I am well aware that without operational ATC staff I don't have a job. It is quite clear however that many operational ATC staff don't think the opposite. Unless you can control air traffic with no equipment, no building, without anything that has to be bought and paid for and are willing to do so without any pay or pension then you also need the non operational staff.

However most non operational jobs can be outsourced and it is also possible for projects to be cancelled or postponed so non operational staff do not enjoy the same job security. Whilst pensions are a big deal for all staff they aren't as big a deal as having a job. That is the background to the union's position and why they aren't necessarily fighting as hard as you'd like to keep the pension scheme.

As for sticking together I would point out that it was the operational staff with good job security who took the blood money to change the redundancy scheme to the detriment of those likely to be made redundant and I didn't see any operational ATC staff fighting against the abolition of the 40 year rule once an excuse was made to keep it for ATC staff.

I'm not being divisive, merely defending my position and my PENSION. I didnt come on here and start having a pop at CTC staff, I think you'll find it was the other way around.
If you feel your job is more important than my pension then fine, vote yes. That is your prerogative....I will similarly exercise my democratic right to protect my pension by voting no.
I do however agree that there is no point continuing with company in-fighting...why make Barron's job easier for him???

Working together = divide and rule.

Methinks it all started then. :hmm:!

To quote Eglynt...

"There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding about not for profit. Yes NATS makes a profit but almost all of the profit is ploughed back into the business either by paying off loans or as investment."


NATS paid off a loan this year. It was for £65Million made by the Airline Group after 9/11. It was an indefinite loan at 12% interest per annum!! The redemption penalty was £16 Million.

A crafty way for the shareholders to get a 'profit' without the staff getting bonuses!

It's all in the Annual Report and accounts.

The loans repaid were not to the Airline Group. The two shareholders repaid were BAA and the Government. The Airline Group was not able or prepared to put up any extra money when NATS was in trouble after 9/11. Perhaps not surprisingly the two parties who did put up the money when nobody else would ensured the terms of the loan got them a good return.

Having got such a good return last time I can only imagine what a good deal the government will expect the next time it has to lend NATS money.

To find / write to your MP

TheyWorkForYou.com: Are your MPs and Peers working for you in the UK's Parliament?

No atcos = no nats.

END OF STORY.

if there was industrial action, every union member eligible for ballot should ride with the majority.
scabs, be they office or operational are unnaceptable within nats union members.

NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES. with noone who could move AIR TRAFFIC. I can't see anyone paying route charges then.I certainly wouldn't.
NO ATCOS=NO STARBUCKS
NO ATCOS-NO WASTE OF MONEY BACKSLAPPING AWARD CEREMONIES.

Do you really think that airlines pay charges for the priviledge of having someone who knows the benefit of a double mocha choca with a triple twist of vanilla asscream...........no...........didnt think so.

I am going to a pension briefing in the morning and am going to listen to what is said hoping that my questions are answered during the briefing.
We really don't need this willy waving operational/non operational stuff. not this month anyway.
with no operational staff there is no company, with no NONoperational staff, the company grinds to a halt.
We need each other.
Maybe not thousands of each other, but a few at least.
It comes down to.........who would you rather hurt, each other or the management?

and it also looks like us operational types are going to have to carry the can on this one as the office side of the company are far more interested in commenting on photo of the day than using their noodles for any common sense.
WE are the employees, we make this company... ALL OF US. if you are too damn stupid to realise it and if we let management go on this one we are buggered and your office job security most likely will not be there in 2 years time as they will have outsourced the majority.
I can bet you all a pretty pound that as that **** baron is due to jump ship next march we will not see any more public appearances from this arsehole... you can take your barstool sessions and stick 'em where the sun dont shine.
my misses works for a large company in an 'office' role and to hear her view on all this is a sobering thought as she thinks in different ways to us ATCO's.... we dont always agree with eachother, for some reason she seems not to like the term 'office monkey' :E but she still thinks we need to ALL stand up and fight for our pension.
I also hear that during the pay negotiations that management are asking us to give back 6 days a year for £2k.... and thats a one off payment. if we give in to this pension thing, you can expect way more of this stripping of our T&C's in the coming years.... but hey, why would that bother someone at the CTC who doesnt know the difference between a C152 and aC130. apparantly it only seems to be the ops side of the company that will get f****d over as you all will just drink coffee, forward emails, bury your heads in the sand about pensions as no one there has yet to show any balls oh and have some more meetings about meetings in expensive hotels.
If this gets pushed through, my personal view is that i will be giving back my 2nd sector that i do for the company for FREE, ojti, lce etc etc.... and the next time some office types appear and the GS asks if I can spend my break answering their questions, or on a very, very rare occasion they are there to plug in... the answer im afraid, that in the past has ALWAYS been a yes is a NO.
i will turn up to work, do my job and spend as much time doing the bare minimal as possible, which is not in my nature, but i am just not willing to do the company any favours anymore. lets see how well the AC units tick along when people stop with the goodwill acts, i.e, doing above MUR for free.
OK, my rant over. apologies if i offend, but this has all really pissed me off. if anyone can show me anything against what i have said, i am more than willing to take it on board and apologise if necessary.
Union meeting tomorrow.... not holding my breath.

