NATS January 2008 Pay Rise

[The Fat Controller]

Good news for NATS ATCOs, bad news for the company.
August RPI is 4.1 %

[Me Me Me Me]

Believe me.... They can afford it! :}

[BobAgg]

Excuse the ignorance, but what are we getting in January?

RPI +1 :ok:, or just RPI!! :(

Cheers!

[Me Me Me Me]

Its just basic RPI... but there is an additional rise of 0.25% for non ATCOs to replace the option of BUPA membership given to ATCOs

So effectively its RPI+0.25% for the rest

(edited after re-reading the terms :uhoh: )

[BDiONU]

I believe that The Management have asked to enter into discussions with The Unions about pay rises from Jan 2009. Nice and early but I wonder if the actual money will be in our pockets on the correct date!

BD

[BigBoeing]

When / who is entitled to bupa membership? Being a product of the "new" trainee contract i half expect to have been written out of all future payrises, bupa schemes and other such nice things. What does the payrise actually mean? 4% of your salary increase?

[Gonzo]

All ATCOs get BUPA cover from Jan, I think....personal cover only.

ATCO1s and SATCOs get family cover.

Stand to be corrected.

[radar707]

Gonzo you are right, however ATCO's have the option to upgrade to family cover at the corporate rate whatever that may be.

[Geffen]

Hopefully information will be given out by january ref. the BUPA. Anyone have any idea what the upgrade to family cover might be?

[Gonzo]

Didn't realise that Radar.

I'm already with BUPA, so I hope there'll be an easy way to transfer.

[point5]

As far as I am aware, the Jan 2008 pay rise is not based on current RPI. It was only the initial Jan 2007 pay rise which was RPI based. The rise next Jan has already been factored into the pay scales and is approx 2.1%.

[The Fat Controller]

point5, you are incorrect.

Jan 2006 2.8%
Jan 2007 RPI (was actually 3.4%, there was no underpinning)
Jan 2008 RPI (underpinned at 2.6%)

The January increase will be the August RPI of 4.1%

Also all ATCOs get individual BUPA from the same date.

The published scales you have seen include the underpin 2.6%, do the maths !

[chiglet]

And what do the ATSAs get?
watp,iktch

[BDiONU]

And what do the ATSAs get?
The same reward as always for a good job, well done. No punishment ;)

BD

[Me Me Me Me]

As stated above... without doubt:

ATCO grades: 4.1% + BUPA
non ATCO grades: 4.1% + 0.25% = 4.35%

And yes, the money will be in pay in January... They've had 2 years warning after all :)

I'm not surprised they are in a hurry to start talking pay from '09 onwards. High RPI means operating costs are going to be higher that all their current forecasts... So they'll want to do something about that... The old pensions debate will get thrown in too! :=

[radarman]

4.1% + BUPA for all NATS ATCO's. Not!

Poor old LXGB, in spite of being assured we are all part of the big NATS brotherhood, won't get anything like that. Same as we don't get UHP, 30 days leave, LV's, OJTI allowance etc etc. Still, mustn't complain: it's nice and sunny, and a litre of Bells only costs about £7.50.

(Above might be of note to those worried about the Barron splitting NATS. It's already happened, but we're too small for anybody to notice).

[250 kts]

radar,

Time to put in for a posting-how does Aberdeen sound?:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[throw a dyce]

Well there a guy in ISZ who wants to go to LXGB.ISZ has a good quality of life and not too bad working environment.Weather could be better but as the Rev William Connolly says ''No such thing as bad weather,just the wrong kind of clothes''.
The only problem with Aberdeen Airport ATC is that they are doing a Band 4 or 5 job at Band 2 pay.....:E:hmm:
When will the fact that Aberdeen is fractionally busier than a Band 3 unit in the Midlands be looked at.And it does a vast amount of work for a certain Band 4 unit near Paddy's milestone.Jan 2008 the higher band units get even more,but the ones that have been shafted to keep the Band4/5's happy get the usual treatment.Band 2 unit busier than Band 3.:ugh::suspect:

[anotherthing]

throwadyce.....

Whilst I may agree with your gripe about the banding issues at some units, your comment of - Jan 2008 the higher band units get even more,but the ones that have been shafted to keep the Band4/5's happy get the usual treatment is very disingenuous... LXGB apart, we are all getting (ATCO wise) 4.1%.

Maybe it is time for you to apply for a transfer to a higher banded unit, if it irks you so much. After all, you state you would earn more at a less busy unit - therefor you obviously know/think you are up to the task.

"Money, mouth; interrogative position check, over"

[Me Me Me Me]

4.1% + BUPA for all NATS ATCO's. Not!

Poor old LXGB, in spite of being assured we are all part of the big NATS brotherhood, won't get anything like that. Same as we don't get UHP, 30 days leave, LV's, OJTI allowance etc etc. Still, mustn't complain: it's nice and sunny, and a litre of Bells only costs about £7.50.

(Above might be of note to those worried about the Barron splitting NATS. It's already happened, but we're too small for anybody to notice).

I admit to limited knowledge of the dragged-out pay negotiations there.. but I do believe there were improvements made. Are you not better off now than before the Barron arrived on the rock?

[throw a dyce]

Anotherthing,
4.1% of what? Are you saying that all ATCOs are getting exactly the same rise? :hmm:

[Me Me Me Me]

4.1% increase on your current pay... :D

If you dont think its enough you could always get another job :oh:

[throw a dyce]

So Band4 or 5 units get a bigger rise.:} Percentage rises.:ugh:

[Me Me Me Me]

Giving pay rises on a percentage of salary basis... Unheard of... The cheek of them!!!! :rolleyes:

[loubylou]

I thought it was based on September's RPI and published in October? Or is it def the Aug RPI?

louby

[hold at SATAN]

NATS have managed to remove the employment notice concerned from the intranet - hmmm
but if it is september, we may do better - inflation seems to be creeping upwards - see the graph: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=19
Those b*tching about the higher bands getting more cash: the same applies within the same band - those at the bottom of the scale get a smaller cash rise than those at the top, for doing EXACTLY the same job! and then you have the poor newly valid ab initios.

