Ah Sandwiches if I may make so bold, welcome to PPRune :) PB has invited you to phone him and talk to him. Are you going to take him up on the offer? Its all very well to bluster and bombast on faceless inter and intranet forums but are you going to do it face to face? You can talk the talk but can you walk the walk or are you going to continue to skulk on the Wide World Interbweb Net Thingie?

BD

Get some time in laddie! :}

BD

I actually don't think that anything said was out of order. These 'rumours' of Aston Martin etc have been flying round for ages, I'd say that they did Mr Baronn a favour by bringing it to his attention so he could refute the allegation.

He has a very valid point though when he takes issue with Mr Baroon re the fact that Mr Barrron states his bonus depends more on the well being of the company - if he can srcap our pension for a cheaper alternative, then the company will, financially, be even better off and this will, therefore, look better when it comes to handing out the bonus.

To say the two are not linked is complete fabrication.

Mr barron has a history of closing pension schemes (whilst getting a hand out to cover his own pension), and of cutting up companies into saleable pieces (Alstom anyone??).

Is it just me being paranoid, or does anyone else find it suspicious that this man - a good friend of Tony Blair by the way - was given the top job at NATS at the same point in time as Labour (Our skies are not for sale), sold us and saddled us with debt?

NSL is being set up as a seperate entity - anyone denying that is blind. The reasons for this could be numerous, however the coincidences regarding Barrons' track history, his friendship with Labour top dogs, and the obvious benefit (in a purely cynical, financial sense) of selling of a large part (or all) of NSL is just to much for my little brain. Our skies are not for sale can so easily be changed to our airports are not for sale - just change the puppet master; Barron, not Blair and the year ;2008, not 2000.

Any erosion of trust and goodwill is entirely down to what has gone before with a history littered with broken promises

OK, need to set something straight.

Anyone who is in CAAPS now CANNOT be forced out of the scheme. The Trust Deed and Rules gives every member this protection whilst you are an employee of NATS. If you don't believe NATS or NTUS, get in touch with CAAPS and ask for a copy of the Trust Deed and Rules and ask what it means.

The bit about being an employee prior to PPP (July 2001), means that if NATS, or any part of it, is sold, then you retain the right to remain in CAAPS, or a scheme at least as good. This cost has to be paid for by the new employer and the sale cannot be agreed unless the new employer agrees to join CAAPS or provide an equally good scheme. If you joined the company afer that date, you do not have the same protection.

Misunderstandings like this is why it is important to attend the briefings and to ask questions there. If you still vote NO, then at least it will be from an informed position, rather than voting on hearsay, mis-information and rumours.

BDionu

For a bloke or woman who likes to provoke and wind people up from the comfort of your leather clad chair most likely made from operational staffs hides, you really have hit an all time low.

For sandwiches (with an H) to come on hear, face down the wrong end of the gun barrel to clear a few things up is pretty admirable, as people like YOU seem to enjoy stating false facts such as apparent meetings that have already happened that in reality have not, is hardly any cause for blatant attack and naming real names is it? it clearly shows guts, and an understanding of the bigger picture as its OUR future that is on the cards here and if it takes a few to step forward and hopefully show barron the real issues i think is pretty necessary.

I can only imagine that when the atco in question is next in work he will receive any email from barron and respond appropriately, he has already mentioned on here the need for barron to show his mug and answer some of our questions. if it takes a phone call from him to get barron to any of our units im pretty damn sure i can bet my pension that he will, and for the only reason that it will benefit ALL staff rather than a one on one pointless exercise where im sure barron will excel against him as he is well practiced at meetings and getting his way.....

so BDionu, what is your real name and position you chicken s:mad::mad:t.
and no, i wont be surprised if you tell me your name is Mr P Barron, CEO.
and radar, i apologise if this one is close to the line on personal attacks, but naming someone on here is not fair game.

thought everyone knew who bdionu was already. well there you go:}

wow! Thats certainly provoked a 'mad dog' response. My name is hardly a secret, my picture is on the picture thread. I'm an ATSA grade as I've previously mentioned, although by profession I'm an ATCO. I am very sorry for not kow towing down and tugging my forelock to the ATCO's on here and daring to speak my mind, how very dare I!

