|
bring it on.
you can get donkey jackets on ebay with british coal scrawled across the back for under a tenner. will keep me warm this winter if im out front throwing scaffolding poles through scabby coach windows. |
bring it on. |
Some figures from the annual report.
NATS made an operating profit of £134.4 million on turnover of £742.5 million. That's a fairly hefty profit for a monopoly to make so I can understand the regulator's desire to lower our charges. Yet the company seems determined to increase profits. Last year's results were lower due to costs incurred during closure of West Drayton (£23 million) and paying off loans early (£80.8 million), these exceptional costs won't be on the balance sheet in future so profits will accelerate. How much do NATS still owe? There's £138.7 million of borrowings due in the next 2 years but how much do we still owe? NATS contribution rate to the pension fund is 12.2% which cost £54.8 million last year. How much would a 42% contribution rate actually cost? About £150 million? Can NATS afford that? Not if they want to make a large profit year on year. If they didn't make a profit then they could have afforded the extra £95 million last year 42% contribution rate probably isn't sustainable but we're at the bottom of the economic cycle at the moment. Remember that image Barron was so keen on of the two boats with the pension fund dwarfing NATS? Given the chance why can't the pension fund save itself? The sheer size of the fund would, given the chance, be it's strength as the economic situation picks up. Returns from a £2.8 billion fund would dwarf the employers contribution. Does anyone know how many shares are in circulation? I note from the report, staff own about 6.8 million shares. Does that mean about 136 million shares have been issued? And at £2.70 per share is the market capitalisation around £367 million? How much is the airline group's shares worth? If they own 6% each is that about £22 million? from an initial investment of £7 million? Lots of these figures are best guesses, I'd appreciate any corrections (with references). |
eglnyt
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. The financial report for 2008 cites currency fluctuations, interest rates, inflation etc as possible future risks to the company...no mention of the pension scheme. However, the management is charged with reducing costs to the company to increase profits. 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. The 2008 report emphasises the groups strong cash flows and shows a reduction in net debt of almost £40m in 2008. NATS performance was so strong last year that it was able to repay shareholder loan notes of £65m incurring an additional charge of £15.8m in the process. The aviation business is cyclical and to justify attacking pensions on the premise of a temporary downturn is disingenuous at best. And besides, there is no sign of the company struggling in any way...just the opposite in fact. 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. So how many jobs were shed that were unrelated to the voluntary departures relating to the move from West Drayton? 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. I can understand managements wish to mitigate any possible risk to NATS ever growing profits by transferring that risk to the employees. I'm sure you'll understand my reluctance to offer up my T&C's to ensure those profits can grow even more quickly. 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 In what circumstances do you envisage the pension being lost? IMO, by far the most likely route to losing our final salary scheme is this: We agree to these proposals and make the company far more attractive to future bidders (we know that's the real issue here). Do you believe the next owner of NATS is going to settle for the present deal? Of course not. The attacks on the pension won't stop until the final salary scheme is closed for both present and future employees. 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. So you're agreeing that a pay freeze for a year or 2 would have an enormous effect on future pension liabilities? Many of the arguments forwarded in support of the managements proposals seem to be contradicted when balanced against the companies own reports and indeed the reports of other shareholders. The Governments own Shareholder Executive which oversees the SoS for T's 48.9% stake in the company lauds NATS'... 'strong financial performance' and 'growing financial strength recognised by Standard & Poor's who upgraded its credit rating from A- to A. ' |
eglnyt NATS can't go bust, there are clauses in the transport bill to make sure it can't. If NATS is unable to pay its bills the courts are required to make an "Air Traffic Administration Order" (apologies for incorrectly calling it Aviation Administration above). This would effectively nationalise NATS at no cost to the Government. The Railway privitisation legislation contained similar clauses which were used to bring Railtrack back into public ownership. That may seem an attractive proposition to some but do we really understand what that means to NATS staff particularly those not directly involved in the NERL Licence ? You may not like the current management but they have some vested interest in the future of NATS and hopefully in the last few years they've learnt a bit about the company. Do you really think an accountant appointed by the Secretary of State will be better ? Our pension curently enjoys some protection afforded to it by agreements made during the privitisation process, what status do those agreements have if an Air Traffic Administration Order is raised ? TRANSPORT ACT 2000 SCHEDULES Section 30. SCHEDULE 1 Air traffic administration orders: general Supplementary provisions of schemes 9 (1) A scheme may contain supplementary, consequential and transitional provision for the purposes of, or in connection with, any provision of the scheme. (2) In particular a scheme may provide— (e) that contracts of employment with the existing licence company are not to terminate and that periods of employment with the existing licence company are to count for all purposes as periods of employment with the new licence company; Transport Act 2000 (c. 38) Our pension forms part of our contract of employment so the wording of the act indicates that in the event of NATS going bust our final salary scheme must be guaranteed by the new owners...HMG. |
After 1000 odd posts, it seems quite obvious to me that yes voters are going to continue to vote "yes" (God only knows why :rolleyes:) and the no voters will do similarly. We've heard all the arguments from both sides....without being prejudicial to the official Union ballot, can't we just have a simple yes/no vote on here now to see how the land lies??
