being a bit cynical?! Maybe the memorandum should include a clause that WE can initiate earlier if we choose, while they can not.

PPrune Radar:
That would be the shareholders I guess in the form of dividends (and to Aston Martin, Lady Barron's company, his home, etc)

I strongly believe that whatever hyperbole the NTUS and NATS Management propoganda team spout, we should hold steadfast and vote NO... if it blows in our face, so be it. Better to have tried and fail than not to try an wonder if... highly unlikely though as we have a ton of dry powder, right prospect?

250kts

The union reps had a briefing yesterday and having spoken to some today they couldn't believe how management and even their own union were trying to sell this deal. Both parties were very good at pushing the bankrupcy theme. They couldn't even confirm that the 15 year deal was safe. :ugh:

I attended the briefing yesterday.

I went in thinking I was a definite no vote and whilst some of my perceptions were changed I am still a no vote - but accept that it is likely action may have to be taken in the future to protect the pension scheme.

I suggest as many of you as possible attend the briefings to make up your own minds - although remember since they want a yes vote it is a bias point of view which is presented.
My thoughts are that we are proposing greater measures than those needed to protect the pension.
The main issue seems to be the underlying rate which NATS will have to pay which could be circa 42% from January - hence the big rush to sort the issue out.
The part of the proposal which will have the immediate and significant effect in reducing the underlying cost is the cap of rpi + 0.5%. This is also the part which can't be instigated without our say so as we’re protected by the trust of deed. According to the presentation the cap alone is predicted to reduce the underlying rate to 25% which I'm sure the company could afford long term. The SMART pension changes seem to make sense in saving money so I wouldn't be against this. The main point I have issue with is the two tier system. The union talked at length about what a good new scheme they have secured - which compared to what else is around is very true. From a selfish point of view though I am more concerned about my pension and those of other current employees – not future employees who haven’t yet joined and aren’t yet paying union fees. Regardless of how good the new scheme is it will be inferior to the current one so I'm sure down the line the members of the new scheme will shaft us given half a chance. Human nature will mean they say "why should you get more money than me?" rather than "boy - didn't prospect negotiate well on our behalf back in 2008!"
After seeing the presentation I still believe we can have one NATS one pension - we just might have to compromise on the terms of the pension in the future.
I'd like to see an agreement to cap for a shorter period of time together with an agreement that NATS HAVE to pay a minimum percentage during this period should market conditions improve. It is by not paying in when times are good that causes problems when times are bad.

One final thought - the whole reason to vote yes according to UNIONATS is "if the company goes bust you could lose the pension and your job"
Another way to lose your pension is if we're split up and sold. The proposed changes (new money purchase scheme) reduces the company’s liabilities and makes them much more predictable - this will make us a MUCH more attractive prospect to potential purchasers.

VOTE NO - let NATS start to pay the new high rate (which may put us in financial trouble eventually but not in the short term – we have after all made a profit for the last five years despite the cost of TC relocation etc.) and then let’s get back round the table if necessary to negotiate a way to go forward with the best terms for us rather than least risk for NATS.

Say yes in haste, repent at leisure

Do you really believe that if management win this fight they will be satisfied, and that it will end there? Whatever agreements and guarantees they offer this time around will be totally worthless as they will know they can do whatever they want and we will capitulate.

If we don't have the guts to stand up for ourselves then we can forget ever been treated with any respect by management. In fact if we don't stand up for ourselves I don't see how we can even have any self respect.

While looking for onenatsonepension.com I did get to this cached version, which does have all of the links to the other relevant articles from the CAA, BA etc.

Highlights include: -


Some of the Q & As were still available including: -

Nice find Dan Dare - I'm getting all nostalgic reading it. Makes me want to get the donkey jacket and the placards out of the shed!

This bit is of particular interest. The proposed changes will limit future liabilities significantly and yet all talk of dangers to the pension seem to revolve around NATS going bankrupt rather than being sold.

Last year, following changes in the age discrimination laws one NATS dept who qualify for a ‘scarce skills’ bonus were very nearly shafted by an agreement between local management and a TU rep. For a £300 (gross) sum they were to give away the pensionable aspect of their ‘bonus’ potentially costing them thousands. Immediate action by the staff ended with a fair and suitable solution for all. This was negotiated with higher management.
Oh and the name of the Union ****er who nearly sold us down the river has just reappeared as the NTUS signatory on my recent glossy mag describing our sell out.
Gonna rejoin the union to vote him out and have my say again.

Don’t underestimate our own power and please don’t assume that our ‘representatives’ are competent.

p.s. please don’t let perceptions about the CTC affect your dealings with colleagues there and comments on here? Many are essential to OPS and have the same worries that you (non-CTC based) do.

Time to stick together.

Does anyone know if the unions sought any independent advice on the scheme or did they just rely on what they were allowed to see of the management's report?

I sincerely hope they did.

On a night shift last night, picked up my swanky polished pension proposal booklet and had a quick browse. First thought was of the front cover. Absolutely plastered in that waste of money new logo we commissioned a couple of years ago.
Opened it up and had a brief flick through as didn't want to get even moodier on a night shift than a lack of sleep already makes me but did notice a worrying anwer to a question on "your questions answered" page.

here it is:

"How do we know we won't be required to join the new defined contribution scheme (the new one) at a later date or that NATS won't make it a condition of promotion?

The trust of a promise prevents NATS from forcing employees who were members of the scheme at PPP into the new scheme."

