Our employers have been looking at the possibility of contracting out ATC for several years now, and whilst they haven't dismissed the idea once and for all, they are very much of the mind that they would like to keep it "in - house";
They see advantages and disadvantages of contracting out as follows;
Disadvantages:
1 - NATS would charge significantly more for provision of the service than it currently costs.
2 - NATS would also want to take on the Tel's engineers as part of the contract, thereby increasing overall costs.
3 - Ultimately, NATS would want to remote the approach control function, leaving just tower atcos at the airport, and SSR and primary cover from the local NATS radar head is sufficiant for provision of a fully remoted service, and therefore there's no requirement for our own radar head and equipment at the airport. But, if for any reason, after 5 years the airport want to get rid of NATS, they have to remploy a substantial number of approach and tower rated atco's and reinstate all the equipment at significant cost. NATS would have us by the balls.
Advantages:
1 - We will have up to 5 retirements in the next 4 years, we don't train our own atco's, additionally, anyone can fall over at a medical. Only NATS can guarantee to make cover immediately available to cover at short notice.
2 - NATS can make new technology and equipment available as part of new developments and research, ultimately there would be a cost to the airport company, but this would be significantly less than if it was bought off the shelf, and staff would be trained on the equipment for more or less "nil cost".
3 - NATS have the in - house infrastructure and experience to manage and provide future installation and other projects which the airport would otherwise have to farm out to several different suppliers with the inherent delays and problems this may incur.
No doubt Serco would say that they could also provide all the advantages, but they wouldn't commit themselves in writing, NATS did.
When it comes down to it, money talks, and employing a contractor is always going to be more expensive than doing it yourself.
The only reason that NATS will not lose any of their current larger BAA contracts is because the airports would incur significant cost in employing their own ATC staff.
However, the service cost at Luton, Southampton, Farnborough and also when Manchester ATCC moves to McNerk, will be constantly under the sharp eye of the bean counters.
Yes, NATS definately are under instruction to aggressively market themselves as an ATC provider, but they are not going to do this for anyone if they won't make a profit, and Bristol won't employ them unless they see it to be a significant financial benefit to the airport company.