Hot News...............

[12 Scoops]

So it's true!................, or so I'm told by an unnamed source.
ATC at Norwich is being contracted out and various suppliers of said atco's are making presentations to airport management to sell their pitch.
NATS have already made their presentation, SERCO and VT Aerospace soon.
Alledgedly, NATS are the MD's preffered bidder, but all interested parties must be allowed to give their presentations,
Whoever wins the contract will be in place by April 01 2002.
The staff await the outcome with baited breath....... :p

Oh yes - nearly forgot to mention it, Safeskys are also bidding, :eek:

[Scott Voigt]

Hmmmm, bids due by April Fools day...

How appropriate...

[Spoonbill]

Not exactly 'Hot' news, more on the simmering side really.
We (the mere workforce), accept that the NATS bid will almost be too expensive for the board, so it's almost certainly going to be SERCO, we think, possibly........maybe.
VT Aerospace are an unknown quantity to any of us, (anyone care to enlighten the great unwashed?).
I'm sure that SafeSky's presentation will be absolutely riveting, but that's on wash day :p

[OrsonCart]

SERCo was the first choice for Luton airport management. The troops there rebelled. Luton is now a NATS unit, radar went into TC in Feb this year.

Got a union at Norwich, then use them and stand up to the local decision makers. Cheap does not always mean safe?

[Legs11]

:mad: Here we go again, it's that old anti-serco chestnut.

Cheap does not always mean safe :mad:

Orson, unsafe does not always mean cheap!! :p :p

VT is a reworking of Airwork, after a number of buy-outs and renamings, they operate Woodvale and Wyton and are in the process of taking the ATC back inhouse at those airfields.

Spoonbill, I hope that helps a little. :confused:
You never know, we may get to meet up soon ;)

:D

[Legs11]

Spoonbill, further to my last post, this may be of some use to you... :cool:

Farnborough debut for VT Aerospace

27 July 2000

The Farnborough Air Show is the official launch platform for a new name in the aerospace industry, and in particular military support services - VT Aerospace.

Although the name is new, the organisation has been providing support services for over seventy years, most recently as part of Bombardier Aerospace, from which it was acquired last month by leading tri-service support services company Vosper Thornycroft (VT).

VT is already a major player in training and support activities for the British Army and Royal Navy but the creation of a new Aerospace arm marks its full advance to tri-service status.

VT Aerospace's connections with the Services also extend to supporting adventurous endeavours, especially those that demand close teamwork. Typical of VT Aerospace's support is their sponsorship of the British Bobsleigh Association. Pictured left are two team members of the British Bobsleigh Squad with staff members of VT Aerospace.

VT's new division, which includes Bombardier's wholly owned subsidiary Airwork Ltd, is a provider of aircraft and equipment maintenance, repair and rectification, flying training, and technical and logistics support services to the RAF and overseas Air Forces, particularly in the Middle East.

George Cameron, Managing Director of VT International Services, explained: "We are confident that the support services sector will increasingly hear the name VT Aerospace. We are in the process of bidding for some prestigious contracts linked to the RAF and other customers.

"VT is already a leading provider of support services to the Army and Royal Navy. In these sectors, our expertise is well recognised and we will bring that considerable experience to the aerospace sector. We can now offer the UK Ministry of Defence and overseas customers a truly tri-service approach to their support requirements."

Last year, the organisation as part of Bombardier was awarded the Light Aircraft Flying Task - the RAF's pathfinder PFI project. This is a £110 million, ten-year contract in support of the RAFs elementary flying training. In the Middle East, VT Aerospace, through Airwork, provides services to the Royal Air Force Oman and to the Kuwait Air Force.



:D :D :D

[Undercover]

Safe does not always mean cheap

Cheap does not always mean safe

Expensive does not always mean dangerous

Does cheap not sometimes mean unsafe ?

I think I'll stick to SERCO chestnuts... Abuse is simple. :confused:

[OrsonCart]

I think to a man (And woman) all the staff at Luton wanted to work for NATS. (Terms and conditions) when given the choice!

From memory, no one wanted to work for SIR CO. I wonder why, I personally have no idea?

If SIR CO is so good why then did the ATC staff rebel when this service provider was the recommendation of the consultants (On price alone) to operate the Luton based unit?

As an aside, if one of the two contesting the bid had been sucessful, there would have been redundancies! I leave you to guess which one.

[whowhenwhy]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooo! :eek: :eek:

Please someone tell me it's not true? Please someone tell me that everyone at Nch who wants to will keep their jobs? The loud shorted one? The smaller one who buys lots of Summer Ball tickets and goes on holiday leaving mayhem in his wake? The cycling one? The boss one who always looks so darn smart? The speedy one who always ends up in arguments with people but laughs afterwards (well, sometimes)? It just won't feel right knowing you're not there. I'm a military ATCO, I can't cope with change!!!

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh! :eek: :eek:

Things are always worse than they seem!

[Legs11]

:o Undercover that was a cheapshot. Nothing constructive to say? then sod off :eek:
(your right, abuse is simple)

Oh come on Orson, :rolleyes: , of course everyone would want to work for NATS. At the time, it was a cushy number. Nice civil service terms and conditions, no real world reality and a good public/industry image.
:)
It's all a little bit different now though isn't it, you just have to read these pages to see how good a company they are to work for :p .
Redundancies can no longer be thrown like sh!t at serco's door alone :eek: .

How happy were the Luton radar team when they were forced to chose between reduced pay at a tower only unit or move to LATCC, have travel nightmares on the M1/25, and face an eventual move to the south coast. Why did so many of them leave and go to East Midlands and the like.

I think to a man (And woman) all the staff at Luton wanted to work for NATS. (Terms and conditions) when given the choice!

I THINK NOT!!

So lets get back to Norwich, Spoonbill, do you know when a decision is likely, is it looking like a long drawn out affair?
Have a look at the safeskys website, it'll fill you with trepidation.....now that
is a company with a dodgy image problem!! :D

[Undercover]

Constructive eh... okay.

Well the Luton staff couldn't all have been delighted to be under NATS' wing as many of them refused the option to switch on to NATS terms.

Not being operational I can't criticise SERCO from personal experience - but I'm sure there's two sides to this (as there is with everything else) ;)

[Spoonbill]

WWW - Dont worry, there are so few of us anyway there will be no staff reductions, present staff numbers are to be written into the contract. You mentioned a smart boss :confused: , did you mean that sartorialy or otherwise? :D
Legs - Sod Off is such a wonderful phrase, succinct and to the point, no ambiguity, gets the message across straight away.
We'll know in the near future, all parties will have made their presentations by the end of this month, and the MD will make his recommendations to the board in Jan 2002.
It seems that the MD's preffered bidder is still NATS, quite how he'll explain the extra annual cost to the board I don't know. The only thing which may tip the balance is the fact that we have a disproportionate number of our clan who are over 50, have been here since year dot, and also want to go as early as they can afford to do so. The MD sees this as potential major problem, as if we lose 2 at once, we cannot maintain the 24 hour ops and will lose collosall wads of cash. Consequently NATS are the only party who (allegedly) can guarantee full staffing of the contract at all times.
TUPE will apply to all members of staff, and the unions (IPMS/PROSPECT) are in on all the meetings, so at least we're being kept up to date. ;)
The major assurance from NATS was that the approach radar function will not be moved to Aberdeen or LATCC, too many headaches when coordinating with the doughnut scoffers at Colt.
As for who actually gets the contract in the end - who knows :rolleyes: I dare say we'll find out 2 days into it :p

Just looked at the Safeskys web site............. - Larf? I nearly cried :rolleyes:

[Legs11]

I think I'll stick to SERCO chestnuts... Abuse is simple

Not being operational I can't criticise SERCO from personal experience

There's nothing else gets my goat quicker than the above. But I said my piece and I'm glad you took it on board. :)

Spoonbill,
Major assurances from NATS :rolleyes:and you believed them :p !!!

They say Aberdeen's nice this time of year :eek:

Now try www.vtae.co.uk (http://www.vtae.co.uk) :cool:

[OrsonCart]

A tiny minority of staff members decided not to take a NATS T’s and C’s contract and invoked TUPE. Remember employment law, I suggest you examine in finite detail just what you are entitled to. Your union should be on the case as we speak or are you to shy to ask?