Let us know if anything useful comes up in the meetings today guys:ok:

Are the CAA also trying to make changes to the pension scheme?

And what about Highlands & Islands who are part of the same scheme?

If HIAL are able to provide for their staff, then why not NATS?

Ceasar and Kinglouis.

You are an embarassment to your trade and colleagues. If it wasnt for your previous posts which confirm your Bitterness and self indulgence I would swear that your were a mgt plant sent in to divide us such that many wil vote 'Yes' just to clip the wings of the greedy and selfish ATCOs.
Not me, I respect all in this company. Whilst we are having a quiz Kinglouis how about the difference between NAS, SFS, SIDE, WFD, WDM, EFPS, CCDSr, TOMS, RIOT.
Oh and last time I looked there were flat screens, starbucks and the like at Swanwick. I work at the CTC and for the record most engineers hate it. A noisy call centre not suited to our type of work. Worked at WD for 16 years and was a friend and colleague. Now, to some, I appear to be an office monkey and enemy of OPs.

you are an embarrasment to your start trek loving trade and colleagues
:}:}:}

on a more serious note,

Engineers are not office monkeys.
I have never considered engineers non operational staff.
Some of the wizardy that our engineers do is very clever stuff.

walla, calm down sunshine.
i do not for one minute think engineers are office monkeys.
and i also believe the absolute majority at ctc are well and truly needed and do a good job..... its the head in the sand attitude i cant stand that seems to run thick in there, and not from what i read on here either. just because you are unfortunate enough to be stuck there is crap, we understand that.
i will fight for my pension as i believe ops staff have the power to do so more than office staff as we do so much above our remit, not saying office staff do not, but ours is easier to stop doing, work to what we are paid to do and cause the company the most trouble...... something i would rather NOT do, but am prepared to if they take the piss with my/our pensions and T&C's etc.

Personally, I'm willing to make sacrifices like standing side-by-side with radar monkeys in order to protect all our pensions :ok:

Caesar / Kinglouis

Your last comments have restored my faith a little. Thanks. Lets stick together on this one.
Just hearing that the retiring CEO of one of our newly nationalised banks has left with a circa 500K per annum pension. Now who do you think is gonna have to guarentee that? Food for thought eh!
p.s.
Why were senior managers briefed by the union before any other staff
Why was their briefing in a hotel and ours in the canteen area

Its called "working together" :mad:

Very disturbing to hear the rumours about them wanting to buy 6 days of our leave for a pathetic "£2k. Can anyone elaborate on this??

I don't know anything of a specific plan to buy out a portion of leave entitlement... but I DO know...

1. Staff on personal contracts already had their leave cut upon renewing said contract

2. Fortunes are paid out to operational staff under SOAL (Sale Of Annual Leave). Like it or not, it makes sense for any company to query the sense of this. Some might say a more positive reaction would be to staff all areas fully, so that there was no excuse for everyone not to use their leave :bored:

slightly off track but relevant nonetheless...

Underlying pension costs to NATS? Why are they double the percentage contributions NATS makes? surely if an employer contributes 20% of staff pay to a fund, their costs are 20%, no?
The 6% employees contributions form part of the staff salary.

Am I missing something?

The fortunes that are paid out under SOAL are due to Nats not succession planning adequately enough and, as a result, not having staff where they should.

There is no way we should be even contemplating giving up anything to the company at the moment - there is a completely one way flow of goodwill in Nats right now, and has been for a while.

It's about time we stood together or that flow will never reverse.

Having attended a pension brief today i have a few concerns;

1. What happens in 4/5/6 years time and NATS come back to the union saying
" sorry RPI +.5% wasn't good enough and we need RPI -0.5% to make the shortfall the actuaries were wrong" ?

2. I accept the scheme does have to close due to the expense but close and have the RPI cap! this seems all one side i.e. NATS!

3. What happens in 15yrs when the ratio is 40% - 60% and the Prospect members re vote over our pension and they "go with the majority" as they told me today?

4. There is no plan B and by voting NO i was told " i would be rolling a dice with my pension"!

5. The current Banding is frozen at the moment. What happens if they ever re band in the next 15yrs? Does this mean they will cap the relevant increase into your pension?

6. If the NATS contribution falls below 18% the NTUS will (at that time and off cuff) negotiate a deal for the money being saved and then pass it on to us! Very wishy washy!

7. If we go bust then the new NATS we work for will be able to change the pension scheme without consultation? Is this correct?

So, i think there are too many loose ends and i will probably vote NO! I think there is a better deal to be had.
At the end of the day i need to secure my retirement with the best possible deal without the words " it was a tough 2 yrs of meeting look how well we have done" more like you should have played hard ball just like Paul Barron did:mad::mad::mad:

I do wonder if we've shot ourselves in the foot slightly re. AAVAs, after all, if our days off were sacred, we wouldn't be doing them. By coming in on AAVAs / SOAL we're highlighting to the company that:-

1. We believe we get plenty time off work
2. That time off work can and will become time in work, for a price.

Have just been reading about the UK bank bail out and the fact that several chief execs have resigned with no severance pay...also, there will be no executive bonuses paid whilst the banks are under the control of the govt.
It strikes me that when we face losing £5-10k of our pension a year, then the very least that our union should be pushing for is that our chief exec should leave with NOTHING next year...or the hit on our pensions is lining his pocket. In the current economic climate his 13% payrise last year is obscene and a slap in the face to everybody below management pay grade. Just a thought.

The worrying thing is that there are a lot of people coming out of these briefings believing the bankrupcy bul:mad:it.

We need to be convincing those people that they are shooting themselves in the foot.

From my previous post..

"Legal Status and Ownership

NATS Holdings Ltd is the holding company for NATS Group. It owns NATS Ltd, which in turn owns two operating subsidiaries: NATS (En-Route) plc (NERL) and NATS (Services) Ltd (NSL). The Airline Group Ltd, a consortium of seven airlines, has the majority of voting rights and 41.9% of the shares of NATS Holdings Ltd. The Secretary of State for Transport owns 48.9%, BAA plc 4.2%; and NATS Employee Sharetrust Ltd 5%.

The Government is the major shareholder (48.9%) and NATS cannot go into administration. There is a good reason why they still part own it... because NATS is essential to the UK both economically and from a safety and security aspect, thus NATS will not be allowed to go into administration -even if it could."

In addition just rememember why Nats shareholders are in deep financial sh1t. BA (one of the airline group) was fined £120 million last year for fuel surcharge price fixing with Virgin (another one of the airline group) The BA managers responsible are now facing jail.
Also NATS reportedly lost £120 million over the AENA SACTA Spanish deal last year. Thats £240 million which could have boosted our pension! And BAA's new Spanish owners are struggling to finance their £10 billion loan.

Make no mistake NATS management are extremely worried they might lose out big time :uhoh:
They will tell you anything to sway you over the Pension proposals. Don't beleive them......

vote NO :ok:

Loxley:
These are questions I would very much like answers to.

If the main scheme has similar problems to the ones we apparently have, then maybe I may just be persuaded away from a 'no' vote, depending on whether any safegauards are built in.

AS things stand, there is nothing to persuade me in any way to vote anything other than a big fat NO.

As for trying to bribe us into signing away leave entitlement if the rumours are correct.... OI!!! NO!!

How does the CAA pension fit in with the NATS element of CAAPS?

I asked [email protected] who deals with the CAAPS

"If NATS shareholders were to go bankrupt would my pension ( CAAPS) be safe if the Government nationalised NATS fully, or if another company took ownership of the Airline group and BAA shares ?

I will post the response asap :)

and what about those who joined after 2001 but are still on the same pension as us?
#will they be protected?

I suggest each individual asks Nick Perry

HIAL is no longer a member of CAAPS I believe. They transfered their pot into the Scottish Office or some other part of the government pension fund up there.

HIAL created their own pension scheme a few years ago.

