alfie1999 ,

No one will listen

As in my previous post :ugh:

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:

That's a ball park wild arsed guess based on the difference between the maximum amount that NATS said at the briefing it could pay, roughly 30%, and the funding figure without the propsal which it says it can't afford which was 42% at the briefing I went to. It could be less, could be more and the danger with this approach is that we shift some of the obligation to underwrite the scheme from NATS to us and once we do that we'll struggle to give it back if there's another crisis in the future.

I refer the gentleman to the many answers I've previously given but would prefer him to go and ask the Union negotiators why they believe NATS when it says it can't pay 42%.

NATSnet today is positively boasting about NATS has an AAA credit rating. So how does that tie in with us losing money hand over fist, and being days away from going bust??

Latest from the scientific Pension vote poll :)

Poll Results latest


NO ....82%....69 :ok:

YES....18%....15 :(

Looking conclusive so far......and remember this, Management have gone from "there is no other option if you vote no" to "It depends on the size of the No Vote" ... FACT not fiction !

Vote Here http://static.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon2.gif
http://snappoll.com/poll/301858.php

I so hope your scientific poll is accurate. Incidentally, I know of at least one senior union rep (PCS) who is privately planning to vote no, despite being involved in the 'vote yes or our company will go under, there will be plagues of locusts and the moon will turn to blood' presentations.

I wonder how many other clost no voters there are among our union Quislings...;)

Wow, I sparked up the fire of debate there, didn't I?

I will admit that my first ever paragraph on pprune was ill thought, and therefore apologise to anyone who took offence, but there are posts on here based on pure supposition (I'm sure some will accuse mine of being one of them).

However, at no point did I make any personal attack on anyone (I feel my post was very vague in that respect) yet in return have been directly accused of being gullible, ignorant and at one point of being a man with a woman's name to hide my true identity(???). I assure you I am neither gullible nor ignorant, but very guilty of being a pprune virgin.

This is the most significant issue I have ever experienced in NATS having joined post PPP, which is why I sought the opinion of an independent pension specialist. I agree wholeheartedly that the union has handled this woefully, but I would still rather keep my powder dry for ATCO job losses ie failure of NSL contracts leading to redundancies, which I think is more likely after a no vote.

Feel free to swarm around my post, but leave the sting out please :(

MP Reply
 

At long last, my Lib Dem MP has replied to me re NATS:

Yea I know we are not being forced out of CAAPS, but the gist is, we are not being kept in CAAPS in the spirit that was promised.
I joined this Company when it was the CAA & the CAA current employees seem to be doing very well in CAAPS.

What a shame the Unions did not mount a political campaign FIRST, BEFORE getting into bed with the RB.
This is why the Unions are in for a shock when the votes come in, me thinks:(

Not a very scientific poll, the result should be 100% yes to the question posed "Will you be voting yes or no to the pension proposals". I doubt that the ballot will have a "maybe" or "don't know" option :}

Unless you don't vote at all, maybe that is a No? :bored:

Back to my Starbucks latte, methinks :ok:

RS

p.s. Vote Yes!

A question to those people who are considering a Yes vote in the ballot - What do you think is realistically going to happen in the event of a No vote?

It seems very unlikely that management and unions will accept that as a final decision and simply forget the entire matter until NATS may or may not face financial problems.

The probable outcome is another round of talks, during which the Union can go back and do it properly. If you think, as the Union and Management claim that this is the best deal possible, consider this - ask management for an extra £10 Xmas bonus this year in return for a guaranteed Yes vote, they'd bite our hands off.

Yes it's a stupid example, but the point is that this isn't the best deal possible, it's simply the best deal that our Union have manage to negotiate so far.

Send them back in there with a strong No vote in the ballot, the full backing of the membership and stop overtime (officially, by suspending the overtime agreement as per the mandate), see how long before Management magically come up with a better offer. If the original Union negotiators feel they can't go back, there are plenty of people I can think of who would have a go.

I'm not saying it will be vastly better than we have now, but this is a long term problem, we have nothing to gain by leaping at the first offer.
:=

Think about it before committing yourselves to a 15 year deal, once you vote Yes, there's no way back.

Is that true? I've never heard NATS state they could afford to pay 30%.
Remind me again what their contribution rate will be if and when the proposed changes happen?

AFFLECK

Valid point - how many people (either 'yes' or 'no' voters - it matters not) honestly believe that management do not have at least one fall back position?

For all that I dislike what management are doing to NATS, I don't accuse them of being stupid or reckless. They are good at achieving what they are trying to do for NATS as a profit making business (closing the pension is one such business aim); they are not stupid enoughto go into this with their eyes shut and say and say "this is the only solution available to us".

This is the solution hammered out between the unions and NATS. Remember, it is a deal both parties are happy with.

The union believed it had done enough to satisfy its members - the vote will tell whether that is true or not... NATS will have other options up its sleeve in the event that the union has read its members feelings over pensions wrong.

Anyone who believes that management have not left themselves any manoeuvring room is effectively saying that management are dumb.

Strange, considering that some 'yes' voters are trying to claim that people voting 'no' are doing so because they don't trust the ability of maanagement, but then they themselves obviously don't understand how management work if they don't believe/trust that management has fallback plans.

People who are saying a 'no' vote means re-nationalisation - do you honestly think that such a high powered and allegedley capable management team would gamble everything on an all or nothing strategy? :ugh:

Following the Pre-Budget Report, I think that anyone who believes that the government will take on the best part of £1billion in additional debt by renationalising NATS ought to seriously consider changing their therapist!

"The probable outcome is another round of talks, during which the Union can go back and do it properly"



The "union" were advised during the SDC on Friday to resign subject to a no vote though. As I said in my ill thought first post, these people won't be there to go back to the table. Who's there to take their place? I'm truly worried about that.

At the briefing I attended, someone suggested transferring NATS property ownership into the pension scheme to cover the deficit, as M&S had done to solve their problems. Apparently we can't do that as all NATS property is secured with loans.

What about asking the Government to transfer their share of ownership into the pension scheme. I'm sure, with the appropriate paperwork, that they can keep rights to it and it would still keep the actuaries happy.

Has this already been considered?

So exactly why do you think the Government would have any interest in bailing out your pension ?

Imagine the headline-

GORDON BROWN STEPS IN AT LAST MINUTE TO PREVENT AIR TRAFFIC STRIKE, TRAFFIC CHAOS NARROWLY AVERTED.

eglynt - There's your answer, he could do with the good press at the moment.

Not exactly true, the BEC were asked to consider their positions should there be a NO Vote.

They were also asked by delegates to strongly consider remaining in position as the delegates to conference believed that they were the best people to do the difficult job of negotiating on our behalf.

It used to be the case that a pearl handled revolver and a bottle of brandy were issued to such individuals in order for them to be seen to do the honourable thing.
They have fallen from grace, the trust has gone, and its time to bite the bullet. :(

Good friend of mine works for the NAT WEST & knows a bit about these things.
First thing he said was that the need for a new scheme was probable but not at the cost of current members FINAL SALARY scheme the current proposals end all of that naming the cap as the key ingredient. He could not imagine us voting yes for this, especially if you are already in.

Funnily enough he said "you'd have them over a barrel if you walked out anyway wouldn't you?" But we won't go into that will we :ugh:

Still a NO

Vote Here http://static.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon2.gif
http://snappoll.com/poll/301858.php :E

Latest from the scientific Pension vote poll http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

Poll Results latest


NO ....83%....82 http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

YES....17%....17 http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/sowee.gif

Looking conclusive so far......and remember this, Management have gone from "there is no other option if you vote no" to "It depends on the size of the No Vote" ... FACT not fiction ! So what does that tell you? Basically, they have another option and have been , lets say, economical with some of the facts and will be caught out if the no vote prevails!

Vote Here http://static.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon2.gif
http://snappoll.com/poll/301858.php

Lovin' it, lovin'it, lovin' it............VOTE NO:ok:

Text of latest Union newsletter:
QUOTE
Prospect ATCOs’ Branch held a Special Delegates Conference on the 22nd November, prior to the Annual Delegates Conference, in order to allow a full and proper discussion and debate to take place on the issue of pensions. One of the main points of discussion was the package of measures which had been negotiated with management and the conduct of the Pensions Negotiating Team during these discussions.
A very thorough examination of the issues took place during the full and frank debate, with comments and opinions given by delegates from all units. It was recognised by the BEC that issues such as communications and conflicting mandates could have been dealt with better and lessons need to be learnt for the future. The BEC would like members to be aware that it acknowledges its failings with regard to communications, and over the coming weeks will publish a report on how they will be improved in the future. On the substantive issue however, and after a full and proper debate, the Special Delegates Conference voted unanimously to support the position of the Branch Executive to recommend the pensions package to members.
Over the next few days you will be receiving your ballot paper. The Prospect ATCO Branch Executive, the ATCO Special Delegates Conference and the ATCO Annual Delegates Conference have all voted to recommend that members vote in favour of the proposals. This is a key issue and it is important that you are given the opportunity to take an informed view. AdditionalTrade Union Briefings are detailed below, please endeavour to attend a briefing if you have not already done so. If you have any questions about these briefings you should approach your unit Rep or a member of the BEC.
UNQUOTE

Seems clear enough to me. No need to argue about it any more on here, then!;)

Indeed , that's it then, game over. Do we actually still need a ballot now?:E

1 validation given up by me this week and no more AAVA's :)

Good on you mate :ok:

Eglnyt,

reposting for clarification.


Quote:
That's a ball park wild arsed guess based on the difference between the maximum amount that NATS said at the briefing it could pay, roughly 30%, and the funding figure without the propsal which it says it can't afford which was 42% at the briefing I went to.


