The impact of the R+.5% cap on the final benefits of members in their 20s and 30s is huge.

The modeller doesn't really show the reality of a 15 year cap being compounded over a 38 year career, and that's assuming the cap is eventually removed.

The actuary accepted that is was easily conceivable that guys in their 20s and 30s will end up with at best a 1/2 final pensionable salary scheme on retirement and quite possibly much worse!

I've noticed that the Unions and management have chosen not to frame the question as...

"will you agree to a likely 1/2 salary scheme rather than a 2/3rds?"

Not the ones who prepared the pension part of this year's NATS annual report. (£400m+ surplus compared to the deficit that was briefly glimpsed on that month-by-month valuation slide at the briefing).

College of Knowledge, Day 1, Lesson 1:

"Assumption is the mother of all fcuk-ups".

For me it is the difference between that annual report valuation and all the other valuations that kills it. I can't take it seriously where there is a difference of 15%+ between different valuations (yes I know there are different rules etc etc). It just seems that we use the most appropriate valuation and assumptions that suit our needs ('can't afford pension' vs. 'oooh look, shareholders, how much of a surplus there is in our fund'.

I would like to see retrospective valuations using the assumptions from 2001, 2003 and 2006, and vice versa, then I can draw my own conclusions.

It will be very interesting to see the valuation presented in next years's set of accounts.

From 2007/08 NATS annual report:

12.2%<26.8% n'est pas?

Is it ? Nobody knows what the impact is. It could be nil, it could be half. How big you think it will be depends upon how optimistic you are about future pay rises. I'm still slightly amused that those who think NATS management is out to screw them at every opportunity then put large pay rises into the modeller. For the benefit of the controllers who apparently got an average of RPI+2.5 over recent years (the union figure from the briefings which I haven't checked) those of us in other grades got between RPI+0.2 and RPI+0.6 apart from 2006 when we got less than RPI but made up to about RPI with a non pensionable cash bonus. I'll let you decide which is most likely in the future.

It is but 12.2% plus the amount of surplus run down over that period is approximately equal to 26.8%. In the absence of any surplus the NATS contribution rate will have to equal underlying rate.

Am I getting paronoid :eek: or does anyone else think NATS have planted "someone" :rolleyes: on this forum to counter the No Vote, and to continue to spread the Yes vote propaganda ?
Its a full time job keeping up with said "polite" person, full marks for consistency and determination though :)
Management apparently gauge the outcome of said vote with this forum as the one on Nats intranet is policed and we cant express our real views on it:oh:

THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT...NOBODY KNOWS!!!:ugh::ugh::ugh:

HOW CAN YOU VOTE YES FOR SOMETHING WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FINAL OUTCOME IS????? (Capital lettering intended to show utter exasperation at a certain poster)>

I wonder what reply you are going to get this time :E

How can I vote Yes? I'll explain my thinking:-

I might vote Yes if I think there is a risk to my pension if nothing happens and the NATS/NTUS proposal is the only thing anybody is offering which might mitigate some of that risk.

I understand in voting Yes that I might lose some of my pension, although my estimate is not much, and that it is quite possible that another pension crisis will happen between now and then. I take the view that worrying about the next crisis is no reason for not agreeing to this proposal in an attempt to stave of the potential crisis we can already see.

The NTUS have checked the figures and I've taken a look and potentially there is a risk to my pension because NATS could be made insolvent by its pension costs. I can also see that the proposal might mitigate that risk albeit at some cost to me.

But I also have to consider the No option.

I might vote No if I think there is no risk to my pension and this is all a conspiracy by NATS to reduce our pension benefits.

I can't see why NTUS haven't seen through this if it is the case and my checking of the figures supports the view that this is for real.

I might vote No if I think NATS is lying when it says it can't afford our pensions. Again I've looked at the figures and I don't think NATS could afford a big rise in pension costs.

I might vote No if I think there is a better proposal available. So far nobody has a better proposal. The agreed long term wage deal of RPI +0.5 is the best of those I've seen and has some potential but I can't see either side agreeing to that and the proposal has to be acceptable to both sides.

I might vote No if I think NATS can be pushed further. Again I believe my NTUS reps that this is the best deal NATS will agree to because I have no reason to doubt them.

I don't consider whose fault any of this is because that doesn't affect the need for something to be done and doesn't change any of the possibilities.

I don't consider selling NATS or NSL because that is a possibility in the future whatever happens and this doesn't actually make it very much more likely.

Based on all this I have to discard the No option and end up with Vote Yes

Others may not agree with my reasoning and as I've said before I'm not telling anybody how to vote.

I'd just like to compliment some members of this forum for the level of debate generated.

However, I'm quite embarrassed to read some of the posts.

I ask myself whether some here really do work for NATS? As, apart from the rarest of exceptions, all those colleagues I've met, no matter where in the company they work, are rational, eloquent and above all intelligent people.

Eglynt, I commend you for your determination.

Vote No, in what way is the intranet thread 'policed'? Any details?

Spill the beans Gonzo, the mood needs lightening!:)

Although I have to agree the Intranet is most certainly policed. Case in point...certain comments made about the inane "Photo of the Day", purely for a laugh. Next thing, said posters dragged into Watch Managers office for a talking to.

Oh my dear chap, couldn't possibly say in the clear!:ok:

Not really surprising though, is it? It's their ball, they can choose the rules.

Although an over-reaction there I think!

Agreed, on both counts.

My point exactly. NATS should NOThave run down the surplus. The actual surplus is a red herring as it only refers to CURRENT :ugh: pension commitments. The surplus is irrelevant. NATS needed to keep paying at the UNDERLYING RATE to ensure that there will be enough funds to meet future Pensioners' needs. Naturally a surplus will build up as the funds will be required at a later date! :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

If NATS paid more than the underlaying rate, then yes, future underlying costs would drop and this fabled surplus might be 80% or more.

But as long as people live longer, and/or fewer people pay into the scheme (staff cuts/no new joiners) and/or inflation stays high (will it?) then the future underlying costs will keep increasing.


NATS are telling us of the huge increase in underlying costs, yet they have paid only just enough to make current pensioners' payments

..I hope I won't need to write another play... surely eglnyt can see...I'll keep my script writing hat on standby :ok:

You beat me to it chaps. Also certain grades can't post "no vote" comments on the Pension intranet site.
I am not sure if they can post any comments, and they have been told (dragged into the office) to refrain from any input :oh:

I reckon NATS' inside man/men has/have a hidden agenda.... he/they plant fear and doubt oor wind people up that the stress brings an early death. no more pensions payout (except lump and spouse) and underlying costs decrease.

Maybe NATS should be secretly poisoning staff as they reach retirement :oh:

Beware the newly installed water fountain.......:uhoh:
Vote no :ok:

I would suggest that this is already happening SATAN...3 words...Aramark Canteen Swanwick.

............:ok:

Well I used the figures suggested by your management colleagues to justify the imposition of the cap.

Are you now saying that those figures shouldn't be used if they're inconvenient for the 'Yes' argument?

I'm afraid you can't have it both ways, either we all use the same figures or we don't.

Which is it going to be?