FDP - read what I said. The sentiment was not mine, i was portraying how I thought the media would represent DC10s views.

I accept it is not my position to suggest either way what you guys do which is why I did not state any opinion on that score and I was open and honest that I am not NATS.

Good job you don't want public support

So here's a question.........

The company decided to pay the money they saved by taking the 'holiday', which helped guard against the downturn in the market.

However, three years down the line the fund was looking just as bad as it is now.

What then? Would most still expect the company to up its contributions?

ProM tell us the last time The Sun or The Daily Mirror or the Daily Mail vilified a group of workers fighting for their pension?

Do we know for definite that it really looks so bad right now? I don't think so.

Mr.Barron doesn't want the company to continue paying into pension scheme even at the reduced level the company does now.

He is unwilling to support the continuance of what is an excellent scheme, not becasue it's impossible for the comapany to do so, but because it has an impact on PROFIT and the future saleability of the company.

When directly questioned "why the company had quietly become a profit making company, rather than a not for profit service", Mr. Barron replied "" . That is a direct quote.

If the company were to operate on a "not for profit" basis, and the government weren't looking to offload the remainder of the company for the biggest amount, then the company finances would look considerably different.

BEX

How much of an increase in personal contributions would people be willing to tolerate? I was once told by a financial advisor that if asked to increase to 12% to say yes. Purely on the quality of the scheme. Should we increase contributions to help maintain the viability of the scheme, which so many rightly say is ours, or does it all have to come from the employer?

Mr Jones,

Some areas may have run dry but all I said was I didn't experience disruption to my daily routine. Unlike when the refineries were blockaded a few years ago.

The following article is an indication of how the press can construct an article to begin a backlash.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...0-000-win.html

Certainly not an attack but shows how the seeds can be placed to turn an article either way dependent on how the editor's perceive public opinion.

Geffen How on earth is a newspaper editor going to portray workers fighting to save their pensions fund in a bad light?

Every employee in the country in a pension scheme will empathise us.

And when Michael O'Leary opens his mouth to give his opinion we will feel a huge surge of Love :8

As someone else has eluded, all the poor workers who have saved for holidays etc, who can't go anywhere because we are striking. Not saying it is right but that is the sort of thing prospect will have to work hard at to put across the right message. PR being the all important weapon. Don't for a second believe that management won't be employing the same tactics against the workers.

As you know, I am only interested in the NATS pension case from afar - just an interested observer in the possible demise of one of the last remaining excellent schemes for 'ordinary exployees' in the private sector (well sort of).

I hope you don't mind too much me offering my two-pennorth from time to time as this is the non-private ATCO forum ...

In the interests of encouraging free debate of both sides of the argument for maintaining the scheme and promise unchanged, I have bitten my lip for some days and not typed.

But you surely can't let Beadie get away with the suggestion that the Trustees are all impartial. Two of them at least are executive board directors of some ilk! One is the Finance Director is he not?!

Now you might think they are just two votes on a whole board of trustees, but have any of you ever occupied a place on a board with voting colleagues as powerful as that? Do you think less powerful voices are easily heard and decisions reflect balanced debate corresponding to voting rights? If so, get real :p

Very easily, MrJones.

What's that you say? basic of 60k? 70k? 80k?

<cue much comparison to soldiers, nurses etc>

ASAP of 5k? Oh, but it's not really a shift payment is it, as the non-op staff get NOS of the same value....

And a quarterly payment for training?

And an hourly payment for training?

Oh, and you work 6 on 4 off?

And get 33 days leave?

You get 8 PHs a year, whether you work them or not?

<Editor scrambling for a headline....Rich ATCOs Actually Work For Less Than Half The Year!!!..........And They Want To Spoil Your Yearly Holiday!!!!>

Health insurance?

Subsidised canteen/Luncheon vouchers?

A day's overtime is £550?

Gonzo,

Well said.

Gonzo, Shhhh!

You don't know who's listening.:eek:

Gonzo you assume every NATS employee is a controller.

I am not saying we don't need some PR. We very definitely have to get our side across - Fighting to stop out pension scheme being close - but I think there has been enough outrage at pension schemes being crippled for us to do OK as far as the Press goes.

MrJones,

No, I don't assume that, but the ATCOs are the sector of the workforce the media will concentrate on.

