NATS or SERCO?

[hanger8]

The powers that be have decided in their wisdom that ATC will be contracted out to either NATS or SERCO.
There are a number of reasons, not least that the airport has never run its own atco training scheme and now finds itself in the position of having a number of iminent age related retirements, along with the ineviatble possibility of medical related retirements.
We are a tower/approach procedural/approach radar unit, but under Nats radar could be "centralised" within 3 years.

Given that NATS seems hell bent on creating a huge divide between it's area units and airport only atcos, I am seeking honest opinions as to if we would be better off working for SERCO as their prime contract in Europe, or working for NATS as initially the full works, but eventually as they do at SS,LL,KK,GW etc.


Sarcasm and the opinons of old farts who are out of touch with the real world are not required thank you. :ouch:

[Minesapint]

I suppose it comes down to where you wan't to work, how much you want to be paid and which company you see as being right for you.

Oh and - which ones gives you a job...

[jack-oh]

From your question it seems that you already know the answer. If you go with NATS you will be centralised into one of its new centres, this makes financial sense but puts all the eggs in one basket. You may find in a couple of years that your present radar atcos wont be required as the NATS centre will amalgamate your airfield with others and produce controllers capable of doing both jobs. SERCO on the other hand would probably stay at the site but in the long run would cost more money as they would treat it as an individual concern and need to train and recruit.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<opinons of old farts who are out of touch with the real world >>

The opinions of "old farts" (of which I am one) and, hence, those with the greatest experience might be exactly the people you should listen to.

I would offer you the benefit of my experience with several ATC organisations over 36+ years but..............................

[Fly Through]

NATS or Serco.........disagree with Jack-Oh, NATS would cost at lot more in the long run, look & at their pay & conditions, for example. Also if they centralised your approach function then the airfield would lose the option of kicking out NATS at a later point, ie. if the on airfield equipment was run down.

Serco would be more cost effective but they have a terrible (abd deserved) reputation with keeping hold of staff, I know I work for them. They insist on a 20% profit on everything and make that by screwing the staff..........apparently that's the fashion everywhere these days:rolleyes:

FT

[radarman]

hanger 8

What a choice:\ Fly through has a good point about the NATS option, and also a valid down side to SERCO.

If you do go down the SERCO path, do make absolutely sure you get everything, and I mean the minutest detail, in writing, before you make any decision. Now read that sentence again - I can't emphasise how important it is.

Check out the pension, because they have closed the final salary scheme to newcomers, and I don't know what has taken its place. Also, talk with others to make sure you are being treated fairly(although I guess you'll be OK with TUPE). SERCO are infamous for taking on staff at an agreed salary of £xk, then when the new guy starts he finds everybody else is on £xk + 2,000. Too late to complain: you'll be told "We offered you £xk and you accepted". Same goes for allowances.
SERCO are also good at keeping the status quo for the first year, then gradually economising by not replacing staff who leave. The company call it 'Added Value', but that's management talk for screwing the staff who remain.

SERCO are a very strange organisation, who keep changing their management structures - I don't know whether I work for SERCO/IAL, SERCO Aerospace, or SERCO Aviation Services. Not that it matters, because there is a very flat management structure which means basically your life is ruled by your contract manager. Get a good one and you'll be OK. Get a t-sser and you'll be screwed. But that's life all round these days.
But I'll repeat: get absolutely everything in writing beforehand.

Strange, isn't it. There is supposed to be a shortage of ATCO's, but all the employers seem set on a strategy of deterring wannabees and p-ssing off those who remain.

[tiggur]

I've worked at more than one Serco airport, and my current contract manager and manager ATS are both good eggs. Although the company has been through a few name changes, the area management side has remained mainly intact. I am reasonably well paid, and have loss of licence insurance and am in the pension scheme. It seems to be that if you do your job, take the money and keep your head below the parapet, things are fine. This is a much edited entry, so you may wish to read between the lines.
I didn't work operationally for NATS so I can't comment there, but from reading this site for the past few years, there seems to be proportionally equally as many disgruntled NATS chappies/chappesses as Serco.
You've a tough decision to make.
Best of luck.

[spekesoftly]

Just an impartial observation:- I could very easily name a dozen or more ATCOs who voluntarily left IAL/SERCO to work for NATS. I would find it very difficult to name more than two or three ATCOs who voluntarily moved in the other direction, and two of those subsequently returned to NATS.

I'm not trying to start an anti-SERCO debate, but NATS employment T&Cs, despite all its apparent faults, are still hard to beat in the UK.

[Spitoon]

It's an interesting question and I don't really have the right experience to offer an opinion - all I would say is that there's a lot of nonsense spoken in NATS (which appears to start at the top) about SERCO.

What I find strange is that the powers that be seem to be making this decision because they are facing an imminent shortage of controllers. If this is the reason behind it, it's a very short sighted policy. If they are not careful, as jack-oh points out, the ATC unit could be taken to a state from which it will be almost impossible to return the situation you have today.

Why can't the unit attract new staff - yes there's a shortage of controllers (and it looks like it's real this time)? Presumably because it doesn't offer attractive T&C, or maybe the unit has a reputation to be avoided (because of the way that staff have been treated in the past). If there are problems today, they will almost certainly be exacerbated by the use of contract staff.

From an individual's point of view, does it really matter who gets the contract? As a controller you can't do much to influence the decision and in the end it will be made by accountants who won't understand the operational aspects anyway.

With one or two exceptions, controlling in the UK these days is a matter of keeping your head down, taking the money and stop thinking 10 years out of date about loyalty to the unit or serving the aircraft operator's needs.

Shame really.

[Guy D'ageradar]

Spekesoftly

I did. And didn't go back (also have no intention to). Frankly, I'd agree that it boils down to two things - where you want to work and what the management are like. (OK three - the salary!)

Having worked for Nats, Serco (UK), Serco (middle east) and Swisscontrol / skyguide myself and having a number of friends from Navcan/ASA/NZ/SA, all of whom will tell you how crap their ex employer was/is it appears that they're all much the same. Screw the troops as much as possible as long as we make a profit and to hell with being a SERVICE industry.

At the end of the day, it's quality of life that counts and that is very subjective. Personally I'd love to move to Canada but NAVCAN would have to change a hell of a lot before I'd even consider it.

:cool:

[Fly Through]

Dr Evil

I'll believe it when I see it, Abu Dhabi management have done heaps to piss off the locals at DCA but NATS wouldn't get a look in. DCA circulate these rumours at every contract negotiation to try and beat the price down. Let's think there's been Thales, DFS, Airways.........

All in all Guy's right, keep your head down, take what little money is on offer and if the management piss you off too much then vote with your feet :sad:

FT

[Minesapint]

I would not be too sure about "NATS not having a look in". If NATS get this contract its the centres next. At least you get a payrise and a better employer.

[spekesoftly]

If NATS are successful with the UAE bid, then I guess they will have form an Overseas division - OATS? :E

[tori chelli]

Hanger8

I agree with Spekesoftly. I've worked for both and NATS' T&C's can't be beaten. My old IAL/SERCo pension was actually better than NATS (smaller contribution for same benefit) but that was an old plan, and if they've closed it to new people, then that's another nail in their coffin.

I also can name a number of people who have successfully gone from SERCo to NATS including units like LL, CC, BB & CATC, but no-one who has gone the other way.

Centralised approach is a downside, you'll have to decide whether you fancy moving to do radar, with the possible (serious or notional) requirement to X-train onto another approach task.

Bear in mind however that even if your people are reduced to a tower-only function, by my reckoning even the proposed band 1 pay which they might be graded at still equals or beats a lot of non-NATS radar salaries.

If it was me, I don't think I'd give the comparason a second thought.

"Multi-function ATCOs with PROPER job satisfaction"...I remember that!

Wish you well
Tori :ok: