Originally Posted by
eglnyt
I wouldn't disagree with the objective. You may consider that it currently doesn't but capital expenditure is all part of the pricing process. The Investment Plan is submitted as part of the process, independently reviewed by an organisation of the CAA's choosing, subject to comment by all stakeholders and them forms part of the licence conditions for that charging period. Whether that process works to deliver value for money is a matter for others not NATS.
If NATS fails to deliver the improvement promised in its investment plan it will ultimately suffer because those expected improvements will guide the expected price next time around.
Ever time, you deflect responsibility from NATS, are they entirely unaccountable?
The 90%/£90m cost was because one (NATS, senior) person's bonus depended on spending that much - so he was hardly likely to expose, any more than you are, that it was a complete waste of money!
So this was ENTIRELY NATS fault, nobody else's. And there is no evidence that NATS 'suffered' any consequences whatsoever. We know what happened to the 'expected price next time round' - NATS refused to improve on it!