It could make a HUGE difference depending on how the ballot is organised.

If it is done by branch, then the fact that just about every Prospect member ATCO says NO will only result in a NO result for that branch. The ATSS branch could have a completely different result, as could PCS (not just ATSAs in PCS).

So what would the NTUS do if they had big fat 99% NO from ATCO branch but YES from ATSS branch and PCS members? :confused:

Just keeping the debate going :E

RS

Mr 777

I think not all airports will be a No vote, the union seem to have done a job on mine, I would say about 50/50 at the mo.
They, that is the younger element seem to have been persuaded by the brief.
A history lesson of PPP has not been fully digested.

I am still a NO main reason being tied in for 15yrs on the cap.
Wonder how many people who tied their mortgage in for a long deal are happy with that now eh, see anything can happen sounds good at the time though I suppose.

As far as I know, if any of the following three .......ATCO, ATCE, or PCS return a majority no vote, then its a no vote for all members in those three groups

From Red Barron's blog today:

Thank you for your comments in which you raise a number of issues that I will try to deal with as follows.

As you can imagine, we have talked to the Government about what was said around the time of the PPP and the guarantees regarding the pension related to the Trust of a Promise. This guarantees that employees at that time would have continued membership of CAAPS, or the same benefits as if they had been in CAAPS. If the company is in financial distress then it says that we should use “best endeavours” to provide those benefits. Ian, if the company became insolvent, the Government would appoint an administrator whose role it would be to keep Air Traffic operating but also to refinance the organisation. It is highly unlikely that this would be achieved if the administrator kept in place the very vehicle that brought the company down in the first place, namely the pension scheme.

Whilst I was not around at the time, I can fully understand your frustration that the Government made a guarantee that they now appear to be reneging on. This is in fact not the case. The proposal still maintains your membership of the scheme so the Governments Trust of a promise is still in place. The amount and type of pensionable salary were always the employer’s decision and outside of the guarantee. What I know is that we are members of the best protected scheme in the UK, but unfortunately the protections cannot deal with the underlying cost which the company has to pick up. It is this cost that will in fact bring down the company together with the scheme and its protections if we do not do something about it.

In terms of your suggestion that investments will go up and down so why not wait, the answer is quite straightforward. We know that the underlying cost is going to be with us for years irrespective of what happens to the markets in the short to mid term and we have to deal with that threat now. I have been telling people on my roadshow that I am also a member of this scheme and in fact put my entire pension from my previous employment into CAAPS so, like you, I am worried about its future and desperate to protect it.

As the Chief Executive, my sole purpose is not to destroy the scheme, it is to maintain the health of the company which is in fact the only way we can protect our pension scheme.

Be in no doubt that if we had not generated profits in the last four years, which we have largely ploughed back into the refinancing of the company and the paying down of expensive loan notes (11%) set up after 9/11, then we would not be in the shape we are today to tackle both the threat of the pension scheme and the fall in revenues as a result of traffic downturn. The senior management of this company are also hard working and dedicated professionals who are as desperate to save this scheme as you are and the proposal that you have before you, which has taken 18 months to negotiate with the unions, is the best that either side can find to do just that.

With regard to the CP3 pass through, we have no guarantee that the regulator will allow existing pass through which I am sure you know only currently applies to those employees in the company before 1 January 2006 and it does not include the proportion of employees employed by NSL. We estimate that by 2010 almost 40% of our employees (not the employees themselves but the cost of them to the company) will not be covered by any potential pass through.

I am not sure about the scenario we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. I agree, we are certainly damned if we don’t, but capping pensionable pay at rpi +0.5% and starting a new scheme for new employees to protect a final salary scheme with only a 6% employee contribution would not, I imagine, for most people in the country be viewed as being damned.
,
Neither the management nor trade unions want to be in this place, but we all recognise that the best way we can protect our scheme is to make the changes we have proposed. This is why, for the sake of all of our pensions, we hope that you will support the joint proposals.

The Cap is just one issue and people seem to be getting side tracked by it.

Closing the pension scheme to new entrants is THE BIG ISSUE. Close the scheme and it will wither and die.

Having said that, if the proposal goes ahead, then I personally don't consider what we will have left as a Defined Benefit Scheme, as the percentage of final salary will depend on the outcome of every pay rise for the next 15 years. Every fraction of % pay rise above RPI+0.5% will further degrade the ratio of the scheme. People with a lot of years to go will quite possibly find themselves retiring on 50% final salary or less :eek:

That leaves a lot to chance and isn't a very solid definition, as far as I am concerned.

Looks like the grooming has now started, one last final push from the CEO to get this deal through so he can set us up for a sell off.
If this goes through, our new owners will have us on a 50% final salary pension scheme as opposed to the 2/3 we have now.

