Memorandum of Understanding? What is it? Its non existing.....

How can you possibly vote yes? This misterious promise isnt even written and wont be until after a "yes vote".

So how can we be sure it wont be a load of s***?

If you need any reason to vote no then surely no matter what "facts" you have been shown this is the real reason to.

VOTE NO

I don't think such fantasy is really getting back to basics. Presumably these two airlines also engineered the demise of all those other pension funds just to scare us.

You also have a rather strange take on the PPP deal. The Airline Group didn't screw us over it was the Government that did that. The Airline Group were actually pretty reluctant partners. The deal done was driven by the Treasury's need to fill an £800 million hole in its accounts whilst avoiding anything that could possibly look like a privatisation.

Neither the Airline Group or any of the other bidders had £800 million to buy half of NATS and even if they had it was, and still is, a pretty lousy investment. Although NATS generates a fair amount of cash it doesn't actually make anywhere near the return you'd expect for that sum of money especially as it needed £1 Billion of investment over the next 15 years after years of neglect.

It is a standard city deal to borrow against the asset you are about to buy and then transfer that debt into the company once you've brought it. In essence it isn't much different to buying your house on a mortgage which is secured against the property. With the Government's encouragement a deal of that type was done and the Government rode of with £800 million. The Airline Group was left in control of a financially unstable company and NATS was left holding the debt.

You may think that the Airline Group got a good deal but actually they didn't. In their evidence to the National Audit Office during the review of the NATS re-financing both unsuccessful bidders said it was a poor deal that they wouldn't have been happy with and the truth of that was seen shortly after PPP when NATS was effectively bankrupt and several of the airlines wrote off their investment.

Erm...I dunno :eek:

And none of those apply to eglnyt.

There is some brilliant stuff on here, and I am for one am a NO voter. However we need a No campaign at all units, there are too many Yes people and Too many undecided for my liking.

We need loads of info putting into a short precise document highlighting the reasons why this deal is not a good one. Now obviously that is the job of our NTUS reps, but we know where thay stand!!!!

We have until December to make our voices heard and ensure this diabolical proposal does not get voted in.

Lets get started.

Well I thought that the NATS/NTUS roadshow was doing a damn good job.They were preaching on about voting yes,and the result was people seemed to want to vote no.:D
I just thought how many times has this combination shafted me,and the unit in the last 18 years.Lost count.How many times have they really helped us.ZERO.:yuk:
Game,Set and Match.Here we go again,so I walked out.

I totally agree. So far on this site I've read nothing other than a load of emotive garbage (DB9's, union reps seeking promotion etc. etc. etc.) and nothing factual which would incline me to say no. So how about it all you nay sayers, got some cold, hard information which we could assess?

BD

Reasons to vote no??? How many do you need:ugh:

Memorandum of understanding...not even written yet, not legally binding, therefore total rubbish.

Two tier pension scheme....bad news.

Our own pension...which we will be worse offer under.

Future t & c's.....which we will shafted over if we vote this in.

The general principle....of top level management getting bonuses and payrises, and before you start going about PCGs etc...I DONT GIVE A F***...it is no excuse for 13% payrises whilst you expect everybody else to get less than RPI.


I now expect you to defend your position, which presumably is " Yes please Mr. Barron, please let me and my family have the opportunity to be worse offer in the future, by allowing me to vote yes", in the style of management and union...i.e with a load of figures and statistics, with a spin on them that Alastair Campbell would be proud of. Bring it on....I am voting NO...nothing you say will change my mind.:ok:

I had the chance to listen to our GM giving the party line about pensions etc.
I then asked will NSL be sold off.Pregnant pause,look away,errr No.
Guess the ''For sale'' sign outside the tower is just round the corner then.As they say here'' Never trust nobody''..:hmm:

Just one, if its not too much trouble.
Just remind me how ATC operate inter unit? Something called an MoU?
Why? Legally NATS cannot force you out of CAAPS.
And the option is what? Let the current scheme fold? I keep hearing this garbage about the company having plenty of spare cash. Ask anyone involved in finance or projects and they'll tell you how things really are. There is a global downturn and flights are tailing off (however until airlines start cancelling new aircraft orders I think this is a blip) but this problem arose before then.
In your opinion.
Apples and oranges cannot be compared.