Yes they all wanted to still work for Luton, but this was not a choice. NATS or SIR CO was the alternative.

As to the commute, they earn £$0K+ and got a paid move if they so wanted one?

Luton did not lose a single ATCO to EGNX, apart from those that left in 1989, is that what you mean? I suggest LEGS that you GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT!

F’in brilliant unit, decimated by cost cutting. No one was made redundant, lost money voluntarily, or had to commute against his or her will. Pretty good I would say?

SIR CO, what did they offer the staff? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Undercover. You are non-op and have no idea about the detail surrounding the Luton contract.

Legs. Show me a single operational redundancy within NATS and then show me a single aviation related company that is not cutting back. Agreed PPP is evil, but they have not yet shafted operational posts, movements at the London airports are not down much. Luton is of course a London airport and not a rural field! Get yourself a job with NATS. If their T’s and C’s fall, so will all the other non-NATS units in the UK!


I suggest you seek the truth!

[ 14 November 2001: Message edited by: OrsonCart ]

[BuzzLightyear]

And we all know just what a wonderful job SERCO did at Liverpool.....

Legs11
The Ice Station is nice at any time of the year! :p :p :p

[Undercover]

Am non-op, true. Although this has no effect on my knowledge of NATS or Luton's T&C's or employment law for that matter.

Totally agree with earlier point about making sure the T&C's are protected. No matter who takes over the union and staff should push for the best possible deal. :)

[Odi]

Buzz - whadya reckon then to moving Norwich APR up to our neck of the woods? ;) ;)

There is plenty of space down by Anglia to spare and we have still got the two empty suites down that end of the room!!

All we would need to do then would be to persuade Scottish to relinquish control of W5D and/or traffic around the Ice Station outside of CAS and we really would have an interesting offshore couple of sectors.

:D :D :D

But then again, maybe not!! ;) ;)

[whowhenwhy]

Spoonbill, not an ounce of sartorial behaviour on my part. Just think it's always nice to see people pitching up for work nice and smart, taking their job seriously (well as seriously as we all can). Obviously not all the team take quite such time on their appearance....... :D

Things are always worse than they seem!

[Jay Foe]

WWW I can't believe you're creeping so much and you're not even in the App room with them :eek: Next thing you'll be bringing in apples for the underdressed NCH controllers. Saying that, the Legs have not made an appearance recently :D :D

Have you noticed how Nch threads are like North Sea Heli's. You spend days without seeing them and suddenly they all want to go through the Overhead.
:D :D :D

[ 16 November 2001: Message edited by: Jay Foe ]

[whowhenwhy]

Like I said J, MPA is a very mellowing experience. But hey, at least I spell correctly on my posts! ;)

I know what you mean about those SNSH's as well, laugh I almost died! Hey, do you think we could hijack this thread as well? Then again, wouldn't want to divert resources from keeping the other thread at the top!

Things are always worse than they seem!

[Jay Foe]

WWW, nothing wrong with opening up a second front, if only to confuse those poor controllers from North of the Wash who are trying to hijack the other one.

Anyway It'll be just like your directing, you know the way we always need a second talkdown when you can't get 8 miles :D :D

Laugh, laugh, I nearly bought one.

[whowhenwhy]

Oooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Things are always worse than they seem!

[aluminium persuader]

If Serco get Norwich, since they already have North Denes, Wattisham and Southend will there be a case for an East Anglia sub-centre...?

Stir things?

Moi? :D

[LXGB]

Today East Anglia, tomorrow the world!

The futures bright, the futures Serco!

[PA7]

LXGB

The futures sh*te the futures SERCO :D

[LXGB]

You may think that, I couldn't possibly comment ;)

[Spoonbill]

2 down, 2 to go............., NATS and VT Aerospace have made their presentations and today it's SERCO and Safeways, sorry Safeskys.
The MD did make the point at the VT presentation that due to the economic climate he may not proceed with contracting out at all, then left the meeting half way through cos they were very late and he had other appointments. :D
Gisajob emailed me at pprune wanting to know why I was so negative about Safeskys, (Moi?!), my indifference is overwhelming :rolleyes:discuss........

[ 30 November 2001: Message edited by: Spoonbill ]

[Cuddles]

Odi

I'd suggest that Norwich stay where they are, I mean just imagine the fuss that would be created if NATS posted people to Aberdeen who don't want to be there!