BD

I have all the answers now i have just read your profile!

Now, now, everyone - let's not let this descend to the levels of the Natsnet comments pages - we have standards on PPRUNE :}

The current downturn in traffic is nothing to do with the credit crunch.

It's folk reading stuff from the so called air traffic professionals on here and thinking there's no way they're going to go flying with this lot "in control".

I wouldn't blame them, I've seen more mature five year olds.

4 Year olds please! My kids maybe offended:E

Yahoo and ViaEGLL - why should I? He came on here with the probationary pprune name of privatesandwiches.

The Intranet thread is still up and running, and the name is readily available on it.

Nothing has been disclosed that is not readily available in the public domain.

The NATS intranet does not afford annonymity - whereas PPRuNE does, I'm sure he is clever enough that he has used the 'privatesandwiches' moniker as a one off on here because he knew what what he wrote on his opening post on this thread would give away his true identity, thus negating the annonymiry that PPRuNE offers users.

Tell you what, I'll ask him when we are next sat beside each other on console... if he's offended then i will do as you ask. As PPRuNE is an anonymous forum, I don't know who either of you are... however if you worked with the chap, wehich i doubt, you would know he wouldn't give a stuff... maybe you shouldn't!

Question re pensionable pay rises
 

I have yet to attend a briefing so have one question re RPI+0.5%. The question itself is quite possibly very stupid (just for a change).

What is the pensionable figure of RPI+0.5% based on?

The reason I am asking is, is it based on your current earnings at the time of us agreeing to this deal (that's if we do).

i.e. what happens if you are not at the top of the scale? Is RPI+0.5% based on the top of the scale for each banding or is it based on what we earn right this minute?

The obvious answer (and the one that we need it to be) is that it's based on the highest pay in your band, i.e. top of the scale, but the modeller on the intranet asks you for current pay, not projected and is therefore fatally flawed IMHO. If it's a wooly formula and is n ot tied down, could we see ourselves getting screwed over even more as with pay spine increases and annual pay awards, pay rises well above the underlying RPI.

Anotherthing.

The figure RPI + 0.5% is the one dreamed up by NATS to cap your pensionable pay - not any further pay rises. Its based on nothing - its just the number they want to use to reduce your final pension by.

So any negotiated pay rise - e.g RPI + 1.5% (the figure NATS and the acturies use to calculate the liability of the fund) - will only contribute to the pension fund to the tune of RPI + 0.5%

Any pay scale increase will count fully.

So when you use the modeller put in your current pay. Then you will see some boxes that allow you to add in projected pay increases due promotion or whatever over 10 year gaps. Add in to these boxes the difference between your current pay scale and what it will be in the next 10 / 20 years etc as per the pay scale you are on.

Now this is where it gets wooly. Put in the figure you think your pay will be negotiated to rise by between now and retiring.
Use + 1.5% first as this will produce the figures NATS use.

The calculator will now show a screen with your final salary at NRD and what your pensionable salary will be. In box a they will be the same and in box b they'll be different. It will also show your annual pension in both boxes based on those figures.

If you want to try +2.5% - thats what we've had on average for the last 10 years. People will try and tell you that we've nothing left to sell / WP to negotiate. But if you all really think nothing will change between now and your retirement that will affect WP then go ahead. I don't.


Now even more wooliness. The NATS modeller assumes a max pensionable salary of £117000 (or there abouts) and so any pay above that won't count to pension anyway. So for all you new(ish) guys out there with loads of time to run in the scheme (30+ years) it will show that actually the difference between the 2 is marginal and you'll think great - I'm not losing out.

WRONG!!!

Take the figures it gives you them in the CAAPS modeller on their website. It appears to make assumptions on the SLA increasing between now and being 60 and produces much different and scarier figures.


You can also use this to work out a difference in your tax free lump sum and reduced pension.

Worth doing.

I'm 35. Been in the scheme 15 years. If I retire at 60 and take my max lump sum I'll be £45k worse off lump sum wise with a £7k difference in my pension!!

Does that sound good??? :=

Hope that clears it up. If not ask again - no such thing as a silly question where all this is concerned.

Also get everyone you know to try the figures for themselves.

I believe the rpi used for calculating pay deals is the figure from the previous august?

Whenever we give them productivity increases in exchange for pay rises (I'm thinking changes in our T&Cs like changing to net hours, cutting our annual leave type stuff) doesn't the money go to extra spine points rather than a percentage increase?

What I mean is, if they cut our annual leave entitlement (for example) would the increase in salary fall within the RPI+0.5 cap or would extra spine points be created that wouldn't be subject to the cap?

I feel a serious attack on our T&Cs coming up and wonder how much this prepares the ground.

Stupendous Man

Thanks for taking the time out to do that - makes total sense if I had thought of it!! As long as the ay scale counts fully, though I have previously tried the calculator - didn't see the lump sum bit, but at age 38 with 18 years in the scheme (I bought in a few years with previous pension), I stand to lose £8k a year.

Will need to revisit the modeller to do it more accurately with your instructions.

Thanks again :ok:

Prospect magazine 'Profile'
 

The magazine dropped through my door today and on page 6 there is an article regarding pensions for energy supply employees.

One of the quotes states More can be read in the magazine and here:

Price Control Pension Principles

Does any of this sound familiar, or to close to our situation for comfort??

The PPRuNe summary court has finished its session and the sentence of thread bans for a variety of periods of time have been handed down to posters who abuse others (provocation is no excuse) as well as those who insist on naming posters real names.

All rise .....

Prospect 'Profile' Magazine - Oct 2008
 

Anyone expecting to read something about our current situation in the latest issue of our union magazine, will be sorely disappointed.
Not a single word promoting the fantastic deal being proposed by our union negotiators.

Are we in the least bit surprised?

Other Prospect members be very afraid.


161R

Yet to attend a brief but has the question been asked if there is a massive NO vote what will the Union/s then do?:mad:s

By the way VOTE NO for now!!:ok:

They said today that they don't know. I don't think they have any plan in that event. They did say however, that if they went back to the unions with this offer rejected then there would be no backing for a strike.

New Q&As were posted to the intranet today. They claim that the memorandum of understanding between the company and the union is a legally binding contract.

Now it's a while since I studied law, however I'm struggling to work out how the staff are privy to a "contract" between the union and the company. So in my albeit limited understanding the MOU is complete horses:mad:t and not legally enforceable.

memo•ran•dum /memrndm/ noun (pl. memo•randa /memrnd/)
1 (formal) = memo: an internal memorandum leaks of confidential memoranda
2 (law) a record of a legal agreement which has not yet been formally prepared and signed: The two sides have signed a memorandum of understanding aimed at ending the conflict.
3 a proposal or report on a particular subject for a person, an organization, a committee, etc.: a detailed memorandum to the commission on employment policy

©Oxford University Press, 2005

It would actually appear that what is being presented at the briefings is exactly what the NTUS are saying.
It is a record of a LEGAL agreement yet to be formally prepared and signed. This means the final document which will be signed, only in the event of a yes vote (hence why it is still only a memorandum of understanding), will be the legally binding document. Unless I am very much mistaken, what is being presented is the memorandum and the legal teams are in the process of drawing up the final document.

Hi jonny B good
 

Just a quick note to let you know that all the hard work you guys have done is appreciated, although at times it may not seem like that.

Good presentation today as well.

Cheers

GMWTB

Jonny b good.

In that case how will the memorandum become legally binding? Under the terms under which the pension trustees operate, or under my contract of employment? My very simplistic legal brain has a problem with both privity of contract and consideration when this memorandum is claimed to be a "contract".

I cannot get my head around the thinking of the union to why they cannot back legal action???

we are not immediately saying we will walk if this proposal is pushed on us, what we are saying is we want options.

Surely if the union cannot support us then surely there is no other option but to replace them? lets not overlook that im sure they have done a fantastic job over the years to secure some really good increases etc, but like anyone in position, maybe they have gone as far as they can.

There are too many unanswered questions to even consider a vote, never mind a yes one!

My sincere Thanks to all the hard work of those who are working so hard behind the scenes to fight this isssue. We all owe you guys alot and you have my full support!

If you cant understand the full issues then its a NO vote!

From the NATS forum stranex says::

I agree the effects of the cap and two tier won't be felt for at least 5 years. NATS are hardly going to offer us earth-shattering increases in these so called current financial climes... or have they a bung lined up to get us to vote for a 2 tier pension but allowing NATS to keep their pension contributions down?

more likely they are taking a longer view to supress the pension scheme and set us up FOR SALE!

VOTE NO. Like somebody (sorry, too lazy to find ur screen name) said a couple of pages back, NATS does not need to fund 41% (if that's what it will be) every year. That's how much it will need in TOTAL. Therefore NATS must have a good case for going to the regulator and removing the cost pass through (else NATS go bust Mr. ERG - as they keep telling us) and asking the pension trustees to allow the money to be paid over three years (i.e. until the next triennial report).

NATS are very quick to take money out of the fund, but reluctant to put back in: "sorry guys our hands are tied, ERG, airlines, the bloke next door doesn't like it".

The way the scheme has been funded is like buying a wool jumper that fits perfectly in the shops (100% funding). But then you stick it in the washing machine (financial gloom) and lo and behold it shrinks and it doesn't fit anymore (deficit). Now you've got to chuck it away (close the scheme) or give it away (change terms and sell the company). The trick is to buy a slightly larger size (surplus) and when it comes out of the wash, it will still fit. In fact if it's large enough, it will still fit after several washes (downturns).
You don't want too big a size of jumper (surplus), but then again, you will be able to keep wearing it as the inevitable middle age spread kicks in (increased future commitments)

The pension is the main thing that keeps up locked into working for NATS, well that and working with some of the most professional and dedicated folks in the business. Let's hope NATS doesn't cut off it's nose to spite its face.

I've a wee problem here, not only do I not fancy the cut in pension (using their figures) proposed, but a MOU/legal contract - who cares? Our pension as it stands is supposed to have an Act of Parliament protecting it, that isn't stopping management at the moment, what makes any MOU any different? I'd like an answer from that from those that accept the changes and MOU, I'm genuinely intrigued how this "promise" is any better than the last one. Are you willing to accept further changes 7 years down the line?
This is about pensions, it's also about showing some unity, we're talking an NSL sell-off here, then the same for NERL and god knows what will be left of our T&C's if we roll over to this. Think about this for one moment, there is no campaign to fight this yet it seems the massive and concerted campaign by NATS and our (ha) union to persuade us to accept this isn't exactly running into placid acceptance is it?
If we had someone (a union perhaps) to coordinate a campaign to fight these changes, we'd probably be home and dry by now. Shame on Prospect, just received my magazine today - nice to see they'll fight for some pensions but not ours :=
PS The only option I'll accept is the pension I've got today.

That's the point. The pension scheme itself cannot be changed, apart from the Act of parliament, so contributions into the pension have to be changed. Some might say it's semantics. However, others might say that as soon as we, the workforce, voted in non-pensionables such as AAVAs, we already opened the door to non-pensionable salary.

Gonzo thanks for your reply. So ... as I see it...

The scheme cannot be altered by NATS due to the legislation unless
A. The Act of Parliament is revisited and altered, or
B. We vote to accept changes -which are currently proposed.

Anyone feel free to step in and correct the above

But NATS have already said (for example) we (workforce) cannot increase our contributions due to the legislation !

???

The Transport Act protects the Trust Deed which governs the scheme. It effectively means that nobody can change any of the rules of the scheme without either an Act of Parliament or the agreement of everybody in the scheme.

However the Trust Deed always allowed NATS to decide what is pensionable pay so they can make that proposed change without changing the deed. They also don't need a Yes vote to make that change although obviously to do so against an overwhelming No vote would be a brave choice.

The Trust of Promise protects all those who were in the scheme in July 2001. The proposed changes are not contrary to that agreement because only new starters will be forced into the new scheme.