VOTE NO. |
Originally Posted by Del Prado
(Post 4502041)
NATS made an operating profit of £134.4 million on turnover of £742.5 million. That's a fairly hefty profit for a monopoly to make so I can understand the regulator's desire to lower our charges.
BD |
By ploughing the profit back into the company the share price increases to the benefit of our major shareholders. I assume they can count their NATS investment on their balance sheet?
For example, paying off loans early not only reduces debt but also raises the company's credit rating making borrowing cheaper and increasing future profits. So the airline group's shares are worth more and the government will raise more money at the next stage of privatisation. BTW has anyone checked my sums? Is the initial Airline Group investment of £7 million each now worth £22 million? |
alfie1999, "(2) In particular a scheme may provide..",
or indeed, may not provide then. |
im voting no.
|
O Dear lets hope, we dont go the same way as BizzEnergy, how does he manage time to chair the NATS board http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/y...two-weeks.html
|
not the best CV, is it. Bizz energy and he is a non executive director of Northern Rock!!
<H2>John Devaney - Chairman "My aim for BizzEnergy is to be the best energy supplier in Europe....John Devaney brings his top-level industry knowledge and experience... Concern about the future of independent electricity suppliers grew yesterday after BizzEnergy went into administration and its 40,000 small and medium sized business customers were "sold" for the princely sum of £87.50 each. John Devaney brings his top-level industry knowledge and experience gained as Executive Chairman of Eastern Electricity to BizzEnergy...John is the Chairman of NATS Holdings Ltd (National Air Traffic Services) and Telent plc, formerly known as Marconi plc, Non-Executive Director of Northern Rock and Chairman of Ergo Finance LLP. |
John Devaney - A world leader in supplying management hot air. :E
ROCK ON......:}:}:} |
Quote: Did NATS shed staff post-01? Or during previous downturns? 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. depends upon how optimistic you are about future payrises Quote: 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. A crystal ball would be very handy to solve all these issues, those with just a few years left already can see what status they are in, and happy to take the managements mitigation in order to get what they got now, those who have more than the 15 years are in a harder place to make this decision lightly and have bigger concerns than NATS making lots of money. |
If you check the current annual report and accounts for NERL, you'll see numbers of engineers, assistants and support grades have all fallen in the last year, while controllers have increased.
Pesky facts |
Me Me Me, does that include office staff (I'm not sure what support grades means)?