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE - THE END :ugh:

[anotherthing]

Throw a dyce

You really do have a bee in your bonnet, and a chip on each shoulder.

It's a percentage of your wage, same as any other pay rise... or should we start pay negotiations for the next pay deal with the intention of going for figures of money instead of a percentile? How about doing it inversely i.e.

Band 1 gets a £5k rise
Band 2 gets a £4k rise
Band 3 gets a £3k rise
Band 4 gets a £2k rise
Band 5 gets a £1k rise.

Or alternatively, you could apply for a transfer to a higher band unit – if you validate, you get the reward.

I agree the banding system is not exactly fair as it stands, but even you seem to agree to the fact that people at different units have either easier or harder jobs….

When will the fact that Aberdeen is fractionally busier than a Band 3 unit in the Midlands be looked at.And it does a vast amount of work for a certain Band 4 unit near Paddy's milestone

So you would be happier with higher pay than those who you deem to be less busy/complex than you?? In other words, banding, if it was done to your liking and advantage, is fine!

As I said before – “Money, Mouth interrogative position check, over”

[throw a dyce]

Anotherthing,
All sounds good to me.I don't have a chip on my shoulder.It's more like a fish supper.I think your pay scales rises are a good idea.I would tweak them a bit.Might narrow the pay gap,which has become too large.
As for me transferring etc.Well I have validated elsewhere at a equivalant to a Band 6 unit here,pay wise.:cool: Well you could come up here to ISZ and take a big pay cut.I could train you on the Airport side and IF you validate then I could be released.Haven't you noticed that NATS aren't going to post people around,unless there is a sound business reason.Especially those in their mid 40's.:hmm:
This Band 2 unit has seen a massive increase in traffic since the Banding exercise,which was a farce.Perhaps this might be reflected in 2009.Somehow I doubt it if history repeats itself.I think a bit more fairness is required.Sticking with percentage rises gives those at Band 4 and 5 at the top end of the scale a larger rise.Fairness yeah right.:zzz:

[BDiONU]

NATS have managed to remove the employment notice concerned from the intranet - hmmm
More a cock up than deliberate methinks. However I have just asked our senior union rep who states that ATSA grades are getting 4.1% plus an NHS loyalty bonus (BUPA for the ATCOs ;)) of .25% = 4.35% overall.

Oh and from what I hear the banding issues are being addressed for 2009 but some units will not like the proposed changes :\

BD

[anotherthing]

Oh and from what I hear the banding issues are being addressed for 2009 but some units will not like the proposed changes


and Throw a Dyce was just talking about Band 6 - weird coincidence.

Throw A Dyce

I like my lifestyle down here thanks, (even though it's in one of the most expensive cost of living areas - good idea to base new centres where you did, NATS), the pay almost makes up for the lack of mountains etc but gets eaten away by higher cost of living etc. So for that reason and the fact that I would not get a transfer I will not be taking you up on your job swap offer.

Having said that, I would validate mind you - have done similar to your current job before so thanks but no thanks. Multi runway ops with helos thrown in as well can be fun, but having been there done that, I prefer the challenges down here.:ok:

As for your equivalency of a band 6 unit in your previous job - you base that on what knowledge of complexity and traffic loading over here compared to your previous job?

I have always said the Banding issue was done badly, but even you admit there should be some differentiation - I think that my unit is one of the ones that should be in the top band (don't we all), based on real facts - it's the middle bands that, in my mind, muddy the waters somewhat.

[Gonzo]

There are postings being made too.....both in the last few months, and in the next few months we alone are getting valid ATCOs from the College, LACC, TC (area), TC (app) and Gatwick. I don't know the situation at Gatwick, but I do know very well that the other units I have mentioned are not exactly flush for staff....

[mhk77]

Anotherthing,
As for your equivalency of a band 6 unit in your previous job - you base that on what knowledge of complexity and traffic loading over here compared to your previous job?
To be fair to Throw a Dyce, I think he was comparing the PAY to be an equivalent to what Band 6 might be over here, NOT complexity and traffic loading. :ok:

[DangleOfAttack]

On the subject of family BUPA membership; be careful. Whilst I intend to take it up, there will be a tax increase for anyone who does, because you will be receiving a "taxable benefit" because you will be paying corporate rates:\, rather than the full rate.
With a 4% pay rise, funding this shouldn't be too much of a problem.:}

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

My life... some of you have no idea how lucky you are! Wish I was 10 years younger..

Don't forget that little tin with the slot in the top for: "Poor and distressed retired ATCOs".

Enjoy it while you can folks.....

[anotherthing]

mhk77

Yep, you are correct and I apologise for my misunderstanding. I'm not going to edit it out as that IMHO would make it seem like I was trying to hide my error!

I believe that Band 6 may be coming to NATS pay scales in the future - it already exists on paper seemingly.

Whilst not a great fan of the banding system (even though I am band 5), I do think it is not unfair to pay those more complex/busy units a little bit more. How the difficulty/complexity score is worked out is another matter entirely.

In my neck of the woods, Farnborough in my opinion, deserve more due to the problems with LARS traffic against IFR A/C, but of course this was not factored in on the old banding... who knows what else was left out.....

[Data Dad]

anotherthing wrote:

I do think it is not unfair to pay those more complex/busy units a little bit more.

And I don't think you would get many people disagreeing! However, do the following figures equate to "a little bit more"?

(Note: I was going to post the current salary figures but as this is a public forum I will just put the difference - go look up the actual figures if you are interested)

There is £23K difference between top of scale "normal" (ie non-LCE/DWM/WM) Band 2 and Band 5 ATCO's That means a Band 5 ATCO earns nearly 50% more than the equivalent Band 2! Is that a "little bit more"?

I am old enough to remember when all CAA/NATS atcos were paid the same amount irrespective of Location - now although I would never expect a return to that, the gap has become far too large and only gets larger every year.

DD

[BDiONU]

I do think it is not unfair to pay those more complex/busy units a little bit more. How the difficulty/complexity score is worked out is another matter entirely.
Leaving aside the fact that it was the unions who agreed the banding and rates lets think about the business. NATS is a business and it must make money. Would it not make purely business sense to scrap banding agreements and go onto pay purely based on your units revenue? Units which make less money pay less wages, irrespective of busyness or complexity revenue income is the bottom line in a business.

BD

[radarman]

Stop stirring things BD. :=

Do proper businesses like Marks and Spencer or Tesco pay their staff according to branch turnover?

[BDiONU]

Stop stirring things BD. :=
Do proper businesses like Marks and Spencer or Tesco pay their staff according to branch turnover?
Do they use banding? One size fits all it would seem to me, except for NATS.

BD

[GT3]

it was the unions who agreed the banding

I think you forgot to mention that management were part of the agreement too.

[BDiONU]

I think you forgot to mention that management were part of the agreement too.
My apologies, it does, of course, take two to tango. What I was attempting to point out to those who are hostile to and critical of the current banding arrangements is that they agreed to it.

BD

[Data Dad]

What I was attempting to point out to those who are hostile to and critical of the current banding arrangements is that they agreed to it.Prospect is of course a democratic organisation whereby the majority vote wins the day. Add up the number of potential voters at Band 1,2 and 3 units and compare to the number of same at Bands 4 and 5.....

If the all of the former voted "nay" and the majority of the latter vote "yay" then the latter will win. I am NOT claiming that this actually happened but it does show that statements like the above are not necessarily true.

Remember HTD? Vote on its abolition given to those who didn't even qualify for it! Who is going to vote "no" to a wodge of dosh for getting rid of something they didn't even get? :ugh:

No Doubt LV's will be next - and I expect all those who don't currently qualify for them will again get the "bribe" so that the minority can vote against to their hearts content without affecting the desired outcome:*

DD

[throw a dyce]

Anotherthing,
The Band 6 pay elsewhere was to reflect the huge cost of living there.The pay was very good,but the accomodation allowance was the same as a Band 2 take home pay in 2001.Traffic loading was busy and complexity was high.Ever worked Metric levels?:ok:
That's a shame your not coming up to heli land and getting a £23K pay cut.I was looking forward to you 100% validating.:E Don't forget that there is over 30% inflation in the housing market here so Hants isn't the only expensive place to live.Heating costs are far higher here as well.
As Data Dad say the Band1-3 units are always going to be at the mercy of the higher band units.That why Band 4-5 units are kept sweet,and the rest are not.How about Nats/Prospect rewarding over 25% increase in our traffic :D.Probably with another pay cut comparing with Band4-5.:(
I think I'll just eat the chips on my shoulder,and quit Prospect.What's the point in wasting that money for Scottish Football Association.
Ps we can't,all 75 of us,be union reps.

[BDiONU]

Prospect is of course a democratic organisation whereby the majority vote wins the day.
So what do you suggest, proportional representation? I personally don't see any other way in which the company can negotiate with its employees except through some form of representative body.

Oh and I very much doubt LVs will disappear. The larger units have subsidised canteens so the rest have to be treated equally. Even though there is obvious misuse of LVs in some cases.

BD

[Roffa]

How can you misuse luncheon vouchers? I used to buy curries with mine, does than count?

[BDiONU]

How can you misuse luncheon vouchers? I used to buy curries with mine, does than count?
Excellent use although I bet your workmates weren't best pleased with the result when you went back to work ;) Misuse as in using them for things other than food, which some places 'allow'.

BD

[eastern wiseguy]

Misuse as in using them for things other than food, which some places 'allow'.



Green eyed monster bd? Maybe you would prefer LV's instead of your subsidised canteen /starbucks / deli menu /fed up queing quick sandwich menu?. Of course you have NO problems bringing stuff airside....oh wait...you don't work airside anymore do you?:ugh::ugh:

[BDiONU]

Green eyed monster bd? Maybe you would prefer LV's instead of your subsidised canteen /starbucks / deli menu /fed up queing quick sandwich menu?. Of course you have NO problems bringing stuff airside....oh wait...you don't work airside anymore do you?:ugh::ugh:
Not at all jealous, I wouldn't particularly want LV's but I do notice that some places accept LV's for things that aren't, well, food ;) I've never worked airside thanks. One thing the company does get at places like the CTC are people who grab a sandwich to take back to their desk and carry on working. Backroom boys and girls have no mandated break periods ;)
The point of my earlier post was that I find it extremely unlikely that LV's will be taken away whilst larger units continue to enjoy subsidised canteens.

BD

[radar707]

Therefore another way to save the company money - don't subsidise canteens and don't give LV's

[eastern wiseguy]

Bd

Ex-Military ATCO of 25 years at both aerodrome and area

I've never worked airside thanks.

Oh.....silly me.

[BDiONU]

Bd
Oh.....silly me.
RAF stations don't have airside as you think of it ;) To a great extent once you're through the gate you're airside. Oh nor LV's, subsidised canteens or pay banding for ATCO's ;) My pay in NATS as an 'ATSA' grade is well over twice what I was paid as an RAF ATCO who controlled at the busiest airfields (Valley and Gutersloh) and in area at ScOACC and LATCC in LJAO.

BD

[SilentHandover]

Could have been at Stansted too, their tower landside is it not?

As for misusing LV's I feel really guilty now for buying Gin and Red wine in my weekly shop when I used to buy my food to take to work with me!!

[eastern wiseguy]

subsidised canteens

Bolleaux...the Rose Bowl at RAF Aldergrove/ The Loughside same location and any one of 30 odd bars and eateries scattered around the camp seemed pretty well subsidised to me...but hey ho.

Now if only they would take LV's ...quids in!!!:p

[mr.777]

Enjoy subsidised canteens? i take it you have never had the pleasure of dining at TC then! "Enjoy" is not a word I would choose to use, neither is "subsidised"...you're looking at £3-£4 for something that can only be described as curried. I would love to have LVs instead....