Is that true? I've never heard NATS state they could afford to pay 30%.
Remind me again what their contribution rate will be if and when the proposed changes happen?

Interesting to note that the poll in the NATS forum, where only NATS employees are permitted, the results are 60/40 in favour of a 'no', rather than 83/17 in favour of a 'no' in the public vote........

The average of both then is about 71/29 in favour of NO

Del Prado

Some of the briefing material includes predictions by Mercer of the likely underlying rate with the proposals in place. I don't have access to that material right now to quote the exact rate but it is up at about the 30% which is 10% more than present. It stays quite high for quite a long time and then slowly starts to come down as the balance between people on the two schemes changes.

What interested me from the Prospect circular was that after all the stuff coming down the grapevine about our colleagues north of the border being in open revolt following their calls for the SDC, it was a unanimous vote in favour of the position negotiated by the BEC.

Roffa
Think there is a lot of politics attached to the unanimous vote for the BEC. There is a lot going on up North right now and it was a case of damage limitation mate.
Think a lot of reps there will still be voting NO.

According to Barron's blog, he had a meeting with Hoon and Fitzpatrick today...hmmm...wonder what that was about? Doesn't matter though does it as "it's not a matter for the government"...tw*ts:rolleyes:

And exactly what are you averaging?

NATS forum, where only NATS employees are permitted, the results are 60/40 in favour of a 'no', rather than 83/17 in favour of a 'no' in the public vote........

Very basic maths gives an ave. of 71/29 aprox. in favour of NO :)

I thought it was rather obvious, sorry if you were confused

Only if exactly 100 people have voted in both polls.

Incorrect, I am averaging the percentages of the votes, not the number who actually voted.

I thought that was obvious :bored:

60+40 =100 , 83+17 = 100 , 71+29 .......wait for it = 100 http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

I know you like detail, so just for you, to prevent any more confusion :rolleyes:

In mathematics, a percentage is a way of expressing a number as a fraction of 100 (per cent meaning "per hundred"). It is often denoted using the percent sign, "%". For example, 45% (read as "forty-five percent") is equal to 45 / 100, or 0.45.
Percentages are used to express how large one quantity is relative to another quantity. The first quantity usually represents a part of, or a change in, the second quantity, which should be greater than zero. For example, an increase of $ 0.15 on a price of $ 2.50 is an increase by a fraction of 0.15 / 2.50 = 0.06. Expressed as a percentage, this is therefore a 6% increase.
Although percentages are usually used to express numbers between zero and one, any dimensionless proportionality can be expressed as a percentage. For instance, 111% is 1.11 and −0.35% is −0.0035.

Damage limitation for who?

I thought there was a general feeling on this site that the BEC had done a poor job and it was time to go. If the feeling on here is reflected nationwide, then why would the most vociferous unit and critics do anything other than push for what is, supposedly, the majority feeling?

I would have thought they would have canvassed hard for additional support and pushed the "no confidence" option. Maybe I'm missing something here?

interesting reading
 

As the Pension thread on NATSNET has been squirelled away to a small box, the following may have been missed by people.

An interesting link, posted on the intranet thread, worth a read... dated 2001!!

http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/151...on-danger.html

So, it seems although actuaries have not as yet managed to do a good job of looking into the future as far as our pension is concerned, others painted a pretty close picture of todays events...

Also on the intranet - the following... on the new Q&A site

What has the RPI pay increase been over the past 15 years?
< Back
What has the RPI pay increase been over the past 15 years?
Pay has not always been RPI related – it is only in the last few years when we have agreed multi-year pay deals that RPI has been referred to regularly. In addition, the level of rise has been different for different groups with some getting rises in excess of RPI+0.5% in some years and others not. Therefore there is no one figure that provides a useful guide. Also, past increases are not a guide to future rises – clearly overall deals are related to the health of the company and to productivity improvements.


Strange how our money experts seem unable to work out the average RPI and pay rise over the past 15 years to give a straight answer... an answer that will show that a cap of RPI+0.5% will make a huge difference to the ratio of our 'final salary' pension... 50% final salary or less, anyone??

Obviously a straight and honest answer would indicate clearly what the cap will do to us, and is therefore deemed not suitable by the management.

These same money experts who cannot do basic arithmetical sums and a little bit of digging for historical data, are the ones who are ruining our fund!!

It's only obvious to people who are not particularly numerate.
An average of two percentages is only meaningful if weighted according to their respective sample sizes. It seemed pretty obvious what had been done, but not obvious what inference could be drawn from this bit of arbitrary arithmetic.
:ugh:
:ugh:
:ugh:

I apologise, I incorrectly considered all on here to have a grasp of very basic maths and common sense. :ok:
You can infer from this bit of arbitrary arithmetic that there is a good chance that the vote will go in favour of the NO VOTE. I thought that was obvious too :E

I think you mean It's only obvious to people who are particularly numerate