Not at all. The obligation on NATS is to fund the scheme at 100% which they have done even when many other schemes were running up huge deficits. The underlying rate is that needed to fund the liabilities in the absence of any surplus, the actual rate is agreed between the trustees and NATS and in times of surplus can be lower and in times of deficit may need to be higher. In 2003 as the valuation report states it was possible for NATS to pay less for about 6 years and that is what has happened. Any contribution prior to that is irrelevant as the fund was in surplus indicating that NATS was providing more than enough.

There has never been any requirement to fund beyond 100% in actual fact taxation legislation meant that storing up surpluses was discouraged until 2004.

The main driver for the significant rise in underlying rate is the guidance from the Pensions Regulator that Trustees should assume much longer life and generally increasing life span. Each year of additional pension adds a great deal to the liability.

Even if that were true, and I've pointed out above why it isn't, exactly how do you think that could happen ? There is no big pot of money secreted away. This is all happening because NATS has signalled that it probably can't afford to fund the scheme if the underlying rate is 40% and if it can't pay your pension is under threat. You can argue about whose fault it is but personally I'd rather do everything I can to do something about it.

And why has this fact (increasing lifespan), that has been documented for years and is well known, suddenly come as such a surprise to NATS?

Why was it not considered when they decided to take the pension break and reduced contributions? Increased longevity has been known about far longer ago than July 2001.
It wasn't considered because it did not suit them to plan ahead to keep the pension easily viable; (I say 'easily' as it is still viable, whatever management say); most likely as keeping it viablet does not sit well with selling the company, or at least selling NSL.

It's p!ss poor planning ahead (or deliberate negligence) like this that makes me think that all the smoke and mirrors about the pension cap meaning NATS and the actuaries can 'plan ahead' better is a load of bull, and makes me want to vote 'NO' because I don't think that whatever we do now will stop them (NATS) coming back in 5 or 10 years claiming they need to take even more drastic cuts.

Landedoutagain, you are mistaken about your protection. I specifically went and found out about this, since I was unsure. The facts are this: it is the scheme that is protected and the members of that scheme. If you are a member of the scheme, regardless of whether you joined before or after PPP, you are protected. NATS management, or any new owner, if it were ever to come to that, would still have to comply with all the protections that were set down in law, and apply them to all members of the scheme. Nobody presently in the scheme can get moved to a different one unless they opt to do it themselves, regardless of who owns NATS.

Back to basics !
 

If we vote yes, it all goes through, the SMART pension and the cap on Pensionable earnings of RPI+0.5% for 15 years.:\ . We will then be sold to the highest bidder in 2010.

If we vote no they can push it through OR come back to us and renegotiate. You have nothing to lose and all to gain by voting no. :ok:

It really is that simple, or am I just simple ? :)

( left myself wide open here :\)

Back to Basics (2)
 

If we vote yes, it all goes through, the SMART pension and the cap on Pensionable earnings of RPI+0.5% for 15 years. . We will may be sold to the highest bidder in 2010 - NATS is a company, not a service provider - company's get bought and sold all the time. Or NATS may not. It may get together with another entity (DFS would be a good one) and use SESAR as a platform to take on more of European airspace. That would be a good thing in my view!

If we vote no they can push it through OR come back to us and renegotiate OR they can withdraw the reasonable offer and replace with a less reasonable one You could have something to lose by voting no.

It isn't simple! 1184 posts on this thread shows that! :ok:

RS

Highly unlikey or wise I would have thought, but what do I know :confused:

agreed not likely or wise, but could happen.

I guess it's a gamble, but you have to take a chance some times in life, nothing ventured-nothing gained :)

I think the odds are on our side :ok:

Eglnyt said: Maybe no big pot of money secreted away however:

• £66 million profit,

• £10's of millions of shareholder loans paid off 24 years EARLY, (£80 million?)

• £15 million in early redemption penalties of said loans,

• The rest of the shareholder loans refinanced at a lower interest rate, therefore saving millions in interest every year from now on (£5.5 million this year)

• £23 million spent on one off costs closing and relocating staff from WD to Swanwick,

• £millions given as 'bungs' to staff to buy out redundancy T+C's.
• £millions to be paid out in dividends to shareholders (if TAG bought into NATS at 'not for commercial gain' then why are they taking dividends??

Does this sound like a company that cannot find (up to a maximum of) £60 million to fund it's staff pension?



Is it fair or even moral that a company takes payment holidays and pays less than the underlying rate then turns round and asks it's staff to agree to losing £hundreds per month in their retirement?

• Management like to tell us how well the company is doing - A* credit rating, new contracts etc.

• How much have they spent on management trips away that can be done in-house or using video conferencing?

• How much is spent on awards ceremonies to reward staff for doing their job? I safely move aircraft around the sky and receive money in the bank each month - that is a good enough reward for doing a job properly.

NATS needs to get it's own housekeeping in order and curb excessive spending before considering any pension changes.




A happy workforce is a productive one. NATS cannot survive without a happy, loyal workforce.

A FINAL SALARY PENSION* = loyal workforce


* Pension based on actual "Final salary" not some notional salary cr@p

Fair and moral don't come into it. Pensions legislation requiring the scheme to be funded to 100%, not 100% plus a bit for good luck in case of a rainy day does come into it.

Over the next few months you're going to find out that there are a lot of things the company can't fund if the current rumours on winter traffic levels are correct.

Quote:

---

Pensions legislation requiring the scheme to be funded to 100%

---

It is time for NATS to dig deep and cough up then - a company that can affort to pay of significant amount of debt 24 years early and cover tens of millions of pounds of early repayment charges can affort to pay for my FINAL SALARY PENSION

Quote:

---

Over the next few months you're going to find out that there are a lot of things the company can't fund if the current rumours on winter traffic levels are correct.

---

So are you expecting me to vote away £hundreds per month of my future pension based on this winters traffic levels? What about in 2012, 2025 or even 2038 (I will still be working then...) when we look back at 2008 and laugh about how quiet it was back then.

Just a shame that I will still be working my :mad: off paying for a reduced pension because we were worried about the quiet winter of 2008/9... . ...

Another point ...Nats just deferred shareholder dividends till March 2009.....is this a case of pleading poverty in the run up to the pension vote..hmmm
:=:=:=

barsteward..you missed out the alleged £120M compensation NATS paid out over the SATCA fiasco over in Madrid...........

The company has already told you it can't, the NTUS have checked the figures and say they are right. Why do you think they can ?

Add these figures together - can you find (a maximum) of £60 million there?

£66 million
£80 million
£15 million
£5.5 million this year
£23 million

I can :ugh:


This does not take into account the money sp*nked off on awards ceremonies etc or the reported £120 million compensation to the Spanish......


A company that can pay off large parts of loans 24 YEARS EARLY is not in any position to plead poverty to it's loyal, hardworking workforce.

Whatever happens to traffic for the next year or so is a small setback - cyclical events.

A year or two later traffic will be busier than it was this summer - when that happens I will be very :mad: off when 'pulse' magazine tells me that NATS made £xxx million but my pension has been reduced.......

Because unlike you, we dont believe every damn thing we are told.

Erm...NATS may not have the money in it's account NOW, but there is the small matter of the tens of millions in revenue over the next year and the savings in NOT having to pay interest on loans, exit charges to the spanish, moving of West Drayton etc. You know, the usual day to day costs. I doubt the trustees will say:

They will come up with a repayment plan in order to bring the scheme up to correct levels.

LOA, after some digging, I owe you a sort of apology, there is a difference between pre and post PPP members. But the confusion comes from the term 'enforced transfer of employment'.

The scheme is protected and all members have that protection, pre or post PPP. There can be no 'decrement' to our pensions and this applies in the eventuality that NATS is sold on, to a new owner or owners. Whilst this happened we would all continue to be employed by NATS.

However, in the event of NATS actually going bankrupt and being placed into administration, which is a much more serious situation, the Trust of a Promise, will only apply to pre PPP members. In that case, post PPP members would have not have the same pension protections described in the Trust of Promise. By being placed into administration we would be subject to an 'enforced transfer of employment', that is to say NATS would no longer exist and we would be working not for NATS, but for 'Network Air' or 'Stagecoach', whoever. And that, I believe,is the difference for members pre and post PPP.

Sorry for the confusion.