Just as well we've got Luton really isn't it!

Plus I like to be one of the select few who still isn't working traffic in the same FIR as I'm sitting in! ;)

[BuzzLightyear]

Cuddles

You are one of the select few who works traffic on a different planet to the one you are sitting in!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D

[Adge Cutler]

So boys (and girls) you've had concrete assurances that your radar will be staying put.

Well, it's not going to give the required coverage from Aberdeen is it? so it is indeed, going to be left sitting on top of your tower.

The feed from that radar however will be leaving Norwich on a heading of about 345, and coming into the back of a display somewhere near me!

Colt - don't worry, there's room for all of you too, you could all live in at Buchan!!

In the event of an emergency relocation, try this :D
http://www.aspc.co.uk
;)

[ 10 December 2001: Message edited by: Adge Cutler ]

[Legs11]

So Spoonbill, how did it go with Serco and the other lot?

Get any satisfaction ;) ?

Any idea when a decision might be made?

Vt Aerospace can't even staff the 2 units they have at the moment so I can't see how they'll manage to help you guys out, besides looks like their cook is goosed :rolleyes: .

As an aside...just who is 12 Scoops? They started this thread off and we haven't heard from him/her since. All very mysterious don't you think? :cool: ;)

[Spoonbill]

Serco's presentation was very much as expected, unfortunately one of their team did himself no favours by liking the sound of his own voice and behaving as though he was quoting for the supply of hospital porters or roadsweepers, (no disrespect to either honourable profession). Their was much vagueness about salaries and how SERCO prided themselves on paying the "lower third of the market rate". Other than that they were not as polished or informative as NATS, (who were able to provide precise figures on staffing and undisclosed [to us staff] costings), but had a lot more pertinant information than Safeways, making relatively realistic predictions.
SERCO would have done a lot better if they'd stuck to the civil airports side of things, and sent a team who were ATC orientated. Unfortunately this aspect stuck out like the proverbial bo****ks, which rather reminds you of the SERCO prior to the big shake up.
VT turned up late and did not impress anyone.
It remains to be seen who, if anyone, gets the contract - the MD has indicated that he may delay the decision until October 2002, and their has been no specific tender process as yet. :p
No doubt we'll be told on day 2 of it's inception. :rolleyes:

[Razors Edge]

Well, from all the evidence above, the options are obvious...

NATS - too expensive :rolleyes:
Serco - heads up their own ar$e :eek:
VTAerospace - late and ill-prepared :p
Safeways - just plain crap :D

I know what my recommendation to the board would be :cool:

[Legs11]

Spoonbill, as you said there has been no specific tender process as yet and I am sure that if there was, then Serco would send the correct "ATC orientated team" to see you :)

This I suspect has always been a toe in the water exercise, and if your MD decides to contract out, then you are all more than welcome to join the serco family :D

Razors Edge you may like to know that the view from here is just fine and dandy :p

[Spoonbill]

Legs - In the event of the whole mess proceeding to tendering, there will be no further face to face meetings - this was each company's chance to put across their pitch, so it was a little suprising that the SERCO team were not a bit more on the ball. From now on it's number crunching and decision making by people who are so important they sometimes forget their own names. :p
If we do join the SERCO "family", do we get pocket money? :D

[BuzzLightyear]

You better hope so Spoonbill, cos you won't get paid anything that could be called a salary! :D

[Legs11]

It's all gone a bit quiet on this, any news?

[Spoonbill]

No............................, not a sausage, in fact - ****** all <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[Razors Edge]

As far as I am aware, the prospectus for ATC provision is being prepared at the moment and should be issued end of February with an invitation to tender.
All four of those providers invited to the initial meetings have expressed their interest.
A preferred bidder should be chosen within 6 months and then final negotiations would continue.
There is however no deadline date.

<img src="cool.gif" border="0">

[niknak]

<img src="eek.gif" border="0"> I hear that it's not only atc up for sale, but the whole airport is going on the market <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> .
Worth far more as building land than an airport, who would be interested <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

[Justin A Beaver]

Wal-Mart?

[Jay Foe]

I can see it now

"RAF Coltishall - International Airport"

:) :) :)