Yes the salary and AAVA are that of the dreaded band 5, but again the media WILL focus on the largest numbers. It is the way it works and there is no way that the media will turn around at look at the band 1 guys as, unfortunately, the numbers don't look as impressive. It doesn't matter to them what you are paid. All the ATCO's will be put in the same light. You never know a salary band might be mentioned. But then again doesn't NATS advertise ATCO salary over £85,000. The biggest salary is the one the media will focus on.

It matters not a jot, The only people we need to focus on the matter in hand is NATS management.

Read the posts before you jump the gun, Yahoo.....I was describing the facts a newspaper article would focus on. Not my own assumptions. :ugh:

Gonzo,
On the other hand,
Basic isn't £60K top of the scale,not here.
Compare that to pilots.
ASAP 5K.You want to fly on hols on New Years day?
Training payments.Compared to a training captain.when we can kill 500 people?
6 on 4 off.Well it's more like 7 on 3 off.If you want to fly in the middle of the night etc.
33 days leave.Try 28:=
8 PH.ok we will take them on the days then.:E Want to fly on holiday on a Bank holiday.:D
Atco work for less than half the year.What about teachers,or MPs then.
Health insurance.Isn't worth the paper it's written on,in my case.
LV.;)Well no meal break in the roster,and security screen any food.That's if I get a chance to eat it.
OT £550.Try £230 after tax.My dentist makes that in 2 hours.

Let the papers say that.NATS couldn't afford to even contemplate industrial action.They are a very minor company,compared to the amount of money that the country would lose even for one day.Play it back to them about Barron's pay rise and Aston company van.

I'm slightly confused over that last post. were you comparing it all to a pilot or just the first couple of bits. If you were explaining more about atco details, i mostly agree with you except its 28days hols unless you have been with the company 8 years then you get a couple more days, after 10? or 12? years you get another 3 making it 33 plus 8 in lieu of bank holidays. Your assessment of bank holidays and nights shifts are A1. I would happily take xmas, easter, nyd off every year. but like you say........no flying.
And the teachers/mp thing is true also. 6 weeks in the summer, 2 at easter and xmas. what a job! if it wasnt working with kids it would be a perfect job. MP's are a law unto themselves with all their benefits. make the red barron look like a pauper.

Why all the debate about public support? It matters not a jot other than to make members feel uncomfortable. The outcome of the strike , if it were to happen , would be decided in airline boardrooms and government meeting rooms. Maybe the average member of the public would feel some animosity towards Nats employees for a short time but most people in this country have the attention span of sparrows. Two days after the strike is over, won or lost , and they will be worrying about whatever the great british press tell them to worry about next. Focus on the real issues. Do we want to come out of this with our pensions intact or not.

deja vu....???

Strike Tactic Is Discounted By New Air Controller Union - New York Times :confused: :uhoh: :mad:

So what you're saying then (those of you that are worried about your image, that is) is that its ok to lose our pensions, just so long as we look good on TV?? :ugh:

I think that the comparision with PATCO in the US is misleading. I believe that they were not allowed either by law or by temporary Presidential decree from striking and they did and unfortunately Reagan sacked them.
If we were to strike then provided that the unions had fulfilled all the legal requirements of voting, consultation, period of notice, then we have a legal and moral obligation to strike.

The fact we (NATS) have people earning well under £30k as well isn't something the media would be interested in.

An unsympathetic media would contrast an ATCO at Swanwick, on £90k a year... driving into work in his Porsche to do an extra shift for £550 on top and then threatening to ruin your holiday plans because he wants his gold-plated pension scheme to be paid for by customers - which then passes on through the airlines to passengers - against a background of credit crunch, meteoric fuel price rises etc etc.

However, that doesn't mean to say the decision to strike wouldn't be right and justified... the trick is to communicate why it is so.

Ah, but if said ATCOs hadn't been doing the AAVAs in the first place then said public may well have had their holiday ruined anyway by the excessive delays the airlines would have had due to the under staffing. In fact the unit has been running on AAVAs for months, keeping delays down and potentially saving NATS £££ fined by the regulator.

It is all about how the story is put across. NATS values an extra day at Swanwick at £550 which is less than £70 an hour-cheap compared to how much a "professional" in other areas would charge. £200 an hour for a decent solicitor down here, and we are supposed to be the best in the world. NATS have continuously failed to sort out it's man power issues and there is no sign of that improving in the medium term. AAVAs are a cheap way for NATS to staff the ops room.

A few points

What the media writes / broadcasts has nothing to do with the truth, or indeed public opinion. Does what the media "say" really matter? No, thought not. (One Mr. O'Learly certainly doesn't bother much with the media's pieces, doesn't seem to have done him much harm)

ANY industrial action will damage NATS. Perhaps irrepairably.

The management, who are directly responsible for this sorry state of affairs need to recognise that fact, and start thinking a little more about ways to keep the CAAPS as healthy as possible, rather than concentrating on profits and the sale of NATS for the best price.

NATS staff have some very dry powder. Time to point out to management that it only needs a small spark to set it off, with consequences that can't be good for them.

BEX

We don't need to strike. Stop AAVAs/overtime and coming in on days off. It really is that simple, or am I missing something here ? :confused:
If "management" ask, just say we need our days off due stress related Pension issues.
No need for public sympathy, NATS would go the same way as ZOOM :} without Government intervention if we just turned up and did our job which is moving aircraft safely and expeditiously. And what is wrong with that I ask?
Unfortunately some types have jumped on this nauseating Barron "three wheels on my wagon" band wagon. :yuk:

I find the whole idea that a bad Press/Public opinion could work against us quite farcical.

We are fighting for our pensions. Management are looking to optimise profits.

It's a no brainer no matter what the Management Lackeys here say.

Bring it on , we have nothing to lose.

As this is a rumour page...... I heard that NATS have set aside £1m for the PR fight. shame they can't just start bunging it into the pension to help make up that "holiday fund" they owe.

So the NTUS published (from what I heard, totally out of turn and against principles/wishes of the management) a report that said the group would meet again last Friday to continue negotiations. Why haven't we heard anything since about that meeting? If the unions are being silenced then they have lost power already. A report/minutes should be made available about EVERY meeting that takes place, so, has anyone heard anything, seen any reports?

Another meeting planned for the 5th I believe from the notice put out last week.

Someone a few threads back wondered how the CAA part of the CAAPS was performing?

According to minutes of an Aviation Group meeting I happened to come across today they declared it was performing well ( as is ours) and they will be keeping it open to all new entrants.

But here's the rub, no one brought a hatchet man in to fatten the CAA up for sale to the highest bidder.

Sorry, I wasn't cynical in my last job.:}

Quote:
According to minutes of an Aviation Group meeting I happened to come across today they declared it was performing well ( as is ours) and they will be keeping it open to all new entrants.

Apart from the need for NATS to reduce its overhead, one of the main reasons for them attacking the pensions is due to our customers being unhappy with their route charges supporting such a costly scheme. (statement, not necessarily my view). Why then are they, and indeed NATS, not challenging the Regulator to reduce its costs similarly?:( The CAA are remaining mute and watching with interest.
When NATS do close the scheme, watch the junior stafff chase the money and vote with their feet to sunnier climes. What staffing problem?

2.5

Quite right. Allegedly the CAA don't think it's right that NATS are passing the pension costs onto the customer (isn't that how these things work in every other industry though?), yet the sole aviation regulator for the UK can continue to fund its own pension by passing its own costs on to the very people it is regulating and telling to trim costs!

The problem, anotherthing, IIRC, is that ERG has allowed airlines to criticise NATS pensions costs one or more times in the past, and by 'allowed' I mean they have not corrected the notion.

I think you might have to wade through old minutes of ERG meetings, and written submissions by airlines to get a good feeling for it, but basically I'd say the die was cast years not months ago.

It requires a complete reversal of sentiment by NATS executive and ERG for the pension to survive 'as is' and for them to condone passing on the costs to the airlines...


But I am still not actually convinced by the bleak projections by 'the actuaries'. Can a £3,000,000,000 fund be so vulnerable? Part of me cannot help but think the warnings about upping contributions may be an elaborate smoke screen / red herring affair.

At any rate, I sincerely hope you don't get done up like kippers :}

I was lead to believe that there was a further pensions meeting with the management yesterday, if so has anyone any news?

if that is the case that makes 3?? further meetings since the union announcement that was floating about the briefing room, WHY NO FURTHER NEWS??

No news means "Working together" :* which I believe is only in the interest of Management and Union types seeking promotion :yuk:

Resign from the union and go and negotiate your own deal then if that's the amount of faith you have in them.

I did, years ago :ok: