How would we have ever found out it didn't work without putting in that effort? What if it did work and there were capacity gains?
There is a very old saying "Nothing ventured, nothing gained".

BD

Perhaps we should vote NO if we don't want to NATS split up and NSL sold off. This would take the argument to a logical next step.

Nice to see you've resurfaced again BD old buddy, old pal:}

Does your above comment also refer to Destinations and Vision 2011? I cannot see how they have ANY effect on the daily provision of Air Traffic Control which, and I'll whisper it quietly coz I know its a dirty phrase outside the Ops rooms, IS OUR BUSINESS :E

TCNE development - a few years ago colleagues proved that the reliance on PRNAV was a folly and that fundamentally the design idea was flawed. These were people who work the airspace day in day out. Were they listened to? No. Several years and several million pounds later, oh, it's failed.

Central airspace. Just recently failed the 3rd simulation attempt. Fair enough one go and it fails... during round 2 - the guys from AC were all saying that the process was not being run properly and that corners were being cut - which could be detrimental... lo and behold RTS2 failed.

Bring in TC for RTS 3. Every ATCO stated that the timescale was too tight (Mar 09). 9 months for a major airspace change?!! Staff numbers for the Real Time Simulation etc were fudged, again against the wishes of the ATCOs who stressed theneed for proper testing. A rush job and guess what - it fails again... this time on issues that may have come to light before the expense of running a full time sim during one of the busiest times of the year.

Now it's full steam ahead for the 4th attempt - guess what - to be implemented by mar 09. Sounds like clutching at straws to me - not a good use of company money. The cost so far?? Several millions.

I fully agree that we can't get it right first time every time, but we are not learning from our mistakes. We are employing 'project managers' who have no ATC/engineering experience and all they are interested in is the deadline, they have not got a clue about the real problems and brush them aside when they are brought up by the experts.

I agree theses developments are expensive, but if we took the time to listen to the experts we have in the company (ATCOS/ATSAs?ATCEs etc) then we might just save some money.

Don't get me started on the new layers of management, but just for tasters we thought when TC moved to Swanwick that we were going to streamline watch management by having one combined AC/TC manager per watch. We did that but then a few months down the line, conjured up new management jobs that we never had the need for before!!

This company wastes money left right and centre, until it starts to sort that out, why should it be left to the employees to bail NTS out again??

I been on holiday in the highlands of Scotland, drove there though :}
The daily provision of ATC is a part of our business, its what everything else is (or should be) aiming towards. But you've also got to maintain your systems and you've got to plan to replace them as they reach the end of their life or as technology moves on. You've got to plan how to pay for maintenance and replacement. You've got to plan how to integrate all of the replacements throughout the company. You've got to plan changes forced upon us by outside agencies or other ANSP's changes. You've got to recruit and train staff. You've got to pay everyone. And so on and so on.
So whilst you may feel, at the sharp end, that these 'management initiatives' have no effect on you doing your daily job in the background it does impact on the support tail.

BD

So, as we approach one thousand posts on this subject, how are people feeling now that the nationwide briefings are coming to a conclusion?

The little survey on the NATS section shows overwhelmingly - NO. However the majority, I beleive, voted in this poll before any of the "joint" briefings.

Maybe we should be looking to the way opinion has (if at all) changed.

Unscientific I know, but I'll start it off.


After the "Joint" briefing at my Unit I'll be voting :-


NO. NO. NO. NO.

Maybe we should have a new poll once the round of briefings have completed.

Not had mine yet, but going to take a hell of a lot of convincing to vote 'yes'.

AS with Terrain Safe above..apart from potentially reduced income come retirement, the prospect of NSL being sold off (and this is partly what it is about, after all) will be a factor in my decision.

NO!
But will it make any difference as PAUL BARRON will get this through anyway:uhoh::uhoh:

I still don't understand why some people seem happy to sit and accept that we cannot pass through charges to our customers.

NATS is a business - something that has been hammered into us in the past few years, so why not run it as a business?

This may be a simplistic view but I thought businesses worked out money in the following way.

Income (revenue) minus Expenditure (salary/pension/energy bills/development costs) equals Gross profit.

Expenditure should be done in the order of paying bills first - salary/pension/energy bills etc then looking at what is left for re-investment.

People are saying we can't pass through pension costs, yet we are a business. What will happen next? Do we turn round to Southern Electric(or whoever) and say
"Our regulator wants us to cut costs, therefore once our annual energy bill hits £100k, we are not going to pay anymore... it is up to you, the provider to cut your costs as we are not happy to pay for your staffs' pension"

It's effectively what the regulator is telling us to do - so we have been PPP'd and are now trying to run NATS as a business concern, yet we are having to do it with one hand tied behind our back.

The only reason Barron etc are happy to comply with the regulator without a fight is because it helps them push through a pension change which makes NSL attractive to prospective buyers. Otherwise as serious businessmen, they would not be putting up with such restrictions on how to run a business.

If anyone thinks that this is not in the back of the managements minds when pensions are being looked is IMHO, delusional.

Now I'm curious. Why do you assume that NATS senior management (and the accountants) have not pushed back on the regulators capping in CP2 and the warnings that they issued about CP3?

BD

BDiONU

As usual from you, a decent, reasonable question without histrionics. Short answer - they may well have (though how stringently I do not know) - however part of the point I am trying to get across with my very simplistic take on business accountancy and the formula in my previopus post is that NATS (the company) should be paying for it's bills first, before deciding how much money it can pay out for projects/towards early settlement of loans/share dividends etc.

As it stands, looking at it that way, NATS has more than enough pre-tax profits to supplement the pension fund by the £60 odd million per annum it suggests will be needed.

I'm not one of those who thinks that we should not do something to help the penson fund, but I would like to see a lot more give from the company as I believe it can afford it. People who have been to briefings are indicating that we are not being shown what other avenues have been explored - we are being sold this one fix as the only viable option.

If that's the truth, why don't management back it up with the facts and figures to show us why all other options are doomed - then people will vote 'yes'. Being force fed one solution, when the company is, by all accounts, doing very well is not conducive to getting the workforce on-side.

The crucial thing is that Mr Barron and the rest of the management team need to be left in no doubt that the cost of our pensions is nothing compared to the costs they will incur resulting from lack of goodwill and flexibility from staff if they continue trying to screw us over. And that's without even beginning to think about the costs associated with an organised work to rule or even ultimately strike action.

I am not giving up ANY of my retirement benefits trhat I have been working and paying for for the last 20 years.

I don't care whether RPI+0.5% may or may not be an acheivable pay settlement year on year, every year. But think of this...what happens after 10 years of being screwed over by management year on year and only acheiving RPI or RPI-x%, then in year 11 if the union ever develops a backbone we make a stand to restore our pay to where it should be and we get a pay rise well in excess of RPI+0.5%? Well I'll tell you...we're still screwed cos of that RPI+0.5% cap on pensionable earnings.

Still a big fat NO

No you're right-you're not. And neither would you be under this proposal as you would well know if you had been to a briefing and asked the question.

What makes you think that we would have lost ground if we only ever get RPI + 0.5? I'm not sure what you think can be done to generate cash for rises much above that in the long term anyway.

And as for backbone-you are the union. Get involved. And just remember there was hardly a significant number of people who were prepared to show their backbone over PPP. In fact it was most of the people who are actually still involved who spent endless time lobbying politicians and the like. Without their work we would probably be SERCO by now.

another thing et all,

I agree with you and like you I am no accountant / business guru.

However, we are allowed by the Regulator to pass on all pensions costs for all NERL employees who were employed by the Company before 1 Jan 06. I suspect that this would be a large majority of the total number of NATS employees (although I don't have the figures). This is called 'cost pass through' and is permitted by the Regulator during CP2 which runs until 2011. After 2011 this will then need to be re-negotiated.

Therefore, the extra £60million per annum that the Company must find could easily be substantially reduced by £10s of millions.

I have no problem with helping the Company reduce pension costs, but the manner of the briefings and Q & A sessions with management reps that barely understood the issues and could only answer every other question really doesn't help to sell a contentious idea to a sceptical audience.

Several things struck me when I found out about cost pass through during the briefings:

1. Why were we not given any other options except the Companies preferred one?

2. Not using cost pass through for the increase in NERL pension costs is simply trying to second guess what the Regulator will be looking for during the CP3 negotiations and is a weak argument for changing one of our major T & Cs.

3. Why not use some of our large profits to assist the existing pension scheme instead of paying off loans 20 years early?

4. The reality is that whatever the Union vote, this pension change is coming in January 09, strike threats or no strike threats.

5. The only plus side is that it is still a very good pension scheme, just not the one that we all signed up for!

6. In 5 years time the management may well be back again saying that the revised scheme is now unaffordable and they need to change it again.

7. NSL is soooo going to be sold off!!

PS:- I am not a fan of airing the Company's private business on an open forum, but I couldn't get a straight answer to the cost pass through question at the briefings and cannot get one on the pensions intranet site either.

Regards, ADIS

I reckon we in NSL are safe, after all we are able to go for profit.....NERL, as a regulated monopoly are not able to do so......answer...sell off NERL! :E

I was under the impression that the CAA have made it clear that pension costs have to be addressed for CP3; that it's not NATS trying to second guess.

Anotherthing said it best...

A NO vote isn't a vote for industrial action like the Barron wants to say.

If we vote yes on this then kiss it all goodbye.

NSL will be gone in 3-5 years once the i's are crossed and the t's dotted.

Our leave will be next on the table for chopping - 3 more days at work each covers a lot of overtime / training for ifacts / OCT for PC whatever....

Pay deals will be RPI if we're lucky.

Once there is sufficient numbers in the new scheme then our new owners - cos the airline group will have cleared off by then with a healthy profit - will come back after the old scheme. Its still not working they'll cry. we have to do something. And will our colleagues in the new scheme support us???


So I'll be voting NO. If it means the BEC resign so be it. There are people here ready to step up if needs be.
If Barron wants to close it unilaterally then so be it. We'll deal with that if it happens. But I'm not going to make it easy for him.

A quote from a senior union man i was chatting to;
"would we expect RPI at least next year as a pay rise for voting 'yes'!"

Think again! The company are going for a pay FREEZE!

So voting 'yes' to a humongous issue like our pension PAUL BARRON knows we are going to do jack s#it when he offers us a pay FREEZE:uhoh::uhoh:

Which in real terms is a pay cut

Beautiful post ADIS, could not have put it better myself.

The Airline Group can sell all their bit of NATS as soon as NPC is open, that was the deal at the time.
Its obvious to anyone that the company is being shaped up to be sold by TAG, it may be piecemeal but I'd guess TAG will not be around in 5 years time.

I am astounded the unions did not mount a political campaign first before getting into bed with the R.B.
They should have lobbyed all these MPs & Ministers who gave us promises at the time of PPP. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Unions told us to hold our fire in the campaign against PPP & save it for any future attack on pensions.:eek:

250kts I have been to a briefing and asked the questions thankyou, and the answers were not satisfactory at all. No matter how you dress it up a cap on pensionable pay is a potential reduction in my pension. I am not prepared to accept that. I've seen too many times the way things have been agreed in this way and the theoretical slim possibility becomes a target for management to aim for.

We are already hearing stories of the company aiming for a pay freeze this year. Are just going to roll over and accept that one too? And what about next year? If there is a pay freeze, or even decline at any point over the next 15 years we will never recover that loss because of the RPI+0.5% cap.

I'm not saying that I expect year on year pay rises of more than RPI+0.5% every year. But you all need to think very carefully about the above scenario, as we WILL lose out badly in these circumstances.

Also, is RPI the only relevant factor affecting pay rises over the next 15 years? What if pay in other comparable professions was to rise by significantly more than RPI during this time? Would you be happy to see our relative worth be reduced compared with these other professions? I sincerely hope not. But if we were to maintain our relative position it would still not be fully reflected in our pensions.

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.

Which comparable professions do you have in mind? I thought we ATCOs were very special and there was no one quite like us.

So it's potential reduction in your pension you're worried about. Can you put a figure on it? I can't and I've got less than 10 years to go. I really don't know if I'm retiring on 2/3 of 100k or 150k at this stage. If there are only 30% rises in the next few years then that will potentially less than 50% rises-shall I start moaning about that now??

So you went to the briefing and were not convinced that the above question was answered satisfactorily?? There has never been any question about accrued benefits but I stand to be corrected. I think the only way accrued benefits could be affected is due to NATS going bust. Then you have the govt backed compensation scheme to fall back on. The max guarantee is £27k/ annum.

Even more reason to vote YES.

NATS is not going to go bust. NATS is a healthy profitable company. NATS is just trying it on with the workforce to increase profits the easy way by cutting staff costs.

If you're daft enough to give up your terms & conditions just to fatten the shareholders' bank accounts then that's up to you I guess, but don't expect me to.

I'm not saying we are any more special than any other group of professionals, but in a time of worldwide shortage of ATCO's why give away terms and conditions so easily? Supply and demand is currently in our favour. Do you think management would not be using it to their advantage if it was the other way round?

I don't think I'm being greedy in just expecting to maintain my present terms and conditions in a company which is posting healthy profits. I'm not asking for anything that is not an already agreed part of my contract. It is up to us as a workforce to make it clear to the company and to the government that we will not be subsidising their messed up part privatisation out of our retirement income. If NATS (NERL) is unable to meet its reasonable staff costs (which I believe they are) under the pricing regime imposed by the CAA, then it is that which must change, not my pension.

Appeasement with an aggressor never works in the long run. History proves this time and time again. Greed is never satisfied. Time to stand firm.

If true, the rumours of a pay-freeze change the dynamics of the pension 'problem' imo.

To illustrate:

NATS employee costs for 07/08 were £356.6m of which £54.8m were pension costs.

Assuming inflation of 5% then a pay-freeze would hold nominal costs but reduce staff cost liabilities to the company in real terms by around £15m in the first year.

Compound this single years saving over the 15 years that this mou is proposed to be in force leads to a saving to the company of over £323m by 2023.

The final figure assumes an average of 5%p.a. inflation and discounts the pension cost element in the employee cost total.

I'm not knowledgeable on the subject so i'm more than happy to have my calculations dismantled but it seems to me that nats are going to fatten the goose for a takeover by drawing the pension poison and then sweetening the deal further by limiting pay deals.

Buy shares in whatever company picks up NATS off TAG.

NATS is a profitable and basically healthy company but only just. The current financial structure was tested under most foreseeable circumstances and NATS can survive normal market down turns although not all its staff will. There are however two circumstances which the company itself may not survive. The first is a huge hike in pension costs and the second is industrial action.

You may not believe the first is a risk at all and nobody knows for sure if it would ever happen but for people supposedly versed in risk management there is a lot of ignorance here. The hazard (losing our pensions) is so great that even if the likelihood is very low it may still be in our interests to do something to mitigate it further. The possible loss of pension which will only happen if we get really big pay rises may be quite a small price to pay to reduce the risk of losing the pension altogether.

The second is entirely in our control. However if we vote No and the company imposes the deal, which it almost certainly will, then our only alternative to industrial action is a strongly worded letter.

This is a rumour network after all.

Any real substance to this particular one???

Not sure any management would want to even hint at such a proposal at this particular time. Canteen talk I reckon.

But that's the point 250kts...it's not just at this particular time that matters. It's the next 15 years pay deals at least.

And even if management haven't said anything officially it's probably been quietly encouraged as a rumour to assist in "managing union expectations".

Do recent accounts support this?

Financial and Business reports - NATS






Did NATS shed staff post-01? Or during previous downturns?






So employees are 'ignorant' for not supporting the managements proposals?





So we should offer up our T&Cs to mitigate a 'great potential hazard with a likelihood that is very low'.

You'll understand if I don't leap at a 'yes' vote.






You may want to take a look at my post about the effect of just a one year pay freeze compounded over the 15 year MOU. I'd accept a one year nominal freeze with an actual real drop in pay to secure the pension.





Do you really believe the government would ever allow a strike to go ahead - affecting millions of voters 2 weeks in the med - for the sake of the relatively tiny sums involved?

Some interesting things to consider....

Having had a pension briefing and read lots on it, it seems there is a problem, that i do believe. Something needs to be done, that I do believe also. But exactly how have we gotten into this mess? The "Plan" they are coming up with now, why should we trust it to be what we should vote for? Surely if they are that clever to have a all singing dancing plan that will save the company, make us loads of cash and keep the good NATS ship a float then we wouldnt be here in the first place and they would have done it years ago. Why did they take a pension holiday, why did they let 120million be skimmed off the top of the pension when we were broke? So im a bit synical voting for something that they cant actually garuntee will work, or wont need more adding to it later on...such as getting rid of loads of staff(i.e sell NSL).

Now lets think about some of the probelms of why we need to cap pay for pensions....lets see its because the more they pay, the more they have to pay into the scheme, right now lets see another way of saving some of that cash...oh yeah less people working for the company on less money. Hmmmm now why is it then that we are getting rid of Engineers, we are reducing assistant numbers, Units are working with less and less fully valid controllers....but hey CTC keeps on recruiting, more and more new jobs posted on NATS net each day, all of them on High salaries, anyone been there latley? Seen any work going on? The hardest working person in CTC is the woman in the Coffee shop, because thats all everyone seems to do! Its busier in there than the one in southampton City center.

Now dont get me wrong, Im more than aware there are plenty of useful people working at CTC, that we did need to change post PPP and have some new Departments and jobs in order to develop our markets abroad and also the technology for the future, but it seems some departments there exist purely to generate work for some other department who then report to another department and then back to the start again, so they dont actually ever generate anything. HR...NIBS, isnt that supposed to replace much of the work that was done by HR? so surely the HR department should be reducing not increasing in size? Again I know there are some very hard work HR people, and are essential for the running of NATS, its not just about ATCO's and radar screens, yes we do need some clever high paid managers to think of new ideas, to give direction to the company, yes we do need to invest in new technology, yes we do have to research new safety procedures, but NSL units have to pay for CTC, so when they are bidding for contracts they have to cost this in, the more CTC costs the less margin they have to bid, if CTC costs were lower or they actually made some money themselves then passing on pension costs into the contract would be easier.

Lets look at the offer the company have made...dont forget why would they come and offer the best deal for us straight up? when we have pay negotations do they always say yeah here you go have 20%? No they come in with a low offer and we push them up, so maybe they have some more to give yet. They are not stupid either, they must have other options at hand no businessperson alive doesnt have an alternative plan.

What I say they need to show to the staff is that rather than just looking for us to bail them out, they need to show that they are doing something also to save the pennies, not keep telling us how another much needed highly paid person from some other industry has been given a job with a title that we dont really know what they do that has just put a further drain on the pension pot.

We are the Best ASP in the world, we got that accolade years before PPP and have had it since it, and that was before all the CTC/heathrow house brigade came into existance, like I said before the world has changed and I dont disagree that some of the new jobs were needed in order to ensure that NATS continues to be the best, but I think its gotten out of control now, some people at CTC i have spoken to have never been to an Air traffic Unit ever, even with swanwick just down the road, many dont even know basics of what ATC is, and yet they work for NATS, get a NATS pension that has been made profitable until now by the money that ATCOS/ATSA/ATCE have paid into.

Have a spring clean out of the dross that we are employing, merge posts and jobs that seem to me that people dont actually have enough work to do, explain why people at CTC get business rate milage when they go on a business trip, yet ATCO's getting running cost rate, or have to use a pool car, save some money there and then I might start to think about voting yes to do my bit to help the company out of this mire.

When I start to feel valued by the management, when I feel they are doing their bit also to make this the Best ASP, when I feel they are not just taking the piss, when they realise that ATC is nothing without ATCO's and the other essential support staff then and only then will i consider a yes vote.

They have to remember they have broke our trust with this deal, our pension was untouchable, they have to show some effort as to why we forgive them and going to muck in and help...just remember one thing...Paul Barrons last job was to close down and sell of the assests of a company. Our biggest asset is the pension scheme its worth more than the comany is.

“Have a spring clean out of the dross that we are employing”

Nice touch. I understand your frustrations but blaming CTC staff for this problem is (and I have said it before on here) doing PB’s work for him (divide and conquer).
CTC staff were heavily involved in many projects (WD closure, TC move) etc that will save NATS money. Money, which could be invested in the staff.
Coming up for two years at the CTC now, I find that my pay will be cut over the next 8 years as we move to the National grade (from London grades). With a rumoured pay freeze and these pension issues I am concerned about my future standard of living. I want to direct that concern toward our management and not at my colleagues, whatever part they play in our business.

I keep reading that NSL will be sold,sooner or later,yet my management said that isn't the case.
So what is the situation? Surely someone knows whats going on.:rolleyes:

Blimey TAD your not starting to believe the managers are you?:E

'Cut the Dross'
 

3 miles

I think you might get some flak for what you have written, though hopefully people will read it in the spirit it was meant.

As a slight olive branch whilst talking about cutting the dross, we as operational staff could help out by stopping the practice of promoting inept people out of the Ops room into made-up jobs.

We all know about (ex)ATCOs who have had unit moves - at own request - (paid by NATS) then have failed to validate. If that happens, move them back to the unit they were valid at and make them re-validate there (and make them repay the company the moving costs). If they fail to validate, don't stick them in some made up, mickey mouse job on full ATCO pay.

I'm all for looking after ATCOs who are getting on in years (the brain does slow down and traffic levels/complexity are still on the up) who feel the need to come out of the OPs room etc - these people who have worked hard for most of their career should be supported and their experience used in the run up to retirement.

We should not be holding onto people whatever the cost if they are proven to be inept/dangerous or whatever purely due to lack of ability i.e. in the prime of their working age.

Get rid of people who are unable to achieve MUR - why should someone get band 5 pay as an ATCO if they cannot fulfill MUR through lack of ability? It happens. Fair enough if they are put on 2 non core sectors because of watch requirements, however proper planning would mean that every ATCO could do a core sector instead of the ususal firefighting and letting people away with doing 2 non core sectors and pretending this counts as MUR.

I totally agree with you that there is probably a lot of fat that could be easily gotten rid of at CTC, however we can't overlook our excess fat at the coal face either.

However it seems ironic with all the engineering heavy projects that are in the pipeline, that we seem to be culling huge numbers of engineers... the very people we need at the moment. This cull is going to see engineering extremely stretched, yet in the meantime elsewhere we overlook obvious areas for savings.

I have walked round CTC many times and often wondered why so many people are needed to type things into computers, as that's what seems to be happening a lot of the time. I've been involved in projects (quite heavily in some) and appreciate there are a lot of valuable people at CTC.

However when I see so many people sitting at computers, I often wonder if in fact a lot of what happens at CTC actually self generates extra work for no reason.

I often see the mini briefing rooms in use and wonder if people are having meetings to discuss what they have typed that morning or what the picture of the day on NATSNET is. Cynical and not healthy, but I reckon anyone walking into CTC must think similar..

Anotherthing

Bit confused by your response in saying I'll get flak, when you then go onto echo some of the comments I say.

However I couldnt agree more that there is wastage in the ops enviroment also, I did mention this somewhere in my post also, there are many atco's who play the system, transfers for strange reasons where they fail to validate and obvious from the start this will be the case. just resulting in not only the transfer costs but also the training costs associated with this. I agree that some of those that start to struggle with the day job should be better used rather than the rest proping up the system, there are plenty of needed posts an jobs in CTC and swanwick that these ATCO's could be moved into rather than employing externally even more people to do that work. With this present deal from the company this problem could become worse, with ATCO's that may have considered early retirement as a solution to their slowing down, now not financially being able to afford it with there reduced pension when they get there.

It just seems to me that they are knocking on our door to make this great saving, yet all the time throwing money away at what seems to not actually generating the company. I must reiterate I know there are a lot of non operational people at CTC/Swanwick/Heathrow house that are doing great jobs, even some posts that are new and post PPP. That without them many of the achievements NATS as made wouldnt be so. But if at a operational level we decided to have 10 more controllers than we needed, an assistant for the assistant, then you couldnt say they werent useful people, all highly trained etc...but it would be overkill and a total waste of resources and money, I just think maybe some of the posts in place at CTC that have large departments, and endless support staff, assistants to assistants, could maybe actually find there is enough work for a few less of them if they streamlined a bit. And that some departments, could probably be merged, that some areas could probably use some of the ATCO's we already pay that maybe finding controlling a bit tougher.

It would just be interesting to see what the staff numbers are now for CTC since PPP and what the salary costs of those of all those in office based jobs are since PPP as compared to that prior CTC, I accept it would be higher because as i say we did need some of it, but exaclty how much higher, how much does a HR business partner get? ATCO/ATSA scales are published and transparent, be interesting to see what the job salaries and the various posts that exist in CTC etc are perhaps as they so internet crazy they could have on there site information of all the posts and staff and what they all actually do, you mention that CTC people helped with the move of WD to save the company money etc, but just where might that saving go if you've just spent it all again on employing a load more people in another building, we now have heathrow house aswell as heathrow tower, compared to everyone being in one building before. what about all the support staff at MANC when it moves to Prestwick are they going to still be duplicated?

What im trying to get across is why should I be the one doing all the work to plug the damm, when others are splashing about in the water making it leak.

3 miles

we're singing from the same hymn book. What I meant by you maybe getting some flak for what you had written, (I agree with every word), is that some non-ops people might take what you had written as a personal attack, when in fact you were saying that it is your belief that there was room to trim some excess fat and not that you were saying all; of CTC was a waste of space!!

If you look at all my previous posts on this, I again agree with you... why should the workers (or so it seems) have to make al the sacrifices to fix the pension fund, when there seems to be other cost cutting solutions out there.

If that means some poeple lose their jobs then I'm afraid that's ho a business should be run. As long as those who do lose their jobs are definitely not making a real contribution to the company. It's a dog eat dog world out there, no company should be employng people who don't really fill a role/provide productivity. As far as NATS is concerned that goes from Senior management, down through the extra layers of management we keep picking up, continuing down to ATCOs/ATSAs/ATCEs/office workers etc.

NATS should cut the dross as you rightly state - just make sure it really is non productive people. Then management should come back with real costings etc to make an informed decision about how to save the pension!!

Cutting the dross should be a continual process though - not just something we think we should do now because of the pension issue.

I thought that the MSG scales were on the HR website as well. From what I remember they make around the same as some of the ATSA/ATCE grades - which are considerably less than some of the ATCO grades.:)

Yep, and from my limited knowledge of the HR department, I'm believe they've decreased in numbers over the past year, and yet their workload has increased.

Gosh, now that sounds like another group of NATS employees.........:confused:

My pension is part of my pay package.

It may be inconvenient, but it is an essential cost for as long as my services are required. Airlines can't look at increasing fuel prices and say its too expensive so they're no longer going to pay for it. They should not feel that they can do similarly with our conditions.

If I appear too expensive then market forces require the industry to look at other options. The "easy" option would be to persuade me that I am too expensive and want a reduced pay package or that I'm not doing enough work. I remain unpersuaded on either count. You could try to employ fewer of my colleagues by use of e.g. AAVAs to mask the fact that we are heavily understaffed - well its been working to date, but people are now turning them down and not seeing them as the benefit they seemed. You could try to replace me with a computer as some of those employed at CTC are doing. They may get there in the end, but it willl be very expensive to get there and it won't happen before I retire. In the meantime my pension must be paid.

VOTE NO!

alfie 1999

Yes. Look carefully and you'll see that NATS is trading profitably but it's real assets excluding goodwill and the pension fund are at best the same as its liabilities. It doesn't have much in the way of reserves and it's potential to borrow is limited because it's already heavily borrowed against its assets. It is much more robust than it was in 2001 and with prudent management can survive most expected events but not a big trauma.


Yes it did. The composite solution under which NATS was rescued from administration required £170 million of savings made up of the pension holiday, postponed ATCO recruitment and support cost savings. A lot of people's jobs were hidden in that phrase support cost savings. They were all voluntary redundancies and most were jumping to avoid having to resign when we moved out of London but they were still real people who lost real jobs even if some people prefer to refer to them as dross.

It's got nothing to do with opposing or supporting the management's proposals. I was referring to an ignorance of risk management even though so much of what we do in NATS is based upon it. Those familiar with risk management will recognise that sometimes the bad thing is so bad that you have to do something about it even if it isn't very likely. This may be one of those times.

See my previous response. If I could lose my pension and the chance of that happening was less than impossible then I might be prepared to offer up some T&Cs to make it less likely, especially if in practice what I was offering up was next to nothing. As I've said before how close to nothing this particular T&C is depends upon how optimistic you are about future payrises.

You probably didn't realise it when you made that post but you've illustrated exactly why the company wants to implement the RPI+0.5% cap. Over pension timescales a small increase can have an enormous effect on the liability.

I have no idea as that would be a political decision and there is never any logic in political decisions. However from time to time every Prime Minister prays for a small war to distract the electorate and allow them to demonstrate strong leadership and an ATC strike might just be Gordon's small war. If the Government believes that people with expensive cars, large mortgages and school fees to pay can't afford to strike they might be willing to call your bluff.