As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions.
Ah that'll be DFCs game then
Congratulations, it's worked !! And we can now see where the saying 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' comes from (see also DFCs posts on JAA/FAA licences/ratings - they're a good read too.).
On the one hand
DFC, you say that's there no requirement for a NEW-ADN Airway, an Airway which could provide an enhanced service to around 100 aircraft per day. It would reduce track miles which results in reduced fuel burn and less cost to the airlines (happy campers), which results in shorter flying times (pax become happy campers), reduced greenhouse gas emissions (the tree huggers become happy campers), and it also removes 100 aircraft from the Scottish TMA airspace which you complain about thus freeing up capacity and improving the throughput of that airspace and reducing delay and holding for all (airlines are happy, pax are happy, tree huggers are happy).
Compare that to your 'need' for a route East of NEW, a route which would probably serve the heady figures of around 10 flights a day maximum. Yep, that's a REAL priority isn't it. You also say that NEW-ADN traffic should route on the existing structure. Guess what ?? So could these flights from Newcastle. Join CAS at HAVEN, fly to GRICE, then P600 and P600D to KLONN. It's increased track mileage for sure, but if that principle is OK for the NEW-ADN saga then it's OK for the Newcastle-Scandinavian traffic as well.
You also carry charts in your aircraft, so next time have a look at them and see what there is to the East of Newcastle which would prevent the introduction of a route. Shouldn't be TOO difficult to work out really.
I think you also misunderstand how NATS charges are set. They are not set at a European level. What does happen is that Eurocontrol COLLECTS charges and distributes them to the Member States and ATS providers. The actual unit rate is set by the ATS provider or State, otherwise wouldn't Euroland just set everyone the same rate ?? Our glorious CAA have a formula which is used to set NATS charges (based on a reducing charge related to RPI), but it's sod all to do with Europe. It has been amended a few times based on changing circumstances.
A few more misconceptions for you to also ponder.
You are right that losing a piece of airspace does not increase costs. But nor does it reduce them in this case. The controllers who would have provided the service in that airspace still have airspace to control, the Oceanic Control Area. Oceanic does not work in geographical divisions and the charge to aircraft is the same no matter how little or how much of Oceanic airspace they fly through. Ergo for the Oceanic operation, it matters not a jot. And the NOTA in fact will not replace ANY Scottish sector airspace, so in terms of the number of controllers and the airspace covered, etc, it again matters not a jot. The costs remain exactly as they are today. What does change is the potential for some aircraft to no longer transit Scottish airspace and remain in Irish airspace/NOTA. This means increased revenue for the IAA and reduced revenue for NATS. This is the real crux of the matter since NATS costs remain the same but they now have less money coming in to service those costs. There are lots of different ways to deal with that. Save costs elsewhere maybe, or as a few people have tried to get across, increase the route charges overall to cover the shortfall. It's not rocket science.
As an aside, the IAA were under the misconception that they could increase the number of Oceanic tracks with all this new airspace. Isn't it lucky then that they didn't understand the ICAO separation criteria for track construction when entry points don't start on the same longitude
They won't be able to deliver too much increased capacity on to or off the Oceanic tracks since the ICAO separation rules still apply. The advantage they may be able to offer is better flight profiles to and from them. I think it would be very interesting to see the Cost Benefit Analysis provided to the airlines comparing the status quo and the NOTA. An independent one perhaps ??
As for moving controllers to other areas because of the change in service provision. Great idea from a wormseye view, total non starter if you have the big picture. As mentioned above, Oceanic controllers will still be dealing with the same aircraft only in a reduced bit of the sky. But as they work in a vertical sectorisation, you still need the same number whether the aircraft enters the airspace at 10W, 15W or 20W. The ScACC controllers will still be operating the Southwest sector with the same number of bodies and the Oceanic track structure and it's movement around the sky will not be changed by the NOTA very much at all. Belfast TMA jet departures and arrivals are also unlikely to be reduced by the NOTA I would argue
But let's assume we could free up a body or two (ignore all the above, let's be hypothetical). You'd draft them in to help with the TMA. Errrrrr, to do what ??? The sector is already fully manned when it's busy so where would they sit, and what tasks could you give them ?? If you really had a clue about the TMA and why it has restrictions then you would know that it is never regulated due to staff shortages (wouldn't you ?? you seem to know everything else). It is regulated due to the CAPACITY of the airspace. This capacity comes about from the ability of the airfields to accept traffic (runway arrival rate), from the airspace structure (lack of manouevring room and limited holding airspace), from the complexity of the traffic flows (multiple crossing tracks, multiple climbing and descending aircraft, multiple aircraft performance characteristics, military restrictions, etc, etc, etc). So how does an extra body or two wave a magic wand and solve all that ??
Your comments on privatisation are not worthy of comment, since you obviously know nothing about the feeling of the staff of NATS and the campaigns which were run at the time. And lest the Moderator pull me up for abuse
Can you name the other private ATS en route operators in Europe please ??
Finally, there HAS been a radar facility on Rockall for many many years. It is operated by the British Ministry of Defence in support of missile firings from Benbecula Range. Maybe Ireland will attack it with some of their natty new PC9 aircraft and claim the territory for their new radar station. It could happen .. in DFC's world