[BDiONU]

Enjoy subsidised canteens? i take it you have never had the pleasure of dining at TC then! "Enjoy" is not a word I would choose to use, neither is "subsidised"...you're looking at £3-£4 for something that can only be described as curried. I would love to have LVs instead....
I have dined at West Drayton (assume thats what you mean by TC), Prestwick, Swanwick and CTC. Everywhere there is one very similar comment "The food is much better at <one of the other places>"

BD

[BDiONU]

Bolleaux...the Rose Bowl at RAF Aldergrove/ The Loughside same location and any one of 30 odd bars and eateries scattered around the camp seemed pretty well subsidised to me...but hey ho.
I spent 25 years in the RAF and I suspect you're suffering from the perception that many civilians suffer from. The Armed Forces pay for food and drink same as everyone else, they pay for housing, they don't enjoy tax breaks whilst living overseas. Those are all things I've heard from civilians who believe that the Forces don't pay for.
Also the Forces have poor wages, no overtime but are expected to work extra hours and no shift pay but shifts are often the norm.

I seem to have hit a nerve with my off the cuff comment on misuse of LV's.

BD

[MrJones]

Enjoy subsidised canteens? i take it you have never had the pleasure of dining at TC then! "Enjoy" is not a word I would choose to use, neither is "subsidised"...you're looking at £3-£4 for something that can only be described as curried. I would love to have LVs instead....

I think you speak for nearly everyone there. Most of the stuff the canteens produce is 4th rate at best and I don't believe they are that subsidised.

[BDiONU]

I don't believe they are that subsidised.
I can have a cooked breakfast for less than a pound. If you don't believe they're subsidised ask your union rep as its part of the pay deal :) Better still put the question up on the Q&A board in the foyer at West Drayton and the GM Swanwick (AB) can answer you fully and put the answer up on the intranet for all to read. I've read through the list of Q&A and he gives very thorough answers to all sorts of questions.


BD

[Gonzo]

If you don't believe they're subsidised, please do get in touch and I'll arrange a visit to Heathrow, and then you can see how much we have to pay for a hot dinner or cooked breakfast from one of the T3 food outlets. And in general there's no difference in quality.

[throw a dyce]

Gonzo,
Don't you get LV's at LL?

[Gonzo]

Yes, that's the point.

[throw a dyce]

Even after BAA show your card staff discount? They knock off 10% here.:ok:
BDiONU,
LV's are only a form of payment like cash,cards,etc.We pay tax on them.As for misuse then it's up to the retailer.I think the cost to the retailer to process them is about the same as credit cards.Some don't mind what they are used for.However I wouldn't be surprised if Nats try and scrap them.''Chipping'' away at terms and conditions all the time.:suspect:

[Gonzo]

10% off £6 is still £5.40! :}

[BDiONU]

However I wouldn't be surprised if Nats try and scrap them.''Chipping'' away at terms and conditions all the time.:suspect:
But they'd need to offer something in return, the unions won't allow them to be 'scrapped'.

BD

[BAND4ALL]

BD, It's called a lump sum mate:E

[throw a dyce]

Lump Sum.A tried and tested procedure.What's next on the hit list?
Gonzo,
Yes I could work out 10% without a calculator.It's still discount,not a lot,and you get LVs as well.Look at the outside world where NHS staff have to pay for a car park to get to work.Life's tough at the top of the Band 5 scale, I know.I'm sure you'll struggle on somehow.:hmm:

[Gonzo]

Eh? How did we get on to car parking?:ugh:

I was responding to a remark where it was claimed that the 'subsidised' canteens at larger units were not thought to be 'subsidised'. I was pointing out that in fact they are, compared to the price of similar food available at the other units (not that at places such as Heathrow or Gatwick or other airside towers you'd ever have time to do such in a 30 minute break).

Therefore, I was pointing out that those who do have a canteen on unit are not at a disadvantage.

I was not complaining, I was merely making an observation.

Not everything has to be about banding. :ugh:

[anotherthing]

BDiONU


...........spent 25 years in the RAF and I suspect you're suffering from the perception that many civilians suffer from. The Armed Forces pay for food and drink same as everyone else, they pay for housing,.............

naughty, naughty stop fibbing Mr B!! The above are subsidised in the Forces, quite heavily up until the recent past, the thing about the tax breaks is correct however and certainly needs looked at.

Gonzo -

If you look through all the threads that Throw A Dyce has contributed to, everything boils down to banding;)

[BDiONU]

BDiONU
naughty, naughty stop fibbing Mr B!! The above are subsidised in the Forces, quite heavily up until the recent past,
I think you're going to have to come up with some specific examples before you start accusations of lying. I can assure you that in HM Forces food, drink and accomodation is NOT subsidised. Any other serving or ex-serving readers care to join in the debate?

BD

[anotherthing]

BDiONU

Shall we get to specifics, I was not accucisng you of lying, merely misleading.

If you owned your own home in the forces, the cost was all down to you the individual.

If you lived in forces accomodation, you paid, but at nowhere near the cost of a similar sized house would be to rent - FACT. If you lived in the junior/senior rates or Officers mess, you paid depending on the grade (call it comfort factor) of the accomodation (used to be 1-4). The lowest grade used to be circa £90 a month in the late 90s.

Heating and electricity was all included in the accomodation in the messes, but not if you lived in a house.

When you lived in the mess, you also got your food for approximately £3.50 a day for all meals (again late 90s prices).. I believe PAYD is now in force in some, or all of the establishments. However, if you were a live-er out you could get lunch on a pay to dine basis (i.e. pay for individual meals) and it was cheaper than you could get it outside - i.e. it was subsidised.

Council tax, again if you were lived in accomodation on the base, was very cheap... I remember paying about 16p per day - late 90s prices.

Now, how in any way can you state these things were not subsidised?

IF you as an individual never lived in a mess on the base, or never lived in a service house, then you probably never had a subsidy (as long as you never dined in on the odd occasion), but I know of no serviceman who has never lived on the base at some pioint in their career.

Now, I may still be mistaken - I may be the only serviceman who has ever paid these prices, whilst my colleagues all paid full whack..... maybe I should keep quiet before someone tries to claim it all bacK!

as you asked
Any other serving or ex-serving readers care to join in the debate?

[BDiONU]

BDiONU
Shall we get to specifics, I was not accucisng you of lying, merely misleading.

Fibbing was the term you used, misleading could be used or if you're in the government being economical with the truth. It boils down to the same thing and I'm not particularly pleased to be accused of lying.
If you lived in forces accomodation, you paid, but at nowhere near the cost of a similar sized house would be to rent - FACT.
You need to read the Armed Forces Pay Review Body reports on the comparable costs of rented accomodation to Forces accomodation, you'd be surprised at how wrong your perceptions are.
If you lived in the junior/senior rates or Officers mess, you paid depending on the grade (call it comfort factor) of the accomodation (used to be 1-4). The lowest grade used to be circa £90 a month in the late 90s.
Again I'd refer you to the AFPRB reports on accomodation. They were very much less than impressed with the lowest grades, hence the 'quality' was reflected in the price the serviceman paid. In addition there are many other factors which the AFPRB point out, for example servicemen have no 'right to buy' Service Family Accomodation (Married Quarters in your day).
When you lived in the mess, you also got your food for approximately £3.50 a day for all meals (again late 90s prices).. I believe PAYD is now in force in some, or all of the establishments. However, if you were a live-er out you could get lunch on a pay to dine basis (i.e. pay for individual meals) and it was cheaper than you could get it outside - i.e. it was subsidised.
Again you really need to read the AFPRB reports to dispell your misconceptions on these alleged subsidies. As an example some of the food purchased came from the EU stockpiles (like the EU butter mountain) at a rate which did not include the profits which supermarkets have to include to be able to run. Please try to contain yourself to areas which are like for like.
Council tax, again if you were lived in accomodation on the base, was very cheap... I remember paying about 16p per day - late 90s prices.
I can once again refer you to the AFPRB reports, an independent body. Bear in mind that On Base accomodation is on private land, owned by HMG, not maintained by the council.
Now, how in any way can you state these things were not subsidised?
Because if you think that living in on base accomodation is in any way comparable to living in the civil world you lived in a very different service world to mine. The AFPRB tackles all of the points you raise and make it very clear as to why there is a difference, not a subsidy, a difference. Indeed in all the instances you raise the AFPRB were at great pains to point out to HMG just where servicemen were being disadvantaged in comparison to their civil counterparts.
I too would be interested in the viewpoint of some other serving or ex-serving members of HM forces.

BD

[eastern wiseguy]

You don't like "fibbing"

I take offence at

my off the cuff comment on misuse of LV's

Let's move the thread back on track.

[Standard Noise]

So you can use LV's to buy Tequila, big deal! I heard of someone who used theirs to buy a Plasma telly. Smart thinking.

Anyhoo, to be really correct and not misuse them, one would have to go to Tesco twice a week with one trip solely for 'work related' foodstuffs (oh bugger, I've run out of butter, I'll just nip down to Tesco for a half pound rather than use what's in the fridge:rolleyes:). B***ocks to that, once a week at our local Tesco is enough to have me reaching for the sharp knives.:ugh:

[cornish-stormrider]

Oh, and I suppose I must have volunteered to be sent 715 miles frommy family, friends, life etc. The costs of having single accomodation might well be cheap but I have existed in a room with 1 door, one window, one power point, no tv point, no phone point, leaky roof, cockroaches, rats, no furniture other than a broken bed, and a 35 miles per day commute each way to work, having to be at work at 05.30.

I have also stayed in a barrack block at the exact point parallel to lift off for many Tornado Aircraft. Loud??? try sleeping off night shift when all you can hear is the sound of overtime.

But I volunteered..................?

The point is it might be cheap, it is because it is cr4p substandard hell living there.

Ever slept six men in a four man room?

Ever slept 32 in a 16?

Cheap, no privacy, lots of stress. The only good bits were giving the lads marks out of ten for the goping trolls they had bought back from the bop :E

[Me Me Me Me]

I get LVs... I hate the things. There was a proposal put the the Unions AGM to replace the vouchers with a salary allowance... It was knocked back, I believe, due to being a reduction in benefits.. Which it only is if you count the miniscule tax saving.

One of the women here took them to Tesco to buy her shopping and was asked if they were "vouchers for single parents?"

Personally, the sooner NATS get rid of the silly paper food stamps and give me cash instead the better.

[anotherthing]

Cornish-stormrider

One more reply from me as it is thread creep - as the majority of times living on the base is a choice (not always but a majority), you take the rough with the smooth. I lived in substandard officers messes in 2 establishments, and I paid the prices that I refer to in one of them (can't recollect the other). Stayed in many other messes that were of better standard and paid a bit more, but not earth shattering amounts.

They are in my book, subsidised. I won't even mention the access to a gym/swimming pool/sports hall for no cost etc etc (on most bases). Yes, it was one room, but the overall cost was less than what you would pay to rent a room outside, and the facilities were (usually) better... Even if the room was pants, the communal areas and free sports facilities etc made up in some way.

As for living 700 odd miles from your family, several questions arise.

1. Why did you not move them?
2. What did you expect when you joined a fighting force - a career based at one base for the entirety?

So yes, you did volunteer, by signing the dotted line. Conscription has long gone in this country

BDiONU

So the MOD bought surplus food from the EU at a cut price? And your point is?

It was fit for human consumption, they did what any business e.g. Aramark would do if they had access to this facility. As you bring specifics into it, I could talk about the state of the sausages (etc) that appear at breakfast time -I eat them (my choice) but they are nothing more than cheap bulk buy. No different to the MOD getting food on the cheap.

I believe we had subsidies - it was part of the package you got as a serviceman... I chose to stay in some of the accomodation as it suited me - cheap and cheerful, with a great social aspect. It was pants, but it was my choice. I stand by my comments having stayed in two of the worst officers messes (room wise, not neccesarily communal area wise) around... I have rented rooms in bournemouth that were smaller/less privacy/less facilities that cost a hell of a lot more.

I know I was susidised. Go to any serving member of the forces who has been in a few years and they moan (quite rightly) about the erosion of their perks - which include cheaper accomodation and food etc etc. Search hard enough and you will find a long thread bemoaning the introduction of PAYD as it meant paying more for food as you paid for individiual meals and course, almost as we do in a canteen. Why moan about PAYD if it doesn't mean you are losing out?

The AFPRB is all very well, but like any body that is full of bean counters, it uses figures to suit itself. It can claim never to have given subsidies as a means to making people pay more in the future. Or it can claim that offsetting losses is actually not subsidising.

