During discussions at work yesterday, someone told me that something has to be done about the pension and then tried to convince me that the recently announced ideas were a way forward. A lot of it was a carefully trodden line but when I agreed that yes, something has to be done to keep the pension fund viable, but that the first avenue to explore should be NATS putting in everything they failed to pay in during the 'pension holiday' plus any amount that would have accrued from those contributions had the 'pension holiday' not taken place, there was no answer available. Then there was talk of NATS not being able to fund the pension and going bust and us all working for another provider who won't have a good scheme to offer us.

I think we know where this is going - if they don't tow the line, scare'em into it!

Sounds like the reps have been groomed to convince us during their "working together" sessions, no doubt using the current Global financial crisis to strengthen managements case and frighten us by weakening our resolve. Dont listen to them, use the ballott :ok:

Groomed or better informed ? Personally I won't be making up my mind which way to vote until after the briefings when I've asked some questions of those advocating a Yes vote. In the interest of fairness perhaps those advocating a No vote can provide some answers to the other questions I have to ask

If NATS putting back the money from its pension holiday really is the answer exactly where is it going to get that money from ?

Even if the regulator allowed pension passthrough do you really think the airlines could afford it ? What would be the effect on the industry of a 30% increase in fees ?

If there is a strike how long would NATS remain solvent before it goes into Aviation Administration ?

I accept that Band 5 ATCOs will probably survive administration but what about NSL staff, ATSAs, ATCO trainees and non ATCOs ?

What about Scottish and Manchester too (Band 4....)

Legal Status and Ownership

NATS Holdings Ltd is the holding company for NATS Group. It owns NATS Ltd, which in turn owns two operating subsidiaries: NATS (En-Route) plc (NERL) and NATS (Services) Ltd (NSL). The Airline Group Ltd, a consortium of seven airlines, has the majority of voting rights and 41.9% of the shares of NATS Holdings Ltd. The Secretary of State for Transport owns 48.9%, BAA plc 4.2%; and NATS Employee Sharetrust Ltd 5%.

The Government is the major shareholder (48.9%) and NATS cannot go into aviation administration. There is a good reason why they still part own it... because NATS is essential to the UK both economically and from a safety aspect, thus NATS will not be allowed to go into administration -even if it could.

There is a an underlying trend now and a wish for re-Nationalistion of industries (Northern Rock and now as I type ! Bradford and Bingley) which previously were in the private sector, and since NATS is only 51.1% private dont rule out going full circle to where we were before.
If I recall things were much better for the staff then.

In the current USA economic climate anything could happen, especially when there is a dramatic downturn in the aviation industry (trans-Atlantic especially, as this is NATS biggest earner) which always was and always will be volatile, nothing new here.

I’m very disappointed with the union for recommending the new pension proposals. As far as I’m aware the members did not request that the union entered into talks with management regarding pensions.
Since much of the information has been kept from the public eye due to confidentiality agreements only a few individuals have been privy to the full details. It seems these people have had there minds changed (remember one nats one pension??) and their opinions are set to shape future union policy. My concern is that many union members will go along with whatever is recommended by their union (which after all is supposed to have members best interests at heart.)

We have gone from one nats one pension to recommending a two tier pension AND worsening the terms of our current pension.
The argument seems to be “you’d better accept the new deal or nats will go bust and you’ll all lose you jobs and pension”
Yes the pension will cost nats lots of money – but as management are happy to tell everyone we’ve made a profit for the last 5 years so I’m sure we’ve got a few quid lying about. Plus since the UK government owns a large share of us and has a legal responsibility to provide ATC for the UK are they really likely to let us go bust?

Our pensions are legally protected – if we do nothing the trustees will force nats to pay sufficient contributions. I for one would be happy to let them do so.

I agree. Our union are spineless. Year after year they get further into managements pockets.

If we vote yes for these changes to our pension management know that they will get away with anything else they wish to throw at us.

Hopefully the workforce will have the conviction to stand up to management and when the vote comes up they give it an overwhelming NO.

Boys and girls it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.
The union sold the redundancy terms to you all for £750 or there abouts.
Think about how this works with the next line below!
NSL with reduced liabilities will become a far more attractive item to sell on to a new owner, after a few years or so new owner finds current T & C's for members un sustainable and closes scheme to everyone this will happen, it goes on out there every day watch the papers and other companies.
FFS stop this two tier pension fiasco when you get the ballot paper.
X in the NO box
Gov will not let us go bust, if they fekin underwrite Northern Rock they can underwrite my feckin pension and future ATCO's pensions too. Thier pension is bullet proof WTF is that about :mad: s.
I for one have been in long enough for it prob not to affect me, but I am prepared to fight for ATCO's future pensions.
One Nats One Pension my ARSE you know who you are:=

NATS can't go bust, there are clauses in the transport bill to make sure it can't. If NATS is unable to pay its bills the courts are required to make an "Air Traffic Administration Order" (apologies for incorrectly calling it Aviation Administration above). This would effectively nationalise NATS at no cost to the Government. The Railway privitisation legislation contained similar clauses which were used to bring Railtrack back into public ownership.

That may seem an attractive proposition to some but do we really understand what that means to NATS staff particularly those not directly involved in the NERL Licence ? You may not like the current management but they have some vested interest in the future of NATS and hopefully in the last few years they've learnt a bit about the company. Do you really think an accountant appointed by the Secretary of State will be better ? Our pension curently enjoys some protection afforded to it by agreements made during the privitisation process, what status do those agreements have if an Air Traffic Administration Order is raised ?

circ1

ONE NATS ONE PENSION 2006...........


[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'] NATS Trade Union Side[/FONT][FONT='Times New Roman','serif']



To:All NTUS Members7 March 2006


Dear Colleague

NATS PENSIONS SCHEME - UNIONS MEET MANAGEMENT

Firstly, thanks to all of you who took the time to respond to the circular dated February 2006. Your comments were most welcome and show the depth of feeling amongst members in support of defending the existing pension scheme arrangements.

As promised this is an update following a meeting between the NTUS and Senior NATS Management which took place on Thursday 2nd March.

At the meeting, Paul Barron and senior colleagues stated the following:

NATS intention is to safeguard the pensions of all our existing pension members. Existing NATS scheme members will remain in CAAPS and continue to accrue benefits on the current basis.
The Trust Deed and Rules and/or the "Trust of a Promise" protect current scheme members. This is through: a) The "no decrement" principle of CAAPS and b) the HMG "Trust of a Promise" for scheme members at the time of the PPP on 26 July 2001.
By Control Period 3 (CP3) there will be unsustainable pressure from NATS customers and the Regulator because this represents an open ended and volatile cost.
Most of the Defined Benefit "Final Salary" schemes of NATS customers have already closed.

In addition Management indicated that they had a number of concerns regarding future liabilities:

The cost of providing Defined Benefit Pensions has increased.
The ability to recover tax paid on dividend payments has been removed.
Members and dependents are living longer.
Stock Markets are down in relation to 2000 level.
Fall in Long-term Government Bond yields at lowest since 1950's.
Funding level has dropped from 144% March 2001 to 119% at December 03.
Pensions cash pass-through for CP2 only applies to NERL. (This has no implication for staff in NSL other than NATS having to pick up the cost as all staff are employed by NATS).
The cost of providing £1p.a. of pension has been increasing.

Paul Barron also stated that "doing nothing" was not an option and he invited the NTUS to work together with Management between now and 2008 to identify the choices we may have going forward. He also offered to investigate whether the next scheme tri-ennial review due on 31 December 2006 could be brought forward.

In relation to a possible new scheme for future employees NATS indicated:

Only new employees will join any new scheme, under which they would contribute at a level that is more in line with the TUC's recommended 2:1 employer/employee funding ratio. New employees would have choices from Defined Benefit through to Defined Contribution Options at appropriate employee contribution rates.
The target date for a new scheme would be April 2008.

In response the NTUS stated the following:

Welcomed the fact that Management recognised the strength of feeling amongst the membership on the matter of pensions and re-stated that we have a clear mandate to oppose any changes to the existing arrangements including the setting up of a two tier scheme for new employees.
Didn't wish the tri-ennial review to be brought forward as we have complete faith in the Scheme Trustees and Scheme Actuary who administer the scheme on a day to day basis. If at any time they identify the need to consider the existing or future viability of the scheme we would be the first to indicate our desire to have a dialogue through the existing arrangement which is the NATS Joint Pensions Committee.
Regarding the pressure being applied by the customers on the Regulator we requested that NATS arrange for representatives of the NTUS to meet with the British Airways CEO when he attends a NATS function on 8th March. NATS did not feel that it would be appropriate for a customer to debate an internal issue and declined the request.
The NTUS also finds it somewhat ironic that the Regulator is also a part of CAAPS albeit the CAA Section.
The NTUS will continue to campaign with members to oppose any changes to the current arrangements and any proposals to set up an alternative scheme for new employees.

Two further points:

Management intend to set up a Question & Answer process on Pensions. The NTUS agreed to input comments.

Paul Barron and colleagues will be conducting Road Shows around NATS within the next few weeks and they intend to raise the issue of Pensions. The NTUS welcomes this opportunity for members to be directly involved in the debate and therefore asks as many as possible of you to ensure that you attend a session at your unit.

Finally, we see this campaign to defend our pension scheme as being a marathon rather than a sprint. With that in mind the NTUS have set up a small working group to draw up a campaign strategy and should the need arise we will be calling for your support. In the meantime, as before, your comments and ideas on campaign activities would be most welcomed.

ONE NATS - ONE PENSION SCHEME


Yours sincerely

Alastair Nicolson
Alastair Nicolson
Trade Union Co-ordinator[/FONT]

Since our Union reps have seen fit to close the www.onenatsonepension.com web site due to embarrassment, the above will serve as a reminder :=

Arthur Scargill wrote:

Given what has happened, some would say a complete u-turn, how the hell are the rest of us supposed to make an informed decision if we are not privy to the same information that those who negotiated the deal have been?

I wouldn't buy any other financial package without doing my homework, so why should I do so with this issue?

RPI+.5%
 

Just did sum quick sums, if you expect an average annual pay increase of RPI + 2% which I don't think is unreasonable. And a current salary of 50k and RPI average of 3%
After 10 years
Final salary £81,000 Final pensionable salary £70,000
20 Years
Final salary £130,000 Final pensionable salary £99,000
30 Years
Final salary £210,000 Final pensionable salary £140,000
40 years
Final salary £350,000 Final pensionable salary £190,000

As I said quick sums so might not be totally correct but close enough I think that’s a F@@king massive difference.

Surely capping at RPI + 0.5% is a change to our current basis??


So he's achieved what he set out to achieve back in 2006 AND we've let him cut our own pensions.
I ask again WTF happened in those negotiations?

PLEASE make sure everyone at your units sees the (rough) figures bross_al posted. Even if they are rough ones it still makes scary reading.

boss_al wrote:

Forget about actual salary figures as they are meaningless, we never really know what our final salary is until the day we retire . However taking your figure of an average salary increase of RPI + 2%, buy my calculations this would mean anyone who had maximum years in the scheme would actually end up with a pension of 40% of their final salary rather than the 66% you would get retiring if you are able to retire now.

Will some people remember this is NOT just about ATCO's!

To Hooligan Bill your absolutely correct it was just easier for me to make my point that way. with the same assumption about average pay rise as above

10 years: 57% of final salary
20 years: 50% of final salary
30 years: 44% of final salary
40 years: 36% of final salary

compared to 66% with the current scheme

and autothrottle those are valid to all members of caaps

I for one will be resigning from the union once this farce is over,no matter what the outcome....GATCO here I come..........

No Speed

Some Pension Numbers To Consider
 

To get a perspective on what the current pension proposals might mean to you in the future, consider where you would stand today if these proposals had been introduced during the last recession, 18 years ago, in 1990.

£29888 - maximum ATCO2 pensionable salary in 1990

£73777 – maximum ATCO2 pensionable salary in 2008 (a rise of 147%)

79% - The amount RPI rose between 1990 and 2008

96% - The amount RPI+0.5% rose between 1990 and 2008

£58580 – The amount of pensionable salary you would have today if pensionable salary had been restricted to RPI+0.5% (as is proposed under the pension restructure)

£15197 – The reduction of your pensionable salary from what your contract of employment said when you joined and what you would get now.

£49184 – Your projected pension in 2008 based on your terms and conditions in 1990 and retiring on 2/3rds annual salary

£39053 – Your actual pension after pegged to RPI+0.5%

£10131 – Your annual loss of pension based on 2/3rds final pensionable salary

20.6% - The percentage cut in your pension due to RPI+0.5% peg

£844 – The monthly amount (at todays prices) that you would lose on your future pension.


All figures are projected and based on published NATS salary scales and published Government RPI figures. Correct as of September 2008.

Feel free to adapt the salary figures for your own trade/branch, apply the RPI %ages and circulate round your own units.

Jobby Weecher,

A superb post - some shocking & sobering numbers.

If you are an "oldie" like me who was an ATCO II until 1987 and is now an ATCO 3, Band 2, the numbers are probably even worse...

DD

Got to love the irony of this

News Story

since we let them have a payment holiday with guarantees of "this wouldnt happen", management within nats have been as i hear too busy to deal with the pension problem. Funnily enough Mr Baron and Co. have no problem providing time when share prices plummeted so as to enable them to provide the doom and gloom over our pension. This should have been sorted out earlier is our money for our union wasted?

We have been a profitable company in the past few years how much of this is down to us letting them reduce pension payments or no contributions at all for three years?

I am sorry but for me its a no vote to the pension changes but we need a majority and i am not sure who i trust on counting votes. After our union's last vote was for one pension mandated by us (the people who pay for them) what the hell are they doing.

I am willing to give up a days pay or more and even chance the company going bust and losing my job. Its all wrong we are being beaten down bit by bit, if we let this go ahead what happens at the next pension review? and the next and so on, eventually us dumb idiot frontline staff will have to pay for the privilege of doing our jobs i didnt get into this job with all that tedious training and have all this responsibility to live worse off than some other less difficult jobs pension when and if i reach 60 probably 70 when i get there

p.s. no need to go as far as middle east eurocontrol do a pension equal to ours with international private medical care for life thrown in if our pension changes i am sure i can swap a bit of ale for bagguettes and boulangeries, schnitzels or belgian beer !http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

p.s. whats the rule on getting a new union? one with a set of (if you read the humour page) FAST EAGLES???http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/confused.gif

There was a petition for special conference doing the rounds at MACC and ScOACC that basically went along the lines of the negotiating team is not to agree to anything on the pension front without first consulting the membership.

I fear that this is too late.

Regardless of the outcome some serious questions need to be asked of the BEC. :suspect:
As a watch union rep I'm embarrassed and angry - I'll be fighting this all the way.

If this proposal is accepted by us we might aswell not bother with any further negotiations for anything and just get on with life. this is the biggest shafting nats employees have faced. they have taken this glitch in the global economy to shaft us good and proper. In 5 years time when everything is rosy again and we ar ein a boom period they will not revert to old terms and conditions will they? of course not. because it wont even be mentioned by management.

its all very well saying things will improve in the financial markets given time. which they will. but it will all be a bit late if Nats has gone bust and our pension scheme wound up. and be under no illusion, any new buyer or government bail out will not honour our pension rights. If nats goes bust so will our pensions. allegedly the only thing that stopped that happening after 9/11 was the pensions holiday which would be better thought of as our pension scheme saving the company to save itself. It is a very emotive subject which we hopefully will hear more details on over the cominmg weeks. I think that if our union thinks it is unsustainable and our trustees are effectively saying the same then maybe we do need to be realistic about things , difficult though that is.

Of course they won't, they'll be to busy looking for more cuts to make the business more profitable and increase bonuses. We have to make the stand now.




when the company was going to the wall a new investor was sought and found in the shape of BAA. I see no reason that wouldn't happen again.

yes a new investor was found in the shape of the BAA. but that was not enough to save us. thats what the pension holiday did. would you invest in a company with the burden of our pension scheme. Most of us have shares in varous companies. look at why you invested in them and wether they have final salary pension schemes. The very reasons that makes them attractive to you as an investor are the same reasons we need to be attractive to investors. Not by getting rid of the scheme, thank god , but by making the costs known and controllable. I hate this more than anyone but it is the cold hard facts of modern economics. we should have fought harder against privatisation. that was a battle we may have been able to win. this , in my humble opinion , is not.

I'm still not sure we should be so concerned with nats going bust that we should give away our pension rights. If we were making a loss this may be a concern but we've made a PROFIT for the last five years. Plus I don't think it would be in the governments interest to let us go bust (voters flights cancelled / airline and airport jobs lost / failure to provide ATC over UK as agreed with ICAO).
If nats is in a situation where we're losing money maybe the (government owned) regulator would consider raising charges rather than expecting unrealistic year on year below inflation rate price increases.

I'll be voting no to any voluntary worsening of my protected pension scheme. Ask me again next financial year if we aren't celebrating six years of profits and have made a loss taking us into the red.

The fat lady hasn't sung yet.

Care to Guess what happened to those who had pensions when RailTrack was re nationalised following financial failure? The Government continued to pay contributions.....

Network Rail btw, which is the governmemnt run replacement for RailTrack,Two more than NATS, a semi private company. Some things ARE better run by the state.

BEX

Nice one BEX sock it to em:ok:

I work at a unit which could probably be described as one of those that could end up being at risk. However, I still think that voting 'no' is the way forward. Looking at what seems to be on offer and if we just accept is straight off, then it just sets a precedent that we are willing to accept anything that is thrown at us. Future pay rises and further amendments to terms and conditions will all be under the total control of management. They will know that we won't stand up for anything.

I'm willing to be proven wrong by the union roadshow thingy-me-bobs but the figures that people have been putting on here look worrying to me.

Network Rail
 

mmmmh!

News Releases: National
NETWORK RAIL TO LAUNCH NEW PENSION SCHEME


Thursday 14 February 2008 11:00
A third pension scheme, widening the choice for its 34,000 employees, was unveiled today by Network Rail.

The pension scheme will be a defined benefit arrangement, based on the average of an employees earnings, known as Career Average Revalued Earnings (CARE). This new pension gives Network Rail employees a wide choice of pension options - the best in the rail industry. Employees will be able to choose from:


A defined contribution scheme - a type of private pension plan with employee contributions being flexible (from 0 to 4%)
The new defined benefit scheme based on average earnings with employee contributions of around 6%
The existing defined benefit scheme (Railway Pensions Scheme - RPS) based on final salary with employee contributions presently around 11% of pensionable pay
The move to introduce a new pension scheme follows a recent report from the Railway Pensions Commission that concluded that the existing industry wide defined benefit scheme could become unaffordable for all parties in the future and recommended that railway companies should seek to provide a more affordable defined benefit scheme.

Iain Coucher, Chief Executive, said: "This is about providing our employees with the very best options when making those difficult financial planning decisions. Pensions are very important to our people and we want to provide great pension choices that balance cost and benefits, enabling employees to make informed decisions about their future.

"Our new CARE scheme will give everyone another option when making retirement planning decisions, an option that is a good balance between cost to the individual and the benefits it pays out."


Notes to Editors:

Details of the scheme:
• The CARE scheme is a shared cost defined benefit scheme, with 60%of the cost met by the employer and 40% by employees
• Employee pension contributions are expected to be around 6% of basic pay. (The defined contribution scheme is between 0 and 4%, while the final salary scheme is currently 10.8% of pensionable pay, rising to 11.36% from January 2009
• The CARE scheme offers life assurance of 4x pensionable pay and dependants pensions on death in service, together with ill-health retirement benefits
• Benefits will be based on 1.25% of basic pay for each year in the scheme
• An employee paying into the scheme over a 40 year career could achieve a pension of 50% of their average basic salary from the age of 65
• The CARE scheme will be open to new employees from day one. Existing employees will have the option to switch to the CARE scheme



Railway Pensions Commission:
The results of the 2004 valuation of the Railway Pension Scheme created real concerns across the rail industry that costs were too high and becoming unsustainable. All parties (employers and trade unions) agreed that something had to be done and as a result the Railway Pensions Commission was set up jointly in September 2006.

The Commission's remit was to consider, against a background of rising costs of pension provision, what, if any, alternative means of long term pension provision might be available that would be fair and affordable for both employees and employers.



Sometimes the full picture isn't so rosey as a headline!

And on FEB15th.......
15 February 2008 14:15



http://adserver.adtech.de/?adserv|2....77|KEY=ADTECH;

Is it not about time we had a vote of no confidence in our union.

They don't seem to be prepared to fight for what the membership want. They are supposed to be representing us not management.

Just one more point. How much would a one day shutdown cost UK PLC? More than enough to fund CAAPS for a LONG time. Perhaps it's time NATS was run properly as a not for profit company (as is only true and right) and the Government protected the pension.

BEX

My thoughts exactly.

Can I just reiterate my thoughts from a previous post....

"Legal Status and Ownership

NATS Holdings Ltd is the holding company for NATS Group. It owns NATS Ltd, which in turn owns two operating subsidiaries: NATS (En-Route) plc (NERL) and NATS (Services) Ltd (NSL). The Airline Group Ltd, a consortium of seven airlines, has the majority of voting rights and 41.9% of the shares of NATS Holdings Ltd. The Secretary of State for Transport owns 48.9%, BAA plc 4.2%; and NATS Employee Sharetrust Ltd 5%.

The Government is the major shareholder (48.9%) and NATS cannot go into administration. There is a good reason why they still part own it... because NATS is essential to the UK both economically and from a safety and security aspect, thus NATS will not be allowed to go into administration -even if it could."

Bearing the above in mind, since the Government owns 48.9% which belongs to the Public sector, perhaps we are attacking this from the wrong angle. Has anyone lobbied their local MP ? NATS is predominantly owned by the Government not the private shareholders above.

Please bear these facts in mind and try and steer away from any attempts to have your minds changed by the faint hearted who post management and dare I say Union "working together" opinions on this forum.

Consider this also, the meer threat of a one day strike would not be tolerated by the Public, never mind an actual ATC strike. We know the effects from a 3 hour computer glitch - headline news and major delays.
Do not underestimate the skills you have which this Government and the public cannot do without

:ok:

Missing the point
 

National Rail do have a defined benefit scheme open to all

HOWEVER

You can only join it after 5 years of service (reducing the benefits) and its cost is shared 60% by the employer and 40% by the employee. As it becomes more expensive, the employee contribution rate will rise, already being at 11% now.
Add to this that it is not a final salary scheme but an average salary scheme.
Add to this that it doesn't pay out even 2/3rds of average salary but somewhere between 33% and 60% after 40yrs service, depending on salary.
They also have a Defined Contribution scheme which every new member of staff must join for at least 5yrs.

Welcome to the railway pensions website

The point is that even in the renationalised world, there are no securities or guarantees and our scheme is head and shoulders above the Network Rail Pension (in benefits and in cost).

Before people make decisions, however emotive the subject, do the research, even if you don't attend any briefings, and make an informed decision. At the end of the day, the members and not the 'leadership' of the union will decide. No matter what the result of the ballot, YES or NO, I would hope everyone is able to make an informed decision on such an important subject.

As for the union stepping down, the union is the members. If they are unhappy with the way the union is doing business, then elect different 'leaders'. There are many people complaining but it seems very few willing to step up to the mark and do a better job. If you think you can, it looks like you'll have the support of a lot of people on here.

no not management or working together points of view. dont be so patronising and pompous. just a different view to yours! we will all have the full facts soon. hopefully! lets wait and see what we all think then. I sincerely hope I am wrong and that the pension proves to be sustainable in its present form. Its much easier to take the easy opinion that we can strike and everything will be ok again. In my opinion it is too late for that. those that think differently cant be dismissed by accusations of being management lackeys or weak union reps. It would actually have been much easier for the union to come out and say that maybe we could keep things the same. they have made themselves extremely unpopular over this and you have to ask yourself why. Maybe because they have seen all the facts and made a considered judgement based on those facts. Please refrain from the old accusations that they are just wannabe managers so suck up to management. dont you think they have pensions too. some of them with more invested in them than the two year veterans that seem to populate the knee jerk reactionary corner. I dont include all people that believe we should strike and there have been some very interesting posts from both sides. but please lets get away from this idea that because the news that is coming out is bad that it must be lies made up by some kind of management and union cartel. presumably the pension trustees are liars too!

I am sure our reps can do the job, but not the job they are doing at the moment for management.
All we ask is that they step back from "working together" and start working for the members.