How arrogant !

Its the financial incompetence of him and his cronies that are the vehicle that is bringing the company down :mad: He is only concerned about his big fat pay off.
How would an administrator keep NATS operating if ATC staff went on strike because their pensions were being :mad: screwed

As in my previous post

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:


VOTE NO

Vote No

I don't think for one minute we are in this position because of financial incompetence - management want us to be in this position as having a cheaper-to-run pension scheme is in their interests (whether that be for sell off or to garner better profits is open for debate).
To that end, they have been very financially astute, taking money from the pot when it was in surplus, even though looking ahead, they could have forecast these problems.

Remember, the CAA section of CAAPS is doing very well, yet despite actuaries telling the CAA that they could pay reduced contributions, they have decide to maintain the underlying rate to ensure the viability of the scheme... a totally different attitude compared to that of NATS.

From Reds' Blog:If you know that, why has NATS acted in such a short term outlook when it decided to reduce its contributions? Why was the pensions problem not forecast prior to now (if you can make such a bold statment about knowing the future (above)), and why did NATS not act in a manner that the CAA has done to protect the pension?

Increased longevity etc is not something that has just sprung up over the past 5 years... SMART pensions are not a new concept.

NATS could have done more to protect the pension... what people have to ask themselves is why NATS did not, and do they trust NATS to protect the future proposed pension if it is voted in.

A 'YES' vote may well indicate to management that although we think more could have been done by them to protect the pension in the past, we are happy to let management rob the pension, then degrade our benefits.

If that's the message NATS receive, what will stop them in 5 years time coming back and saying they need to change the deal for the worst again?

The 15 year MOU is not worth the paper it will be written on... after all, the promises made at PPPAre being torn asunder because allegedly NATS is in trouble (though Red uses the fact that we are still in CAAPS to refute that the promise is being broken, and that the promise did not actually mention what the benefits would be... maybe true, but proof that we have been led down the garden path from the outset)

Something that can be used again in future years. This is the NATS that Red talks about (a nice bit of scaremongering), but NATS have in the very recent past made numerous claims about how well we are doing, have boasted about the improvement in our credit rating, have paid off loans early etc.

Finally, Red says - I think I am correct in saying Red received a nice big amount of money as compensation for having to leave his old pension scheme.

Also, I believe Red recently got a substantial pay rise... which will of course be fully pensionable (nice work to get that well-above RPI rise in before you push the cap through... nice manoeuvre Red)

And I also believe Red does not have too long to go to retirement... probably before any cap gives any real degradation on his pension.

I agree its not financial incompetence, its astute financial manoeuvering at the expense of our Pension scheme

Did you also read on his blog about the NSL watch manager he spoke to about pensions? He said that the NSL guy "like most people" just wanted the pension issue to go away. Actually Mr Barron, people just want you to go away I think.

Absolutely right. You just KNOW that there is no way he will come out of this NOT smelling of roses financially speaking. I console myself with the fact that the Chancellor has at least given him a bloody nose by hking his income tax up to 45%:)

Watch managers can't comment on NATS intranet or to the staff concerning Pensions. But its ok for Barron to spread rumours about watch managers to boost his propaganda machine !

Now come on, there must be some ATCOs in NATS that get hit by that new rate - there certainly aren't any engineers :}

If there are, I want a transfer to their unit!

"I console myself with the fact that the Chancellor has at least given him a bloody nose by hiking his income tax up to 45%"

45% rate doesn't come in until 2011 - Red Barron will be driving off into the sunset by then with his swag.

(Can't work out how to do quotes!) :bored:

In the words of James May..."Oh, cock!" :}

Me too with any luck !!! Providing the missus allows it :\

Minstack , click the
http://static.pprune.org/images/editor/quote.gif icon and paste your text that you have copied in the middle :ok:

Aren't the CAA still on 59ths?

Vote No - you mean like this? :bored:

That's an interesting question. Hopefully somebody who isn't boycotting the last few briefings can ask the Union reps. For industrial action to be official and enjoy the legal protection that goes with that label there must be a ballot for that action and the ballot must be called by the union. I've been able to find cases where unions wouldn't sanction action even though there was a positive vote (usually because the vote was too close) but not where the union wouldn't ballot for action in the first place.

CTC probably has a high proportion of non-members. The union-only briefing I attended probably lost about a third of those attending the open session. If you look at the early posts in the natsnet pensions area, you will see a lot of complaints about ineligibility to vote. Legally, the non-members' involvement ends with the 'consultation'. The bulk of the members will be Prospect ATSS and PCS. Both may have a different view to the ATCO's branch because they see more of the company than just the Ops Rooms.