Guardian NATS report!

[Warwick Hunt]

Keith Harper

Guardian

Monday October 15, 2001

The privatisation of Britain's air traffic control services is under threat because several cash-strapped airlines may be forced to withdraw from the consortium running the new business, industry sources warned last
night.

They are under financial pressure following the dramatic fall-off in business caused by the turbulent world situation. Many were under pressure before the events of September 11.

The main carriers in the consortium, British Airways and Virgin Atlantic, are not among those considering withdrawal, even though they, too, face mounting problems. But the position of some of the smaller carriers is
giving the government considerable cause for concern.

The issue was raised informally at a Guild of Air-traffic Controllers conference at Heathrow over the weekend, where Keith Williams, a senior executive from The Airlines Group (TAG), told delegates the new company would be forced to make 20% of staff redundant over the next year. He stressed that the job losses would be among administrative staff, not air traffic controllers.

One of the unsuccessful bidders for the business, Serco, the management utilities company which provides air traffic control at a number of airports throughout Britain, has expressed an interest in replacing any of the airlines which dropped out. However, any such move is unlikely to be backed by the government or the industry.

The situation is likely to cause problems for the government. It cannot allow the three-month old company to collapse, particularly because it was sold off amid widespread political opposition.

Whitehall sources admitted yesterday that the government might have to take a 51% stake in the business to prevent it from collapsing. It holds a 49% share, which allows it to reject any of TAG's plans.

TAG is expected to announce soon that it is to delay the building of a £60m air traffic control centre at Prestwick, Scotland, for at least two years, until international anxieties ease.

The government sold off National Air Traffic Services (Nats) for about £800m soon after the election, following a round of difficult negotiations with the airlines, which managed to keep some of the money back because of the uncertain economic climate. Now the banks, which lent the group £1.5bn to buy a 46% share of the business, have withdrawn a £750m syndicated loan offer as a result of the aviation crisis.

The news will cause problems for Abbey National, Bank of America, Barclays Capital and Halifax, which lent money. About 40% of the business's annual income of £595m comes from America. So far this year US business to Heathrow and other airports in the UK has fallen by more than 20%.



Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001

[squawk 6789]

Ssssssssh, if you listen closely you can just about hear the faint cries of "I told you so" coming from, well, where do I start, ATCOs, pilots, Transport Select Committee (again, thanks Gwynny), other ministers from Labour (ha,bloody ha), Liberal, and just about everyone who's not a (true blue) Tory. NATS manageres, meanwhile, whilst on proverbial death row themselves will continue to publicly extol the virtues of this calamity- well, in this life, boys, you get what you deserve. :mad:

I would love to be able to gloat if this comes to pass but how can you be happy at yet more uncertainty over your future. :(

Right, where's the nearest lotter ticket outlet.
:(

[Legs11]

And riding over the horizon, to the rescue, comes serco :D :D :D

Couldn't resist it :p

But on a serious point, this can only be bad news for NATS, the last thing needed right now. How are the Government going to ratify this one....how about using Railtrack as a "for instance"?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Cuddles]

OK, so how much humble pie are the Government prepared to eat at the moment? I fear we may be waiting for a long time on this one.

Unless it all goes spectacularly tits up, which nobody really ever wants to see.

[Warwick Hunt]

The most significant news to hit NATS for a month or more, and only 2 responses to the Guardian report!

Plenty of posts relating to shifts, en-route.........etc.

Obviously NATS ATCO's are sitting fat ,dumb and very happy despite this news.

Fools!

[ayrprox]

MMMMMmmmmmmmm......
RENATIONALISATION of air traffic is a bit like whiskas

8 out of 10 ATCO's who expressed a preference said their watches prefer it
:D :D :D :D :D

[ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: ayrprox ]

[overload]

WH

Nats Atcos not overly concerned that “Privatisation is under threat”

Does that make us fools?

[Don't Look Now]

Sorry........I have to say it


I told you so!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DLN

[Warwick Hunt]

As a good will gesture, the trade unions will not start pay negotiations until mid December (2001 I think) for the Jan 2002 award.

Rumour has it that there is major a 'cash-flow' problem that urgently needs to be addressed within NATS first?

[160to4DME]

Rumour has it that there is major a 'cash-flow' problem that urgently needs to be addressed within NATS first?

Ahhhhhh, that'll be the (LACK OF)millions of inward investment that PPP was guaranteed to attract. <phnar phnar>

Ahh, the memories, the road shows, the polished presentations. :rolleyes:

[Co ordination unaffected]

GOODWILL GESTURE?

WHY BOTHER, when was the last time we saw any &^%$ing goodwill?

Bollocks to it all. Just who are the unions suppposed to be working for?
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[ 19 October 2001: Message edited by: Co ordination unaffected (Spelling)]

[ 19 October 2001: Message edited by: Co ordination unaffected ]

[HounslowHarry]

Warwick :confused:

Where exactly do you get this Gough?

I have not seen such nonsense and I think you and your colleagues would do better by you supporting your union (if you are a member that is, or even a NATS employee). Stuff like this factual error just makes it harder for them to represent you, which I think they do well on the whole.

Instead of wasting your time making up rubbish, contribute to a proper debate.


Harry

PS is your name slyming Rang, SC

[torpids]

I must be missing something Harry, what is the factual "error" you refer to?

[Warwick Hunt]

Funny that, all the info came from an IPMS rep. Just passing on what I was told thats all.

Anyway, how are the pay negotiations going?

[250 kts]

WH ,You seem to be in the know on all these type of things-why don't you tell us how the negotiations are going??.

And whilst we're at it, what do you people out there see as a reasonable rise?

[Warwick Hunt]

Good, at last some reasonable debate relating to the state and health of our company. Don’t get me wrong here, I wish no one any harm, merely I wish to emphasis the key issues affecting our organisation and the dis-information that is rife.

My previous posts were based upon sound information that I had been given. Remembering that this is a rumour network, I decided to post the bits about cash flow and the pay rise, as these had been passed on by a bona fide source.

The next few months will be extremely taxing for our company. I have a great deal of sympathy for Kenny and his colleagues who have been placed into a very difficult position since Sept 11th. Traffic levels may well have fallen slightly and will do so more from the end of Oct when the Winter timetables kick in, but the downturn is marginal compared to the growth experienced recently.

One of the big and burning questions that operational employees will ask is related pay, and pay rises. Through no fault of the unions the key date now is Jan 1st (2002). A tough date as so many of our co-workers will be out a job real soon. How can a company enter into pay talks when staff are being axed in order to survive?

250, I assume you are a union rep; I have no idea how the pay negotiations are going, as I have not received a union update for months. For you and the reps attending a conference soon, for goodness sake get the communications to member’s right. Since the final outcome of PPP, our union has been largely silent and that is appalling! Hence my post relating to cash and the pay talks. I realise that workload is high within the branch, but you really need to act in order to stop the false rumours circulating. As to the level of a reasonable rise, personally, until the axing of staff is complete, negations would seem out of place within this current climate. A small rise in line with inflation would seem in order until the true picture affecting the airlines and the world is fully understood. Back dated to Jan 1st 2002 of course?

HH and 250, keep up the hard work.

[Greebson]

Out of interest (with the exception of the guardian report) how come we are hearing in the nationals and on tv about all these rolls royce people losing jobs and yet absolutely zip about the 20% of NATS personnel? Perhaps the general public would be interested in this so soon after privatisation; it's just a thought for you union big wigs.

Ps Exactly how different is this privatisation to that of SERCO? Oh yes TAG never told us jobs would be lost!

[HounslowHarry]

Warwick


:D That's better.

From my understanding, Pay negotiations are ongoing allbeit informally.

There is no doubt that it is going to be tough though and I have every sympathy with the Reps. ATCOs certainly deserve a rise, despite the political ramifications at this time. We have kept this company afloat over the last 10 years with our goodwill, and we should be rewarded for that now (and quite frankly got the AG into position).


As for communication, your right. IPMS needs to get it's act together, though remember that all these boys and girls are full time ATCOs as well and I think the climate as to time off for union duties (or anything that isn't direct ATC) has changed, so that might be why it's gone quiet.

Of course there might be nothing substantial other than rumour to report....

Support your reps as they are working for us and they need all the help they can get.

[TrafficTraffic]

Now I am just asking, no baiting or anything ok.

If you guys had the choice, at your up an coming pay negotiations to either...
1) Take a pay freeze (Yes I read how much you think you deserve it) & and everybody keeps their jobs (ATCs included)
2) Take a pay rise of some sort but, yes you guessed it, 20% job cuts, including ATCs and I mean at managements discretion.


Would you be willing to sacrifice some of your colleagues for more money?

I would be happy to keep my job and that of the guy next to me.

I am only just asking.

OK Bexil and BLing

[Numpo-Nigit]

If today's rumour is true then NATS are in even deeper financial difficulties than we thought. It appears that our December salary, normally paid just before Christmas, will be delayed until the end of December. The reason? NATS has to wait until a payment due from Eurocontrol arrives before it can afford our salary.

All those years of giving back our "WINDFALL PROFIT" to the airlines has left us with no reserves whatsoever. Dire straits indeed!!!

[Co ordination unaffected]

I sincerely hope that's not true.

Pay freeze = work freeze

Heard another rumour today, studes at CATC are receiving UHP. If this is true, then they're earning more than me, and I'm valid.

I REALLY sincerely hope that's not true.

:mad: :rolleyes: :confused: :(

[TrafficTraffic]

So I assume from that Uncoord, that you are for the job reduction scheme?

:eek:

[Warwick Hunt]

1. FRONT PAGE - FIRST SECTION: Banks tell air traffic control group to seek funds

FRONT PAGE - FIRST SECTION: Banks tell air traffic control group to seek funds
Financial Times; Oct 23, 2001
By KEVIN DONE and CATHY NEWMAN


National Air Traffic Services is under pressure from its bankers to request an emergency injection of funds from government, just three months after its controversial part-privatisation.

The Financial Times has learnt that bankers to Nats are encouraging it to seek help from Stephen Byers, transport secretary, to help it through the post-September 11 crises in the world airline industry. Ministers say they are braced for a request for a cash injection from the company, which runs Britain's air traffic control system, although the extent of any help could be limited by EU state aid rules. Yesterday, a senior ministerial insider indicated that an approach from Nats was expected within weeks. "They are working it through, trying to do some estimates. When they've done that I think they'll probably come to us," he said.

Nats, which relies on fees from airlines flying through UK airspace, believes it may need extra support to safeguard its long-term capital-spending programme. But any request for emergency money is certain to draw comparisons with the recent crisis at Railtrack, which became dependent on government support. It will also call into question the viability and risk associated with public-private partnerships (PPPs), of which the London Underground is the highest profile. Labour MPs, many of whom opposed the PPP sale of Nats, are likely to be furious that the private sector is already considering seeking support from the taxpayer. Martin Salter, the Labour MP for Reading West who opposed the partial privatisation of Nats, said: "It would be appalling if the
taxpayer was asked to bail out a flawed part-privatisation that should never have happened in the first place."

A consortium of seven British airlines, including British Airways and Virgin Atlantic, owns 46 per cent of Nats. The government owns 49 per cent with employees owning the remaining 5 per cent. The company has cut costs, slashing 20 per cent of support staff and management, and delayed plans for an air traffic control centre at Prestwick. But Nats' bankers want extra financing from the government to strengthen the balance sheet either in the form of equity, or in the form of a long-term subordinated loan, which would have the character of equity, but which would not increase the government's 49 per cent stake. The debt, provided at the end of July by a consortium of four lead banks, Abbey National, Barclays Capital, Halifax and Bank of America, provided Pounds 700m of acquisition finance and a Pounds 760m capital spending facility to help fund Nats' 10-year, £1bn capital expenditure programme.

The uncertainty over Nats' future business plan has forced the four lead banks to postpone their syndication of around £1bn of the £1.46bn Nats financing until the first quarter of 2002. Mr Byers told the Financial Times: "I think we should wait to see how they intend to deal with the difficulties that the downturn in traffic has caused. We know they have got problems but one could argue they should have factored that into their business plan."

Copyright: The Financial Times Limited

[Cuddles]

Oh ******, we're really in it now. Hang on tight, this is going to be a rough ride.

[Warwick Hunt]

NATS project drops sub-contractors by Emma Nash
Wednesday 24 October 2001

Lockheed Martin has pulled up to 14 sub-contractors from the development of the new National Air Traffic Service (NATS) system at Swanwick, just months before its launch next January.

One of the sacked contractors told CW360.com that most of the dismissed workers have been working on the project for the past seven years. Lockheed Martin has replaced the sub-contractors - who were employed by Thales ATM - with its own staff.

Thales was working on Workstation Display Manager software, which draws radar displays and presents flight information to air traffic controllers, under a sub-contract with Lockheed Martin. Thales' regional director, Richard Moore, told CW360.com: "It is quite true that Lockheed Martin has advised us that they won't require our support on that activity [the Swanwick project]. "Lockheed Martin has put its own staff in. But whatever happens, this programme is coming to an end," he added.

The situation appears to have arisen from the fact that Thales is Lockheed Martin's primary competitor in a bid for the contract to carry out similar work in Prestwick, the site of the New Scottish Centre (NSC) air traffic control site. Prior to the privatisation of NATS earlier this year, Lockheed Martin had been told it could have the contract for the NSC. However, it is now being forced to put in a competitive tender.

Moores admitted that bidding for the NSC contract has influenced the situation. "We recognised that because NATS didn't want [Lockheed Martin] doing the contract. We won't be supporting them as a sub-contractor," Moore said. "This may seem like bad news, but in the long term NATS is going down the competitive road, which is very positive."

Lockheed Martin refused to talk to CW360.com on the grounds that it is forbidden to do so under its contract with NATS.

[Co ordination unaffected]

Not wishing to rise to your bait TT, but

As NATS is presently operating with a controller deficit, and the only people who earn revenue are the controllers, I think it'd be more than a little short sighted to chop controller numbers. We are however, spectacularly top heavy, so a little 'pruning' or natural wastage might not go amiss. A few less chiefs, and a few more indians, now that WOULD be progress.

[ZIP250]

Hey Co-ord, what was that about chiefs? all the radar controllers at WD are cowboys not indians anyway.

Z :p

[TrafficTraffic]

No No, Coord I agree 100%. I believe that Air Traffic providers wordlwide have a long history of reducing operational staff on a whim and then discovering 3 months later that they need to recruit again. I certainly am not suggesting staff cuts I'm just wondering if negotiating a pay rise at the moment may seem to be a little well over enthusiastic?

[250 kts]

TT ,It may well be that we have to forego any pay rise this year, but there's one thing that can also be a certainty, and that is the Eurocontrol "gravy train" is also about to hit the buffers

[TrafficTraffic]

250kts I'm not sure which train that is you are talking about, after all Eurocontrol isnt run by Railtrack...

...The fat Controller said "Do you KNOW what PARALLEL means???"