Maybe you would like to look through your old pay statements if you have them and tell us what you paid and where you were based at the time, whilst listing the facilities available to you?

I normally agree with the majority of what you say BDiONU - but I'm afraid that I consider (in fact I know) that I received subsidies (however you like to dress them up)... I am happy to let Joe Public decide what he classes as subsidised living costs.

[250 kts]

I take it then that we are relatively pleased with another 4.1% pensionable pay increase-I know I certainly am. Remember this is there till the day you retire and all other increases are based on this. Has anyone done a calculation to see just what this makes the 3 year deal worth in total?

Well done to the union guys for another significant increase achieved in a difficult climate.:D

[Wrathmonk]

Without wishing to get in a real pi55ing contest abouts terms of employment etc but the big difference as far as I can tell between military cook house food prices and civilian canteen food prices is that the military are not trying to make a profit. The £x the head military chef got each day all went into the food and may reflect the true cost of the food therefore the £x plus y that you pay in the civilian canteen is all profit (granted there would also be an element of staff costs that the military may reflect in another bidget on the basis of "warfighter first, slop jockey second"). Bottom line when you join any company what "perks" you receive on day 1 is your personal baseline. If you don't like subsequent changes then leave - believe me the erosion in military "T&Cs" is one of the big factors that is being quoted by those leaving, whether it be the amount you pay for food, the standard of the military housing, or the fact that you just can't get decent stabling for your Polo ponies:E

[whowhenwhy]

Yes there are SMALL subsidies / VAT exemptions (I think) in certain defined areas. Yes, it is cheaper to live in the mess/live in a quarter than in the outside world. However, please set that aside:

- Lack of access to GPs/Dentists for your family because you keep moving around the country and the NHS couldn't give a t0ss.
- C&*p standard of accommodation - no matter how you dress it up.
- Unable to get people (let alone decent people) to come and mend stuff in your house/room because there's no money in the system.
- C&*p food in many messes because they've let Aramark run it (who are trying to make a profit).
- Some people cannot afford to live in their own house due to posting location, even if they wanted to (read anywhere in the south-east)!!
- Having to pay for the food and salubrious accommodation offered when we're fighting Uncle Tony's wars in far flung lands (yes that's right kids - paying for the privilege of tents/ISO containers and field kitchen grub).
- The Service provides Phys Ed facilities because it wants it's personnel to be fit. It's not a perk - it's part of the job!

I'd go on, but it's just making me question whether I can really stomach hangin around for the pension. :ugh::ugh:

[PH-UKU]

BDiOnU-Would it not make purely business sense to scrap banding agreements and go onto pay purely based on your units revenue? Units which make less money pay less wages, irrespective of busyness or complexity revenue income is the bottom line in a business.


The man is a geniu - that's all the pen-pushers and managers in CTC ph-ukd then :)

Yippee, big rise for the rest of us ?

[hold at SATAN]

15.8% for a mid scale ATCO 2 Band 5 from 01/01/05 to 01/01/08 - excluding annual spine point progression

[Homo Simpson]

Well us at Manchester are looking forward to getting our even bigger and fair pay rise when we get equal pay!

Not one constructed from a deliberately tweaked formula!

[250 kts]

Equal pay with who? TC? AC? Thames Radar? Scottish? Farnborough?:ugh::ugh:

[Homo Simpson]

Band 5 units if that answers your question.

[mhk77]

Well us at Manchester are looking forward to getting our even bigger and fair pay rise when we get equal pay!
Not one constructed from a deliberately tweaked formula!
I wish you lot at Manchester would stop bleating on about how unfair everything is, and how it's not right, and how you should be paid more and more, blah blah blah. You're Band 4 FFS. Looking at the current pay scales that means a bog standard ATCO at Manchester at the top of the scale will be on £70,122.07 [B]basic. Add on to the top of that £5k+ for shift allowances thats a bloody good wage. So what if LACC get £8k or so more. I bet the cost of living down there more than negates the difference.
Pay a visit to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Farnborough etc. See how hard they work. Then remember that they are using [B][B]2 ratings[B]. (Not 1 like the MACC ATCOs) Then think that the guys at the Scottish airports are Band 2. Top of the scale for a bog standard ATCO? £56,060.87. At Farnborough? £55,282.77. That's a £14k-£15k pay differential from you lot at Manchester and £20k+ from LACC, TC, EGLL etc.
DEAL WITH IT! :ugh::ugh::ugh:
annnnnnnnnnd relax............:O

[viaEGLL]

You Manchester guys kill me:O:O
The last trainee you sent us gives a good insight into the traffic levels at Manchester:D:D

[The Fat Controller]

mhk77

The "bog standard" top of the scale ATCO2 at band 4 units will be :-

£73777 salary plus £5383 ASAP = £79159

I am one of these. :)

Please stop hi-jacking my "pay" thread with banding issues !!!!

:ok:

LOL

[throw a dyce]

The ''Pay'' issue has only made the ''Banding'' issue worse.There is a lot of grumblings at shop floor level about Band 4 ATCO's giving us Band 2's all the crap to sort out all the time.This is not just me ranting.This is what I hear everyday.
I got shot down about this but the fact is that higher Bands top of the scale got a bigger increase(£ in your pocket) than the rest of the lower pond life.For what? Productivity? Traffic growth?
It's not hijacking a thread.It's a logical that lower Band's will be resentful,especially when the gap is higher than a lot of peoples annual wage.:hmm:

[viaEGLL]

Well, if you would like Band 5 pay then please transfer to a band 5 unit:*
1. This would help our staffing issues.
2. Would get you that most important thing in the world BAND 5 PAY:ugh:
3. "Traffic levels here are the same" i hear you cry!! Come for an visit and a good listen in you maybe surprised!!
4. Deal with it:mad::mad:
I have been at Band 4 and 5 :) I work a lot harder at the Band 5 unit than i did at Band 4. Yes, there were times when i worked just as hard at my little Band 4 but not day in day out.
Oh!! i can't wait for my 4.1% Thankyou

[eastern wiseguy]

Posting out isn't always an option,particularly if you are waiting for people to post in...who in turn are waiting for people to post in to let them go..etc etc etc.
The main gripe here is the system(in general) is seen to be unfair. The constant "live with it" comments come from the higher bands......solidarity brothers...yeah right:hmm:


To be honest the pay rise is reasonable. The banding is devisive to some and will have to be looked at.

[The Fat Controller]

throw a dyce.

The pay rise is RPI, nothing to do with ANYTHING else.

It is 1.5 % more than the underpinned amount and considerably better than a lot of people outside of NATS will be getting.

You will be 4.1 % better off in January just the same as all the other ATCOs in NATS.

[viaEGLL]

Solidarity!!! You mean i should agree with paying everybody the same no matter how hard they work!!!
I think not ! I work hard for my Band 5 money and i know it is not that difficult to get a transfer having been through the process myself.So please stop moaning:ugh::ugh::ugh:
As the FAT Controller said everybody will 4.1% better off so enjoy:)

[eastern wiseguy]

that difficult to get a transfer

We have waited a year to have someone released in to us. He was stymied because no one could be released into HIS unit. I disagree with your premise.

Of course you work hard. Only an idiot would disagree with that.Surprisingly enough people at lower bands ALSO work hard(and before 250 jumps in it isn't all scheduled traffic at 0400) Being told "live with it" is so much easier looking down than up. I am well paid and quite content. I am sure there are people out there who take a different tack though.

[viaEGLL]

As i said i have looked up as well !!!
So don't pick me up on that heart tugging 'deal with it' line:mad::mad:

[eastern wiseguy]

via Egll I was agreeing with you, you ar$e

[055166k]

Plenty of vacancies down at Swanwick, and overtime available. You and your colleagues should seriously consider applying for a transfer, we need controllers just to replace the leaving/emigrating/retirement bulge, to say nothing of the unrelenting and unprecedented rise in traffic.
At this late stage in the 2007 season there is a lot of fatigue beginning to show....lots of genuine sick absence and a feeling of being slowly beaten to death with ever-increasing sector capacity values.
Whatever my Swanwick buddies and I earn...we've bl**dy well earned it.

[viaEGLL]

OOOOPPPSS!!! :O:O
Can i come to your unit then??? OH!! Marked time of course:):)

[mhk77]

The constant "live with it" comments come from the higher bands......solidarity brothers...yeah right


I'm actually not higher band, I'm at a band2 unit. But the bottom line is, there's not going to be a significant change in the bands, just like there won't be a significant pay increase from January 2009. Every controller will argue they work busier or more complex traffic at their unit compared to another controller. It's the way of the world.

Do I think it's right that a Heathrow tower only controller earns significantly more than a Tower AND Approach radar rated controller at Manchester, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Glasgow, Southampton, Birmingham etc. Likewise Tower only ATCOs at Gatwick and Stansted? Hell no it's not right! But, it's not going to change massively. At the end of the day, none of us are living on the poverty line, and we earn good money for the what we do.

Dare I say it................?live with it........! :ok:

[terrain safe]

Likewise Tower only ATCOs at Gatwick and Stansted?

If you looked at the scales you would see that SS is at the same grade as BB eg band 3. Now that is approximately £2500 more than band 1 and £1500 more than band 2. A recent postee into SS from LC had to take a pay cut to go there as they lost inner London weighting. Now Stansted is shifting upto 680-690 a day up about 30 or so a day on last year. I think the problem is the difference between the bands. Go from band 3 to a 4 and the scale max is £12000 different with 5 a further £8000 on. That is the problem not the fact that some get more than others.

[Cuddles]

Top quality bickerage people, keep it going.

[250 kts]

Homo.
So you want Band 5? But didn't the members vote that co-located units should be on the same banding? This is how the situation that,say,a Thames Radar guy is Band 5 because of his location and not the task. My apologies to Thames but just using you as an example.
Surely the danger is that if MACC become Band 5 then so should Manchester Airport. The danger has to be that this significantly pushes up the cost of the contract and everything that goes with it with obvious potential implications.
This would also lead to the whole of Scottish becoming Band 5 in the future. Fine, you may say, but I can't believe that the long term plan isn't to get some of the approach guys into Scottish and so they too would become Band 5.
I actually don't give a toss if you earn the same as me, just the way I don't care what a Thames only guy gets but you have to be aware of the potential issues it could have for everyone in the operational world. You could of course push for anyone with a validation on your quieter sectors staying at 4-or even going down to 3- whilst those valid on the busier ones get the pay rise.:D:D

[Me Me Me Me]

Exactly the sort of convo that inspired my rather sarcastic user name :)

[ADIS5000]

From an EGPD ATCO:- Banding sucks, but £60k pa in Aberdeen goes a darn site further than it would 'down sarf'. Throw a Dyce fights a good fight, but although we do nearly Gatwick rates of traffic for a big chunk of the day, the weekends in particular are quiet. Personally, you Band 5 guys are welcome to it. I know you shift serious amounts of traffic safely (as we do), but who in their right mind would want to live down there in congestion and pollution central?!! I'll take my 4.1% of not so much and hope they revisit the banding issues asap. Besides, we'll soon be in totally separate companies so the pay comparison argument will be a moot point?

Regards, ADIS :cool:

[alfie1999]

You loved Buchan though ADIS so it's no suprise you're as happy as a piglet in a heap of it up there. :}

[DTY/LKS]

Good post ADIS5000

I work at a Band 5 unit so perhaps my views are slightly biased.

Our place is busy for about 20 hours a day. You get a respite when there is very little traffic between about midnite & 4am. The traffic has increased so much that you cannot tell the difference between a weekday & a weekend.
How many lower banded units can say that they are working to near capacity levels of traffic at 4am? It isn't easy, especially on the 2nd night shift.
I feel that i earn my Band 5 money & as my 4.1% increase of salary works out higher than a band 2 or 3 increase, then i honestly feel that it is justified.

[heading 125]

Has anyone worked out yet what the tax cost per month is for the BUPA.

[eyeinthesky]

When you get the information from HR when you are eligible it will show you what the tax cost is. I can't remember offhand.

[DTY/LKS]

Just a thought, but surely NATS employees discussing NATS pay-rises is a private thing & should be in the NATS forum??

