Northerner/Junior X

Valid comments - however as we have to AAVA to fill WPP for all sectors, it would just be a case of management massaging validations to reduce the shortrfall in some sectors.

The fact of the matter is, The 3 core sectors need the people they have at the moment, and more, to fulfill WPP. So apart from a buggeration factor, their would in actual fact, be no real gain in manpower.

Sure, during the next year/18 months whilst traffic levels recover (and they will recover and go beyond the previous peak), it might work, but long term, the shortfall is still there.

Of course, that would mean looking at manpower issues long term, which of course we know NATS is not particularly adept at!!

Anotherthing,

Completely agree, but my point is that saying you are going to give up extra validations is not as straightforward as it may seem. Some people who intend to do this need to be aware that by doing so they are potentially putting themselves in danger of having to retrain. Like I said in my post earlier, it's something to bear in my mind before people make knee jerk reactions if the vote doesn't go the way they hope.

Bottom line is that this is probably the most important benefit that people work for. Closing the scheme i believe was inevitable but one step too far with the cap which unless payrises stay below rpi+.5 then we stand to lose out. This has left people with the good will and effort that they have put in ie extra sectors, meetings/working groups as a kick in the teeth and inevitably the withdrawal of this by some individuals inevitable if a yes vote. Also the union are probably aware of the possibility of potential subscription cancellations as a result of how strongly some feel. Yes working to rule is a form industrial action, but people who decide their rostered time off is now more important to them, than a working group meeting it is very difficult to pin on anyone.
As for the vote myself either way it goes i will respect the majority, even if I feel we have lost the hold on the dearest thing to most of us.

Nope, some of us applied and joined the CAA. Some probably did so with some government department which managed ATC even before that.

Nice emotional blackmail attempt .. vote yes or everyone in NSL loses their job !!

The fact is, that regardless of the vote result, then most of us would expect to join our comrades in the union in whatever balloted action is required to save jobs throughout the company should NATS use the result as an excuse to sack people. So, I would hope most of us would stand by our colleagues in NSL, even taking appropriate industrial action in NERL if that is what is needed. Who knows, maybe our national Prospect officer would even feel able to support us in taking industrial action ... as long as we weren't fighting for something which gets us something better than Prospect have got for anyone else, in which case there's no way he could stand up and defend us ... if you believe what he said at the Pensions briefings.

NSL are also in some way falling victim to a corporate management who seem to always want to negotiate an airport contract at a going rate which is less than it actually costs the company (allegedely). How can anyone survive in business if everything you sell is a loss leader ??

There are still staff shortages in NERL at all the ACC units, which cannot operate efficiently without AAVAs and staff goodwill. I'm sure that any NSL staff would be assured a warm welcome to NERL to help us attain our agreed operational strength if their posts disappeared at any particular airport.

But how do you survive in business if you always bid more than the opposition ?

Fenella

I'm sorry to point out, but I feel that if the vote is yes, the ultimate result will be no NSL at all!! As was stated at my briefing, the union see it as highly likely that NSL will start giving up "loss making contracts" once the deal goes through, and when asked what's to stop them giving up ALL of their contracts and effectivly selling off NSL, their reply was that "yes, that is entriely possible"!!!

Voting yes for this deal makes the company much more financially attractive to any potential buyers and as soon as the deal goes through, an attempt to sell off the whole NSL section will quite possibly happen and where will all your NSL colleagues jobs (and indeed pensions!!) be then?!? It certainly seems a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation, but its a situation of management's making and they can damn well sort it out themselves!!

FB:ok:

Fenella

Why would people who worked at an airport that NATS suddenly lost it's contract for lose their jobs?

Will the airport close for 2 years or so while people are recruited and trained?? Of course not.

The employees may well find future Ts and Cs changed, but you cant just draft in some ATCOs from Poland and start doing the job... who would train them?

The fact of the matter is, NATS has long term loss making contracts at several airports - the reason they have negotiated those contracts in that manner is known only to the management people.

To put it another way - why should I lose out on my pension because NATS chooses to lose money on its contracts?

The fact of the matter is, I believe that NATS will only ever be 'A World Leader In ATM' if it continues to have controllers/ATSAs/ATCEs at Area and Airfield units... it would be a sad day if we started shedding too many contracts.

However a 'yes' vote makes the sale of NSL even more realistic as it reduces the pension liability to any future buyer.

I suggest anyone who has any doubts about the possibiility of the sale of NSL or part of it, need to look at Mr Barrons previous employment history.

He specialises in taking large companies, splitting them into smaller entities, then selling off the bits he does not want. He then closes the pension scheme of the parts of the company he holds on to.

He has a proven track record of this, he is very good at it. Maybe looking at it purely as business, you have to agree that what he is doing makes sense... (but not in a way that would maintain our standing as a good ANSP).


Oh, and once he has done the hatchet job, he leaves the company, negotiates a golden 'hello' in the form of a lump sum (to cover loss of pension contributions), then transfers his pension into the new company (before changes to his old pension take hold).

During the recent Irish dispute the IAA threatened to take the union to court because staff were not accepting overtime. The jist of the argument being that although it was a voluntary agreement, management had a right to expect overtime attendances because that had become normal working practise.

I can't find the reference but the thread's here

Another thing to consider that the only bit of NATS business that is ringfenced and subject to economic regulation is the Area functions, provided from the centres (Including TC), and services to North Sea helis, provided by both Area and Approach rated controllers up here in the frozen (Although less so today) north.

That is the only bit of the business that is subject to the price cap, NSL can charge what they like, as long as people are willing to pay the price (Ie not Manchester)

As I understand it, any new business, be it Area or Approach based that NATS goes after and subsequently provides will have to fall under the NSL banner.

Ergo, the only way we can pull ourselved out of the current mongolian clusteryouknowtherest is by growing the NSL side of the business.

And they can't do that if NSL is sold off.

I'm leaning towards a no at the mo, and I am one of a peculiar bunch of miscreants who have a foot in both the NERL and the NSL camp. And as a unit we're making a profit at the moment.

Much has been talked previously about how NATS is essential to running of country etc. Something that occurred to me over the weekend...if in the worst case scenario NATS do go on strike, how much non-UK air traffic would be impact?

Presumably a fair amount of trans-atlantic flights that are not to or from UK are controlled by NATS at some point. If NATS is 'off air' is there a fallback plan for these?

ProM

Majority of European transatlantic traffic would be affected, inbound and outbound flights.

If they managed to get round the 'not flying through UK airspace' issue (possible), it could incur huge costs in extra fuel.

Upshot would be either a huge loss in profit for the airlines, or a big increase in ticket prices for those days. That in turn would mean less people would fly because of the hike in cost...

Because of the position of the UK and it's airspace, any closure not just of the major airports in the UK but the airspace itself, would have an enormous knock-on effect for mainland continental Europe and US/Canada.

The UK is a major hub, in both terms of airports and airspace.

Cuddles

there are many reasons why NATS should keep NSL and maintain a very strong presence in airports... your point is on of the more important ones. Unfortunately, NATS has quite a few loss making contracts on its books - I suppose it's a fine balance of getting contracts or making money.

I for one would happily see the company lose some money in some areas if we made an overall profit - it it meant that NATS could continue to be a 'leader in ATM'.

As soon as NATS stops or drastically reduces the number of coal face workers it has at either an airport or area unit the knowlwedge will go, and we could no longer be the expert we aim/claim to be.

If we don't have people doing the job on the coal face at airports, how can we convince customers that we are knowledgeable in the field, and therefore why would they come to us for other services borne out of experience of actually doing the job?

The sale of NSL would be a great mistake, I honestly believe that reducing pension liability i.e. voting 'yes' is one step further down the road to doing that.

Cuddles
Well what if just the unprofitable parts are dispensed with then?

I understand NSL are having some success in seeking to re-negotiate some of their more challenging contracts.
I'm afraid you can't hang the emotional blackmail of suggesting that if we vote no and insist on NSL paying 42% pens conts, people will lose their jobs. These contracts have been loss-making in some cases while NSL has been paying 12% contributions.... So the fault is not with the pension.

I don't want to see anybody lose their job.

Eglnyt said,


I thought the current contribution rate was 12.2%. If NATS can afford 30% contribution rate and they've wanted to address the underlying rate for several years then why haven't they been paying 30% since they discovered there was a problem?

Surely not to run down the scheme until we were forced into accepting changes?

Del Prado,

come now, behave.

That would imply that Barron et al have been very clever in this affair

What would someone who gets bonuses based on the financial health of NATS gain from closing down an expensive pension scheme and replacing it with a cheaper one?!! :}

anotherthing, at least we're safe in the knowledge they haven't been able to make the pension look even worse by changing life expectancy assumptions used to calculate future liabilities.:suspect:

For that they'd need to have NATS board members on the board of trustees.:eek:


I wonder what life expectancy is being used to calculate future liabilities and how that compares to other pension schemes.

Del Prado

I know what you mean :ok:

I know this is not just about ATCO's - I know NATS is about a hell of a lot more than just ATCO's.

However it is a fact that shift workers - ATCOs/ATSAs/ATCEs, have a lower than average life expectancy.

However that life expectancy has risen since records began, along with the life expectancy of everyone else in the developed world.

It worries me that the 'experts' only just stumbled across the fact in the past 18 months. Of course the fact that it helps strengthen the 'we can't afford the pension' case is a coincidence :suspect:.

Also, if they had taken account of the fact several years ago, the underlying rate that NATS should have been paying (but haven't been) would have been slightly higher, meaning that the difference between that rate and the new anticipated rate would not have been as large.

However, that would not have the same impact, so wasn't to the benefit of NATS!

Mind you, I'm also a bit disconcerted that our money 'experts' within NATS have only just heard about SMART pensions...

I'm not really into conspiracy theories, I don't give a damn who does the vote count and I don't give a damn about the numbered voting sheets... however I do believe that NATS have manoeuvred the company into this position deliberately.

We were being pushed into this scenario, it was a case of 'when', not 'if'.

But maybe it's not about the life expectancy of us old wrinklies but about the life expectancy of today's 20 year olds, many of whom would still hope to be ATCOs in 40 years time-unlike many other businesses.

Del Prado

NATS paid 12.2% up until April when it started paying 20%.

A quick look at the guidance from the Pensions Regulator will show that the Trustees have very little choice in what life expectancy figures they use regardless of who is on the panel of Trustees.

Eglnyt, re: 20% contributions, thanks for clearing that up.

do you have a reference for your other point?

The Pensions Regulator has published Mortality Assumptions Guidance which you can find on its website.

eglnyt
Nearly right - actually 22.6% until the end of 2008, then 20%. This gives an average of 20% for the whole of 2008.
See: https://www.caaps.co.uk/axiseinterne...tributions.pdf
(you can open this without logging in to the CAAPS website).
Others may choose to comment on the actuary's statement!

250Kts

It doesn't matter whose extended life expectancy we are talking about. The fact is it has been rising since records began in the developed worlds - and therefore there is going to be a continued slight increase year on year on any pension fund.

We have and always will need to employ people - that's a known fact along with the known fact that they would be eligible for a pension. Your statement, if indicative of how the pension fund had been run, indicates a lack of long term planning.

Eglnyt

Pensions regulator/Actuaries/whoever. The fact is, life expectancy has increased for years - only slightly year on year, but always an increase.

I know it's possibly a moot point, but surely this long established fact should have been factored into pension funds earlier??

The assumptions have always factored in an increase in life expectancy the problem is that in the last few years that increase has accelerated far greater than anybody anticipated.

"Why would people who worked at an airport that NATS suddenly lost it's contract for lose their jobs?"


Because at the union conference Mr Barron apparently said that he would be worried about massive redundancy payouts if NATS lost the contract at EGCC... Doesn't sound like he wants to keep them, does it? If NATS start walking away from NSL contracts, what do you think they will do with the staff? A surplus of tower controllers... no job for them! Hello redundancy package.
Am I the only one that sees this? These are colleagues for "Eff's sake".

What do you think will happen to them Fenella??

The same as happens whenever a change of service provider happens at an airfield... the winner of the new contract takes on the old staff.

Or do you think that new controllers can be drafted in and be qualified to work at whichever airport is concerned the day after the contract changes hands?

Who do you think will do the training Fenella?

Barron has a track history of breaking up companies and selling off the non performing parts. He has a history of closing pension schemes.

His management staff have just recently refused to deny that NSL will be put up for sale, regardless of what happens with pensions.

Our pension is viable - it is the willingness of NATS to maintain it that is in question.

NSL is safer from buy out if the more expensive pension is kept in place.

Make NSL cheaper to run, make it easier to sell. It's not rocket science

Do you really think a pension with a 42% underlying rate is viable ? Most of those which have already been restructured had much lower underlying rates. Even 30% is considered very expensive.

Anotherthing,
Well the last time NATS lost a contract (Prestwick) I don't think there were many takers to go to PIK.The new controllers were sitting with airbands listening to what was going on ready for day one.:\
I would like to think that NATS would give the option to people to move,after all we are a mobile grade:D and a valuable highly skilled resource in world wide demand.
There is also TUPE for people who wish to stay put.I think changing ATC suppliers at the busier units is almost impossible nowdays with SRG and all the rules that apply.
In fact even a small reduction in the number of staff at the smaller units,can have a drastic affect on the service provided.Any newcomers would have to be pinched from other units,but since NATS will have got rid of the good pension,then where are they coming from?
You just have to look at the ads in Flight and there are lots of jobs for Approach,Approach Radar and Tower qualified ATCOs.
But then NSL isn't up for sale.The management say so.:suspect:

TAD

I really hope NATS do not sell NSL - it would be a very poor decision as far as being a 'World Leader in ATM' is concerned.

If they did, I would hope they offered jobs within th ecompany for those who wished to stay with NATS - we are short of ATCOs after all, temporary economic downturn or not.

I just don't understand how Fenella can say that all the ATCOs at say EGCC would be jobless if NATS lost the contract :ugh:.

A good bit of scaremongering there.

Well personally if our unit lost it contract,then I would take the redundancy package and then sit back.The new contractor would be desperate to employ people with the validations,so it's name your price.The alternative is that the airport would be closed.:hmm:
Then again NATS could come up with a package to keep it's valuable staff.:hmm:

Fenella... I'm pretty sure every redundancy offered in NATS is over-subscribed. It's less about NATS wanting rid of people than people itching to put their hand up to take the money. Barron's "Fear" is that everybody wants redundancy and NATS ends up having to pay it. They would far rather retain staff and avoid that huge outlay.

Not sure what barron is referring to all the people directly involved in any contract that is lost, he can pass on to the winner under the TUPE regulations so he wouldn't have to pay redundancy

I guess there might be a few central admin jobs that he would have to cut but which he cannot justify are directly involved in the particular contract. Not much though

This also means ATCOs need not fear such redundancy (unless the new contract owner believes it needs fewer ATCOs which sounds unlikely)

TAD

Nail on the head there. Without wanting to sound like we (collective) are up our own backside (for anyone who is not in the ATC business), ATCOS, ATSA's and, to a slightly lesser extent (though local knowledge of systems etc is extremely important), ATCE's are fairly unique in that if they were to down tools, you could not get someone else just to walk in and take over (like the firemens strike for instance).

Even qualified ATCOs/ATSAs would need to be trained (and pass the exam board), to work at a specific unit. Who would do the training and examining - oh, that would be the people who currently worked there!

ProM,

In reply to your statement - I'll admit that the way some outfits run airports, there could be a perceived reduction in manpower requirements - if they really went for it, any contract winner could possibly shave one or two off the staff list, it would be uncomfortable for those that remained, but could be achieved within the framework of working hour laws.

However, there is such a shortage of ATCO's that anyone who has been valid at a 'busy'ish unit should be able to walk into another job fairly easily.

If I was an NSL employee, I would not be worried about being laid off, as per Fenellas incorrect statements (it won't happen to the vast majority of staff, those that may find themselves in that position could walk into another job easily).

I would be worried about leaving the employ of a large company that is to be fair, still damned good to work for compared to a real job! However, it would take a brave person to bet against the statement that NATS will try to sell of all or part of NSL, especially if they manage to force a lower cost pension through.

... And although I stated above, that does not mean we should allow any reduction in our Ts and Cs.

In any career or company, having above average Ts&Cs or an above average Pension Scheme is not an acceptable excuse to erode it - it should actually be protected more zealously.

Does anyone else find it quite interesting that the document which PeltonLevel has linked to in post #1756 points out that not only are the company paying far less than the required underlying rate at present (which we already knew), but that the percentage they ARE paying is due to decrease next year until 2013!!!

Does anyone else also find it quite interesting that this document was signed by Nigel Fotherby, the finance director, in March THIS YEAR...which, according to the manager at my briefing, was about 5 years after NATS realised the scheme was in trouble, and about 2 years after commencing negotiations with the union to change the scheme on the basis that the underlying rate was too expensive!!

Finally, does anyone else think that this is not exactly what you would call a prudent course of action for a management team which apparently have the best interests of our scheme, and the workforce in general, at heart?!? What an absolute joke!!

Every one of these presentations has been based on the fact that an underlying rate of 25% is what they're aiming for, and is what is affordable, but yet again they're STILL going to be paying less than they should be, and, indeed, less than they are currently!!! And what do you think is going to happen in about 2011-2012, when they've been underpaying for another 3 years?!? I'm not a gambling man (;)) but if I was, my money would be on them coming cap in hand again asking us to change the supposedly "longterm viable" scheme that was foolishly agreed to in 2008!!

They are trying to pull a fast one on us, colleagues...lets not let them and regret it for the rest of our careers!! As soon as we vote yes for this deal, we can forget any possible negotiating power for any subsequent changes to the pension scheme in a few years time!!

FB:ok:

Not sure about the CAAPS document but NATS in both it's 2008 Annual Report (page 30) and in the information it's recently published seems to think it's been paying 20% since April.

see my update to post #1756 which might explain the decrease.
(Assuming that the salary bill is constant for the whole year, 12.2% for the first 3 months then 22.6% for 9 averages out at 20% over the whole of 2008)
Those with a 'grasp of very basic maths' should note that the result is not 17.4%! (I used Excel)

Has anyone heard anything about PBhttp://www.mbworld.org/forums/images...es/action1.gif going in March 09 to his next victims ?