eglnytMethinks you are looking at this the wrong way. The way you are speakng, one would think that we have no pension at the moment and that this ofer was a proposal for a scheme to be introduced. If that was the case, then your statement would have some credence. However, the way I am looking at it is they are taking a pension that is perfectly viable, and trying to reduce our benefits.


Completely wrong; it has nothing to do with immediate fixes and all to do with the future.

The cap only comes into force in future pay rises, and only if those pay rises are greater than RPI+0.5%. Putting a cap in place, if it never gets used because pay rises do not go above RPI+0.5% is merely a paper exercise and makes the pension look affordable on paper. i.e. it makes NATS more attractive to potential buyers of NSL.

It makes NATS look healthier on paper in the future but does not actually achieve anything if in reality we get low pay awards.

NATS is financially healthy, so I do not even know why you mentioned that... our management are the ones who keep banging on about our A* banking rating etc.

Putting this cap on does not mean that NATS wil immediately start saving money. This cap will only save NATS money if any pay rises are greater than RPI+0.5%.

The 'Yes' voters tell us on the one hand that the cap is no big issue because pay rises greater than RPI+0.5% will be hard to come by in future years (which means no actual real savings for NATS), yet on the other hand they say things like
so which is it guys???

I didn't mean for my last post to seem "ball-less". I am still certain of which way I am voting but having heard that the ballot is all but irrelevant as the proposals are coming in anyway i am becoming disilussioned with the process.
vote yes and it happens. vote no and it happens. why have a vote?

You either haven't been to a briefing or you weren't listening. The cap has an immediate effect because it allows the actuary to make different assumptions. Those different assumptions have a very big difference on the predicted liability which in turn reduces by some margin the underlying contribution rate. That was explained at our briefing very carefully by the actuary and given that there was an individual slide for it I can't believe it wasn't explained at all the briefings.

On paper maybe but I think you'll find out just how financially tight things are over the next few months as the hatches are battened down and projects get cancelled or shelved TBN.

BD

The proposal is not an alternative to our current pension it is an alternative to an unpredictable future which might include the loss of our pension. Are you willing to take that risk ?

There's no guarantee with the new proposal and imho there are even bigger risks to the company and our pension. Another major terrorist outrage causing a huge drop in transatlantic traffic, mismanagement of large scale projects costing hundreds of millions of pounds in penalties and most likely, the complete sell off of NATS.

Hardly an alternative to a risky future.

I really dont think the present management team are looking beyond the date by which we will be owned by someone else, probably 2010. NATS is being fattened up and getting ready for market to the highest bidder.
A fifteen year pension capped deal is therefor essential,a bit like safety belts on a car, maybe even an A.M. DB9:O.

If you want to be owned by SERCO or whoever then vote yes, although you won't know what's hit you :sad:. Projects and those involved with them (I know they are essential to NATS :)) should be even more worried, as they are not top of SERCO's priority list which is "pushing tin" Their ethos as far as Air Traffic Control always was and still is, if you work for us your job title must have the words "Air" and "Traffic" in it , and you should be pushing tin :oh:

Otherwise Vote NO

VOTE NO has hit the nail on the head.

We are being set up for a sell off down the line.

A "Yes" vote sorts the company out for a sell off. The new owners will not be interested in anything other than "minimum " numbers of support staff

If you work in the CTC or if your job does not involve separating aircraft you have no alternative other than to vote "No".

If you vote "Yes", worries about your pension will be irrelevant - you won't have a job!

Thats my point, think about our jobs, all of us, better to Vote No and stick with our present bumbling leaders:} who then can't sell us off and wont be able to fatten their wallets

Not sure about SERCO, they might find you a bit much to swallow for the next year or two given the credit crunch. I could see a few other bigger players being tempted though

eglnyt

I know exactly what the cap does which is why, in my post, I stated all it does is make NATS look healthy on paper, (based on assumptions).

So more conjecture thrown into the pot, I really don't understand how assumptions can be deemed to make the future rosy.

NATS only stands to gain real hard cash with the cap if a future pay rise is above RPI+0.5%.

What the cap does, is makes the pension burden more palatable for potential buyers.

If the future is not rosy, what chance have we got of a pay rise greater than RPI+0.5% anyways?? This cap is all about assumption, it is not the same as cold hard cash.

The pension fund is in trouble for many reasons, one of those is the fact that management failed to look ahead and plan effectively for the position we are in now... they merrily took pension holidays and paid reduced rates, effectively cutting the surplus (which was totally legal), however they now want us to believe that they will manage the fund better in the future? They were working on short term solutions, as usual with NATS.

I wonder why people are so cynical?!!!

Which is exactly the process the company allegedley followed when it decided to take contribution breaks and pay less than the full contribution in other years... look where it has got us now!!! (I'm not suggesting the contribution breaks and reduced levels are the only reason for our current situation, but they have had a big effect, causing us to require more drastic action)

As for setting up the company for a break up and sale of NSL - it's obviously up to individuals to believe what they wish, however is it prudent for a company (NATS) to hold onto part of it's business (which is has already split off to be a subsiduary in its own right i.e. NSL) that is making a loss?

Guys at CTC, do you really think you will all be safe if NSL was sold? Do you really think CTC would require all the staff it has, just to support NERL, DAT&S and external contracts (MOD stuff etc)?

There is potentially a lot more at stake here than just the headlines we are being given.

I repeat, all the cap does is allow NATS to make assumptions. assumptions based on conjecture - unless they (the actuaries) have already decided that the RPI we use will be 1% or something.

We are being asked to vote for this cap, do people realise the RPI used for this purpose will be set by the actuaries, and is not the governement RPI?

Do you think the actuaries are going to set a decent RPI of 4% or 5% or more?? We're being asked to vote this in and are not being given the full facts i.e. what RPI is likely to be used.

Management must have a figure in mind if they can be so bullish and say that this pension cap will definitely help NATS financially.

And who is to say that any future pay rises wiil be based on RPI + X%?

What if NATS offered a pay deal of 5% for 3-5 years? (just as an example)I think people would vote that in.
But then if RPI is down at 2.5% or even 1.5% then, ok we've got above inflation pay, but your pension is losing out on 2 - 3% each year.
And if RPI is above that then we get a below inflation pay rise

NATS aren't daft.

They could afford to give us a bigger pay rise in years to come if only a small amount is pensionable.

Arrived today from my MP - Sandra Osborne...

Dear Stupendous Man (;))

Please find attached a copy of a reply I have received from Jim Fitzpatrick, Transport Minister regarding NATS Pension Scheme.

......

As far as I'm aware, the scheme can be changed, however I am not happy with the Government's reply and intend to raise this matter with the company. There is also a briefing in Parliament shortly which I intent to attend.

I will let you know when I receive a reply from NATS

Yors sincerely

Sandra Osborne MP


So...
We'll see what comes from the company and parliament briefing.


The Jim Fitzpatrick reply is pretty much a cut and paste of his reply to Cuddles here and ImnotanERIC here


Dear Sandra
Thank you for your letter dated 21 October enclosing correspondence from your constituent regarding the NATS pension scheme.

The proposal jointly developed by NATS and the NATS Trade Union Side (NTUS) forthe reform of the NATS pension scheme is a matter for the company.

I can advise you that the company, and the NTUS have parallel consultation processes in place with employees and members respectively, which have just started this week. Your constituent should ensure they take full advantage afforded by the consultations, to seek clarification, raise questions, and make their views known both to NATand their TU representative.

Should you have further questions about the consultation process, may I suggest you write to NATS at 4000 parkway, Whiteley, Fareham PO147FL either to ******* ********* - ****** who is General Counsel & Company Secretary or **** ******* who is Head of External Communications.

Just to follow up from Stupendous Mans' post...

If the pension does get capped at RPI+0.5%, we are possibly more likely to get slightly better pay deals in the future than if there is no cap.

