NATS at the Public Accounts Ctte.

[Warped Factor]

Full evidence here (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmpubacc/uc80-i/uc8002.htm), extract below. Read it and weep.

WF.

-----

In other words, all they (TAG) paid was £50 million to get 46 per cent of the whole of this business?

(Ms Lomax) Yes.


That is absolutely unbelievable. That left NATS lumbered with a debt of £735 million which was quoted as part of the purchase price, although the purchaser never paid it, because you are having to pick up this bill, are you not, NATS?

(Mr Everitt) Yes. It is a debt of the company.


That is 735 million you are paying for them to buy your business. What about the interest on that 735 million? That does not include the interest charge as well, does it?

(Mr Everitt) Yes. We have a loan put in place as part of the restructuring of the finances of the company at completion. It is our job as a company to service that loan both in terms of interest and to repay it.


You are paying the interest as well?

(Mr Everitt) Yes.


Over 20 years, if it were ten per cent, that would be another £800 million and it is probably more than that, is it not?

(Mr Everitt) I think the interest rate is around seven per cent.


In that case, it is £600 million. In addition to paying back the 800 million, you are also lumbered with £600 million of interest charges, all to enable someone else to buy your business.

(Mr Everitt) It will be quite a lot less than that because we will be paying back part of the loan over the 20 years.


The average loan is 400 million. In 20 years it is £600 million so you are paying £1,400 million for someone else to buy half your business effectively. That is correct, is it not?

(Mr Everitt) The two shareholders, Her Majesty's Government and the Airline Group, structured the finances of the company at completion and determined that they would put this amount of debt in place. That represented the proceeds to the government ----


That is not answering the question. The fact of the matter is that you are lumbered with a debt which is now making it impossible for you to borrow on the market even as easily as you could have done before the PPP. That is a fact, is it not?

(Mr Everitt) We have a large debt and that is making it difficult.


You are in a worse position than you were before you had a PPP and you are saddled with paying for someone else to buy it. Permanent Secretary, when this was up for grabs, did the bidders know that they would be able to offload the loan -- I assume they must have done because it was part of the discussion -- onto NATS?

(Ms Lomax) Yes.

One of the puzzling things is that the Treasury, who are usually pretty good at working out what they might get from a sell-off, were expecting 500 million. They got 800 million and they could not believe what was in their greedy little hands. Does it not in a way explain the situation because if the bidders knew that they could bid and it did not matter what they bid; NATS would pay, they could keep up bidding knowing NATS would pick up the bill. What the Treasury got was an actual receipt from a most deceptive and non-competitive way of selling a business on.

Who represented the purchasers?

(Ms Lomax) The Airline Group.


Yes.

(Ms Lomax) They are not here.


That is another witness we could have done with. We are not doing very well at all today.

(Ms Lomax) The Airline Group put the bid in on the basis that they would not be taking dividends out. They are not looking to make a profit out of this.


You do not get 46 per cent of a business when you have only paid one-sixteenth on purchase price. When you take into account that it is then a further twelfth it is also the interest element which brings us up to 14 million. It is one pound every £20-worth of purchase.

(Ms Lomax) There is an issue about how much a business carrying this much debt is going to be worth. The equity shareholders are the last in line. If the business is very encumbered with debt, there is going to be less for them even if they were going to take dividends out.


Treasury, since you only expected 500 million, why did you take the 800 million? Why did you not leave the other 300 million in to reduce the debt and therefore give NATS more flexibility?

(Mr Glicksman) 800 million was the amount that was offered by the best bid. It would be quite difficult to go back to them and say, "This is too much. We do not want so much money for this sale." What we were looking for was best value for money and there is no reason why this should not have been the best value for money.


It is the most flawed project I think I can ever remember coming before this Committee.

[qwerty2]

GoodPost WF
I'm still digesting it :confused:

[flowman]

Tragic.
Glad I'm out.:(

Last I remember was the company mission statement (or whatever the consultancy jargon was) being publicised:

"To be acknowledged as the best provider of air traffic services."

Looks like they'll be acknowledged as something else.
Not gloating, just sad.

flowman

[Checco]

The bidding process was really awful. In practice the PPP was assigned to the group, which was keen to accept the highest loan so restricting the margin of manouvre for NATS in the market.

The bill is very long:

800 millions to the Treasury in 20 years

600 millions in loans in 20 years

800 millions (my estimation) in much needed investments in the next 5-8 years(FDPS, Prestwick, etc.).

XXX millions in order to avoid ATCOs moving to other markets or to prevent early retirements. This is much needed quick and dirty money.

To get the full picture, I would need to understand something about incomes:
What is the yearly gross income ? How much it remains deducting the operating costs and the payment of loans ?

Is NATS already under the water ?

Thanks Checco
:o

[StillDark&Hungry]

WF

Great stuff!

I'm proud to be employed by this great company!

[Warped Factor]

Checco,

To get the full picture, I would need to understand something about incomes:

You'll probably find all of that in the Annual Report and Accounts for 2002 here (http://www.nats.co.uk/news/press_releases/Annual_Report_2002.pdf).

WF.

[BEXIL160]

All true......... As has been said read it and weep.

What is also within the same document is the REAL reason behind PPP.

The newly elected government in 1997 inherited the spending plans of the previous TORY administration. Gordon ("Prudence") Brown would not alter these spending plans under any circumstances. They included receipts of £500million for the sale of NATS, a TORY policy, not a Labour one (remember "our air is not for sale"?!!!) Hence the REAL reasonm PPP was pushed through. ( the sale of NATS eventually realised c. £750 million for HMG)

Nothing to do with future investment. Nothing to do with raising cash for NATS. All to do with political expedient.

This is the same document that says that NATS at Swanwick will only be "10-15" ATCOs short at Swanwick next summer, without explaing how this "miracle" is to be achieved. Make no mistake Swanwick will be desperately short next summer, regardless.

Isn't it about time that the TRUTH be told?

rgds BEX

[Greebson]

I am particularly amazed and angry that 4 directors received between them the total of £41900 in pension payments this year; how much the employees?
I'm also amazed that Sir Roy Macnulty was given a total of £62.4k in pension payments (£12k this year/£33.2k 2001/£17.2k loss of office) all this and he didn't even participate in the company pension scheme!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Iron City]

This isn't much different from the Canadian deal. NAVCANADA is a non stock corporation chartered by the federal government. The money the Canadian government got for the assets (or rather going concern) was borrowed from several banks at very good interest rates. As I understood it at the time I believe there was at least a wink and a nudge that if the thing went belly up the Canadian government would take care of the bankers.
The loaned money will be paid back one way or another, you can be sure.

So NATS got bought in a highly leveraged buyout and is now left holding the bag, and in reality was going to be left holding the bag anyway all along. TAG probably never intended to actually have to pay the loan themselves or put any more cash in than necessary. When have you ever seen an airline put more cash in up front than necessary?

And HM government sold to an industry where the best way to make or have a million at the end of the year is to start out with 2 (at least!) Rosey Scenario indeed.

[tug3]

Read the lot... Dads Army's Cpl Wilson came to mind: "Wur all doomed!"

Excellent link - TU reps should distribute full copies of this report at every unit and the next time Kenny can't/won't answer a question at a unit 'Q&A' session someone should ask him to "send a note" - seems that's just about all he's capable of doing!

Rgds
T3

[Nogbad the Bad]

I dunno tug3.........NATS "management's" ability to be (VERY VERY VERY) economical with the thruth seems to have rubbed off.........

.......it was Private Frazer who worried about us all being doomed :D :D :D :D :D :D

I wonder if he was talkiing about NATS ???

[tug3]

Nog

You are, of course, absolutley correct - Fraser it was!

Rgds
T3

"Vot iz yewer name?"

"Don't tell him, Pike!"

[250 kts]

Does anyone know when this mauling is due to be shown again on the Parliament Channel?

At least he can thank God it wasn't Gwynneth doing the interrogation.

[30W]

As a pilot, and one who has long had an interest in ATC issues, NATS' plight has been sad to watch. Even sadder to those of you at the sharp end who do your jobs to such a high level of competence and safety (long may that continue!!).

Senior managements complete lack of awarness of real operational issues continues to amaze me however - although compared to our side of the industry it really is no different - welcome to the 'club'. Still, their bonuses will always somehow be paid..............

The following extract from the report sums it all up....sadly.......I appologise in advance to it's length, but thoses who don't want to take time to sift through the whole document really MUST read the following extracts....

"Mr Bacon

1. I have a copy of the report accounts and the page concerning the directors salaries, it is not particularly clear so if you can give us a note setting out all of remuneration for non-executives and executives for the period prior and after the part privatisation that would be very helpful. It appears there were 3 executive directors getting round £230,000. Tell me, given that your controllers had to go on strike to get their pay rise, asking government for more money, do you think the pay rise and bonuses were excessive?

(Mr Everitt) My personal pay was settled at the time I joined the company.

2. I was not just talking about you, I was talking about everybody.

(Mr Everitt) So far as the second director is concerned, that contains an exceptional bonus which was paid and agreed prior to PPP and which triggered on the opening of Swanwick.

3.This was the £69,000 to Mr Chiswick?
(Mr Everitt) Part of the £69,000 was his general bonus and the second part, the £39,000, related to Swanwick.

4.Given what has happened, do you think these payments were excessive?

(Mr Everitt) The payment was contractual.

5.I did not ask about its legal status. I asked whether you thought this was excessive.

(Mr Everitt) It was certainly justified against the fact that he took hold of this project three years before.

6.If you could put it in the note. I certainly would have expected it to be legal. I was asking what your personal opinion was of them. If you could let us have a note on that, that would be very helpful. What is your current situation so far as shortage of controllers is concerned? How many are you short now?
(Mr Everitt) In Swanwick we are now in the winter season so we would not normally open as many sectors as we would in the summer. Our plans are focused on next summer and a considerable amount of work is going into the planning for next summer. On our current estimates we would think that we could be up to 12 controllers short for next summer, but we are working on that and our plan is not settled.

7.My question is about now, what are you at now?

(Mr Everitt) From the summer we were 40 short.

8.Could you say that again?

(Mr Everitt) Between 30 and 40 short this summer.

9.And right now?

(Mr Everitt) I do not have the precise number as of this moment.

10.Could you send us a note showing how it has changed in the past and what you are anticipating in the future?
(Mr Everitt) Sure.

11.How many days have you bought back?

(Mr Everitt) You mean in terms of the deal that we did we controllers for voluntary attendance?

12. Yes, how many days?

(Mr Everitt) I could give you a note on that. Very few so far, they would mainly be for summer next year.

13.How many days off are controllers owed?

(Mr Everitt) As part of the pay deal we are buying out their days off.

14.I was not asking you that, with respect.

(Mr Everitt) I have not got the number at my fingertips.

15.I would like to know how many days off controllers are owed. If you cannot answer the question now could you not answer a different question I did not ask but just save us time and send us a note. I do not have a lot of time and it is just annoying when I get an answer that is not an answer to the question I asked. Could you say what has been the increase in overload reports?

(Mr Everitt) I can give you a precise number on that but, again, I would want to give you a note. There has certainly been an increase but that has apparently been a consequence of Swanwick coming into operation.

16.Are you familiar with the form that controllers fill in when they have a report?

(Mr Everitt) Yes, a 1261.

17.Is it correct that the form has been changed so that it no longer has to be countersigned by the watch manager and supervisor?

(Mr Everitt) That I do not know, I would have to check.

18.Again if you could let us have a note. I understand it did used to have a section underneath where the watch manager or supervisor had to agree or not agree with the comment logged by the controller. I am told this section has now been removed and I would like to know if that is the case or not.

(Mr Everitt) I would have to check.

19.Your approval under Article 88 of the Navigation Orders; is it permanent or temporary?

(Mr Everitt) I think it is an indefinite approval.

20.You think it is?

(Mr Everitt) Yes.

21.What about when it was first given in January, was it permanent or temporary?

(Mr Everitt) Indeed it was --- I will need to check that but my understanding ---
22.There is a letter to you from Mr Dancer, the head of Air Traffic Safety Standards Department from 22 January in which he tells you that your Article 88 Air Navigation Order approval has again been time-limited. It cannot be indefinite and time-limited at the same time, can it?

(Mr Everitt) I would need to check that.

23.Which is it now? Indefinite?

(Mr Everitt) My understanding is that it is indefinite but I would need to check.

Chairman

24.You seem to have to check a lot of things. You run this thing.

(Mr Everitt) I did not come prepared for operational questions, I thought we were talking about the NAO Report.
Mr Bacon

25.I am curious because the Health and Safety Executive on 18 January, four days before you opened, said there were concerns about safety in relation to the centre and what it called "design deficiencies" which may have implications in relation to air safety and that as a result of that, presumably, that was why you were given a time-limited approval?

(Mr Everitt) No.

26.That is not the case?

(Mr Everitt) I do not think that is the case at all. We were given checks before we opened Swanwick and the safety regulator was perfectly content that Swanwick met all aviation safety requirements and the health and safety issues were around the possible effects on people at work, as it were; they were not air safety issues.

