Minesapint

Unfortunately with 'Talkback' the vast majority of the 'tick-box' questions are centred around the performance of your immediate line manager, though there are one or two more generic ones.

That said, even the more generic ones don't really lend themselves to stating how you really feel about the way the company is going - "Are you proud to work for NATS" - well actually, my answer would have to be 'yes'. NATS as a company, with its aims (ANSP provision) is a very good company and a good industry to be in with an above average percentage of talented people (All grades), and because of those people, a good place to work.

What I am not proud of is the direction the company is being taken.

Fortunately, there is a box at the end that you can write comments in - it allows you 3000 words... worth the 10 or 15 minutes making views known, if you have any :ok:

Ceannairceach

I assume that £47.1million figure is after shareholder dividens have been paid? Although in effect a true 'profit' figure as it shows what is left for the company after all costs, it doesn't reflect the fact that for a company said to be struggling with its present and future commitments, we will still give the airline group a whopping dividend.

The same airline group that is putting pressure on us and the regulator to reduce our charges, one of the reasons management are bleating about future costings!!:mad:

The BA and Virgin part of the airline group need to get some dosh back on their criminal actions following their massive fines. These are the sort of people who own NATS. Are we all still proud to work for them? :suspect: I believe four of their managers have been jailed or are facing jail sentences in the USA.

British Airways has been fined about £270m after it admitted collusion in fixing the prices of fuel surcharges

BBC NEWS | Business | BA's price-fix fine reaches £270m


Office of Fair Trading charges British Airways executives with price-fixing - Times Online

Playing devil's advocate here, but should we push for a pay increase in light of the announcement on the intranet regarding possible job losses for permanent staff?

Should we be pushing for a payrise when the company is about to post profits over £100 million on last year and over £50 million dividend to the airlines?

The intranet is a tool used by those above to steer things a 'certain' way. Think back to the pension propaganda last year!!!

Absolutely spot on sir!

The NATS intranet is being used to fuel fear and perpetrate propaganda. It is also being used to gauge opinion and "manage" staff in the way management want. This is how things actually work in all major businesses, but I guess the more naive and compliant amongst us cant or dont want to believe it :eek:

For possible job losses, read," lets frighten them about job losses and see if they jump"

PPRUNE ATC Issue forum - The REAL NATS intranet :ok:

Band2Drone

Short answer –

YES.

Longer answer –

We are about to announce huge profits.
We are paying a ridiculous dividend to the airlines.
Our operational staff continue to reduce delays and improve safety.
Our support staff continue to work long hours on other business enterprises.

What NATS is right to do is to look at what people are actually doing and see what is necessary for the company. Bin the projects etc that will not enhance NATS. Look at manpower properly and ensure that they are gainfully employed. If it becomes apparent that there is excess staff, then get rid. Even if that means permanent positions.

NATS is a business; once PPP came in we needed to run it like a business. Assessing the business as in the above paragraph should be done continually, not just because there is a financial downturn.

Case in point – the NATS awards. Many people have said this is a waste of good money. This year it is announced that they will not go ahead. If they were previously deemed to be so essential that we had to waste thousands of pounds running them, why are they no longer essential? Does that not indicate that it was indeed an unnecessary waste of cash?

Getting rid of permanent staff is not pleasant, but to steal a phrase often used by management lackeys when talking about pay freezes – ‘look at what’s happening in the real world’.

We should not be keeping staff purely through sentimentality.

The staff that remain, who will continue to make NATS the world leader that it is (despite managements interfering), deserve a pay rise.

Anyone thought about a lump sum payment instead of a payrise, just to tide us over and shut us up, it's something I'd find hard to say no to, provided it was big enough:} As I see it they company would save money as it wouldn't count toward pension costs?

I would like to suggest that one of the benefits of getting rid of permanent staff is that they are members of the "old" pension fund and by getting rid of them it just brings the day closer when members of the "new" pension fund outnumber the old members and then both the management and the unions (acting in the interest of the MAJORITY of members) can make changes to the existing pension entitlement such as transferring the risk to the employee of their pension provision.

The pension provision for those of us in what is now the 'old scheme' will not be in existence within 5 years I reckon; and it won't rely on the new members outnumbering the old.

NATS will come knocking and bleating about unaffordability before long :(

anotherthing wrote:

Bound to happen. Was speaking to an actuary today and apparently any pension fund evaluation that was done on 31st December 2008 will give some bad results. Even though this is not our triannual valuation I'm sure management will use any bad news to try a beat us with a stick, again!

anotherthing, it took 7 years at Luton airport after Barclays created a 'them & us' workforce following on from establishing 'new terms and conditions for new starters'.

Airport staff employed by the airport were once in the Local Govt Pension Scheme (LGPS), the sort your local council staff enjoy (final salary). Luton airport was concessioned out by the Town Hall, Barclays placed an axeman at the helm and the rest they say is history! And so it was for the 'old' terms and conditions!

NATS are broke!!

So broke they can afford to give people 2 years salary to leave the company!!

Does nobody think the reason NATS is splashing the MegaBucks right now might be to disguise the amount of money they are currently making? An accountancy trick?

The question I would like answering is this...

When did NATS stop being a Not For Profit Public Private Partnership and who made the decision?

It never stopped because it never was. Although it was a term frequently used in Parliament in the run up to PPP the true not for profit option as seen in Canada was rejected early on in favour of a sale of 51%. Not for profit was not a requirement of the bidders, does not feature in any of the legislation and, according to the Airline Group in a submission to the CAA, doesn't form any part of the Strategic Partnership Agreement they signed with the Government at PPP. The Airline Group actually used the term "not for commercial return" which isn't the same. To date the return on their investment falls far short of what might be described as a commercial return as very little in the way of dividend has been paid since PPP.

I, and I think every other operational member of NATS, was under the impression that the airline group received a piece of NATS for a relatively small cost on the understanding that it was a not for profit investment, but to ensure that NATS continued to provide the sterling service it always has.

In effect the 'dividend' to the airlines was the continued high standard of service. In fact part of the condition of allowing PPP was that airlines were to be invited so that they had an interest in the business (because it was, for want of a better phrase, in their interest).

The rest, including £50million dividens etc is smoke and mirrors. The existing pension is doomed - a situation manufactured by management.

A statement that could only come from the mouth of someone who is non-operational who does not understand what benefit good ATC is to airlines.

The airlines bought into PPP to ensure the maintenance of one of (if not the) best service providers. They receive a 'dividend' every day... Their investment is not about monetary dividends - it's about the continued work that NATS does at the coalface to reduce delays and provide shortcuts and in the back offices - re-designing airspace and procedures to benefit airlines. For example isn't that what the much vaunted AMAN was supposed to be about - reducing time in the hold and slowing down en-route, thus reducing fuel costs? How much money do you think airlines save by virtue of the fact that NATS does it's job well and strives to make changes to keep improving an already gold plated service??? Just because it is not shown by handing over big fat cheques, the airlines are benefitting...

Jobs in NATS are still going (some quite rightly) despite voting to change the pension.

Where are all the people now who said 'vote yes, save jobs' just 3 months ago???

We have weakend any power the workforce had and have given management the green light to screw us over in the future.

Good work people.

The "Yes men" have noticeably gone very quiet indeed :oh:

The usual suspects :suspect: on here seem to have dissappeared from the face of the earth :eek:
I wonder why ?


(looks like a some of them are coming out of the attic again :E )

I'll bite. I think you'll find I said vote yes to save my pension, not jobs. Although I'm told that the more difficult conversations taking place are with those who applied for VR but weren't accepted.

BD

Gen Kirkby

A payrise is the gift that keeps on giving, If you get a lump sum, then next years 3% doesn't include the payrise from last year and so on and so on.

Basically they're a cunch of bunts and have sold us all (Myself included) a dummy.

BDiONU

If thats the case, then it wasn't you I was talking about!!!! However there were plenty of people who were saying 'vote yes, it'll safeguard jobs' or 'if you vote no, you are costing people their jobs'.

As you are a non union member, it's very magnanimous of you to tell others how to vote...

Nope, we're still here, reading the usual drivel :ok:

You think these job losses would have been prevented if it'd been a No vote? It'll be the same or worse.

RS