eglnyt

0.55% = 0.5K loss :)
0.625% = 1K loss
0.75% = 2K loss
1% = 4K loss
1.5% = 8K loss
2.5% (LAST 10 year ave.) 16k loss

If NATS goes under,here we go again:ugh: HMG who own 49% will take over the rest and the Pension, otherwise we will go on strike! Remember NATS is crucial to the infrastrucure of UK security,safety,economy. NATS must continue to operate at full efficiency. The country would collapse with no aviation, no food, no tourism, no business!
I think any level headed individual would agree NATS can not "go under" if the private side fails, why do you think HMG has the major stake? Here we go again :ugh:UK SAFETY, ECONOMY, SECURITY.

That is why HMG retain the major share :ugh:

I also, await, as ever, a convoluted and overly verbose reply from your good self explaining the error of my ways.

yours sincerely

Vote No :)

It's the nature of my profession to lay down the entire argument when making a case so I'm trained to be verbose and convoluted. I accept that may be a problem when dealing with those who are trained to get a lot of information over in as few words as possible. (I only added this bit so as not to disapppoint you http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif
:) )

You can chose 1.5% if you think that is what you'll get. As that is the figure the Actuary uses and I believe them to be pessimistic I've gone for a lower figure especially based on my recent pay rises. I asked the question just to see what people were using because some have posted figures of greater than £12K worse off.

The longer you have until retirement, the greater the deficit will be. I have 25 years left and joined NATS quite late on (for an ATCO anyway) so my deficit is lower. There are guys I work with who are in their mid/late 20s who stand to lose in excess of £10k per year using the same figures I have used.

How does that compare to an ATSA1 in NATS? About the same except that the NATS employee isn't expected (or required) to risk their life in hot & sandy places.
Takes many years to reach that rank with a lot of associated hard work to climb the pyramid. Its not like being NATS staff with yearly spine point increases without lifting a finger in doing stuff over and above your day job.
And your average ATCO in NATS (bearing in mind that the number in area vastly outweighs aerodrome) earns a bit more (plus shift pay) without any promotion board either.
When I left the RAF in Jan 2000 as a Flight Sergeant I earned £26845.75. I was an ATCO in LJAO, so fairly closely equivalent to a civil AC ATCO. I started work as an APS for NATS on £28,768 plus shift pay of nearly £4000 with no secondary duties, responsible for no one working for me, no possibility of being sent to dangerous places and no possibility of welding a couple of aircraft together. Thats my comparison.
NATS pay isn't in the public domain and I can't be fagged to work them out.
I joined up in October 74 and am aware of the pay issues then. If you served with people who weren't complaining about pay you must have been very lucky!

Thanks for producing the stats to back up your response though :ok:

BD

Alfie1999

I'm ex forces, now a NATS ATCO. I have to concur with BDiONU.

As an Officer, I had numerous (unpaid and un-volunteered for) secondary duties, was moved from pillar to post (NATS staff don't really know what a mobile grade can mean!); was responsible (without extra pay) for the career advancement and pastoral care of junior officers/rankers below me; was eligible for postings to less salubrious area where I could get shot at.

And the pay, as an Officer (can't remember what my salary was when I left in 2001), was nowhere near as good as I get now as an ATCO (taking into consideration subsequent pay rises after I left) and I'm not anywhere near the top of scale yet)

The two are just not even remotely comparable when you take everything into consideration!

Trying to compare salaries is a non starter whatever jobs you compare, unless you are talking a direct like for like i.e. shelf stacking at Sainsburys compared to shelf stacking at Tescos etc

eglnyt

I am astounded you have not picked my post http://www.pprune.org/4547587-post1459.html

to pieces yet, is there any chance, however small, you might actually agree with a miniscule part of my account of what will likely happen ? :)

If NATS goes under,here we go again:ugh: HMG who own 49% will take over the rest and the Pension, otherwise we will go on strike! Remember NATS is crucial to the infrastrucure of UK security,safety,economy. NATS must continue to operate at full efficiency. The country would collapse with no aviation, no food, no tourism, no business!
I think any level headed individual would agree NATS can not "go under" if the private side fails, why do you think HMG has the major stake? Here we go again :ugh:UK SAFETY, ECONOMY, SECURITY.

That is why HMG retain the major share :ugh:

I hear this a an argument for a "safety net". Please show me where it states that the status quo would apply.

Do you trust them?

If HMG wants NATS to operate, I would gamble in HMG maintaining the status quo. Politics aside, I would rather we were back with HMG 100% , but the capitalists amongst you may beg to differ :)
Like I said, if NATS private part failed, HMG would continue the Pension status quo, because if they didn't they would have a strike on their hands. A 2 hour NAS glitch brings aviation to a standstill, a strike could not even be contemplated, and that is why I would gamble :)

As this ground was covered several hundred posts ago I didn't think there was any point. Nobody knows what would happen in that circumstance so your post is as possible as any that I could make. I know what the legislation says and that is contained in the previous posts but what will actually happen will depend upon what the Government decides to do and anybody who claims to know that is only guessing.

I accept that the industrial action option might be attractive for controllers. For others I think it would be a different matter and many of us would lose our jobs. That has a far worse effect on my pension than even the most optimistic RPI + pay rise in the modeller.

My opinion is that the Government has turned NATS staff over several times since 1997 so I'm not relying on them to save my pension or my job.

I wonder what the PATCO members thought before they went on strike in the USA back in 1981?

I dont think you can compare Reagan with HMG :)

Different country, different era, and different legislation governing strike action by employees and Governmental actions.

So not an option:ok:

Pension protection
 

"If you are a member of an eligible scheme, and you have reached the scheme's normal pension age, we will generally pay you 100 per cent compensation for what you should have received at the time your employer went bust. We will also generally pay 100 per cent compensation to those who have retired on legitimate ill-health grounds, regardless of age, and to those receiving a pension in relation to someone who has died. These payments are not subject to the compensation cap set out below.
If you have retired but have not yet reached the normal pension age of your scheme, we will pay you up to 90 per cent compensation. The same applies if you are yet to start receiving pension payments. This level of compensation is subject to an overall cap which is recalculated each year. Between April 2008 and March 2009, the cap at the age of 65 equates to £27,770.72 (once account was taken of the 90 per cent level of compensation).
In all cases, increases in future payments won't be as much as expected.":(

Another point to consider - is it fair that two people who do the same job for the same company, who get paid the same, retire on the same day with full pension entitlement (38 and a bit years) in a defined benefit scheme, receive a different amount per year in their pension? Surely this is no longer a defined benefit scheme anymore??

This is very likely with a cap on pensionable earnings. The fixed pay deal sounds a much better option (not necessarily a good one though!) as it removes any chance of such a strange situation occuring.

if only that were true.:p

Landed Out Again

Explain how you think that could happen any more than currently.

There are a number of ways in which your pensionable pay can be calculated and if either of the two's pensionable pay was more beneficial calculated by one of those alternatives then they might get more at present.

eglnyt - you cant agree with anything can you!

I'll try to make it more obvious for you though - it is very likely that two people who have had careers identical in every respect except for a 'join' date, who have had the same salary for the last 20 years +, who at no point have had any differences to pensionable pay, could receive a different pension under this proposal even if they retire on the same day, and have accrued the maximum 2/3rds pension.

Its morally wrong - and it wouldnt be a defined benefit scheme. If you cant tell me what % of my final salary i will receive on retirement, you cannot call this a DB scheme any more.


ERIC, not biting on that one :}

Sorry to be obvious, but if two people join on different days and retire on the same day,their careers have not been identical!

thats why it says EXCEPT for that one point :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

isnt it reasonable that if you and I make the same now, both work for the next five years, making the same during that time, and then retire together with maximum entitlement, that we should receive the same?

How much clearer do I need to be?

Landed Out

I didn't disagree, I asked you why you think that is the case because I'm trying to understand the point you are making. And although you think you've made it clear I still don't quite understand how they have different pensionable pay at the point they retire.

Where is the evidence that pensions are ever fair? If I work for 10 years in the same grade and someone else in a lower grade for the first six years gets promoted twice in the last four years, who do you think will get the higher pension? Who will have paid most into the scheme?

anotherthing,


BDIONU made a claim about the how well (or otherwise) the armed forces are paid and I replied with comparisons to the average national wage.

BDIONU then chose to answer points that hadn't been made using spurious comparisons he created himself but avoided answering the one inconvenient question I did ask.

I'm sure we're all familiar with these debating methods on this thread by now.

I gave you a very specific example of myself and how generous the pay I received when I first started working for NATS in a pseudo controller role as opposed to being a military controller. What more do you need, copies of my pay statements (I do have them available)?

BD

Anyway, getting back to the vote on our Pension .........:oh:

eglnyt, it would likely be based on when a scheme member reaches maximum accrual for the benefits. If we both retired in 2 years on same pay, and ive worked for 41 years and you have for 39, I could take home more than you. This is wrong. And, the benefit is no longer definable. The fixed rise suggestion is better because the benefit IS still defined relative to salary.

I'm beginning to think that the proposal's implications have not been fully thought through. Would it help if I said I can see a scenario whereby an ATCO who started in 1996 could potentially bypass (legitimately!) the effect that this cap may have on everyone else? I'll let you or someone else work that one out!

I agree with some of the principles behind the proposals, but I think there are too many flaws with it as it stands.

As I said you made a claim about how well (or otherwise) the armed forces are paid and I replied with comparisons to the national wage.

You chose to then make comparisons with NATS employees and start rebutting points I hadn't actually made.

It's a common debating technique that you see at most pmq's usually employed by one of the nu-liebour stooges.

Not that i'm accusing you of being a NL voter!!!!!!

But this thread is about NATs staff
You set up your points, I quoted them in each response I made to your points. Anotherthing responded similarly.
Phew! Thank goodness for that, or I'd have had to call you out ;)

BD

Scheme members who have less than 10 years to go can vote yes in the knowledge that the cap and its attendant compounding affect probably won't take too much out of their final benefits.

However, for those in their mid-40s or younger the issue is far more complicated as they are the ones who will bear the brunt of these proposals and be faced with a possible 1/2 final salary scheme (or worse).

Must have been a quiet day on the sectors today with 3 pages of slagging i one day....what all you guys going to do on your breaks once all this is sorted???

That sad its still a geat big NO from me

Gonzo

Negative Captain! Surplus is current commitments vs pension contributions. The future pension benfiits are what the underlying rate is about. And if NATS had paid the underlying rate then a surplus would always exist as future pension outgoings, higher than currently, will need to be met, assuming the number of pensioners increases (i.e longevity) and/or pay is above inflation.


In december 2003 there was a surplus of £296.2m realtive to the technical provisions

Technical provisions - actives (excluding any reserve for future expenses)

Imagine if NATS had 1 current pensioner(A) who is drawing a pension and 1future pensioner (B) who retires in 10 years.

100% funding means that NATS have enough money going into the fund to meet the liabilities of paying out for the current pensioner A.

The underlying rate is how much you need to put in so that in 10 years time when the second pensioner B retires, there will be enough in the pot to pay for both A and B until they are assumed to kick their respective buckets

so, here's the issue....

scenario 1: if NATS only pays in enough to maintain 100% funding (i.e. paying for current pensioner A then in 10 years time when future pensioner B retires, NATS will need to put in a big wad of cash to enable future pensioner B to be paid out.

scenario 2: if NATS pay the underlying rate, the ongoing pot will pay the current pensioner and have a surplus for future pensioner which will continue to grow until 10 years elapse and future pensioner retires. At that time the surplus will slowly reduce, and will be sufficient to pay the two pensioners, until their assumed life expectancy.


In summary, NATS have paid in less than the rate (R) needed to maintain 100% funding as they saw that there was a surplus, which could be whittled down, to make up the difference to meet the rate (R) need for 100% funding

:ok: I think that clears that up, children...I wonder if this thread will reach a hundred pages?

As I understand it, the Pension Trustees can only force NATS to make up the shortfall in 100% funding - i.e if the fund is in deficit- and thats where the "recovery plan"* comes in. The deficit occurs when values of assets go down (as they have in recent financial turmoil) and when contributions are low (just like what NATS have been doing). The trustees will not demand 37% for underlying costs but enough for the fund to be able to contnue paying out for current pensioners (and not future pensioners)

*recovery plan: a document summarising a plan of action for correcting a shortfall over an agreed period - source: 2006 Triennial Valuation

landedoutagain
Why is this, in particular, wrong? If you stopped contributing 2 years ago, your saved contributions have been earning for an extra two years (or losing in bad years?)

Isn't that the subtle difference between defined benefit and defined contribution schemes? In fact, at the point of retirement, the benefit is definable - it's just not predictable.

No - they will try to ensure that, at any time, the fund is able to cover current liabilities, which includes payments to current pensioners and all future pensions earned to date. (In a year's time, the current pensioners will have changed and the earned future pensions will also have changed.)
The current liabilities for an ATCO about to retire will be about £1million, for a 20-year-old MSG7 with one month in the scheme about £500 but they will both need to be covered by the scheme's assets - if the scheme is closed to everyone now, it will have to be able to cover the rights that both have earned.

Pelton, its wrong because it makes a mockery of the phrase ' defined benefit '. And, as you correctly point out, I would be even better off because I had stopped contributing. So a double whammy for you. Still think thats fair?!


"Isn't that the subtle difference between defined benefit and defined contribution schemes? In fact, at the point of retirement, the benefit is definable - it's just not predictable."

On your date of retirement, you will find out how much you get under either scheme... A DB scheme you will KNOW what %age of pay you get beforehand - ie, its defined. Under a DC scheme you do not know. (I feel like i am saying the same thing again tho! sry!)

Does any one know what happened at the special delegates conference?

Affleck

They voted in favour of number one, to support the BEC to continue negotiating with the management.

FB:ok:

I assume some one came up with a good argument to go for option 1, seems like a good opportunity to stop this madness wasted.

Looking on the bright side, at least we can get on with voting NO to get our message across.

Anything controversial that they did not vote for?

landedoutagain
Well you would have been contributing to the scheme at a time when every penny counted, rather than late in life when you probably have spare cash..
BUT I don't think pensions are ever fair - see my post about late promotions under the current scheme!
I don't know whether you've read the conditions of the current scheme for times of falling RPI. Someone retiring last year whose pension has been indexed up can have it indexed down (at least as far as its original level). Someone retiring this year whose pension is based on a final salary indexed up by RPI can't have their pension indexed down below the higher level awarded this year. Is this fair?
I can find lots of anomalies in the current scheme (but I am not an advocate of DC schemes, they just seem to be inevitable - the view of one of my daughter's friends who is a trainee actuary).

If the union reps attending the special delegates conference were supposed to be representing the common member (the majority of whose views looking through this thread seem pretty clear), how did option 1 get voted in?

I'd encourage people to ask their local reps whether they were voting for their personal views or those of the people they represent. :ugh: