|
bring it on.
you can get donkey jackets on ebay with british coal scrawled across the back for under a tenner. will keep me warm this winter if im out front throwing scaffolding poles through scabby coach windows. |
bring it on. |
Some figures from the annual report.
NATS made an operating profit of £134.4 million on turnover of £742.5 million. That's a fairly hefty profit for a monopoly to make so I can understand the regulator's desire to lower our charges. Yet the company seems determined to increase profits. Last year's results were lower due to costs incurred during closure of West Drayton (£23 million) and paying off loans early (£80.8 million), these exceptional costs won't be on the balance sheet in future so profits will accelerate. How much do NATS still owe? There's £138.7 million of borrowings due in the next 2 years but how much do we still owe? NATS contribution rate to the pension fund is 12.2% which cost £54.8 million last year. How much would a 42% contribution rate actually cost? About £150 million? Can NATS afford that? Not if they want to make a large profit year on year. If they didn't make a profit then they could have afforded the extra £95 million last year 42% contribution rate probably isn't sustainable but we're at the bottom of the economic cycle at the moment. Remember that image Barron was so keen on of the two boats with the pension fund dwarfing NATS? Given the chance why can't the pension fund save itself? The sheer size of the fund would, given the chance, be it's strength as the economic situation picks up. Returns from a £2.8 billion fund would dwarf the employers contribution. Does anyone know how many shares are in circulation? I note from the report, staff own about 6.8 million shares. Does that mean about 136 million shares have been issued? And at £2.70 per share is the market capitalisation around £367 million? How much is the airline group's shares worth? If they own 6% each is that about £22 million? from an initial investment of £7 million? Lots of these figures are best guesses, I'd appreciate any corrections (with references). |
eglnyt
Look carefully and you'll see that NATS is trading profitably but it's real assets excluding goodwill and the pension fund are at best the same as its liabilities. The financial report for 2008 cites currency fluctuations, interest rates, inflation etc as possible future risks to the company...no mention of the pension scheme. However, the management is charged with reducing costs to the company to increase profits. It doesn't have much in the way of reserves and it's potential to borrow is limited because it's already heavily borrowed against its assets. It is much more robust than it was in 2001 and with prudent management can survive most expected events but not a big trauma. The 2008 report emphasises the groups strong cash flows and shows a reduction in net debt of almost £40m in 2008. NATS performance was so strong last year that it was able to repay shareholder loan notes of £65m incurring an additional charge of £15.8m in the process. The aviation business is cyclical and to justify attacking pensions on the premise of a temporary downturn is disingenuous at best. And besides, there is no sign of the company struggling in any way...just the opposite in fact. They were all voluntary redundancies and most were jumping to avoid having to resign when we moved out of London but they were still real people who lost real jobs even if some people prefer to refer to them as dross. So how many jobs were shed that were unrelated to the voluntary departures relating to the move from West Drayton? It's got nothing to do with opposing or supporting the management's proposals. I was referring to an ignorance of risk management even though so much of what we do in NATS is based upon it. Those familiar with risk management will recognise that sometimes the bad thing is so bad that you have to do something about it even if it isn't very likely. This may be one of those times. I can understand managements wish to mitigate any possible risk to NATS ever growing profits by transferring that risk to the employees. I'm sure you'll understand my reluctance to offer up my T&C's to ensure those profits can grow even more quickly. See my previous response. If I could lose my pension and the chance of that happening was less than impossible then I might be prepared to offer up some T&Cs to make it less likely, especially if in practice what I was offering up was next to nothing. As I've said before how close to nothing this particular T&C is depends upon how optimistic you are about future payrises In what circumstances do you envisage the pension being lost? IMO, by far the most likely route to losing our final salary scheme is this: We agree to these proposals and make the company far more attractive to future bidders (we know that's the real issue here). Do you believe the next owner of NATS is going to settle for the present deal? Of course not. The attacks on the pension won't stop until the final salary scheme is closed for both present and future employees. You probably didn't realise it when you made that post but you've illustrated exactly why the company wants to implement the RPI+0.5% cap. Over pension timescales a small increase can have an enormous effect on the liability. So you're agreeing that a pay freeze for a year or 2 would have an enormous effect on future pension liabilities? Many of the arguments forwarded in support of the managements proposals seem to be contradicted when balanced against the companies own reports and indeed the reports of other shareholders. The Governments own Shareholder Executive which oversees the SoS for T's 48.9% stake in the company lauds NATS'... 'strong financial performance' and 'growing financial strength recognised by Standard & Poor's who upgraded its credit rating from A- to A. ' |
eglnyt NATS can't go bust, there are clauses in the transport bill to make sure it can't. If NATS is unable to pay its bills the courts are required to make an "Air Traffic Administration Order" (apologies for incorrectly calling it Aviation Administration above). This would effectively nationalise NATS at no cost to the Government. The Railway privitisation legislation contained similar clauses which were used to bring Railtrack back into public ownership. That may seem an attractive proposition to some but do we really understand what that means to NATS staff particularly those not directly involved in the NERL Licence ? You may not like the current management but they have some vested interest in the future of NATS and hopefully in the last few years they've learnt a bit about the company. Do you really think an accountant appointed by the Secretary of State will be better ? Our pension curently enjoys some protection afforded to it by agreements made during the privitisation process, what status do those agreements have if an Air Traffic Administration Order is raised ? TRANSPORT ACT 2000 SCHEDULES Section 30. SCHEDULE 1 Air traffic administration orders: general Supplementary provisions of schemes 9 (1) A scheme may contain supplementary, consequential and transitional provision for the purposes of, or in connection with, any provision of the scheme. (2) In particular a scheme may provide— (e) that contracts of employment with the existing licence company are not to terminate and that periods of employment with the existing licence company are to count for all purposes as periods of employment with the new licence company; Transport Act 2000 (c. 38) Our pension forms part of our contract of employment so the wording of the act indicates that in the event of NATS going bust our final salary scheme must be guaranteed by the new owners...HMG. |
After 1000 odd posts, it seems quite obvious to me that yes voters are going to continue to vote "yes" (God only knows why :rolleyes:) and the no voters will do similarly. We've heard all the arguments from both sides....without being prejudicial to the official Union ballot, can't we just have a simple yes/no vote on here now to see how the land lies??
VOTE NO. |
Originally Posted by Del Prado
(Post 4502041)
NATS made an operating profit of £134.4 million on turnover of £742.5 million. That's a fairly hefty profit for a monopoly to make so I can understand the regulator's desire to lower our charges.
BD |
By ploughing the profit back into the company the share price increases to the benefit of our major shareholders. I assume they can count their NATS investment on their balance sheet?
For example, paying off loans early not only reduces debt but also raises the company's credit rating making borrowing cheaper and increasing future profits. So the airline group's shares are worth more and the government will raise more money at the next stage of privatisation. BTW has anyone checked my sums? Is the initial Airline Group investment of £7 million each now worth £22 million? |
alfie1999, "(2) In particular a scheme may provide..",
or indeed, may not provide then. |
im voting no.
|
O Dear lets hope, we dont go the same way as BizzEnergy, how does he manage time to chair the NATS board http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/y...two-weeks.html
|
not the best CV, is it. Bizz energy and he is a non executive director of Northern Rock!!
<H2>John Devaney - Chairman "My aim for BizzEnergy is to be the best energy supplier in Europe....John Devaney brings his top-level industry knowledge and experience... Concern about the future of independent electricity suppliers grew yesterday after BizzEnergy went into administration and its 40,000 small and medium sized business customers were "sold" for the princely sum of £87.50 each. John Devaney brings his top-level industry knowledge and experience gained as Executive Chairman of Eastern Electricity to BizzEnergy...John is the Chairman of NATS Holdings Ltd (National Air Traffic Services) and Telent plc, formerly known as Marconi plc, Non-Executive Director of Northern Rock and Chairman of Ergo Finance LLP. |
John Devaney - A world leader in supplying management hot air. :E
ROCK ON......:}:}:} |
Quote: Did NATS shed staff post-01? Or during previous downturns? Yes it did. The composite solution under which NATS was rescued from administration required £170 million of savings made up of the pension holiday, postponed ATCO recruitment and support cost savings. A lot of people's jobs were hidden in that phrase support cost savings. They were all voluntary redundancies and most were jumping to avoid having to resign when we moved out of London but they were still real people who lost real jobs even if some people prefer to refer to them as dross. depends upon how optimistic you are about future payrises Quote: It's got nothing to do with opposing or supporting the management's proposals. I was referring to an ignorance of risk management even though so much of what we do in NATS is based upon it. Those familiar with risk management will recognise that sometimes the bad thing is so bad that you have to do something about it even if it isn't very likely. This may be one of those times. A crystal ball would be very handy to solve all these issues, those with just a few years left already can see what status they are in, and happy to take the managements mitigation in order to get what they got now, those who have more than the 15 years are in a harder place to make this decision lightly and have bigger concerns than NATS making lots of money. |
If you check the current annual report and accounts for NERL, you'll see numbers of engineers, assistants and support grades have all fallen in the last year, while controllers have increased.
Pesky facts |
Me Me Me, does that include office staff (I'm not sure what support grades means)?
Does anyone know total number of NATS employees for the last 7 years? |
Quote from NTUS subweb on NATSNET:
"junior/middle managers, secretarial and administrative staff collectively known as Management and Support Grades (MSGs)." Interesting fact on ATCO numbers increasing while the other's decreasing. Another fact - it's a NATS employee pensions scheme, not an NATS ATCO pension scheme........we're all in this together so stop complaining about "CTC" (i.e. Non-unit) employees adding to the pension burden. A long serving engineer or administrator or researcher or accountant has the same rights to a full pension as any long serving ATCO. Oh, and as for the comments sitting around drinking coffee, a number of us often work hard through a longer day than contractual hours to deliver the tools that the ATC units need to do their jobs better - so if we sometimes spend more time drinking coffee that's our prerogative :ok: I personally drink tea...... :} |
Radarspod
Oh, and as for the comments sitting around drinking coffee, a number of us often work hard through a longer day than contractual hours to deliver the tools that the ATC units need to do their jobs better Your extra hours are akin to ATCOs doing extra sectors above minumum requirement. None of us gets paid for doing the extra hours/sectors etc, but it helps the company out immensly. A lot of goodwill has to do with the fact that NATS is a decent company to work for... continual erosion of Ts&Cs will make that less true and may mean people are less willing to work for nothing. As for Another fact - it's a NATS employee pensions scheme, not an NATS ATCO pension scheme........we're all in this together so stop complaining about "CTC" (i.e. Non-unit) employees adding to the pension burden Similarly there are some ATCOs who have been taken out of the OPs room through ineptitude and given 'support' jobs that could be culled to save some money. As for the figures from NERL about increasing ATCO numbers - unfortunately they are not increasing at a fast enough rate, we are still short of capable ATCOs. Also - do those figures double count or how do they work?? I.e. an ATCO working in OPs for instance on a 2 year placement - do they count as an office worker or as an ATCO???? |
Anotherthing,
I don't think I did miss the point of the post. I agree that even I have nearly choked on reading some VNs for strange posts that you wonder what they are for. But from reading posts in this thread, it seems to me that a number of unit personnel come to CTC and see a lot of people that do not appear to be directly contributing to NATS income generation in the same way operations personnel do. The fact is that CTC has become one very large non-ops campus due to closures of West Drayton, Kemble Street and Spectrum House, not to mention moving a lot of non-ops employees out of Swanwick. So to the visiting unit personnel I could understand that it may seem like a big bunch of office types serving no purpose - but the total number is far less than when I joined NATS 10 years ago when personnel were scattered at a number of sites, each with own HR, accountants, security, adminstrators, managers, site engineers, safety managers, QA, etc, etc, etc. Yes there are a lot of people at CTC that aren't in front of a radar screens, but the vast majority (i agree not all) are as important to NATS income generation as any operational personnel. My apologies if this is coming across as a bit of a rant, but I read so much non-ops, engineer and CTC bashing on here I'm starting to lose my rag - which I don't want to do as i directly support operations.:} |
Yes, it includes everyone. Support grades = MSG and PCG I guess.
Those people who work in areas that are under constant attack by many on here are the same ones who have been continually taking reductions in numbers, improving productivity and saving money so that the company can afford to pay so many AAVAs, among other things. The arrogance and blatant selfishness that's dressed up so often on here as a sense of injustice no longer angers me... I find it amusing. "These bean-counters in CTC having another meeting!!! OUTRAGEOUS!! We are in a credit crunch and we should be tightening our belt and cutting out this useless waste!!" TRANSLATION: "I'm p*ssed off because I think every penny spent should be spent on me and me alone. I don't give a toss what is wasted, I just want more of everything because I like me very much" The rant part of this isn't directed at the person who's question I answered initially - just in general to many users of this forum. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.