Does anyone know total number of NATS employees for the last 7 years? |
Quote from NTUS subweb on NATSNET:
"junior/middle managers, secretarial and administrative staff collectively known as Management and Support Grades (MSGs)." Interesting fact on ATCO numbers increasing while the other's decreasing. Another fact - it's a NATS employee pensions scheme, not an NATS ATCO pension scheme........we're all in this together so stop complaining about "CTC" (i.e. Non-unit) employees adding to the pension burden. A long serving engineer or administrator or researcher or accountant has the same rights to a full pension as any long serving ATCO. Oh, and as for the comments sitting around drinking coffee, a number of us often work hard through a longer day than contractual hours to deliver the tools that the ATC units need to do their jobs better - so if we sometimes spend more time drinking coffee that's our prerogative :ok: I personally drink tea...... :} |
Radarspod
Oh, and as for the comments sitting around drinking coffee, a number of us often work hard through a longer day than contractual hours to deliver the tools that the ATC units need to do their jobs better Your extra hours are akin to ATCOs doing extra sectors above minumum requirement. None of us gets paid for doing the extra hours/sectors etc, but it helps the company out immensly. A lot of goodwill has to do with the fact that NATS is a decent company to work for... continual erosion of Ts&Cs will make that less true and may mean people are less willing to work for nothing. As for Another fact - it's a NATS employee pensions scheme, not an NATS ATCO pension scheme........we're all in this together so stop complaining about "CTC" (i.e. Non-unit) employees adding to the pension burden Similarly there are some ATCOs who have been taken out of the OPs room through ineptitude and given 'support' jobs that could be culled to save some money. As for the figures from NERL about increasing ATCO numbers - unfortunately they are not increasing at a fast enough rate, we are still short of capable ATCOs. Also - do those figures double count or how do they work?? I.e. an ATCO working in OPs for instance on a 2 year placement - do they count as an office worker or as an ATCO???? |
Anotherthing,
I don't think I did miss the point of the post. I agree that even I have nearly choked on reading some VNs for strange posts that you wonder what they are for. But from reading posts in this thread, it seems to me that a number of unit personnel come to CTC and see a lot of people that do not appear to be directly contributing to NATS income generation in the same way operations personnel do. The fact is that CTC has become one very large non-ops campus due to closures of West Drayton, Kemble Street and Spectrum House, not to mention moving a lot of non-ops employees out of Swanwick. So to the visiting unit personnel I could understand that it may seem like a big bunch of office types serving no purpose - but the total number is far less than when I joined NATS 10 years ago when personnel were scattered at a number of sites, each with own HR, accountants, security, adminstrators, managers, site engineers, safety managers, QA, etc, etc, etc. Yes there are a lot of people at CTC that aren't in front of a radar screens, but the vast majority (i agree not all) are as important to NATS income generation as any operational personnel. My apologies if this is coming across as a bit of a rant, but I read so much non-ops, engineer and CTC bashing on here I'm starting to lose my rag - which I don't want to do as i directly support operations.:} |
Yes, it includes everyone. Support grades = MSG and PCG I guess.
Those people who work in areas that are under constant attack by many on here are the same ones who have been continually taking reductions in numbers, improving productivity and saving money so that the company can afford to pay so many AAVAs, among other things. The arrogance and blatant selfishness that's dressed up so often on here as a sense of injustice no longer angers me... I find it amusing. "These bean-counters in CTC having another meeting!!! OUTRAGEOUS!! We are in a credit crunch and we should be tightening our belt and cutting out this useless waste!!" TRANSLATION: "I'm p*ssed off because I think every penny spent should be spent on me and me alone. I don't give a toss what is wasted, I just want more of everything because I like me very much" The rant part of this isn't directed at the person who's question I answered initially - just in general to many users of this forum. |
Originally Posted by Me Me Me Me
(Post 4505469)
The arrogance and blatant selfishness that's dressed up so often on here as a sense of injustice no longer angers me... I find it amusing.
"These bean-counters in CTC having another meeting!!! OUTRAGEOUS!! We are in a credit crunch and we should be tightening our belt and cutting out this useless waste!!" Just as an aside on the perceptions that most of the CTC staff sit around in Starbucks drinking coffee all day. NATS CTC accomodates a large number of staff (not all of whoms primary task require them to be there, its just the central place now everywhere else has closed) and Starbucks is relatively small so it will look busy when people have their breaks (shock horror! Staff who are not mandated to have breaks also have them! Eekkk!) Additionally all of the offices (apart from the senior executives) are open plan. Its disruptive to other staff who are working at their desks if you decide to have a meeting of only 1 or 2 people at your desk. So Starbucks and the foyer area is a very good place to have these small meetings. Its apparent from comments in this thread how little the operational staff are aware of the pressure to reduce staff in the non operational areas is. From posts being gapped to retirees not being replaced to contractors being let go to ATCO staff being squeezed to go back into Ops and so it goes on. But there is no reduction on the demand for resources to deliver everything thats expected. BD p.s. There are 'support' grades within the ATSA grading as well, ATC Technical & Support (T&S) ;) |
Me Me Me Me
I agree entirelythat some people (mainly ATCOs) have not got a clue how much the majority of support staff do for the company and for the actual ATCOs. Doesn't mean that a proper 'time and motion' (in old money) study would not go amiss to make the company leaner though. And if you are going to have a pop back at those detractors, at least do it with a proper argument... ...improving productivity and saving money so that the company can afford to pay so many AAVAs, among other things... In fact AAVAs are actually preferred by the company to a certain degree because it is cheaper for management to use them than to employ the correct amount of ATCOs - AAVA's are more flexible as you can pick and choose which validation you want to call in, and they are non pensionable. AAVAs actually save the company money! |
Non-pensionable overtime?
Is that because the union reps are 'GM Wannabes'? :} |
Could this NATS which employs hundreds of people to sit around drinking coffee all day really be the same company that exploits poor hard working ATCOs at every opportunity to make huge profits ? The fact is that most of those at CTC outside of a very small area in C block have been through time and motion study after time and motion study. Every year every job has to be justified and every year a further percentage saving has to be made.
Fortunately most of us at CTC have a good sense of humour. We certainly had a chuckle at the irony of controllers complaining about how hard they work on this thread whilst in another thread others were passing comment on the accomodation provided for them to sleep during their normal working hours. |
Originally Posted by eglnyt
(Post 4511035)
the irony of controllers complaining about how hard they work on this thread whilst in another thread others were passing comment on the accomodation provided for them to sleep during their normal working hours.
BD |
ZOOKER,
Non-pensionable overtime? |
eglynt,
Just curious.How many people work at CTC total. and of the ATCOs that work there,what pay Band are they on. |
KNOTS,
In industry, overtime is an 'additional attendance', is it not? AND, like Jeremiah Clarke's famous trumpet piece, it is 'Voluntary'. We await an explanation of the "subtle, but significant" differences, forthwith! :E |
Fortunately most of us at CTC have a good sense of humour. We certainly had a chuckle at the irony of controllers complaining about how hard they work on this thread whilst in another thread others were passing comment on the accomodation provided for them to sleep during their normal working hours. |
I'm so happy that us ATCOs can provide you with a laugh at our own expense. You need a reality check, a comment like just goes to show how far exactly your head is up your a***. If you feel so hard done by, why don't you get yourself down to the OPs room (if you can find it that is) for a few night shifts, because there is nothing "normal" about working at 3am . Most ATCOs would happily swap a night shift for a day spent at CTC drinking Starbucks, slagging us off on NATSnet and commenting on picture of the day. |
Originally Posted by mr.777
(Post 4511866)
Most ATCOs would happily swap a night shift for a day spent at CTC drinking Starbucks, slagging us off on NATSnet and commenting on picture of the day.
I'm sure that many CTC based staff would enjoy being off during the day, working the night and then having a sleep day. With, of course, suitable monetary recompense for the unsocial hours and not forgetting some shut eye during the night in Hotel Swanwick to ensure we're bright eyed and bushy tailed ;) I worked shifts for 25 years before becoming a day worker so I do have a little experience of working nights. Personally I'd much rather work shifts but my job doesn't require it, there are very few jobs for CTC based staff that require 24/7 working. Strangely the requirement tends to be at the operational units. BD |
I attended the pensions brefings at CTC yesterday, and now having had all of the evidence presented before me, I will be voting YES - I will also use every opportunity to convince my colleagues to vote YES.
I have witnessed some of the most militant unionistas that have upset me over years now telling me that they want to protect the Ts&Cs they have and their pensions, and agreeing this deal is what they would do given the reality of pensions management and the cost of our scheme. People who vote NO are gambling with my pension and my future career as well as their own. There is no plan B, the union have no better alternatives and NATS will go ahead with whatever they want if a NO ballot results - but the deal would be worse than what is proposed. Forget the politics, forget the CEO, forget rediculous ideas like nationalisation - the numbers are clear. I want an excellent pension and I still will have one under the proposal. VOTE YES! |
Actually BD I thought your comment about the Hotel Swanwick being constructed to enhance safety was a well-made, valid and succinct point...for once:}
But if you don't want a reaction then indeed, don't feed the trolls, especially with stuff like that. Don't hate the player, hate the game... |
People who vote NO are gambling with my pension and my future career as well as their own. There is no plan B, the union have no better alternatives and NATS will go ahead with whatever they want if a NO ballot results - but the deal would be worse than what is proposed. Forget the politics, forget the CEO, forget rediculous ideas like nationalisation - the numbers are clear. I want an excellent pension and I still will have one under the proposal |
clearly some people prefer to bury their heads in the sand and ignore blatant facts
|
Yes...that'd be you then.
|
Radarspod
If you joined NATS after summer 2001, then you will not have an excellent pension; within a matter of a few years you will be transferred to the new scheme. If you will be retiring in more than 10-15 years then you probably will not have an excellent pension, because history shows that closing schemes to new employees means the end of final salary pension schemes within that period of time. If you are going to retire within the next 10 years, and you don't mind shafting others, then go ahead and vote yes. Oh, and don't think the Trust of Promise will save your pension; there are enough get out clauses in that to make it worthless.
|
I did join NATS before 2001 but I also have a long way to go, so I am considering this for the long term. Do I believe that NATS will still be operating the existing DB scheme when I retire - probably not. NATS is going to try and cut the cost of our scheme in the long run REGARDLESS of what happens now. What I do know is that right now the scheme is in the s**t and if allowed to continue, either I will have no job, no pension or a job with much crappier Ts & Cs than what is on the table now. The company didn't tell me this, nor the union - I have come to the conclusion myself from the evidence put forward.
Agreeing this proposal doesn't shaft my NSL colleagues either - it makes the pension liability for potential NSLs bidders as bloody huge and unnattractive as it is now. Go to the management briefings then go to the NTUS briefing and make your views heard. Anyone shouting "NO" on this forum who is a union member and has not used their opportunity to grill the union officials is quite frankily a fool, and is voting NO for the wrong reasons. If you attend your NTUS briefing and are still not convinced, then by all means vote as you see fit. We can argue all day about the pro's and con's of the proposed deal - but it is the best we are going to get. This is my view, I'm not going to apologise for it - I want to protect my future and agreeing this deal is in my opinion the only option (doesn't mean i like it!) and convincing all around me to protect my future is what I am going to do. I'm not going to respond to any more posts on what I have written now, as I have heard it all before and nobody in the 1000+ posts on this forum have said anything new that is going to fix everything so that we don't have to make this choice. RS |
Its a shame this forum is degenerating into a slagging match of "them" and "us" proportions........lets not forget we all work for towards the same aim and that is to move traffic in an efficient and safe manner....that said there are a few on here that appear to be full of their own self importance and cannot see past the work of others, mainly because they have their heads up their rectums!!!............I have spent 30 years so far with the company and have and still do enjoy every minute of it............one thing for sure after 30 years no bugger is going to rip me off and I will do anything possible to protect my own and my future work mates terms of condition and pension.....it is my money, I have worked hard for it so Mr Barron, keep your little mitts off it!!!!
|
BDiONU,
with reference: I'm sure that many CTC based staff would enjoy being off during the day, working the night and then having a sleep day. With, of course, suitable monetary recompense for the unsocial hours and not forgetting some shut eye during the night in Hotel Swanwick to ensure we're bright eyed and bushy tailed so you think office staff should be paid and work the same hours as ops staff??? if i could get paid the same as i do now and not have the responsibility of ACTUAL controlling, then i may entertain that. next you will be telling us that airline check in staff should be paid the same as flight deck??? Again, im not saying office staff are dross, we need them in buckets to keep the cogs turning, I emplore you to sit up all night and try not to weld 2 planes together. if people in the company see what an ATCO makes, its no secret, then come and give it a go.... plenty do. The fact of the matter is, as ops staff we have the indutrial strength and if the union wont get a spine over this, i for one will be giving up my 2nd sector and all the trimmings i do for free and do my contracted sector only. its a shame, but if my pension is going to be degraded... so is my commitment to the company. i love my job, but my faith for the company has gone. vote no. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 16:10. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.