Prospect has already lost much of this battle in the Electricity industry where defined benefit pensions were closed to new joiners some time ago. There are still a lot of similarities between the two cases as they are both regulated industries. The regulator in both cases is suggesting that automatic pass through of pensions can not be defended and in the electricity case is even suggesting that the protection intended by Parliament should somehow be bought out. As a customer of the electricity industry I have an interest in that argument because I'm not happy to see my electricity bill rise for any reason and don't really care if it is to fund pensions or not. As a customer of NATS that nice gentleman who runs Ryanair probably has a similar view about his charges.

There is a whole heap of legislation and process surrounding the regulation of both industries and the idea that the Government can step in and just tell them to do something is laughable.

DeeMac,
we cannot increase our contributions because of the no decrement clause, and upping our contributions is a decrement, unless as I understand it, every single member of the scheme agrees, which nobody seems to think is viable.

The scheme cannot be altered by NATS due to the legislation unless, there seems to be a C missing, which is, the company does it's best but just can't manage it due to severe financial difficulties or whatever, in which case it doesn't apply.

The current proposal doesn't alter the scheme as you still get the same benefit at the end, that is x 58th's of your final pensionable salary, but now not all your salary may be pensionable, just as AAVA's are not counted as pensionable now.

Dee Mac

I don't have access to the current version of the Trust Deed so I can't give you section numbers but, and this is from notes I made when somebody gave me access to an earlier version of the Trust Deed, Part 1 defines non pensionable earnings as:

Non-Pensionable Earnings means the aggregate of (1) that part (if any) of a Member’s remuneration from the Employers which is declared by the Employers to the Trustees to be non-pensionable and (2) the value of any benefits in kind received by the Member from the Employers.

In subsequent parts of the Deed which define benefits non pensionable earnings are excluded so by declaring a part of the renumeration to be non pensionable NATS can make the change. They've previously done this for a whole variety of payments including apparently AAVAs. (My grade doesn't get those so I've never taken much interest in the agreement). You would need to check the latest version of the Deed to be sure but it is unlikely that section has changed. I had expected people to ask to see the Trust Deed at the meetings but it hasn't appeared on NATSNET yet.

Not Long Now's option C doesn't apply to the Trust Deed. Nobody can change it without an Act of Parliament or agreement of every member regardless of the state of NATS. But the Deed does cover in great detail what the Trustees have to do in those circumstances and closing down the scheme is an option.

Option C does apply to the Trust of Promise which contains clauses limiting it's effect if NATS is in financial trouble. That document was recently published on NATSNET if you wish to read it.

"damn good chance of losing me a lot of income during my retirement"

Are you sure ? One thing I'm struggling to understand is the apparent contradiction between NATS as the nasty face of capitalism continuously exploiting its staff and the belief that the same organisation will agree to pay rises well above RPI in the future. How much you think you will lose in retirement depends on what figure you put in the modeller. The more optimistic you are the more you think you will lose. I don't have a crystal ball but I can't see how any organisation subject to an RPI-x income regime could pay much above RPI however much it might want to unless traffic growth was far higher than anybody realistically thinks. If you put realistic figures in the modeller you lose far less and are still much better off than anybody on the new defined contribution scheme.

For those of us who may be made redundant before our 40 years the current modeller is actually only half the story. What is also needed is a modeller which says how our pension is affected if we don't contribute for as many years. That has a huge effect on what we might get paid on retirement and against that the losses caused by the RPI + 0.5 limit will look very modest.

the only time we'd see significant pay rises is if we gave significant productivity increases, 'selling the family jewels*' was how someone put it earlier.
A few examples might be reduction in annual leave, individual rostering, longer hours or split shifts. would these be in return for extra spine points (and if so would that then be outside the RPI+0.5 cap) or would they be % increases (and therefore fall within the cap)?


*that may have been crown jewels ;)

"For those of us who may be made redundant before our 40 years the current modeller is actually only half the story. What is also needed is a modeller which says how our pension is affected if we don't contribute for as many years. "

Right on the button - ATSAs take note!

Any news regarding the "Special Meeting" called by our brothers and sisters up the road at ScOACC?? Heard something about at work yesterday...

There will be a special delegates conference held just before the ADC next month. (The day before or morning before I think)
Motions can be submitted in the usual way.