See above. One thing I don't want is to put my pension at risk because of some other peoples 'fears' and misperceptions.

You've still not given a single hard fact as to why no. Answers on a postcard to the usual address please.

BD

No, because I've just made all that stuff up haven't I??:ugh:

NATS can if, they see fit, throw me out of the CAAPS because I joined AFTER July 2001...that just shows how narrowminded you are that you have only considered your own position and not that of the people who are not protected by the Trust of a Promise.

If you think we are protected by the Memorandum of Understanding you are sadly deluded.This is even less watertight than the T of a P.

As for not having any money, why was The Times story pulled then? Sadly, you and Mr Barron (for once) are not reading from the same page. You can't have it both ways. If you think the govt would let us go bust, again, what planet are you on????

STILL VOTING NO :):):)

BDiONU,

Not true I'm afraid for the 30% (the figure quoted to us from the Union in our pension briefing) of staff who now work for NATS who joined after PPP.

The only promise we have is from the Union who have said that we wouldn't be forced onto a new scheme.

This is the same Union who said onenatsonepension and said that we were 'keeping the powder dry' for the Pensions issue.

Forgive me for being cynical and misplacing any trust that I may or may not have for the Union, but just a verbal assurance from them that post-PPP people won't at some point in the not too distant future be moved onto the new pension is most definately not enough for me.

Couple of points. The terrifying bar chart used to scare us all, the one where the deficit goes from about a pound to 595m in a month or so, the guy from Mercers even said this was unusual and would recover. Also the woman from HR who didnt really answer anything, and wasn't really any use claimed the MoU WAS a legally binding document. Is this not a load of tosh, since a legally binding document would be just that, without any need for an "understanding"????
And again as people have pointed out, NATS don't need 125m extra, only in total, so about 60m extra. I was throughly dissapointed with the briefings, came away with more questions than answers which I'm afraid swings my vote the opposite direction to which the union would like.
Oh and we also got told Barron originally wanted a seperate deal for NERL and NSL....

Hmmmm...and I wonder why, exactly, that was?? SALE.

Lots of talk about the pension scheme depending on a healthy company, but what about a healthy company being dependent on a motivated and enthusiastic workforce?

A message to Paul Baron...Change my pension at your peril! I currently do a number of things that are above & beyond the basic requirements of my job. See what happens to those things if you force these changes through.

Tell you what, why don't you ring him up personally and tell him? He has invited people to do so on the company intranet. One lucky TC controller even got his very own private and personal barstool session with him.

BD

Actually BDiONU, Mr Barron did turn up at Swanwick, but went to the AC Ops room, not the TC one... not the best way to find a TC controller. The TC Controller in question, who was still on watch whilst Mr Barron was in the AC Ops room, finished his spin shift before Mr Barron found the correct room...:ugh:

Fact - I was there!!

Yes I'm aware of the circumstances of the 'incident' which led up to PB's arrival. I'm sure the jungle drums have been beating around the company as well, as there has been a decrease in comments in similar vein.

BD

I think the main problem for me personally in this whole scenario is the finality
with which this proposal has been presented. There is apparently no room for any kind of compromise and places the responsibility for 'saving' the company
firmly on the shoulders of the workforce. If this is an opening offer and there is room for negotiation in the result of a no vote - ie the company making some changes to fund some of the deficit and scaled down changes to
the pension scheme then it is duplicitous in the extreme to present it with a "take this offer or else" subtext.
The other problem seems to be a lack of information. I have no idea what managements' opening stance was on this issue and as such find it difficult to objectively rate the offer which has now been presented. I understand that every member being consulted every week on every issue is unworkable and unrealistic. However, understanding how the Union ended up changing their (my?) policy so drastically may help put the offer into context. The ethereal nature of the MoU makes it hard to place any faith in
it, especially for those of us who joined post PPP.
I'm no conspiracy theorist and have to believe that the union has our best
interests at heart but feel like I'm being blackmailed into voting for a solution
where the workers (both current and future) foot the bill.

aewaite,
Where have you met these people?