Go for 5, Get 3,
<<The Governement would give NATS a low rate loan to implement changes, such as the building of a new en-route centre. As it was essentially a loan, the loss of money to the governement was negligible, if not nil.>>
Amazing, to essentially reduce government debt they sell off the ATC system? I'm sure this wasn't the initial reason given for privatizing, but somebody, somewhere in gov't must be appreciating this little side benefit. Maybe it's just my American controller mentality, but what other function (besides piloting) deals with, and could consequently endanger, so many lives in any given day? And this function should be subject to an accountants calculations? It's tough for me to see the rationale.
<<The staff were against the sell off, but hey, what do we know? >>
I assume the company contempating the takeover here in the US would promise a certain amount of stock options and a high paid job in the company, essentially "buying off" the people who's names and quotes will be used to promote the privatization idea. A curious appearance of conflict of interest.
<<... airlines are struggling at the moment, with BA making a spectacular loss so how can they afford to invest the money in NATS?>>
In my humble opinion, an
ENTIRE ATC system cannot be wholey privatized (zero government subsidies) and make a profit. No offense to any airline, but it's tough enough keeping an airline in the profit margin without the added burden of maintaining the ATC system. The system stays afloat because the government subsidizes the ATC system and tells the airlines "We built and will maintain the system, feel free to create a business that utilizes our system." Government subsidies save the airlines the money they need to stay in business, which in turn allows the airlines to serve the general good of society. Seems simple to me.
It's like roadways. Would auto makers ever see owning the roadways as a profit maker? It's tough enough to sell an auto, but to sell an auto with added taxes to fund privatized roads? My analogy may be off, but you get the idea ... underlying infrastructures, designed to benefit society as a whole, should be an inherently governmental function, paid for through taxes, relieving entrepeneurs of the financial burden, thus promoting growth in many industries beneficial to all.
<<NATS have been told that they cannot increase charges this year to cover the loss of revenue - the excuse being that when traffic levels are high, the income is high, therefore NATS should take the bad with the good and accept a loss of revenue in the aftermath of the tragedy... So how are we supposed to invest??!! >>
We had/have similar problems here in the US with our electric companies. The gov't kept a tight leash on what they can charge using the same mentality you describe. The companies weren't allowed to make any kind of siginifcant profit, therefore investments in projected future growth were non-existent. Now 10 years later we're suffering power shortages (and HIGH prices) because the electric companies can't keep up with current demands using the same setup they had 10 years ago.
<<As for pay - again we have been told that due to Sept 11th we cannot expect a good rise - (we are still waiting for the rise that was due in January!). This is understandable to a degree, but when traffic levels were increasing by up to ten precent per year, did we receive a comparitive pay rise? Of course not. >>
Profits versus safety. This can come back to haunt an ATC system when the lack of proper working conditions and inadequate pay serves as a disincentive to those "best qualified" persons contemplating a job as an ATCer but choose to find a job elsewhere. This job requires the "cream of the crop" ... the best working conditions, equipment and benefits ... to attract the best available talent to keep the system as safe as humanly possible. Seems you/we are no more important than the equipment you/we use ... the quality of both will deteriorate as the years pass without qualified replacements waiting in the wings to take over.
Safety has a price the private sector cannot afford.
StuckMic
