But there will be no losses until May 2021, when the current agreement will expire, unless management wants to payout in line with this, and its associated costs, then operational and the higher paid staff should be safe. Hopefully by May 2021 traffic will recover to a level that it would be impossible to make any member of staff redundant without affecting the operation. Of course, training may be stopped at any unit that makes a member of staff redundant as how can you say you don't need a member of staff while training a new one. Really think this is a kneejerk reaction from senior management as they wish to be seen doing something, but the longterm damage has exceeded any benefit. I think there are people in senior positions who should resign because of the complete mismanagement shown here.

I hope so too but: The agreement they want to ditch applies to CR only doesn't it? What if NATS let it be known they will be making people compulsorily redundant from next May. In the meantime they offer VR at much reduced rates to those of a few years ago. There may well be plenty of staff with many years service that would take the offer knowing they may get little after May. As I said upthread, BA/VIR pilots probably thought they were safe 6 months ago and look where they are now-ATCOs are no different unfortunately except for the ability to replace quickly.
Only time will tell if this is mis-management but I suspect any replacements may well be far more ruthless than someone whose brother is actually an ATCO and probably gets a good insight to the operation. Be careful what you wish for.

The line that NATS management have decided to take over working together and withdrawal from the current redundancy agreement must be questionable. It is my understanding that Enroute charges are levied by Eurocontrol and then distributed to member nations including UK NATS according to an agreed formula. Unless the mechanism has been changed since I left, the charges are around 12 months or more in arrears. Therefore NATS should not experience the loss of revenues until early 2021 at the earliest. This also ties in with the withdrawal from the redundancy agreement also in early 2021. NATS have suspended their DB pension contributions for at least 3 months, strange if they are not yet in a significant revenue loss. I feel that this may be part of a much larger plan to downsize the operation and move away from working together to a style more akin to BA

As soon as traffic started to drop off, it was agreed that airlines would not have to pay those fees owed from last year, so ANSPs across Europe are not getting the revenue they were expecting. There is a loan agreement now in place for Eurocontrol to pay up to 50% (I think - this is off the top of my head) of what was owed by airlines to ANSPs, and the remainder that was going to be paid this year is deferred to next year. ANSPs are hurting now.

Devil's advocate view is that, yes, while NATS senior management appear to have handled it poorly (i.e. why not give the union, say, a week's notice of withdrawing from the redundancy terms agreement?), if you were in charge what else could you have done? If you're trying to persuade the Govt. to prop you up, they sure as hell are going to ask what you've done as an organisation to try and put yourself in the best possible position in terms of financial viability.

But it's the way it's done that is crucial and helps to keep the mindset that "we're all in this together". All it needed was a grown up conversation with the unions to give a warning and reasoning of the decision. I thought one of the pillars of Working together was that would be no surprises from either side. Indeed it may well have made the conversation with the Govt easier by going to it knowing you've covered all the bases first.

250KTS has hit it on the head. When asked what the company has achieved they could have said, by lots of voluntary actions by staff, we have saved x million and everyone is on board with saving the company. Instead of which we have a situation where they can say, next May we can get rid of staff cheaper, and we've wound them up a bit. No savings ATM though. Oh, and if we get busy again, we have no overtime agreements so delays will go up if anyone is sick.

Anyone externally looking at the company would go "how stupid are you?". We have a union that works well with management. But they and we are hacked off. If they wanted to change the agreement just talk to the union and see what can be done, not act in such an authoritarian way.

But you arent "all in it together". Thats a myth that management have sold to your union for years to prevent any dissent in the ranks. Prospect have always had the name of being very comfortable in management company and have had their belly tickled over the years. Its only at times like this that suddenly realisation hits and actually the reality is that management will screw everybody and anything over if need be "for the good of the business". You're not a valuable team member - you're an expensive asset that is first in the firing line when things get tough. Wake up and smell the coffee folks!

Hopefully that management action will have been the wake up call for Prospect that is long overdue, maybe they'll find the will to actually put up a fight.

I was actually referring to the Govt line-not NATS. I think youre being a bit disingenuous towards our reps though. I think generally they put on the pressure when it's needed and that what has led to the salaries, time off and other benefits we enjoy-it doesn't just happen, most of the pressure is behind closed doors and the normal member sees none of the work. We all know it's not going to be perfect but for an organisation that has lost 95% if its' income to still be paying upto 100% of salary with furlough included, it stands among very few I would think.

I'm not sure which fight it is you refer to, but with nearly 100% membership rate and not many seeming to resign, the indications would be that the balance is about right most of the time

The hard reality is the salaries, time off and other perks you mention are clearly not sustainable in the current climate, if the union elect to fight this purely to endear themselves to the membership it will end up doing more damage. I’m coming up 8 weeks of furlough, sitting in the sunshine and every day that passes the reality becomes more stark

Salaries and other perks will be first in the crosshairs of management I would suggest. Ultimately any large business is run by accountants for one reason - to make profit. NATS is duty bound to show itself as a good investment and to return profits. Simplest way to achieve this when your income stream has taken a hit is to pass the problem onto the workers by reducing company costs - if this means redundancies and reduced T&Cs then that is what will happen. All this teamwork talk will soon be shown for what it was - a box ticking exercise by HR managers to show that they "care" about their workers. Newsflash - they don't. And this applies through all large companies in case anyone thinks I'm having an unfair pop at NATS, its standard practise, the problem is that this is probably the first time that many NATS workers have been exposed to this harsh reality and they can't really understand it. Those of us that have worked both for NATS and other ANSPs have maybe more real life experience than an ATCO that has been sheltered in the NATS bubble for their entire career.

I have many contacts both inside and outside NATS. For as long as I remember, NATS was always the benchmark that other ATCOs aspired to, NATS T&Cs, NATS pensions, NATSAGS covering a multitude of payments that would make others eyes water, and yes, the NATSAG that covered redundancy was unbelievable. I recall NATS ATCOs telling me the amounts they were getting in voluntary redundancy some years ago even though they were planning to retire within 6 months anyway! The amount of seemingly disposable money was unbelievable, when times were good it probably wasn't a big deal - however times have changed. To steal a line - winter is coming.

The North Atlantic is over complicated and bureaucratic. Then I realized that Canadians and Brits run it and that explained everything.

Are you employed in the industry 4runner? Or just SLF? The NATS is the busiest oceanic airspace in the world and remember, it’s a non-radar environment. If you’re SLF, that means lots of rules required to keep your bottom safe on a crossing.

escaped.atco

Nice statement, and much of this I do agree with, but, what fight are you referring to suggesting the unions need to grow some? Your statement suggests an inevitability of losing many key T&Cs. As justbeingnosey alludes to there seems to be an acceptance that this will happen. But there are ways and means to minimise the impact which may hurt staff in the short term but are recoverable over a period. An example is taking a pay cut now that is made up when the situation improves.Another way would be to negotiate that the retired staff get say a 10% reduction in pensions being paid to alleviate the drain on the fund on the guarantee that it is made up later. None of this is either desirable or palatable for either side but clearly cash flow is the biggest issue and any short term action may help guarantee the continued viability of the company

Pensions
 

As neither a retired staff member or a member of caaps I am still astounded that you suggest that retirees could take a 10% reduction in their pensions. They have served their time for caa/NATS and are living on a fixed income. Anyone still working for NATS can choose to not retire at 55 and continue to get a very good income until such time as they are able to retire . Those that have already left have made their decisions based on the figures they have been promised. It is typical of the attitude of some that feel that if they are maybe having to suffer so should everyone else. If the pension scheme were to allow this where is the stability for those in the future if they know that the members of the scheme will just dip into their pensions if times become hard again.
I am realistic enough to know that pay cuts are likely for us all but believe that the pensions being paid already are sacrosanct.

I merely put it out there as an option with the caveat that the difference would be made up-something you chose to ignore and not comment upon. I won't repeat it but maybe you should read all of the post and context before having a go.

None of this is nice to deal with but it is reality and if the worst came to pass and NATS became unsustainable the pensions we are all keen to defend to the hilt could be hit considerably harder than the figure I put out there as an example. This is not about everybody suffering or not, but potentially about the very survival of the company. And remember that as of next May there is maybe no enhanced redundancy on offer and so the ability to "continue to work until such time as they are able to retire" may well not be an option for some.

Tough times for all and let's hope we can all get through it relatively unscathed

I'm not having a go 250kts but some things will inevitably change. One of the problems Prospect, or any other union in a large organisation will have, is to compromise without capitulating. The nightmare scenario will be agreeing to a pay cut on the premise there will be no job cuts, a year later management say it isn't enough and people have to go. There's an agreement to temporarily shelve NATSAGs, a year later those NATSAGs are no longer affordable to bring back. Etc etc and the rot has set in. Good luck with the suggestion of shafting the pensioners! They've paid into the scheme in good faith and the current pickle is not their making. What I could see happening though is the 9% and 18% contributions being changed. How does 7 and 7 grab you for new starts, maybe even 6 and 6 - sure it won't affect any current employees so why not. A few years later though, the 9 and 18 is no longer affordable so the 7 and 7 is being rolled out across the business. NATS management will be in a position to benchmark themselves against other ANSPs now instead of the other way round. I know what T&Cs some of them have but not all and few even come close to what NATS employees have, particularly pensions.
You only need to look at the reason NATS Solutions came into existence to realise that senior management were only too aware of the unsustainability of bidding with proper NATS T&Cs for new contracts. Don't recall much protest from the proper NATS units that others were being brought into the NATS group under different T&Cs, the same principle will apply now. Rather than bring NATS Solutions up to NATS standards, management will be working out how to reduce NATS to a Solutions model.

Your argument is spurious at best! I read the entirety of your post but ignored those parts where you contradicted yourself . As you say let’s hope we all get through this but maybe not drag the people who have left the company into it .

escaped.atco

We seem to be agreeing on most things. I'm trying to look at ways to work through the immediate crisis whilst having negotiated a way to get back to "normal" when possible.
At no stage was I suggesting "shafting" anyone. The current problem is no one's making but the after effects could go beyond the present workforce if it all goes horribly wrong. You're right that the pensioners have paid in,as we all have, and at some stage in our careers we all have already had the goalposts changed in some way be it LTA caps, retirement age etc.

Let's hope we all come through this but it's best that we have the debate before it comes down the track to see what may or may not be acceptable-no matter how reluctant we may be to accept it. Personally I think there's loads of things NATS can do to keep cash in the company and future dividends would be first on the list

I'm not trying to pick holes in other peoples opinions, we're all entitled to see things from our own particular perspective. Yes, I've had goalposts moved during my career, final salary pension changed to money purchase, money purchase amounts changed to name a few. OT agreements changed, working practises changed. It happens across every industry, all I've been trying to say is that some NATS employees will never have seen any upheaval or change in their career, some have had very long careers and believe that they will retire without any hassle and that the company views them as essential to a successful business.

Future dividends fall into that unfortunate category of business and profit. If NATS suddenly said theres no dividend for the next several years, however we will continue to honour all current agreements and T&Cs even though they are way more generous than any other ANSP, shareholders will start asking awkward questions. Perhaps thats why such an important piece of country infrastructure might be better as a government role - not that it'll be run any better - just that a continuous profit isn't required regardless of the circumstances.

Which is sadly exactly what the airport customers, and airlines, want.

When I described what had happened a few weeks ago regarding NATSAG01 to a friend who works for a UK international airport and is very familiar with NATS, the response was 'Welcome to the real world'. Imagine working for an airport where maybe 60% or more of operational staff are currently being made redundant, and those that are left already had their pay cut by up to 30% a few months ago (and those on furlough are getting the Govt. minimum payment based on their new, lower salary), while their jobs are being merged with those in different departments to ensure that the role changes by more than the minimum forcing everyone to apply, rather than just keep their old job. And if I was in that position, and in the lucky few who have remained in employment, amongst my now-doubled workload is the task of re-negotiating the ATC contract. Where so far, apart from contractors, the worst that's happened is the company have served the previously-agreed 1 year's notice period for withdrawing from the redundancy payment agreement, I wonder what I'd be thinking?

I know exactly what any other normal person would be thinking! Something along the lines of “What planet are these deluded ATCOs on!”. That’s probably the polite response.

Which all poses another snag for Prospect, sympathy from public and indeed other aviation colleagues will be limited at best, more than likely non existent. We read daily about hundreds of aircrew redundancies and pay cuts, try telling them your sob story about the redundancy NATSAG. Good luck with that!

This current situation is definitely an excellent opportunity for NATS to re-asses and re-evaluate the “business”. There is a huge non valid support network, how many of these are essential and also could be employed as and when on a contract basis.

i still don’t believe NATS can afford to cut ATCO numbers, not after the last 2 years have been run with constant overtime. Factor in the number of impending retirements, and IF all the trainees validate controller numbers wI’ll break even. Yes some working practices can be changed and need to, plus there is an opportunity to utilise valid ATCO skills more.