27.Is it a matter of the regulator's opinion or is it a question of what the law says?

(Mr Everitt) The aviation safety regulator clearly has to make judgments, as most regulators would have to in these circumstances, and those were the CAA's judgments.

28.What I want to know is if your contempt was okay, why did your approval say, and I have got a copy of it here: "This approval is effective from 26 January 2002 to 26 July 2002, unless revoked, varied or suspended", and why was it given this time-limited condition?

(Mr Everitt) Can I just check for one moment. Could I give you a note on that rather than speculate.

29.You have been telling me in your first answers that the approval was indefinite.

(Mr Everitt) That is my understanding.

30.This is a fairly fundamental thing, whether you can operate or not. It says here: "Air Navigation Order Article 88, approval for the provision of air traffic services." That is what you do, is it not?

(Mr Everitt) Indeed.

31.So this is the right piece of paper I have got. You have approval here subject to the conditions stated in the schedule and it has got a date on it and it says effective to 26 July. In your first answer to me on this subject you were saying it is indefinite. It plainly is not indefinite, is it?

(Mr Everitt) My understanding relates to the current approval we have. We have approval to operate an air traffic service as issued by the regulator.

32.I hope you do. My question was whether it is a permanent approval.

(Mr Everitt) Could I give you a note on that.

33.Yes please, fine. I want to ask you about height capping. I understand this is a standard procedure in the industry. How much has height capping increased since Swanwick opened?

(Mr Everitt) I can give you a percentage but obviously, as we have boarded in and dealt with the situation this summer, there has been an increase in height capping, yes, and that has been part of the management of the system as we have worked through the opening of Swanwick.

34.Could you give me a note - and perhaps you can answer it now and if you can that would be great - on how many journeys there have been which have been height capped since Swanwick opened?

(Mr Everitt) I think that would be difficult but I will do my best.

35.And also over the last three years at West Drayton prior to Swanwick opening how many journeys were height capped?
(Mr Everitt) I will do the best I can but we obviously do not measure each one.

Mr Bacon: No further questions."

Looks like some poor rain forests going to take a real hammering to supply one Mr Everitt with enough note paper........
:D

Cheers
30W

[jocko0102]

I urge all of you at every unit to get your union reps sit them down with as many of you at a time and tell then that you are disgusted at the total ineptitude of NATs management.This bunch do not know what they are doing and we are not doing enough to kick them out and turn this company around.
Please if any union people are reading this for once show your bottle and give us the chance to have a nationwide vote of no confidence and/or a strike!!
For anyone who is not in NATs and is reading this whatever you read or hear from management it is bollocks,we are short and that is not going to change,the investment will not happen because we have to pay back huge debts and staff morale is crap because we are sidelined and are not listened to.


DONT JUST SIT THERE AND DO NOTHING!!!!

[2 six 4]

Warped factor. You are right ... it makes me want to weep. Then it makes me bloody angry. Why should smart arses like Prescott be allowed to stand up in the House of Commons and smugly tell MPs that the Trade Unions were scarmongering about privatisation. If anything we all underestimated how shambolic privatisation could be.

As for Everett, just how long can we be run by this incompetent board ? The annonymous chairman and the Chief Executive executive who cannot answer questions. Makes you wonder what happens on Board meetings. Do they all sit around and talk about the weather ? No wonder the Chief Exec does not know a thing about NATS operations - he is never seen in an Ops room !!! When he does get information it is as reliable as Mr Chisholm's estimate that we had 60 surplus ATCOs for moving to Swanwick. Has he or Everett not yet made the link between ATCO numbers and validations ?? It is valid ATCOs we need for opening sectors not office staff or trainees.

Wonder if he will put that in the note to Mr Bacon. Anyone know where the good Mr Bacon can be found ?

[eyeinthesky]

Very amusing (not to say alarming) exchange during questioning.:rolleyes:

Of course the point is that Everitt, like others before him, is being fed no or **** information from LACC management, and then nothing really gets changed. What do you imagine will happen once all these notes are sent? Nothing. They will be filed and on we will trundle.

Let's face it, the government can't afford for the NATS fiasco to be investigated and acted upon. It was them who pushed the whole PPP issue through against the better judgment of many of their own backbenchers (including Ms Dunwoody).

Yet another fudge and the travelling public is duped into thinking it's all OK.:mad:

[Nogbad the Bad]

My thanks to 30W for taking the time and trouble to post on this thread.

I wish ALL airline people would read it.

As has been said previously, it shows how shambolic NATS "management" is.....and has been for too long a time. It saddens me to think how unprepared our Chief Executive was at this recent hearing. Perhaps he could learn from his experience and S A C K those responsible beneath him for incompetance (or - if you'd like it put plainly - lying to him about the state of things.)

GOD knows where Mr Everitt got the staffing figures from for next year (see comment above)

We are short of VALID (well said 2-6-4) controllers now - and will be for the forseeable future.

TWELVE SHORT NEXT YEAR ??? Just how much longer can people be expected to put up with such rubbish ?????????????????

[30W]

Nogbad, you're very welcome, I only hope many pilots will read it, but sadly I rather expect they will not :(

Let's not for a minute think that NATS' directors are any less competant than many airline ones - you can pack em all in the same sinking ship as far as I'm concerned......and I'll forget to PAN when I see it going down:D

One further sad element though is, they will have their contracts so far stiched up in their favour, that to get rid of them will cost you huge sums of money in severance pay. Hundreds of thousands at least I expect......Never mind if you or I were to make such a mess of things at work it's only the body bags that would be counted, not the interest from a bulging bank account :(

I think Dunwoody & co need pressing for an urgent extraordinary meeting between the Transport Committee and NATS to examine this summers performance against that which was detailed to her by NATS prior to Swanwick's opening.

30W

[mainecoon]

30w to echo nogbad thanks again and no need to say sorry because of the size of something so laughable from our poor chief who is being set up for the chop i suspect (large payout too follow as you suggest)

perhaps we should have this reposted to reporting points if we could get in between the ryanair and easy bashing (not that i think thats a bad thing in some cases)

i also wish that the press could have the sense to pick up on something so in your face as a parlimentry/cmtte discussion with as daming implications as this as to ppp but more important to the safety of the flying public

but concord headlines get more copy anyway even if it's tenuous , crap and won't affect the vast majority of the flying public as they can never afford it

jocko correct you have my vote as i think you know

oh sh!t i meant to send you a note on that!:eek:

[torpids]

I assume since this is for PUBLIC Accounts all these notes
Everitt has promised in answer to the questions he didn't
have a clue about will also be made public. I also assume
he will be fed the usual non-answers (or do I mean pack of lies) from his great management team. Isn't it time Dunwoody and friends got someone operational to check out the bullxxxt.

[radar707]

As shareholders, do we not have a right to call an EGM and look for a vote of no confidence in the present board?? Surely this 5% (or whatever has so far been allocated) must have some voting power

Just a thought, if we can then how do we go about it?

[RomeoTangoFoxtrotMike]

Wonder if he will put that in the note to Mr Bacon. Anyone know where the good Mr Bacon can be found ?

He appears to be the MP for South Norfolk http://www.politicallinks.co.uk/POLITICS2/BIOG/MP_BIOGS/bio.asp?id=430

You may find http://www.faxyourmp.com/ useful. However, an MP only has to respond if he's your MP.

HTH

[torpids]

As Chairman of the Transport Select Committee Gwynneth doesn't have to be your MP, so if you have any comments I think it worthwhile sending a letter. I have looked up her address:

Gwyneth Dunwoody MP
154 Nantwich Road
Crewe
CW2 6BG

or

House of Commons
Westminster
London
SW1A 1AA

[SLF3]

To put this in perspective, what is the establishment for qualified controllers at Swanick (i.e., 40 out of how many)?

[snowybee]

Where's our shares in this great company :rolleyes:

[chiglet]

snowy,
"Probably" paying Cherrys "Costs".
I know that I ain't holding my breath 'til I get 'em
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[eyeinthesky]

SLF3: I don't have the exact PSS numbers, and some dispute them, but the consensus is that at present we need between 380 and 410 controllers to be able to operate the Centre at full capacity at all times. Therefore to be 40 short on that is 10pct or more.!:eek:
The only reason the figures look better next year is that we are shelving off half the North Sea Sector to Scottish Control and Manchester are taking on another large piece of airspace over N Lincolnshire. This reduces the requirement for bodies at LACC.

Just remember: "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics!!" You can make the numbers look as good as you like to get PPP through or open a Centre 'on time' six years late (and get a bonus), but the fact is that there are not enough bums on seats to operate the Centre at its published capacity, nor have there ever been. Those who told the Select Committee that we would have a surplus were either misled by their lower management or were, how shall we say to avoid libel, economical with the truth. Those same people have just been paid bonuses totalling close on £300,000!!!

Now we have the new senior management sitting before another investigation and unable to answer the simplest of questions about the day-to-day running of the highest profile facility in NATS. 'Computer Weekly' has a better grasp of what's going on than he does!;)

[SLF3]

Thanks for the response. If they are 10% under establishment they are sailing very close to the wind. Second question from someone not in the industry: who is the regulator, and what does he say about this?

[eyeinthesky]

The regulator is Safety Regulation Group (SRG) which is a branch of the CAA based at Gatwick. Part of the selling point of PPP was that SRG would then become an independent regulator (rather than part of the same umbrella organisation as NATS) and therefore have more teeth.

I am not deeply involved in the process, but as far as I am aware, SRG has NEVER blocked anything involved in the operation or opening of NERC and is generally seen to be very proficient in the use of the rubber stamp. Indeed, a QC who was engaged to give an opinion on the legality of operating with the display problems we had felt it was an odd arrangement. He thought (as most people would) that a regulator should satisfy itself that the system is correct and that process should involve the inspection of facilities and questioning of procedures. In effect, NATS should PROVE that the system is correct. The NATS/SRG relationship seems to be one where NATS says it is OK and SRG has to prove otherwise!:eek:

Good, eh!?

[asdfgh]

I agree that the system with SRG and NATS isn't what it could be, however "The NATS/SRG relationship seems to be one where NATS says it is OK and SRG has to prove otherwise!" Uuumm, how can it be otherwise? I may be misinterpreting what you've said but surely you say to someone ' Here's what I've built and its great, works perfectly!' and its then up to them to say 'Well lets see how the brakes work, prove that they do!' I don't see how you prove something when no-one challenges you as to what works and how.
I know that the ATSSD took a keen interest in everything that was going on in the run up to 'O' date and subsequently. Many letters of challenge were sent to the NERC management team and they had to prove that what they were challenged on was correct or provide mitigation.

10% light on ATCO's accords with what I've heard for most watches. When you figure in another 10% sickness (including the long term) on a couple of watches that equals, uumm, well a LOT more than 12 short!

[torpids]

To add to Eyeinethesky's comments, the QC didn't just say it was an odd arrangement, but that it was worthy of challenge in the courts. The union backed NATS, not ATCOs, and refused to obtain an independent legal opinion or give advice to the membership
on their legal liability on the use of deficient equipment. That state of affairs remains unresolved. Let's not forget that the Chairman of the CAA (boss of SRG) picked up an £89,000 pay off from NATS for his efforts.

[EarOnTheGround]

At the moment a new Oceanic and Domestic ATC centre at Prestwick is on hold (Nats has no money to build it !).
There may have been some alternative funding methods.

From Neil Kinnock European Transport Commissioner on 21 11 1996 in a letter to a member of NATS staff


...... the possibility of obtaining funding from the European Community will depend on its compatibility with the general rules for granting aid in the field of Trans European Networks and on the availability of funds. From the information at our disposal the Prestwick scheme would appear eligible. To date no application has been received from the UK Government......


The only questions are why did the Government not apply for it and does it still be eligible?

There is speculation that this is how the Irish Aviation Authority funded their operation.

Comments ?

[fish food]

A minor point 'Ear-OTG', the "new" Prestwick Oceanic Area Control Centre already exists and is simply awaiting the purchase of new kit to become operational - it is referred to locally as "the brown hut" and is an ugly addition to the side of the existing Ops room.

NSC or "New Prestwick Centre", (Latest attempt to be 'PC' about the fact that it covers both Scottish, N.Irish and English airspace), will not officially be home to Oceanic - provided of course the business case for 'NPC' can be made at all in light of Single European Sky proposals seeking to reduce the overall number of centres.

Looks like NATS could end up with a 'Get out of Jail Free' card in the form of the EC for eventually pulling the plug on 'NPC'!

:eek:

[BDiONU]

It doesn't cover much English airspace, at least not until North Sea is taken over in March.
However it looks like the Scottish Borg is not going to be able to assimilate Sector 7 after all! :p

[Bigears]

fish food, When Manch are assimiliated into NPC (or the North British Centre, or whatever its going to be called), then there will still be one less centre.

BDiONU, I think that Manch would be upset to hear that they don't cover much English airspace! :p

[BDiONU]

Shurely shome mishtake? Manch ain't the NSC (yet) and I thought that woz wot we was tarwking abaht?!!!

[Bigears]

Na na mate, we waz talking about the future, we was.....