My point being that anyone joining after 26th July 2001 can and will be forced to join the new pension scheme as the "trust of a promise" does not include these people, including myself.
I did a very rough night shift calculation that my own watch ops room contains 15%ish people who fall into this category after only 7 and a half years. In those years, we have gone through the college and validation training. Many NATS departments will have higher percentages already of non trust of a promise employees.
If this two tier scheme gets voted through then it won't be long before to many years (15 anybody??) before there is another review and a vote put to NATS as to closing the old scheme entirely and merging it with the new one. I would vote yes. And I wouldn't blame anyone else for doing it as it would be in the best interest of the members of the new scheme.
RIGHT NOW it is in our interest to all vote NO.

as i'm typing this i have also noticed:

"who makes the final decision on the proposals?"

"having reviewed all the comments resulting from the consultation period which closes on 10 December, the NATS executive will make the final decision about wheter to implement these proposals......

......The outcome of the consultation will be communicated to employees in January 2009."


We are getting shafted, and quickly. Make our opinions heard. Loudly and often.
The results of any PCS and Prospect ballot will not be announced until the end of december.

Someone mentioned earlier about whether there is a plan B...I can well believe that the union might not have a plan B...in fact I wouldn't even call this proposed sell out a plan A from the union point of view. What you can guarantee though is that management have a plan B,C,D etc

They know there will be a lot of bluster about these proposals, but as we have demonstrated consistently in pay negotiations over the last 20 years, we always roll over and play ball.

At the moment I think we are still behaving entirely in accordance with management's plan A.

It's no use just talking tough. We all have to be prepared to fight hard to save our pensions. I don't think management really take the prospect (sic) of industrial action at all seriously at this stage. It's up to us to change their perception and make them sit up and actually listen to us for once. This is our very last opportunity to ever stand up for anything worthwhile in our terms and conditions.

After this we will either look back with regret as we see everything else that makes this job worthwhile taken away from us, or we will look back with pride that we drew a line in the sand and showed that we will no longer tolerate being treated with such contempt.

Stand firm! Look at all the terms and conditions we have already given up in recent years. This has to stop. NOW

Devils Advocate
 

Not wishing to stir the NATS hate bucket, but the T's & C's that we have 'given' up over the past 5 years have resulted in a rise in ATCO 2 scales (albeit this refers to band 5 only) of approx 46%.

There is no way we would be paid as much as we are today without these concessions and is a large part of the reason we are now having to negotiate a new pension for new entrants.

In response to if we don't fight for this we will get turned over on all negotiations in the future... Rubbish. I would see it as we no longer need to sell chips to get pay rises. I would rather agree to RPI +0.5% and keep my leave than have RPI +1.5% (1% not pensionable!) and sell 3 days leave.
Also, any pay rise over RPI +0.5% will be massively cheaper for NATS as they will no longer have the underlying rate to pay to the pension on it. So you could see it as easier to protect what we have.

With respect to the pension, the way I read it is that there can be no differential pay award between those in the new pension and us in the old one. This now written into our personal full time contract regardless of the Apr 2001 Trust of a Promise. Furthermore, this promise only comes into force if NATS is sold or goes bankrupt. In which case those who fall under it have their benefit underwritten by the government. As long as NATS exists as a company, regardless of who has the most shares, nobody on the old pension can have it taken away from them without their personal approval.

I can see that there is alot of bad feeling about this all over, predominantly for the wrong reasons. Quite simply, I want to protect my pension and I have more than 20 years remaining. If this CEO doesn't change it, the next one will - or we'll go bankrupt and will lose it anyway. I'm voting for potentially a £45k instead of a £50k one (at current rates) AND thats if we get pay rises for the next 20 years of RPI + 1% (NEVER GONNA HAPPEN)

Look at the figures, go to the briefings - its all there... and spare a thought for those 65yr olds retiring this year on their NORMAL pension which, in the current climate now pays <£10k.

I believe the union have negotiated the best deal available looking at ALL of the information and I wish more people would take the time to find that out for themselves.

Right, thats the end of my rant - Bring on the hate!

Quote:

---

LACCATCO

---

"I can see that there is alot of bad feeling about this all over, predominantly for the wrong reasons. Quite simply, I want to protect my pension and I have more than 20 years remaining. If this CEO doesn't change it, the next one will - or we'll go bankrupt and will lose it anyway"

If the NATS Airline group (41.9%)and BAA(4%) go down the tubes quite simply the Government (49%)will take us back fully Nationalised, it is that simple! :ok:
We will not lose our pension, but yes the Airline group and BAA could go bankrupt (,http://www.pprune.org/4449495-post518.html ) that is what NATS MANAGEMENT fear the most as they would lose their bonuses.
I think some people could learn a lot about economics by just watching the current news headlines :)

VOTE NO :ok:

And what about those of us who started AFTER April 2001? We'll just vote Yes then shall we and get shafted in 15years time when the so called "memorandum of understanding" expires??? I am happy that you've managed to satisfy/delude yourself into thinking this is the best option but I'm still voting NO.

No hate LACCATCO but tell me why I should consider those on state pensions. Many years ago when my contract staff were earning twice as much as me and paying less tax I made the decision to stay with the company and that was based on T+Cs. T+Cs that I thought were guaranteed following PPP.

Maybe that line should be for our CEO and his 14% pay rise this year.

You make some reasonable points but some things just dont add up to me and the briefings will not make any difference, especialy this 'cost pass thru' nonsense. Yes, I do expect our customers to pay toward our pension.
Also you have obviously bought this 'going bust' scaremongering. I am yet to be convinced.