Balix,
Your local MP tells you all that they will oppose the privatisation and help keep jobs in the local area. They obvously told you all a a right yarn.
Privatisation of NATS could cost the local area several well paid jobs and I bet you £10 that they get re-elected.
If your neighbours, friends and elected representatives don't care less about your job security then why should anyone else?
Forget the £10 bet - I should have bet you Eur10 since by the time your local MP retires that will be the currency you are paid in.
---
10W,
The National Air Traffic Services PLC was set up after the financial restructuring so that money could be obtained in return for selling shares to the financial institutions. To date, I am not aware that any shares have been sold.
However, the important thing is that it is currently impossible for a private investor to obtain a controling stake in NATS since to do so they would need to purchase 51% of the shares. Purchase of the TAG shares would yield 46% - the maximum possible currently. It is not possible to buy the staff shares since the staff are requried to hold 5%. The government holds the rest and while dilution of the government stake to not below 25% is possible, there is little doubt that such a move could finally light that well dried powder and cause the government problems that it doen't want at present.
Companies Office say that one of the many NATS companies registered sells dodgy videos from Soho in London
- nice side-line!
The Secretary of State can relieve NATS from it's licensed obligations but can not relieve the UK form it's obligations under ICAO. Of course, the UK could pull off the Atlantic at the drop of a hat. Think that BA etc might suffer a little though.
Perhaps before you totally discount the posibility of an advisory route on the North Sea, you should have another look at your map. D513 max altitude 10,000. D513A and 513B are separated by 23nm of open airspace. To the east of that, there are some refueling areas and more danger areas however, there is never less than 16nm between them at their closest point.
Yes NATS is not the airspace provider - but if it wants to be a service provider then it needs the airspace to do it in. Does NATS want to provide a service over the N Sea?
To me it looks like provision was made during the airspace design for traffic routing west from INBOB to the UK coast about 25nm north of NEW which could turn south once west of D513A.
I am not an airspace designer however, I can not see a problem with provision of a Class F extenstion to P18 to the NE of NEW for 25nm and thense to INBOB. This would then provide the airspace within which ScACC
could within it's current rules provide a RAS or as correctly say provide a procedural service to participating traffic.
Of course, your answer is simply no no no no no no.
Perhaps the OACC applied the same logic to other areas where people are now complaining because another ATS provider is going to provide a better service.
That is why I think the two are linked - another provider could possible provide the service that many request on a daily basis overthe north sea but that would cost NATS money and we would be back round to loosing airspace and jobs again.
You ask - Is the airspace in the Shanwick FIR below FL55 Shanwick airspace? - Of course - it is the Shanwick FIR and no other ATS provider has responsibility for the provision of FIS in that airspace. Just the same that the airspace betwen NOTA and ther Western Isles is the Scottish FIR - Scottish airspace.
You are quite corect that Belfast TMA departrures who get high enough before London or Shannon take control may work SW. However, with the atlantic traffic load reduced, SW should have plenty of spare capacity.
The new Annex has already cost NATS plenty of money which was not budgeted for in litigation and cancelation costs as a result of the start stop start management of the project. Hopefully everythign else comes in well below budget so that the costs will not over-run.
As has been said, airlines take everything into account when planning routes to fly. I can see it being very possible for traffic from Frankfurt to route to Brest and there to the NW corner of NOTA if the routecharges and UK delays make it worthwhile. Paris traffic would no doubt benifit from avoiding the traffic jam between BNE and POL - as would UK ATC in being able to advertise lower delays.
Being one sky it makes sense to spread the traffic load that causes North Sea problems across France and up through Ireland.
That thred regarding the FIR is not the one. The one I referred to was only there for 2 days before being deleted no doubt as a result of the negative comments to the complaint that FIS cost too much money.
---
The TMA we are told is being revised and peak time delays will be reduced. I am happy to await the result and see.
"The Shanwick computer will be destabilised"
Shows what rubbish computing you are using. Atlantic operators were told some time ago that technology was being upgraded and a new annex being built onto the OACC to house all this wonderful technology.
Sounds like that new technology is old hat.
The customer desrves honesty for it's money.
Regards,
DFC