COVENTRY
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rugby
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is Marshall's beef not with the company that failed, rather than with Sir Peter? I have experienced a similar situation in business. If a customer goes bust owing you money, you cannot legitimately penalise the successors (assuming they are not the same people in disguise). You have a decision to make as to whether to supply the new company or not, but you cannot hold the the new company to ransom over the money outstanding debt.
You either want the business or not, or have I misunderstood the situation?
You either want the business or not, or have I misunderstood the situation?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Not close enough to my aircraft !
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dawdler - You are right but that does NOT stop Mr Moaner at Marshalls having his ar*e in his hands over the whole affair and I am told there is still the matter (as mentioned by other posters) about the amount of money they spent there and now can't get that back. Business is business and the risks taken with it.
However, they are still digging thgeir heels in. PR wnats / needs an ATC facility, Marshalls hold 'something' I believe over the equipment and still want a contract but at the moment it is more on Marshalls terms than PR's so that is where the impass comes at the moment. Who will weaken first ? Who NEEDS Marshalls there the most ?
There are ex Marshalls employees on here and I would welcome some honest input from them to bring this matter into the light as to what 'Mr Grumpys' beef really is about as I cannot get that exactly from within CCC.
However, they are still digging thgeir heels in. PR wnats / needs an ATC facility, Marshalls hold 'something' I believe over the equipment and still want a contract but at the moment it is more on Marshalls terms than PR's so that is where the impass comes at the moment. Who will weaken first ? Who NEEDS Marshalls there the most ?
There are ex Marshalls employees on here and I would welcome some honest input from them to bring this matter into the light as to what 'Mr Grumpys' beef really is about as I cannot get that exactly from within CCC.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, until a deal is done or not done, I think that the speculation about what Marshalls want or don't want is pointless...Certainly slagging off whoever Mr Grumpy is, by supporters of Coventry opening, is not likely to make him any less grumpy.
Any company buying into CVT would take more than the usual precautions to protect their business, given the recent history. .
At the end of the day, we are all guessing, as the publicity machine has been well and truly silenced!!
Maybe today????
Any company buying into CVT would take more than the usual precautions to protect their business, given the recent history. .
At the end of the day, we are all guessing, as the publicity machine has been well and truly silenced!!
Maybe today????
Not sure Marshalls spent any money on equipment, and they clearly didn't spend much on Due Dilligence otherwsie they would have spotted that WMIA had no business plan to support the money on offer.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HT
In this instance the term "due dilligence" has a completely different meaning if indeed, it is at all applicable.
Marshalls bid for (or were offered) the contract to provide ATC Services at Coventry, they were not bidding to buy the place.
Yes, you would have thought that they would have got their bean counters to make the requisite financial checks as to whether WMIA were capable of paying their bills - at the time it seems that they passed these checks and balances, (Rover and many larger Companies than WMIA met the same checks then went tits up months later).
An outsider may well have also questioned as to why Marshalls took on the existing ATC staff on their old terms and conditions (for many that meant recognition of service from Council days), in that respect I think their hands were tied because of Employment Law (TUPE etc). Additionally no one would have stayed if they hadn't.
This meant Marshalls had to cough up not only at least 3 months wages in recognition of notice but also the full redundancy money.
When Coventry went under, Marshalls gave everyone in ATC the legal notice. Quite a few of the ATCOs are now elsewhere, but if Marshalls do get the contract back they'd be employing people on the terms which the market dictates, which is very different fromthe previous situation.
Finally, as Marshalls still hold the logistical & administrative expertise to open the unit tommorrow, whereas anyone else would struggle for weeks to get the regualtory approvals, I wouldn't rule them out just yet (Mr Skippery Grumpy or not).
In this instance the term "due dilligence" has a completely different meaning if indeed, it is at all applicable.
Marshalls bid for (or were offered) the contract to provide ATC Services at Coventry, they were not bidding to buy the place.
Yes, you would have thought that they would have got their bean counters to make the requisite financial checks as to whether WMIA were capable of paying their bills - at the time it seems that they passed these checks and balances, (Rover and many larger Companies than WMIA met the same checks then went tits up months later).
An outsider may well have also questioned as to why Marshalls took on the existing ATC staff on their old terms and conditions (for many that meant recognition of service from Council days), in that respect I think their hands were tied because of Employment Law (TUPE etc). Additionally no one would have stayed if they hadn't.
This meant Marshalls had to cough up not only at least 3 months wages in recognition of notice but also the full redundancy money.
When Coventry went under, Marshalls gave everyone in ATC the legal notice. Quite a few of the ATCOs are now elsewhere, but if Marshalls do get the contract back they'd be employing people on the terms which the market dictates, which is very different fromthe previous situation.
Finally, as Marshalls still hold the logistical & administrative expertise to open the unit tommorrow, whereas anyone else would struggle for weeks to get the regualtory approvals, I wouldn't rule them out just yet (Mr Skippery Grumpy or not).
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GRICH,
thank you for that, unfortunately, you are out of touch with the facts.
The ATC staff who were taken on by Marshalls and who had previous service with CCC did so under the redundancy terms which they had with CCC, in this instance, for the vast majority, it equated to two weeks pay (the rate they were on - not the Government Statutory Amount) for every year they were employed.
That rather changes the figures somewhat, especially as Marshalls had to also pay them all 3 months notice and in total it's cost them a small fortune.
That said, Marshalls are an honourable employer, they'd have no difficulty in getting ATCOs to go to Coventry. They know how to run airfields and are in a very strong position to regain the ATC contract, other providers could do it but would struggle to do so at short notice.
thank you for that, unfortunately, you are out of touch with the facts.
The ATC staff who were taken on by Marshalls and who had previous service with CCC did so under the redundancy terms which they had with CCC, in this instance, for the vast majority, it equated to two weeks pay (the rate they were on - not the Government Statutory Amount) for every year they were employed.
That rather changes the figures somewhat, especially as Marshalls had to also pay them all 3 months notice and in total it's cost them a small fortune.
That said, Marshalls are an honourable employer, they'd have no difficulty in getting ATCOs to go to Coventry. They know how to run airfields and are in a very strong position to regain the ATC contract, other providers could do it but would struggle to do so at short notice.
Last edited by niknak; 31st Mar 2010 at 18:05.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has it been confirmed SPR wants a quick fix on this ? As one of the UK's most richest, why can't he shop around ? Can he afford to shop around ? Maybe it's a tax loss for him and he is happy to purchase the airport and shop around for a better deal ? Run it at loss for a few years until he can build up the direction he wants to go in! Maybe his future vision for the airport is not one we are all guessing that being a bit of everything, perhaps he is happy with just FBO/BA/GA traffic only and wants a certain vision/product for the airport ?
Regards!
Regards!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The very rich are very careful with money. Bill gates is reported to have used money off vouchers when he was worth millions. I am sure sir peter would like an airport to have as a toy but I expect he will drive a very hard deal. I expect he will want the City council to give him a long rent free period.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: cardiff
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The key for Sir Peter (or anyone else for that matter) will be the property angle, not the aviation-related business, that's merely peripheral. If CCC are giving access and long term leases on any additional footprint on the edge of the airport, there's every chance he would expand say an SCC operation out of Birmingham and adjacent to Coventry Airport, whereby he's got access to useful land at a peppercorn rent.
If the airport side can break even after three to five years, that would probably be acceptable - the money though is all related to the land and development possible on that land.
If the airport side can break even after three to five years, that would probably be acceptable - the money though is all related to the land and development possible on that land.
StandupfortheUlstermen
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Peoples' Democratic Republic of Wurzelsetshire
Age: 53
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I hear, one went to East Mids (which if it's who I've been told it is, surprises me) and another has gone to Gloucester. Rumour also has it that they will be looking for 10 ATCOs at the re-opened airport.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In addition to that, one went to Norwich and another disappeared up his own self importance (
).
I know that at least one, maybe two were interviewed by the SATCO at Cambridge but I don't know if anything came of that.
That leaves how many of the original bunch?
).I know that at least one, maybe two were interviewed by the SATCO at Cambridge but I don't know if anything came of that.
That leaves how many of the original bunch?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Warwickshire
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It won't be hard for experienced controllers to find jobs! lots of airports and not enough controllers to fill the vacancies. I don't know the terms of the contract at Cov but my guess is that Marshalls were paying about the market average, so the guys and gals at cov could go anywhere and get the same if not better packages.