Arran,
Read the company report. The above quotes are cut and paste. They clearly indicate litigation and contract dispute costs.
So you agree that it isn't an airspace matter - it is simply a money and jobs matter.
You are making the same argument that many of us made when the Flight Engineer's time was at an end. Before that someone made the same complaint about the loss of the navigator and the radio operator.
Perhaps we should never progress.
However we can not deny that service will improve.
We pay a per-contact fee for HF services. If they have radio operators sitting round and nobody calling then that is up to them. We pay the same fee to the OACC regardless of which method we use and no doubt datalinking saves the OACC money.
If your only reason for complaining about the airspace change is the loss of jobs then you must be against datalinking. After all with datalink on every aircraft you won't need the nice clearance delivery people now will you?
That brings us back to money - which the airlines pay - which pays you. TAG is a great idea since it ensures that the airlines are at the table making the decisions.
There is no such thing as a "job for life" anymore.
You made claims that the radar was paid for by the EU but you can't back that up with any reference. have a look at the EU web site.
You now claim that the IAA provides a subsidised service. Who provides the subsidy and what evidence do you have?
I am waiting for an airline to come out and say that having a radar service in NOTA is worse than having a procedural service provided by the OACC.
Regards,
DFC