NATS too expensive .... ? Standby for cuts ....?

[PH-UKU]

CAA dismisses Nats as costing too much
By Michael Harrison, Business Editor, The Independent
31 March 2004


Britain's aviation regulator served notice yesterday that it is likely to push for big, efficient improvements in the part-privatised body which runs the UK's air traffic control service.

The Civil Aviation Authority said there was clear evidence that National Air Traffic Services (Nats), which is 46 per cent owned by a group of UK airlines and the airport operator BAA, was a "high-cost provider" compared to similar organisations elsewhere in Europe.

The scope for cost savings will be taken into account when the CAA fixes the charges that Nats can levy on airlines using UK air space over the five year period from 2006 to 2011.

Under the current formula airlines pay £410m a year, and Nats has to reduce its charges in real terms by two per cent. It also has a target of lowering operating costs by around 10 per cent or £35m a year.

A consultation document issued yesterday by the CAA showed that Nats is more costly to run than its French or German counterparts and is three times more expensive than Spanish air traffic control.

For every £1 Nats spends on employing an air traffic controller it incurs a further £6.20 in support costs. For Germany the comparable figure is £4.70 and for France, £4.90. Harry Bush, the director of economic regulation at the CAA, said one of the priorities of the review will be to get to the bottom of these differentials to see if they could be narrowed. He said the aim would be to cut support costs of Nats while keeping the number of front-line air traffic control staff intact. Last year £216m of Nats' £340m running costs were accounted for by staffing.

Mr Bush said the CAA would also look at ways of encouraging Nats to run its £1bn investment programme more efficiently. Under the present price control, which runs until January 2006, Nats is allowed to pass on £374m of investment on to the airlines.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course there a several ways to look at this ....

1) We have expensive layers of s###e management
2) We have crap equipment that costs a lot to maintain
3) We spend more money on legal disputes than new equipment
or ....
4) we don\'t pay controllers enough

Consider - if we double controllers wages, then for every £2 we spend, the support costs will still be £6.20, therefore we have halved the rate and brought the level down to £3.10

:D :D :D :D

Gosh - maybe I could get a job as an accountant :yuk:

[Arkady]

I'm not too sure about the papers you read but I like the way you think.:ok:

[055166k]

Sorry to be brutal but NATS has never had an "economise" reality culture, the thought is totally alien when viewed against the evidence. The best description I can come up with is......imagine a magnificent Greek Trireme with three banks of oars....the lower level is manned by operational staff and the upper two banks of oars are management.....the rudder fell off some while ago. NATS has been unable to shake off much of its earlier identity as both regulator and provider, the separation of task was incomplete. Much of the work undertaken should be done by the regulatory Authority but because NATS is a monopoly provider of Area services the work is still done by NATS at NATS' expense. Only when NATS restricts itself to being a pure direct service provider [and nothing else ] can there be any realistic economy, but the result will be many job-losses. Over 39% of NATS controllers don't control aeroplanes at all.

[Findo]

Where does you figure of over 39 per cent come from ?

[055166k]

Sent out too early. Seriously though, have a think about how many non/semi-operational ATCOs on ATCO salaries are employed on your unit, and how much of their work is not directly concerned with the control of traffic. Airspace matters for instance could be addressed by a new National Airspace Agency who would allocate the scarce resource of UK airspace on a purely commercial basis. I am the new National English Route Director, or NERD; you are hereby elected to a post of your own choice......choose your title accordingly!

[Jerricho]

Hell, I'll come back over there as Consulting Recuiting Analysis Projector. As NATS recruited me in the first place, it seems they'll take anyone. Probably needs a big budget to ensure my Student Harmonisation ATC Functional Technicians will be up to overhalling the current selection process.

[Nogbad the Bad]

Bagsy I can be the Future Area Radar Trainer External Resources

:D :D :D :D :D :D

[AyrTC]

I would like a job in a training section as someone who could help trainees who Cannot Understand New Techniques:ooh: That title would look good on a door and some people call me that already:confused: :confused: :confused:

AyrTC

[5milesbaby]

I've already applied for a position in the Public Relations In Computer Knowledge Service department, but apparently NATS has too many already.

[DC10RealMan]

I am always bemused when I read articles like this. This may or MAY NOT be true, does CAA have another agenda. What criteria where they using?, I personally do not know or do I know enough about economics to provide an answer, but I do know that blanket statements like that have to be treated with suspicion. I believe it was Benjamin Disraeli who said "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics"

[2 six 4]

DC10 look at the practicalities. Every sector we open has T+P+A. Take the grades and salaries involved and compare it to MAAS / EINN etc and you will see where the comparison comes from. Not that I am saying we can do much about it because we were saddled with the LM system and had to make it work. Now the safety regulator says we have to work T+P+A for every sector and his buddy in economic reglation says we are too heavy in support costs. Doh :}

[DC10RealMan]

I still stand by my point. I freely admit that I know nothing about Economics, a fact my bank manager will confirm. but I still think that you can prove anything with statistics. If we are three times more expensive than our Spanish colleagues does that mean we are three times more productive?, or perhaps we should take a 66% pay cut?, or is it three times more expensive to live in the UK than in Spain?. I dont know, it is just that I treat these "headline" figures with suspicion. If that seems cynical then so be it, but it is a cynicism borne of experience.

[Minesapint]

CAA says what? That is why they are there. Its yet another CAA or ERG self justification excercise. If they can prove that by saying what they do their job is worthwhile then they sacrifice NATS staff in the process.

I say stuff the CAA! I would not like to be a NATS engineer right now though.

[Sonnendec]

Hello.

DC10, regarding the comparison between Spain and UK, i think you misunderstood the point (or maybe me?). The air traffic control system is three times more expensive in the UK, which doesnt mean that you earn three times more. Actually that is impossible, besides the fact that i read in a study about european air traffic controllers wages that we earn a little more than you do. It must be some problem with your air traffic management or some expenses that right now i cant figure out.

I can be wrong, but dont take that report that states NATS is very expensive like if you british controllers earned too much. The big money is somewhere else.

Best regards.

[Scott Voigt]

Should have gone with our LM system... We saw where they were going with it and had them go a different direction. We can work with one person when not real busy, two when busy and three when oh my god busy <G>...

regards

Scott

[Minesapint]

The big money is in support and development and the long term plan. Building new technical centres, moving out of West Drayton, New Prestwick Centre, new TC platform, NAS replacement with the Spanish system, Clacton, North Sea, Irish Sea, West End - the list is endless.

All of this needs to be done to bring an ATC system that has been the victim of chronic under investement into the 21st century.

It is very easy for the CAA and others to have a go. NATS has just had 18 months of record traffic, very low delay and shifts more traffic than any other ATC provider in Europe - by a distance.

That is expensive. By the way, Spanish ATCO's are paid a LOT more than ours. Now lets compare movements and traffic density and complexity.

[PH-UKU]

If anyones not already seen this weighty document, it makes for some interesting reading (insomniacs of the world unite :-) )


http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/air/single_sky/doc/studies/2003_study_impediments_recruitment_en.pdf

Page 11 gives %ages for non-op ATCOs across Europe.

Now, if only I could find the page on wage comparisons .......

[055166k]

We have a new boss. NATS is taking on a winner in time-honoured fashion, from Alstom if I'm not mistaken. The troubled French company,which built the £550 million Queen Mary 2, owns two train-care depots, one of which is at Eastleigh....Gosh!...that's quite handy for Swanwick. Debt laden Alstom was bailed out by the French Government last summer after racking up debts of £3.2 Billion. Now if we could get our government to apply such policy to NATS there would be no problem supporting layer upon layer of management. By the way Sonnendec, you hit the bulls-eye with your post..too much money is being spent in areas away from the day-to-day delivery of ATC services....money which comes from the customer. This additional expenditure is touched on by "Minesapint"s excellent post, and in my opinion should not be charged to the service provider.

[Findo]

Interesting little table PHUKU. The UK is not high at 10 per cent so that is not where the higher support costs come from. Having seen the Spanish ATC operation it is very striking by comparison to ours. The whole Ops room is ATCOs only. Nearly twice the number of ATCOs and no ATSAs. Proves once again what you can do with statistics.


Thinking about non ops ATCOs we have probably about 12 non Ops (including the ATC managers) for an operation with 200 + operational ATCOs. Someone else must have a lot more. :rolleyes:

[Bigears]

Findo,
Re-name ATSA's as ATCO's, with a licence them to perform their current tasks, and hey presto!, we don't have any support staff and the proportion of ATCO's to non-ATCO's in NATS has changed considerably.
Statistics, damn statistics! :8