The CAA section of the pension fund is interesting because at some point in the future it is likely to face the same issues. The main cause of all this pension problem is pensioners living longer and it is unlikely that their pensioners will have a significantly different profile. The CAA board is not subject to the same restrictions on trading at a loss as the NATS board so they could possibly continue to fund their part of the scheme as costs rise but either the government will have to make up the shortfall or the CAA's charges will have to rise. Given that by then all the airlines and NATS will have had to act on their own schemes I can't see any of them taking kindly to propping up the CAA scheme especially as it is the CAA telling NATS it can't recover its pension costs using increased charges.

What happens if NATS becomes insolvent will be covered in the Trust Deed. It will almost certainly make provision for closure and winding up of the scheme if the company stops paying and the trustees are unable to secure alternative contributions. Mr Perry won't be able to tell you what political solution will be found to avoid that happening because nobody will know until the time comes but some solution will be found.

Well why not take the chip off your shoulder, invest your RAF pension, get a licence and go operational then? ;)

How many active controllers in NATS ? 1400 ?
How many ATSAs ? 800 ?
How many engineers ? 800 ?
That leaves an awful lot of incredibly important support jobs. I know how really important they are because my job as an ATCO has been made SO very much easier this last 3 years, obviously as a result of all this fantastic support. :D Thank you thank you. :hmm:

However, how many of these incredibly important pixies are actually non-essential blunties or middle managers doing job-creation $hite, spending lots of works time browsing the net, organising dances and incredibly important award ceremonies, making propaganda videos, PR guff, re-ordering desks, studying coffee contracts, redesigning spreadsheets, visions, destinations, buying gerbils etc..etc..?

A lot of 'our people' only earn what they earn because they work in "Air Traffic Control" and get off on reward-by-association. We all know that the sexy part of the job is actually pushing tin ;) - but guess what folks, it really does take skill and a hell of a lot of training to do it well. Sadly many in NATS don't even know that we are a 24hr operation, and even less what ATC means - yet .... many seem to resent those that work unsociable hours, as if we are some untidy part of the organisation.

Anyway - away from Bluntie-land. How do others go about protecting their pensions ... ?

BP Tanker Drivers

BAA Strike threat

Is this the same Prospect ... ?

BA Pilots #1

A whiff of hypocrisy .. or deja vu ? .... surely not ?

BA injects £500m in return for salary cap ?

At one of the meetings today, the subject of life expectancy for controllers was brought up. Apparently there is a study which concludes that the majority of ATCOs die within 5 years of retirement. Is this true and if so, can anyone point me in the direction of the study? If it is true it is quite a sobering fact.

When the question about the source for life expectancy figures was raised, they sort of fluffed the answer and suggested that they had taken into consideration a reduced life expectancy for ATCOs but they didn't categorically state that this was the case.

Hhhmm, I was responding specifically to the comment that CTC car park is empty weekends. I made the point that many CTC staff aren't in jobs which require weekend/night working whereas operational staff often are, hence the difference. I also made the point that operational staff are compensated for working unsocial hours. Quite how that translates into a chip I don't know, although you yourself appear to be well balanced having one on each shoulder about 'support staff' without any apparent knowledge of what the full picture of an ATC operation is. Your sort of post really doesn't help anyone, its divisive, why post it?

Onto your personal comment. I made a conscious decision not to move from RAF ATCO to civil ATCO for a variety of reasons too boring to go into on this forum. When I first joined NATS I was in a job which attracted 100% UHP. Over the years my job changed and I no longer receive it, I could argue that I've had a £5000 pay cut. However my job is extremely interesting and challenging which makes up for that loss of earnings, but it would still be nice to have the extra cash :}

BD

BDiONU :8

quote

" Hhhmm, I was responding specifically to the comment that CTC car park is empty weekends" :8

Are you still going on about the "empty car park" :8

Try to focus "outside the box" and take a hyperopic view of that car park at CTC :O

1) If there's one thing we've learned from the present financial turmoil it's that bonuses and incentivised pay encourage short termism that is very often at odds with the long term good of the company. Given this fact and the financial sacrifice NATS is asking of their staff would it not be right and proper that Mr Barron forego his bonus this year as an act of good faith?



2) If there was a pay deal on the table where we got a significant increase for giving up 6 days leave, most of that pay rise would be non pensionable due to the RPI+0.5 cap.
Most pay deals are not straight forward raises but involve us finding savings through sacrificing our terms and conditions. This RPI cap is going to shaft us in ways we haven't even thought of.