Quote:
"If" NATS goes bust, bears some examination. Would any UK government let NATS go to the wall? I think not, especially as it owns 49% of the company.
One word. Railtrack.
And what ACTUALLY happened to the Railtrack
pension fund after the company was returned to a "not for profit company?" Terms and conditions for most of the workforce didn't change, although a 100 or so managers were made redundant.
Losers were those who held large amonts of shares in Railtrack, not the workforce.
Am I missing the point somewhere?
Yes, i think you are. The regulator is there to make sure NATS doesn't abuse it's monopoly status. There is no evidence to suggest that NATS cannot fund its CAAPS obligations without "pass-through", it simply won't be in a position to make BIG profits.
Smaller profits are more of a worry to businessmen like barron, whose whole philosophy leans towards maximising profit at all costs.
BEX