Inflatin is at 5.2% at the moment. Sounds great, right? However, most analysts (guessers?) are certain that by next year inflation will easily be sub 2%. So unless we expect no more than about 2.5% (RPI=0.5%), then we will certainly be worse off under the new proposals. Let's take a longer term view and not be misled by NATS management using the current trough in the economic CYCLE to screw us over.

VOTE NO

PS: the CAA employers contribution rate stands at 6% not 20-odd% NATS pay

Don't lose sight of things in the briefings. There will be lots of figures thrown about to prove the managements various points like how the £48 million pension holiday wasn't a lot of money, yet the 0.8% saved by smart pensions is.....
Here are some figures worth remembering:

Barron said: “Our results are very creditable given the costs of the West Drayton transition. So Paul - if we're making good money having spent a lot on moving WD then next year we'll have more profit and once MACC/PC is sorted we'll have even more profits - guess where you can invest it mate!

Keep the discussions going in work/the canteen/where ever. The Union isn't providing a counter arguement - so we have to!

Some people I know at Swanwick aren't that up to speed on the issues. Mainly the younger guys with less than 5 years in. Get them up to date. Make them use the modeller to let them see how worse off they'll be.

Remember after the Maxwell / Pensions fiasco pensions are deemed deferred wages. So you are being asked to vote Yes to a paycut.:ugh:

From http://www.publications.parliament.u...bacc/80/80.pdf


In my mind they are responsible for the risks they took on and therefore they should be providing the funding to ensure the fund - not the staff.

Compared with what exactly?? And remember the modeller doesn't take into account any lump sum you will almost certainly take and so the headline figure of what it would cost you is higher than it would be in reality.

I have around 10 years to go and frankly have no idea what my pension will be based on at that stage. Will it be £50k more than now or £100k. So if I don't know how will someone with 30 years to go? All you can do is have a gut feel for where you think it could be.

Has anyone thought just how rises above RPI are going to be achievable in the long term without major changes to WP, leave, shift length? In my view unless we are prepared to sell these "high value crown jewels" then rises will be lucky to be above 0.5 above RPI anyway. So little or no change to most of us even in the medium to long term.

The modeller shows you what your pension will be based on final salary X (RPI + X) figure that you put in and also shows what it would be X (RPI + 0.5).

So if you put in 1.5% like the acturies use or 2.5% (which is what we ATCOs have had on average over the last 10 years) then it will give you a rough idea what you'll be on. With 10 years to go I guess you are top of your scale. If not it allows you to add in incremental rises and factors it in.

So anyone can work out what they'll roughly retire on if the status quo remains Vs the proposed deal.

It also shows the SMART pension benefit. I'll be a whole £44 better off each year!!

You're right about the lump sum though. It would be nice to see what the reduced pension would be reduced to further!

So for myself:
As it stands based on
RPI + 1.5% I'd be 10k worse off at retirement
RPI + 2.5% id be circa 15k worse off.

Would I vote for a paydeal that was between minus 12-15%? No chance!


Try it and get others to try it. Even if all it does is highlight and provoke discussion.

If so then why bother with the cap. If only the odd pay rise will be above +0.5.

Not all changes to WP are bad, but I agree with the leave. In no way should that even be put on any negotiating table. Unless it has "we want more" put in front of it! :ok:

STUPENDOUS MAN!!

Have you been eating those blue smarties again:eek::eek:

You obviously haven't been to a briefing yet-or if you have you didn't bother to listen!

And my point is that without having any more to sell except the "crown jewels" we aren't going to realistically get much , if anything, above RPI+0.5%.

I for one can't see us getting anything like the rises we have had in the last few years and I'll be interested to hear the rationale from anyone who really thinks we will.

I went to one of the briefings yesterday and was a firm 'no' man.
lots of things considered, i am now unsure..... im thinking its still a no vote, but things that will start to make me think will be:
1) barron and his cronies NOT getting any bonus this year and for some time after that.
2) the company starts making a certified and visual effort to the workforce how they are tightening belts and trying to save money, rather than the staff picking up the slack via this pension deal, and i dont mean by sacking 'necessary' people needed to keep the ATC cog turning
3) the compnay regains its sight back to air traffic and the business of moving planes (non profit, naturally) and culls all these make believe jobs that serve no bloody purpose, e.g safety and training manager, operational information leader.. saw that one on the wall outside an office in the corridor today!!!!

im looking forward to what comes up over the next few weeks befre i make my fial decision. although i spoke with my financial advisor today who confirmed that we are pretty much between a rock and a hard place and any no vote may be in vain if there just isnt any money in the pot (hence point 1 above).

the company got us into this mess with underpaying pension costs since 2003 and is now trying to get us to bail them out. if tey cant show me how they are trying to help themselves, i will vote no.

As I understand it, this average ATCO pay rise that's being quoted of RPI+2.5 over 10 years consisted of quite a few 'spine points' over and above the annual increment.

If, as part of the ATCO pay deal we were all given a spine point increase in January, would this be included in the 'cap' of RPI+0.5?

A spine point is usually worth around 4%. Promotions and "normal increments" are not included in the cap.

So if the 2009 pay rise equated to a spine point ie. 4% and RPI was 3.8 then the whole of that rise would be pensionable. It is best not to look at the pay rise as a spine point as the salary structure would not be changed by a normal pay rise

Well, if the company stopped trying to be a "world beater" & wanting to take over every Euro ATC agency, things may be different. Oops, I forgot we are the only ones privatised in Euro land after all.
Maybe, if we dropped the "brand value" nonsence, the endless committees worried about litter picking, the endless shuttling of staff between Southampton, Manchester & Prestwick to talk about leadership or recycling, we maybe would not be in this position.
Since the Red Barron took over, non operational posts have rocketed to levels never seen before in this company. The company, IMHO has forgotten why we are here. NATS is now just a commodity, that has to make a "profit" & can be bought & sold at a drop of a hat when it suits.
It now takes 6 people to produce an ATC operational roster, when it used to only require one, in fact it requires 6 people to do almost anything in NATS now, where it used to only take one........and don't even get me started on the wasted man hours required to operate NIBS................The Board have a lot to answer for, whilst the staff are going to pay for their mismanagement.

Nats Integrated Business System

Although i've not yet been to a briefing, that's close to my stand-point already.
I'm realistic enough to appreciate that it's not simply going to be just a case of digging our heels in and refusing to budge on anything. But, that said, i expect this to be a negotiation with a little give and take on both sides. So far, i see little 'give' on the part of the company, but a whole lot of 'take'. Hence i'll be saying 'thanks but no thanks' unless they can demonstrate some serious changes on their part to assist with addressing the shortfall!

P.S. Don't interpret this as 'non-ops' bashing. I'm fully aware that there are a whole raft of non-ops people who are essential to the successful function of this company, BUT, I'm also under the suspicion that there are a fair few who are currently involved in projects that, if they were culled tomorrow, not many would miss. If you're happy that you provide an essential and important function to the company, then there would be no need to be either looking over your shoulder...or attacking me for my opinion!

According to our union reps the give and take part has been done. From the starting point things have moved a long way in our favour apparently.

It concerns me that some people do not trust the union reps at all and think that us voting no IS our negotiation. ie. we vote no to successive offers until we are happy. The negotiation is done and as far as our reps are concerned this is the best we can get.

It also worries me that people only seem to be thinking about how strong our position is. We may have a strong position but the figures presented to us in the briefings speak for themselves. There is no point digging our heels in to "beat the enemy" when there is nothing left for them to yield. The kind of cuts some people are talking about are negligible when compared to the billions of pounds involved in covering the pension liability.

For me it comes down to whether you trust the people representing us. If you do then deciding how to vote becomes quite straightforward.

If not then it becomes very difficult, almost as difficult as becoming a financial expert in time for the ballot.

It's also clear from coffee lounge conversation that some ATCOs have completely lost touch with what it's like in the rest of the working world.

Hey Guys, I've been a lurker here for a while but never registered as I basically couldn't be arsed- until now.
The Pension is something we all really need to think long and hard about. OK there's a shortfall but we're living in troubled times, there's a downturn in all investment packages at the moment. Why have we been investing in such High Risk areas? Mis-management perhaps?
Were we to do nothing and the market return to its previous heady heights BEFORE the 18 month deadline for NATS to go to the Wall would we have our previously, very well performing pension reinstated? I think not.
This has been an area that the Barron administration has been tasked with destroying, not necessarily by HMG- our majority shareholder, but by the Airline Group- with the desired outcome of making us a reduced risk, more deisirable investment opportunity. The AG then has a chance of making a killing on the initial paltry sum the shelled out for us at PPP. Recent financial and market downturns have contrived to give PB exactly the scenario he wanted to achieve this goal. A quick look at Business consulting services - NATS
lets us know the real agenda. Oh, you'll need to look at the comments bit on the pensions issue on natsnet to see what I mean. There have been changes made to the "Operational Change" sub-heading since their original content was highlighted in the pensions comments.(original text available on request).
Anyway, there is no doubt that, as it stands, our pension scheme needs a helping hand. It is very doubtful however that a 2-Tier scheme is going to be beneficial to any employee.
We need to vote a resounding NOto the current proposal. This is the first attack on the scheme. Were we to roll over this time the next assault would not be far away- long before the proposed 15 year review.

BEEJAM:

One of my union reps supports the work already carried out by the negotiating team. The other 5,6 or 7 think it's pants. They know something has to be done but think we're in a worse position now than when NATS first made a proposal to change to pension.
Don't know if you're in Prospect? If so have a look at the Union Handbook to see what they should have been doing.

Talking to the guys at my unit not one is going to vote in favour of this, simply because they've looked at the figures relating to their potential pensions compared to the capped version and the figures speak for themselves.

As an example one of the uys will be £11k worse off, but if he puts an extra 6% into AVC's which is what is being proposed through this scheme, then he stands to be only £10.5K worse off.

Assuming he lives for 10 years after retirement that's a whole chunk of pension to be losing, plus the reduced spouses pension after his death!!!

One question that hasn't been answered so far is by how much will any potential lump sum be reduced by this cap?

Controllers do not possess easily transferable skills,especially when working for a monopoly provider.....unlike pilots and managers for example. When the carpet-baggers moved in and gradually swelled out the middle and top ends of the organisation with an insulation layer of drones, it was to enhance their CV's in preparation for the next job. Remember that in a recession or downturn in the economy there is no safer place to be than a comfy little office in Hampshire.......prepare for even more departments to be created as "buddies" in the the cold outside commercial world start to look for alternative post-redundancy jobs.
Anyway, it was mentioned on Day One of new-NATS that we do our job in spite of management, and that we might take all kinds of crap....which we do....BUT IF YOU TOUCH THE PENSIONS you paint us into a corner. When all the present managers have moved on [not just the regular six monthly managerial musical chairs merry-go-round] the "core-business" workforce will still be at various stages of their 40 year careers.
If this isn't worth fighting for.....what is?

The calculator relies on you putting in what payrise relative to RPI you're expecting, so will produce anything from enormously worse off to no change. If anyone thinks they can predict what the average rise will be in the next 15 years, and what RPI will be too, then the figures will start to have a lot more bearing.
Personally, having been to the briefing, the choice seems to simply be, do I believe this is the best the union can achieve for us or not. I simply cannot see how anyone thinks the pension as it stands is sustainable based on the figures presented. And to be honest, even if this deal were accepted, there seem to be a lot of factors which may still cause the scheme to become unsustainable.
Hobson's choice?

This is not about what is happening at the moment but about the long term underlying contributory rate as you would know if you've been to a briefing.

A very naive and not helpful comparison. Fancy their level of job security??

So you really want to work for a bankrupt organisation. And then be subject to the govt 2% pay limit? Then we would go through the inevitable of being put up for sale again with, I suspect no influence on new owners this time. Then all bets really are off on the pension you currently have.

Based on what? Is he being realistic-I think not.

I have used around 3.5% rise/annum for the next 10 years which is when I intend to go. The top at a band 5 (please let's not get into the banding now) would have pushed up to £127k. So if RPI averaged 3% over that period I would not be one penny worse off than I am now. Of course if I really think we will get 4.5% then the figures will be much worse. But is that really going to happen with nothing left to sell in upcoming pay deals.

Do you really think the government would allow NATS to go bankrupt? I certainly don't.

Do you really think the government would renationalise NATS? I think that would be too humiliating for them too.

Does NSL bid for and win profitable contracts?

Could the CAA relax the price fixing charges to help NATS to cover any increased costs? It certainly could if the government wanted to avoid the embarrassment of the first 2 situations I mentioned.

Some people on here need to grow a backbone. This is not just about pensions, although pensions are one of the most fundamental parts of our terms & conditions. If we don't fight this we send out a clear signal that we don't have the stomach for a fight on anything.

Are you going to let your pensions slip through your fingers and then make a stand over losing 2 days leave? What about 3 days?... 6 days? See here's the figures. Sorry guys we'd love to let you keep the leave, but we just don't have the staff to cover it. See? here's the figures. Can't argue with them can you?

What about UHP? Sorry guys lots of people work strange hours these days...get over yourselves. Sorry, the company can't afford it any more. See? here's the figures. Can't argue with them can you?

Pay rise? what pay rise? Ooooooo no, no, no. We;d love to I assure you, but unfortunately with all this profit we have to make its just not possible this year. Or next year too come to think of it. See? Here's the figures. Can't argue with them can you?

Sick pay? What? You really think the company should pay you when you're not working & generating profit? Have you any idea how much more profit we could make if we didn't have to pay you that? In fact if ATCO's only had statutory sick pay we think they'd be more likely to drag themselves in when unfit for duty and save us having to spend money to cover their absence. See? Here's the figures. Can't argue with them can you?


Grow up! Get real! Stop being a bunch of whingeing sheep and do something to defend your profession and keep it as one respected by society and rewarded appropriately.

Nobody in their right mind wants to see the company brought down. Not you, not I, not the management, not the shareholders, and especially not the government. There are alternatives. This just happens to be the easiest one for manangement.

Just say NO

Just trying to be realistic. I have just listened to a recording on the BBC of Moneybox Live on Sunday evening. One of the questions was about what happens if a final Salary scheme is wound up because the company goes under. Well, we are protected but only up to a cap of 28k. And I know that is a worse case scenario.

Now I know all about the government promises but frankly should NATS go under all bets will be off.

I bet the guys and gals out at loss making airports don't agree on that one.

Do you all really trust your reps so little that you think they just rolled over on this one. It is over a year since the talks started. I believe NATS wanted a much higher "cap" and ad infinitum. They were also not really interested in going over about 7% as a contribution to a new DC scheme. If you don't think they are significant concessions in the pension context then you really are off a different planet.

These are massive concessions aimed at trying to maintain the long term viability of the scheme whilst ensuring new comers are part of, what will be, one of the best DC schemes in the country. And still we think there is more to squeeze out.:ugh:

Probably not. But what if at 2359 NATS rolled over and died and was replaced at 0001 with NATS2? Would NATS2 have ANY of the liabilities pensions or otherwise of the company we work in now? Would the government guarantee our pensions or would they replace the scheme with a "basic" pension?.

Just thinking aloud here......

And what would happen if at 0001 in your scenario all NATS ATCO's said sorry but you can shove your basic pension up your **** come back & talk to us when you want to start moving aeroplanes again?

just thinking aloud :E

And once the pension thing is sorted Mangement should be told in no uncertain terms that they can't afford any of the "jewels" you mention.

Can we have a few examples from folk of what they REALISTICALLY think they are going to get as pay rises in the next few years. Is my previously stated £3k/annum so far away from being sensible?

"And once the pension thing is sorted Mangement should be told in no uncertain terms that they can't afford any of the "jewels" you mention."

Don't make me laugh!

Isn't that what we told em about the pension?

MAAMT

250kts said


I don't like it any more than you do...but if we were to become FULLY integrated into a government department I suggest that this example from 250kts might not be too far from the truth.

They have harder balls now mate than they would after the pension changes 250kts

Mad,

There is a fundamental difference between protecting the very viability of the pension scheme and the nice to haves. And have no doubt the independent actuaries are clear this is about the viability of the scheme. Like it or not

I have been swayed by the arguments put forward and have changed my opinion of what is necessary to sustain the pension scheme as far as is possible into the future.

There are no absolute guarantees in life but should NATS go down the swannee we will be seeing one of the most cast iron ones go with it.

Am I happy about it?-no!

Am I trying to be realistic?-yes!

All the things you mention would be a straight negotiation at the time and I would suggest that if, say, the 10% needed to buy the 6 days off was no longer fully pensionable we would all tell them where to stick it.

This is about reality and seeing what is now starting to happen in this industry. Movements are starting to see a real drop off. Let's hope this is only short term but with employment up 150k today I don't think it is. Will it come back?-let's hope so. The radio just had an item on about how workers were trying to encourage their management to let them all have a pay cut to avoid redundancies. Let's hope we never have to face that little dilemma.

250kts-thanks, you've saved me from making a few replies....maybe we went to the same briefing.

Mad as a mad thing, I take it you believe nothing anyone tells you? I don't automatically swallow stuff that comes my way but independent actuaries showing a very simple illustration of the unsustainable situation is not hard to believe. The worrying thing is some people don't know the truth when it's presented to them because they're overly cynical. It's these people that will shout loudly "vote no" because they read the paper and have a chat down the pub.


We're in a strong position yes but worst case scenario and NATS folds we're buggered, kiss goodbye to good pension.

The current pension problem is nothing to do with the present global economic climate. This process started way before. It's more down to the very high pay increases we've had making the pension liability grow geometrically.

All this talk about "fighting for our rights" is missing the point. The people in charge of fighting for our rights (the union) have done the fighting!!

50 pence: Yes I'm in Prospect (hence being at the UNION briefing) and having spoken to a few reps I get the feeling they're a unified bunch. Why would the union put forward a proposal which as you say "1 is for the other 6 or 7 are against"?


Just to clear things up have you guys (and gals) below been to a briefing?

BAND4ALL
Mad as a mad thing
Radar 707
055166k
Yahoo

No briefing session yet for me. But I will be going along when it happens.

So you vote "no". What exactly are you going to ask the 3 unions to go back and negotiate?

No change from where we are now? The words "sand" and "head in the" come to mind.

And that outcome would be??

People need to really clear about the mandate they will be giving to the unions. Are there really enough negatives here to go on strike over? Remember to be realistic about the assumptions you make in terms of future rises.

This doesn't sound like someone who has been to a briefing. Voting "yes" is what actually safeguards what you have already and will continue to do so. You're right it is a simple choice and it is a "Yes".

No is the only vote to have here unless you dont give a !!!! about the pension and your dependants.
Vote no, we go bust. what tosh. We get re nationalised, sold asap and they try and screw out t's and c's. We walk out the doorr for as long as it takes, because we are unreplaceable in the short to medium term.
We give up a lot of concessions in every negotiation.
Management have been aware for some time that our pension is the one thing we would stand up for. But they are the ones rolling the dice by being obstinant in their negotiations with the union.
Yes I have been to a briefing. Was not impressed by the figures at all. You see more substantial figures on working lunch with that fat declan guy.
They are telling us what they need to , to get a yes vote. and it seems like its working.
I am voting no. I ahve only met one person at my unit who is voting yes because they have been brainwashed by the management propaganda.
Uk airspace will not close over pensions. And that is what we are looking at.
UK airspace will not close because of pensions. we are loco if we swallow this claptrap peddled in the briefings.
The answers to quesitons given in the q and a session were dodgy to say the least

...Until next time there's a bit of a squeeze on the targets the company is set by its shareholders. If we can't trust the promises & guarantees made to us 7 years ago at PPP why the hell should we have any reason to think any of the stuff being promised now will be honoured?

250kts
Just like many others I’m yet to attend a briefing but from the moment they were announced I’ve known exactly what to expect.
There was never any chance that there would be anything in these briefings but tidings of doom.
It’s not in either NATS’ or our pathetically weak unions interest to give you any info that would lead you to vote againstthis “proposal”.
I’m not naive enough to think that the pension will remain unchanged but before I even consider any changes I want a whole raftof guarantee’s laid out in a legally binding document and not some legally ambiguous Memorandum of Understanding.
What they're asking of the staff is pretty much a bail out of hundreds of millions of pounds not due to anything else byut they're own "incompetence".
Or possibly there own very well thought out and executed plan to shag the pension fund up enough to get us to have to agree to change.
It was there CHOICE to pay off £200 million worth of loans early and they're CHOICE to fritter away the rest of the £330 million of PROFIT instead of investing correctly in the pension scheme. These "negotiations" have been going on for about a year now in that time NATS ,the profit making company, could easily have contributed more to the pension scheme to limit the amount they might have to make up in December 2009.
But it's not in NATS' interest to keep our pension viable. But it is in there interest to kill it and reduce it's debt to make NSL easier to sell off.
Don't be fooled by the Bulls:mad::mad::mad: this has all been planned out well in advance.
So vote YES now if you want to bend over and take it ..... or Vote NO to take these Bast:mad::mad::mad::mad: to task for the decisions they've made.

Yahoo quote:

"I'm prepared to close the scheme to new people and let them have a worse pension than me provided ours is fully protected."

I'm totally with you on this one, give the new entrants fek all, why is their proposed deal such a good one if all pension schemes are so bad at the moment?
Can somebody explain why this is on the table for all us NO voters?

Or is it that the Union are worried about no new entrants "joining the Union" on such a deal. Lets face it the Union is a business as well :mad:s

I’m just back from the pension briefing at Prestwick centre; I went with an open mind although from everything I had previously read I was more likely to be a NO voter!

I’m still a NO. I understand that something needs to be done but cannot be convinced by the weak argument that this is the best or indeed the only was forward

It has been a while since I have felt so annoyed at being spoken to at times like a naughty child. The NATS rep was patronising and evasive of the difficult questions, like a well rehearsed politician. The union rep followed the company line and nodded appropriately at the correct times.

The figures presented yes they are worrying; I want the company to be as secure as the next. A secure company should mean a secure pension. But the figures are no different to what I have already read. We are still in economic turmoil so why make rash decisions at this time. They mention that if the actuaries were really worried then they would request for the next valuation to be brought forward….Does this not say it all?

The question session had a good buzz (I would guess about 100 members were present). I got a real feeling that the majority of the other members were of a like minded opinion to me.

A few questions and answers that stood out (when I can remember more ill post them)

What is the status of the CAA pension scheme?
No problem with theirs at the minute, they are well in surplus, however and here is the good bit, because of the large surplus the CAA have been offered a payment holiday…but they have decided not to take it! They are less effected because the majority of their investments are in long term low risk funds. Where as our fund is majority invested in high risk funds which are more volatile – especially in this economic downturn.

NATS pension holiday?
NATS pension holiday has no effect on the underlying rate in which NATS will have to fund the scheme. It is the aim of the actuaries to have the scheme 100% funded not more or less. Fair enough, however more money in the pot, more investments = more return and therefore means less NATS needs to put in? Or is this just to close to common sense?

Preparing NATS for sale?
Well avoided question, no real answer

The NATS rep was questioned at length concerning the (now removed) entry on the NATS net advertising consultancy services which included “moving civil service pensions to private pensions and managing TU expectations”. The reply was; It was a shock to everyone involved and was a senior manager trying to make a name for themselves. Several members asked for a written apology from the company and action to be taken against the individual but this was laughed off.

The pension briefing ended rather abruptly to make way for the TU briefing leaving a lot of unanswered questions.

It was in the TU briefing that I was 100% committed to oppose this pension change. I was never under any illusion that we were back by a strong TU, since we have been keeping our power dry for so long. Well I can certainly say that the power has now gone, not used up but now wet and useless.

Mandates – The union had a mandate to protect our pension therefore nothing else matters. It didn’t matter if we had a mandate of industrial action for even talking about pensions. That also includes the AAVA agreement being removed, as “this would not be appropriate”.

Now for the killer blow. Neither Prospect nor PCS believe that we will strike, or more importantly that the national trade union would give us the backing to strike.

What chance have we got when our union has lost all fight. When the going gets touch Prospect gives up!