If there is no cap in place the company will fight tooth and nail to keep pay rises low, to reduce the pension contributions.

What people need to weigh up is whether or not an extra half a percent here and there as a non pensionable pay rise is worth the overall reduction in pension benefit when you retire...

Sorry to labour the point but I really don't think you understand what the cap does. The actuaries use an assumption on future pay rises, they have to do that because the estimation of future liability depends upon your final pensionable pay. That assumption has to be pessimistic so they use RPI + 1.5%. They also make an assumption on long term RPI which is based on Government figures for previous periods, again it is pessimistic (the figure was given at our meeting and is on the slide shown at the briefings but I didn't write it down so I won't quote it here). If NATS can guarantee that pensionable pay will rise by only RPI + 0.5 % the actuary can use that figure instead and the estimation of liability comes down significantly. If that falls the amount the trustees require NATS to fund, the now famous underlying rate, also comes down by quite a lot. In the absence of any surplus the amount the trustees will require NATS to pay is the underlying rate so if it is reduced by the cap there is an immediate effect on the pension contributions. As pension contributions are effectively paid from cash not paying those contributions is equivalent to a hard cash input.

spot on explanation of what the cap is for - I preferred the actuary's explanation from the briefing, but then that was because she was dead cute! :}

privatesandwiches

The nurses pay rise of 8% over 3 yrs you quoted is actually a pay rise of 2.75% in year 1 (the highest public sector pay rise during the current pay round), 2.4% in year 2 and 2,25% in year 3. These rises are not RPI plus the fiqures shown but just the figures shown.

The triennial valuation of 2003 stated that the underlying costs were 26.8%, yet NATS chose to ignore that laibility and pay in much less. This mismanagement has caused our future expected underlying costs to be so high. The 2006 valuation stated that when NATS increase contribution to 20% in 2008, the surplus in the fund would be exhausted in around 6yrs. Thus from 2008, the contributions (average 20%) NATS make will be below what the fund needs. The much lower amounts and holidays in the years leading up to 2008, have cause as massive increase i the underlying rate

Furthermore, the method of projecting theses costs used by the Acutaries is the Projected Unit Method (see pensions valuations). This method requires that new entrants continue to join the scheme in order to replace those that retire so that the contribution rate calculated can remain stable. If there are no new members , the average age will increase and the contrinution rates can be expected to rise

This suggests to me that we are being set up for failure as NATS will come to use in 15 years time saying that the underlying rate is 60% and we have no option but to close the scheme or become bankrupted.

I would suggest that those who have access to the CAAPS website (all members should) www.caaps.co.uk print a few copies of the last trienial report and share it amongst your colleagues.

I for one believe that we are being sold a pup and will VOTE NO for what it's worth. Even if they put through the changes, I am fed up that NATS sticks it's nose in the trough during the good times and is not willing to put back in during the "tough" times.

Hold at Satan said:
If this is true then are NATS management or the trustees not guilty of mismanaging our pension fund? - we need to find out more about this together with the legal obligations these people have.
Are management legally bound to follow the actuaries report/recommendations?

If they have not followed what the reports said then it is up to them to put things right - they can kiss my :mad: before I accept any changes to OUR pension

Unfortunately, I think NATS are entirely within their rights to pay whatever they like if the fund is in surplus - they are only obliged to pay the underlying rate when its in deficit as determined by the actuaries.

The sticking point for me is that there is no increased protection for post PPP members to a sell-off or contract loss, so new owners can freely move those employees affected to a new scheme. Were this protection in place i think it might make a difference to how some people vote.

Not at all. The obligation on NATS is to fund the scheme at 100% which they have done even when many other schemes were running up huge deficits. The underlying rate is that needed to fund the liabilities in the absence of any surplus, the actual rate is agreed between the trustees and NATS and in times of surplus can be lower and in times of deficit may need to be higher. In 2003 as the valuation report states it was possible for NATS to pay less for about 6 years and that is what has happened. Any contribution prior to that is irrelevant as the fund was in surplus indicating that NATS was providing more than enough.