The latest news from the travel industry would indicate the public’s appetite for travel is very high. Traffic could ramp up very quickly.

I know this is probably too sensible, but I wonder if NATS have actually bothered to ask their staff what their retirement intentions might be. If they haven't maybe that would be a good place to start. Or the TUs could initiate a survey unilaterally.

Way too sensible and also in this crazy time we live in, probably against some human rights rules and regulations now theres no official retirement age I believe!? :ugh:

It's asking about intentions-no different to asking how you may vote. No commitment having given an answer

As the DB pension scheme closed around 15 years ago to new employees roughly what percentage of NATS workforce is still on a DB pension? Despite the agreements made at the time of privatisation I am sure that NATS would be looking very closely at closing the scheme to all employees as it is an area that divides the workforce and probably could be pushed through in today’s economic climate.
I agree about freezing future dividend payments. NATS is “a non profit making organisation” where did that go? Public ownership is the only realistic way forward to avoid any more issues related to a downturn in traffic

Under the terms of the PPP the DB scheme cannot be closed to present members except by NATS closing down unless those members agree to it. That is my understanding anyway.

The reason the RA is so good is that if you are a controller, especially in area, and you were made redundant where else could you work? Nowhere in the UK and could be tricky abroad as well as licenses have still not harmonized. Therefore it is a big commitment to work this job despite the relatively good salary. It has no real skills that could transfer to another job so it is expensive to try and provide protection to staff. Comparing to pilots is wrong as if you have a type rating in a 737 you can work in almost any airline in the world and just need a short course to get up to speed on SOPs. ATCOs either need to revalidate somewhere or completely retrain and then revalidate, which is why most countries don't poach ATCOs as it generally is cheaper to start from younger people on lower starting salaries.

Just some thoughts.

Terrain safe,You are quite right about the terms of PPP not allowing the DB pension to be changed for existing staff, however we live in a very different world and if that same govt has to financially support NATS I am sure it is a question that would be asked as there are very few DB schemes left operating

There are three ways the DB scheme can be changed. Every single member agrees to the change, an Act of Parliament reverses the protection in the original Transport Act, or NATS goes bust and enters Transport Administration. The first is not going to happen. The second might, for the first time since PPP there is a government with both the inclination and the necessary majority to do it, but it would depend on them finding parliamentary time and they have other pet projects to favour. Even if they change the legislation it is possible that the agreement NATS signed to get previous concessions might still stop them closing the scheme. The third is likely unless either NATS cuts its costs to match its income or finds a generous benefactor willing to stump up the cash.

In the last Annual Report 1990 employees were members of the DB scheme against an average of 4464 employees in total. Those figures are a year old and a new Report is due soon.

NATS would dearly love to close the DB Scheme. It's size relative to the size of NATS means that if the scheme falters because of factors completely outside of NATS control the NATS balance sheet takes a big hit and last year its contribution to each DB Members pension was >40% of pensionable salary. The fact that it hasn't been able to do so is testament to the provision of the protections in the Act for which members can thank the late Lord Brett previously the General Secretary of IPMS, now Prospect.

Public ownership may be the only way forward but if you are an employee be careful what you wish for. Take a look at how public sector worker salaries have fared since 2008 and compare them with those in NATS. It is very likely that public sector workers will be those footing a lot of the bill for the money the government has recently been throwing around.

I see that NATS have today agreed to resume payments to CAAPS and to pay the shortfall for the three months in September. NATS must have also found the magic money tree as well, although it is good news

It appears to be based on some agreement, with their European [sic] partners, regards user charges ? As previous posters have suggested, it looks like ( IMHO ) NATS have offered the first “olive branch” in any pending negotiations with Prospect ? Could be wrong and September will probably shed more light. I for one complained strongly to the CAAPS trustees that yet another Pension Holiday could be very damaging, as the last one ( from memory ) was taken because the fund was in surplus ? We all know what happened next. In my heart, I would hope, that many more recipients took a similar stance and the Trustees made our reservations known. I can but hope. It’s going to be a very taxing year, in many different ways. I very much doubt that the profession will be anywhere near the chaotic strike action of the early eighties because there is far more at stake here.

Just to clarify, this wasn't a pension holiday, where the employer is not liable for paying in for a period, but a deferral of payments, which would have all been paid in but at a later date.

i still fear for ATSA’s like me, 8 years service after re-locating to the region

I feel for you in these times. Support staff must all be feeling vulnerable.
Gonzo is right this is not a holiday like the one in the early 2000s. But it cant be overlooked that the cost to NATS for that holiday was that the abatement rate was significantly improved.