[The Fat Controller]

I thought about starting this thread in the NATS forum, but as we are not the only employer in this industry in the world I decided to put it here so others CAN see what is happening in NATS.
The two-year pay deal has hardly been the best kept secret anyway.
I do believe the "banding issues" squabbling should be kept out of the public domain as that is unique to NATS.

Edit. Apologies, it was a three year agreement and the January 2008 rise is the last part thereof.

[250 kts]

Er,wasn't it a 3 year deal and this will be the final yearly rise?
On the subject of mobility. It would seem that there is less ability to move around units especially on the airports side of the business. There needs to be a real push from people who want to move to put pressure on their respective managers. We have had a steady stream of people able to move from the unit and often to lower paid units.

[BDiONU]

NATS have managed to remove the employment notice concerned from the intranet - hmmm
They'd replaced the original with the updated versions, which unfortunately didn't show the original agreement. However I have just stumbled over it in the HR subweb (http://natsnet/hrservices/EmpBenefits/2006Pay/Pay%202006-2008%20final%20offer%20circular%2015-12-05.doc)

BD

[PPRuNe Radar]

Don't you have to be logged in to a NATS computer to view the subweb ?? ;)

[BDiONU]

Don't you have to be logged in to a NATS computer to view the subweb ?? ;)
Uuummm obviously. Operational staff could do it during their compulsory breaks :}

BD

[rickypbrown]

Anyone know if it's true that current TATCs at Hurn are getting paid more than some going through unit training?! If so, something has most definately gone wrong somewhere along the line...

[brummbrumm]

The latest rumour after the recent senior managers meeting is that the comapny is going to be looking at separate pay deals for NSL and NERL, with reductions in T&C'sfor NSL for an equivalent pay rise to NERL.

Also pensions are costing them too much, so expect the forthcoming pay negotiations to be very very heated, now wheres my powder cos I'm damned sure I'm gonna need it!!!

[radar707]

And so it begins ..................

the divide and conquer tactic, let's hope that for once we can see beyond the almighty bung and let them know that whilst we are now two separate companies we are in fact united on the relevant issues

[BDiONU]

The latest rumour after the recent senior managers meeting is that the comapny is going to be looking at separate pay deals for NSL and NERL,
I alluded to it in post #29, the two areas of the business are already seperate entities and NERL no longer subsidises NSL. I very very much doubt that the NSL units which bring in big bucks will continue to subsidise those which don't. Pay is (IMHO) very likely to be connected to unit income. Hopefully that'll help reduce the willy waving thread this has become.
with reductions in T&C'sfor NSL for an equivalent pay rise to NERL. Thats not possible as the two areas are financially independant.
Also pensions are costing them too much, so expect the forthcoming pay negotiations to be very very heated, now wheres my powder cos I'm damned sure I'm gonna need it!!!
Yea olde olde story, powder dry blah blah blah. Its been trotted out so many times in recent years that any 'threat' has long since lost its credability.

BD

[radar707]

BDi,

any pay negotiations will be done as a whole NATS, the fact that NSL and NERL ar enow separate is not going to be an issue, howevr the comapny will no doubt go to the bargaining table with something along the lines of:

"NSL is in a competitive environment and we cannot afford..........."

Therefore by offering a pay deal which reduces the T&C's of NSL staff lets say getting rid of LVs as a start they can say well yes that works for us as it reduces our overheads and makes the contracts more competetive then lets say they use the argument of:

"Well we can't afford AAVAs at the current rate so we propose this option of a standard call out fee of say £50 plus an enhanced hourly rate fo a minimum of 2 hours, but you go home when you are no longer required"

Again reducing the T&C's but reducing overheads and making conracts more competetive.

Then how long before we become NATS EGLL and NATS EGPF etc thus further eroding the T&C's.

It's a slippery slope and sadly I believe that the almighty dollar wil win and those of us that work at the regional airfields will get well and truly shafted

[throw a dyce]

I would like to know who is the serious competition to NSL? Changing an ATC contractor is a nightmare and you really have to take the majority of staff over.I don't think Serco could take over unless it's a very small contract (in the UK).Who is the great competitor that Management are so scared about? NSL staff at the lower Band units deserve a break,not more foul medicine from Nats/Prospect.After all they are earning the money for this mob.:suspect:
If things keep get chipped away in NSL land,we might be better working for someone else.Won't be a lot in it soon.:hmm:

[BDiONU]

It's a slippery slope and sadly I believe that the almighty dollar wil win and those of us that work at the regional airfields will get well and truly shafted
Yes, in line with market forces. There is no equivalent for NERL in the UK but there is plenty of competition for providing ATC at airports and I'm sure the likes of SERCO would try to undercut the price NSL quotes for providing an ATC service.
I have heard a rumour and I stress only a rumour, that it costs NSL 1.5million to provide an ATC service at EGCC. Thats a loss of 1.5m. How much longer (if this is true) can high earners like EGLL continue to support the rest?

BD

[BDiONU]

Who is the great competitor that Management are so scared about?
With the open European borders it could be anyone, DFS, AENA etc. Take your pick.

BD

[radar707]

DFS and AENA are far too busy putting their own houses in order to even contemplate looking at NSL territory. NATS however has the potential to look at AENA and DSL contracts along with many others in Europe, Asia, Middle East etc. The biggest potential threat comes from SERCO, however they do not have the staff to service a large UK contract and are unlikely to get sufficient support from current NSL staff to make it work.

[throw a dyce]

Market forces.Experienced Approach Radar controllers are in increasingly short supply.About time Nats/Prospect thought about this.If another ATC supplier came over the horizon,then some might be tempted.NSL at the lower band units don't have a good record at fair treatment compared with NERL.Screw up the pension and a lot might walk even quicker.
Just remember market forces doesn't always mean a reduction in T&C.Look at the kicking the North Sea Divers gave that industry.

[radarman]

Doesn't matter too much (initially) who might take over a contract as TUPE would apply. That means T&C's are protected until such time as they are renegotiated by Prospect and the new management. But beware of Prospect - they are just the negotiating arm of management.

[foghorn]

AFAIK TUPE protection excludes pensions. And what is viewed as the most expensive part of the current remuneration package?