There has never been any requirement to fund beyond 100% in actual fact taxation legislation meant that storing up surpluses was discouraged until 2004.

The main driver for the significant rise in underlying rate is the guidance from the Pensions Regulator that Trustees should assume much longer life and generally increasing life span. Each year of additional pension adds a great deal to the liability.

Even if that were true, and I've pointed out above why it isn't, exactly how do you think that could happen ? There is no big pot of money secreted away. This is all happening because NATS has signalled that it probably can't afford to fund the scheme if the underlying rate is 40% and if it can't pay your pension is under threat. You can argue about whose fault it is but personally I'd rather do everything I can to do something about it.

And why has this fact (increasing lifespan), that has been documented for years and is well known, suddenly come as such a surprise to NATS?

Why was it not considered when they decided to take the pension break and reduced contributions? Increased longevity has been known about far longer ago than July 2001.
It wasn't considered because it did not suit them to plan ahead to keep the pension easily viable; (I say 'easily' as it is still viable, whatever management say); most likely as keeping it viablet does not sit well with selling the company, or at least selling NSL.

It's p!ss poor planning ahead (or deliberate negligence) like this that makes me think that all the smoke and mirrors about the pension cap meaning NATS and the actuaries can 'plan ahead' better is a load of bull, and makes me want to vote 'NO' because I don't think that whatever we do now will stop them (NATS) coming back in 5 or 10 years claiming they need to take even more drastic cuts.

Landedoutagain, you are mistaken about your protection. I specifically went and found out about this, since I was unsure. The facts are this: it is the scheme that is protected and the members of that scheme. If you are a member of the scheme, regardless of whether you joined before or after PPP, you are protected. NATS management, or any new owner, if it were ever to come to that, would still have to comply with all the protections that were set down in law, and apply them to all members of the scheme. Nobody presently in the scheme can get moved to a different one unless they opt to do it themselves, regardless of who owns NATS.

Back to basics !
 

If we vote yes, it all goes through, the SMART pension and the cap on Pensionable earnings of RPI+0.5% for 15 years.:\ . We will then be sold to the highest bidder in 2010.

If we vote no they can push it through OR come back to us and renegotiate. You have nothing to lose and all to gain by voting no. :ok:

It really is that simple, or am I just simple ? :)

( left myself wide open here :\)

Back to Basics (2)
 

If we vote yes, it all goes through, the SMART pension and the cap on Pensionable earnings of RPI+0.5% for 15 years. . We will may be sold to the highest bidder in 2010 - NATS is a company, not a service provider - company's get bought and sold all the time. Or NATS may not. It may get together with another entity (DFS would be a good one) and use SESAR as a platform to take on more of European airspace. That would be a good thing in my view!

If we vote no they can push it through OR come back to us and renegotiate OR they can withdraw the reasonable offer and replace with a less reasonable one You could have something to lose by voting no.

It isn't simple! 1184 posts on this thread shows that! :ok:

RS

Highly unlikey or wise I would have thought, but what do I know :confused:

agreed not likely or wise, but could happen.

I guess it's a gamble, but you have to take a chance some times in life, nothing ventured-nothing gained :)

I think the odds are on our side :ok:

Eglnyt said: Maybe no big pot of money secreted away however:

• £66 million profit,

• £10's of millions of shareholder loans paid off 24 years EARLY, (£80 million?)

• £15 million in early redemption penalties of said loans,

• The rest of the shareholder loans refinanced at a lower interest rate, therefore saving millions in interest every year from now on (£5.5 million this year)

• £23 million spent on one off costs closing and relocating staff from WD to Swanwick,

• £millions given as 'bungs' to staff to buy out redundancy T+C's.
• £millions to be paid out in dividends to shareholders (if TAG bought into NATS at 'not for commercial gain' then why are they taking dividends??

Does this sound like a company that cannot find (up to a maximum of) £60 million to fund it's staff pension?



Is it fair or even moral that a company takes payment holidays and pays less than the underlying rate then turns round and asks it's staff to agree to losing £hundreds per month in their retirement?

• Management like to tell us how well the company is doing - A* credit rating, new contracts etc.

• How much have they spent on management trips away that can be done in-house or using video conferencing?

• How much is spent on awards ceremonies to reward staff for doing their job? I safely move aircraft around the sky and receive money in the bank each month - that is a good enough reward for doing a job properly.

NATS needs to get it's own housekeeping in order and curb excessive spending before considering any pension changes.




A happy workforce is a productive one. NATS cannot survive without a happy, loyal workforce.

A FINAL SALARY PENSION* = loyal workforce


* Pension based on actual "Final salary" not some notional salary cr@p

Fair and moral don't come into it. Pensions legislation requiring the scheme to be funded to 100%, not 100% plus a bit for good luck in case of a rainy day does come into it.

Over the next few months you're going to find out that there are a lot of things the company can't fund if the current rumours on winter traffic levels are correct.

Quote:

---

Pensions legislation requiring the scheme to be funded to 100%

---

It is time for NATS to dig deep and cough up then - a company that can affort to pay of significant amount of debt 24 years early and cover tens of millions of pounds of early repayment charges can affort to pay for my FINAL SALARY PENSION

Quote:

---

Over the next few months you're going to find out that there are a lot of things the company can't fund if the current rumours on winter traffic levels are correct.

---

So are you expecting me to vote away £hundreds per month of my future pension based on this winters traffic levels? What about in 2012, 2025 or even 2038 (I will still be working then...) when we look back at 2008 and laugh about how quiet it was back then.

Just a shame that I will still be working my :mad: off paying for a reduced pension because we were worried about the quiet winter of 2008/9... . ...

Another point ...Nats just deferred shareholder dividends till March 2009.....is this a case of pleading poverty in the run up to the pension vote..hmmm
:=:=:=

barsteward..you missed out the alleged £120M compensation NATS paid out over the SATCA fiasco over in Madrid...........

The company has already told you it can't, the NTUS have checked the figures and say they are right. Why do you think they can ?

Add these figures together - can you find (a maximum) of £60 million there?

£66 million
£80 million
£15 million
£5.5 million this year
£23 million

I can :ugh:


This does not take into account the money sp*nked off on awards ceremonies etc or the reported £120 million compensation to the Spanish......


A company that can pay off large parts of loans 24 YEARS EARLY is not in any position to plead poverty to it's loyal, hardworking workforce.

Whatever happens to traffic for the next year or so is a small setback - cyclical events.

A year or two later traffic will be busier than it was this summer - when that happens I will be very :mad: off when 'pulse' magazine tells me that NATS made £xxx million but my pension has been reduced.......

Because unlike you, we dont believe every damn thing we are told.

Erm...NATS may not have the money in it's account NOW, but there is the small matter of the tens of millions in revenue over the next year and the savings in NOT having to pay interest on loans, exit charges to the spanish, moving of West Drayton etc. You know, the usual day to day costs. I doubt the trustees will say:

They will come up with a repayment plan in order to bring the scheme up to correct levels.

LOA, after some digging, I owe you a sort of apology, there is a difference between pre and post PPP members. But the confusion comes from the term 'enforced transfer of employment'.

The scheme is protected and all members have that protection, pre or post PPP. There can be no 'decrement' to our pensions and this applies in the eventuality that NATS is sold on, to a new owner or owners. Whilst this happened we would all continue to be employed by NATS.

However, in the event of NATS actually going bankrupt and being placed into administration, which is a much more serious situation, the Trust of a Promise, will only apply to pre PPP members. In that case, post PPP members would have not have the same pension protections described in the Trust of Promise. By being placed into administration we would be subject to an 'enforced transfer of employment', that is to say NATS would no longer exist and we would be working not for NATS, but for 'Network Air' or 'Stagecoach', whoever. And that, I believe,is the difference for members pre and post PPP.

Sorry for the confusion.