bookworm, if you factor in traffic density and complexity NATS actually looks a lot better.
There's an interesting document
here with enough facts, figures and statistics to keep anyone occupied for a very long time.
The sort of stats that I find mildly interesting though are ones like DSNA (France) in 2005 handling circa 2.6m IFR flights with just under 9,000 total staff of whom circa 2,500 are controllers and NATS handling circa 2.4m IFR flights with around 4,900 staff of whom around 1,300 are controllers (and at lower ATM/CNS costs) and yet it's NATS that always gets the bashing for being costly and inefficient?
There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics
