Originally Posted by
None of the above
N o t a thanks for the link, wasn't aware of that discussion but I agree with posters comments that NATS is driven in that instance by the government. Another driver is demand, given that NATS gets penalties for delay its in the companies interest to stay ahead of demand as best as possible. Hence re-sectorisations and the drive to replace the 4 disparate en route centres systems down to 3 (ScOACC + MACC, LTCC & LACC) and then eventually onto 1 for both centres (Scottish & London).
In the case of the LTMA re-design additional drivers are mixed mode at Heathrow and the additional runway planned at Stansted and probably Heathrow.
One thing I should point out thats totally false in the linked article is:
Steve Charlish, a commercial pilot who has led a campaign against increasing air traffic over the East Midlands, said: “If Nats were proposing a new motorway or bypass you could object but one thing you cannot do is touch the airspace above because that is owned by the crown - you’ve got no right of objection.”
Everyone may object, it is your right. Does anyone in this forum recall the QC in East anglia who objected to 'visual pollution' due to the re-structure of South east sectors? Or the delay in opening the Bristol/Cardiff airspace recently due to environmental concerns? My department has just employed 2 new staff whose job is environmental (airspace matters not recycling paper
).
Glad my boss made the strong point that some airspace changes are being done for safety reasons as well
BD