NATS Lose Gatwick Contract (Split thread)

[Norwegian Blue]

Very Worried

Hi all – I haven’t joined the conversation before now for two main reasons:

I hate the bunfights and willy waving contests that many of these threads often descend into.

I needed a little time to research some of the issues discussed here.

Today I wrote a lengthy email to my MP stating my concerns over the Gatwick situation and the implications it may have, not only for NSL, but any other ANSP bidding for airport contracts within the UK. I suggest others do the same. I shan’t disclose the full details of that missive but have outlined the points (trying to stick purely to bare facts) thus:

Gatwick airport are owned by Global Infrastructure Partners. The former Chief Executive of NATS (Prior to Richard Deakin) is a consultant to GIP (as stated on his Linked In profile). Some time late last year it appears that either DFS showed an interest in bidding for Gatwick - or GIP themselves approached DFS and asked them to tender (I am not certain but have heard rumours that the latter was the case).

Some time last year, the Managing Director of NSL, a person who is intimately acquainted with NATS commercial bids (and, as Managing Director, was responsible for protecting the future of the company) decided to resign from NATS. He left NSL on 6th December 2013. It appears that he then became “involved” with the DFS bid “very soon” after leaving. It would be interesting to know the actual timescales involved and I believe this to be an issue worthy of further investigation.

Then there is the issue of whether this was a totally fair playing field or not. For that we need to look at company structures. I think some of the conversations earlier in the thread have veered a little towards blind alleys and red herrings – specifically over whether either the DFS or NATS are subsidised by their respective Governments – this is missing the point.
When NATS was part-privatised, the NSL (airports) side of the business was “ring fenced” to prevent NERL from being able to subsidise the NSL business (therefore making them an unfair competitor in the market). Consequently, NSL pay a significant amount of money in payment for NATS corporate overheads - making it difficult for NSL to remain competitive.

DFS is wholly owned by the German Government. There is no evidence that they are “subsidised” by the Government (just as NATS were not subsidised prior to PPP – they were, in fact, net contributors to the Treasury). However, they enjoy all the protection that being a government agency involves. The DFS provides ATC services at 4 centres and 16 major airports – it has no competition at any of these units, no other ANSP is able to compete for business there. The majority of the rest of the “smaller” airports within Germany are run by The Tower Company. A number of other airports are run by Austro Control – this is not as a result of competition but by agreement - and with the cooperation of DFS.

Effectively there is no competition within Germany for airport business – the DFS appear to hold an almost complete monopoly – ironic, considering some of the crowing on this site about breaking the “NATS monopoly”. The Tower Company are a wholly owned subsidiary of the DFS – much like NSL is to NATS. The difference is that they do not appear to be subject to the same level of “ring fencing” as NSL and are therefore not hindered by the same onerous level of corporate overheads.

NSL have always operated in a competitive environment but are to be replaced by an ANSP that enjoys a total monopoly in its own country. For those non-NATS ATCOs applauding this result, think of this – if you find competing against NSL difficult, how much easier do you think it will be to compete against the DFS/Tower Company – or whatever it decides to call its UK operation?

So my question to my MP is this: is it fair or correct that a non-UK company is allowed to bid for a major piece of UK business, apparently free to operate in a way from which our main UK provider is prevented?

As for some of the comments about NATS being “too public sector minded” and a “dinosaur” – I find this a little unfair. Do we really believe a completely government owned organisation that does not need to compete within its own national boundaries is somehow sharper and less bound to the Jurassic Era?? I do not believe this to be the case – merely that they were lucky the two previously mentioned individuals became “available”.

Over on the NATS thread somebody stated that the NSL bid team “sc”*&ed up” – maybe it needs to be investigated whether they “sc”*&ed up” or were “sc”*&ed over”.

I’ve already written to my MP – I suggest those of you who are similarly concerned do the same.