Like you, I recall that the fund was in surplus, but that the surplus was split between members and the company. So whilst it’s true to say/suggest the company benefitted, it’s probably also fair to say that members benefitted too through improved accrual rates (again, from memory (?).

The accrual rate reduced to 58ths meaning people were fully funded earlier. The impact was of far greater benefit to the members in the long run than it was to NATS in the short term.

I’d love some clarity on the NATSAG thing ? How can something, which appeared to be enshrined in stone by the late Bill Brett, be cast aside without judiciary ?

The pension arrangements were protected in the Transport Act but most terms and conditions weren't. Gordon Brown was desperate to complete the sale but not so desperate that he would accept constraints that would scare off most bidders. The current Redundancy Agreement was introduced when the previous one was considered to fall foul of Age Discrimination Legislation. At the time it was less advantageous to many than the previous agreement but an incentive was offered and the majority voted to accept the new agreement. Part of the agreement allows it to be reviewed at the suggestion of either party, amended by agreement and terminated by either side with one year's notice. NATS has exercised that right.

At the end of the 80s the Government started taxing pension surpluses. The threat to the CAAPS surplus was addressed over a number of agreements aimed at reducing the surplus with the benefit to members being a reduction in the contribution rate and an improvement in the accrual rate. These were in place before PPP and became protected by the legislation. NATS took its share by reducing contributions but as it underwrites the scheme has since paid back a considerable amount to address the deficit whereas the members continue to benefit from their part even though there is no longer a surplus.

Thanks for that.

I'm impressed, quite a lot of knowledge about NATS here.

• So firstly, there are no compulsory redundancies, there is a small risk there might be next year if there are not enough voluntary redundancies. With the generous package I don't think they will be low on uptakes.
• They are changing the redundancy terms, they cannot come into effect for 12 months due to union negotiations so they'll be ready for any future redundancies.
• Expecting maybe 350 redundancies from a company of around 5000 employees (but this includes all the branches), controllers are not being offered redundancies as far as I am aware - could change?), as mentioned above it takes years to train them and it would be short sighted.
• Regarding shares, yes NATS are a private company, most things operate this way now, efficiencies etc. But the UK Government own 49% so it's basically nationalised, just a more efficient and held to account structure. To properly nationalise it now would be pointless, to what benefit. We sell our services all over the world now, the government usually get profit from us every year. To save cash, clearly needed, no dividends are being paid for the foreseeable future - common sense really.
• Further comment on share dividends, NATS likes to always pay dividends twice a year, they like to keep to the same amount to try to keep the company image as stable as possible (this is my personal opinion I must make clear). My observations of this throughout the years has been that the owners are happy to receive this but usually have other interests. You see NATS is owned by the Gov (I'm sure they don't push hard for dividends as such), 5% for employees and the rest is mostly airlines. So the owners are also our customers, so they are usually more interested in cutting the fees in the first place and especially cutting fuel by improving flight paths and gradual airport descent etc. Ryan air have some opinions on our fees haha
• We do not control our income, the EU controls our income (well Eurocontrol) so we get whatever they give us based on flight data.
• Many contractors were let go many months back, mostly project workers, most staff are not allowed on any of our sites, hence catering companies etc don't need as many staff.
• Immediate finances are improved with the use of furlough. Also the pension is being paid again and fully backdated. Redundancies are going ahead as income is expected to be hit for the next 2 years, just like many companies right now, money out must be balanced with money in.
• We do have an ageing work force so there is going to be a lot of retired staff in the coming few years, it's been a worry for a while.
• Someone said there is a bullying culture, that just sounds ridiculous to me, come work for NATS and you'll see a very desirable company, I've been here for over 10 years and see no bullying etc. The thing is, if one person interpret one activity wrongly and thinks it involves bullying then bam all of a sudden the whole company suffers from bullying. Not true at all.
• Staff (in engineering at least) were asked last year what their retirement expectations were, in answer to a question above. NATS wanted to know who was going soon, in the next 5 years or no current intention. From an engineering point of view many engineers will retire when the equipment they are experts in is replaced, they are at the door of retirement so don't want to invest years learning and working on the new systems - understandable and logical.

These are all my personal opinions and information that is not sensitive and/or publicly available.