eglnyt

0.55% = 0.5K loss :)
0.625% = 1K loss
0.75% = 2K loss
1% = 4K loss
1.5% = 8K loss
2.5% (LAST 10 year ave.) 16k loss

If NATS goes under,here we go again:ugh: HMG who own 49% will take over the rest and the Pension, otherwise we will go on strike! Remember NATS is crucial to the infrastrucure of UK security,safety,economy. NATS must continue to operate at full efficiency. The country would collapse with no aviation, no food, no tourism, no business!
I think any level headed individual would agree NATS can not "go under" if the private side fails, why do you think HMG has the major stake? Here we go again :ugh:UK SAFETY, ECONOMY, SECURITY.

That is why HMG retain the major share :ugh:

I also, await, as ever, a convoluted and overly verbose reply from your good self explaining the error of my ways.

yours sincerely

Vote No :)

It's the nature of my profession to lay down the entire argument when making a case so I'm trained to be verbose and convoluted. I accept that may be a problem when dealing with those who are trained to get a lot of information over in as few words as possible. (I only added this bit so as not to disapppoint you http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif
:) )

You can chose 1.5% if you think that is what you'll get. As that is the figure the Actuary uses and I believe them to be pessimistic I've gone for a lower figure especially based on my recent pay rises. I asked the question just to see what people were using because some have posted figures of greater than £12K worse off.

The longer you have until retirement, the greater the deficit will be. I have 25 years left and joined NATS quite late on (for an ATCO anyway) so my deficit is lower. There are guys I work with who are in their mid/late 20s who stand to lose in excess of £10k per year using the same figures I have used.

How does that compare to an ATSA1 in NATS? About the same except that the NATS employee isn't expected (or required) to risk their life in hot & sandy places.
Takes many years to reach that rank with a lot of associated hard work to climb the pyramid. Its not like being NATS staff with yearly spine point increases without lifting a finger in doing stuff over and above your day job.
And your average ATCO in NATS (bearing in mind that the number in area vastly outweighs aerodrome) earns a bit more (plus shift pay) without any promotion board either.
When I left the RAF in Jan 2000 as a Flight Sergeant I earned £26845.75. I was an ATCO in LJAO, so fairly closely equivalent to a civil AC ATCO. I started work as an APS for NATS on £28,768 plus shift pay of nearly £4000 with no secondary duties, responsible for no one working for me, no possibility of being sent to dangerous places and no possibility of welding a couple of aircraft together. Thats my comparison.
NATS pay isn't in the public domain and I can't be fagged to work them out.
I joined up in October 74 and am aware of the pay issues then. If you served with people who weren't complaining about pay you must have been very lucky!

Thanks for producing the stats to back up your response though :ok:

BD

Alfie1999

I'm ex forces, now a NATS ATCO. I have to concur with BDiONU.

As an Officer, I had numerous (unpaid and un-volunteered for) secondary duties, was moved from pillar to post (NATS staff don't really know what a mobile grade can mean!); was responsible (without extra pay) for the career advancement and pastoral care of junior officers/rankers below me; was eligible for postings to less salubrious area where I could get shot at.

And the pay, as an Officer (can't remember what my salary was when I left in 2001), was nowhere near as good as I get now as an ATCO (taking into consideration subsequent pay rises after I left) and I'm not anywhere near the top of scale yet)

The two are just not even remotely comparable when you take everything into consideration!

Trying to compare salaries is a non starter whatever jobs you compare, unless you are talking a direct like for like i.e. shelf stacking at Sainsburys compared to shelf stacking at Tescos etc

eglnyt

I am astounded you have not picked my post http://www.pprune.org/4547587-post1459.html

to pieces yet, is there any chance, however small, you might actually agree with a miniscule part of my account of what will likely happen ? :)

If NATS goes under,here we go again:ugh: HMG who own 49% will take over the rest and the Pension, otherwise we will go on strike! Remember NATS is crucial to the infrastrucure of UK security,safety,economy. NATS must continue to operate at full efficiency. The country would collapse with no aviation, no food, no tourism, no business!
I think any level headed individual would agree NATS can not "go under" if the private side fails, why do you think HMG has the major stake? Here we go again :ugh:UK SAFETY, ECONOMY, SECURITY.

That is why HMG retain the major share :ugh:

I hear this a an argument for a "safety net". Please show me where it states that the status quo would apply.

Do you trust them?

If HMG wants NATS to operate, I would gamble in HMG maintaining the status quo. Politics aside, I would rather we were back with HMG 100% , but the capitalists amongst you may beg to differ :)
Like I said, if NATS private part failed, HMG would continue the Pension status quo, because if they didn't they would have a strike on their hands. A 2 hour NAS glitch brings aviation to a standstill, a strike could not even be contemplated, and that is why I would gamble :)

As this ground was covered several hundred posts ago I didn't think there was any point. Nobody knows what would happen in that circumstance so your post is as possible as any that I could make. I know what the legislation says and that is contained in the previous posts but what will actually happen will depend upon what the Government decides to do and anybody who claims to know that is only guessing.

I accept that the industrial action option might be attractive for controllers. For others I think it would be a different matter and many of us would lose our jobs. That has a far worse effect on my pension than even the most optimistic RPI + pay rise in the modeller.

My opinion is that the Government has turned NATS staff over several times since 1997 so I'm not relying on them to save my pension or my job.

I wonder what the PATCO members thought before they went on strike in the USA back in 1981?

I dont think you can compare Reagan with HMG :)

Different country, different era, and different legislation governing strike action by employees and Governmental actions.

So not an option:ok:

Pension protection
 

"If you are a member of an eligible scheme, and you have reached the scheme's normal pension age, we will generally pay you 100 per cent compensation for what you should have received at the time your employer went bust. We will also generally pay 100 per cent compensation to those who have retired on legitimate ill-health grounds, regardless of age, and to those receiving a pension in relation to someone who has died. These payments are not subject to the compensation cap set out below.
If you have retired but have not yet reached the normal pension age of your scheme, we will pay you up to 90 per cent compensation. The same applies if you are yet to start receiving pension payments. This level of compensation is subject to an overall cap which is recalculated each year. Between April 2008 and March 2009, the cap at the age of 65 equates to £27,770.72 (once account was taken of the 90 per cent level of compensation).
In all cases, increases in future payments won't be as much as expected.":(

Another point to consider - is it fair that two people who do the same job for the same company, who get paid the same, retire on the same day with full pension entitlement (38 and a bit years) in a defined benefit scheme, receive a different amount per year in their pension? Surely this is no longer a defined benefit scheme anymore??

This is very likely with a cap on pensionable earnings. The fixed pay deal sounds a much better option (not necessarily a good one though!) as it removes any chance of such a strange situation occuring.

if only that were true.:p

Landed Out Again

Explain how you think that could happen any more than currently.

There are a number of ways in which your pensionable pay can be calculated and if either of the two's pensionable pay was more beneficial calculated by one of those alternatives then they might get more at present.

eglnyt - you cant agree with anything can you!

I'll try to make it more obvious for you though - it is very likely that two people who have had careers identical in every respect except for a 'join' date, who have had the same salary for the last 20 years +, who at no point have had any differences to pensionable pay, could receive a different pension under this proposal even if they retire on the same day, and have accrued the maximum 2/3rds pension.

Its morally wrong - and it wouldnt be a defined benefit scheme. If you cant tell me what % of my final salary i will receive on retirement, you cannot call this a DB scheme any more.


ERIC, not biting on that one :}

Sorry to be obvious, but if two people join on different days and retire on the same day,their careers have not been identical!

thats why it says EXCEPT for that one point :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

isnt it reasonable that if you and I make the same now, both work for the next five years, making the same during that time, and then retire together with maximum entitlement, that we should receive the same?

How much clearer do I need to be?

Landed Out

I didn't disagree, I asked you why you think that is the case because I'm trying to understand the point you are making. And although you think you've made it clear I still don't quite understand how they have different pensionable pay at the point they retire.

Where is the evidence that pensions are ever fair? If I work for 10 years in the same grade and someone else in a lower grade for the first six years gets promoted twice in the last four years, who do you think will get the higher pension? Who will have paid most into the scheme?