MP's back ATC selloff.......BUGGER

[Bright-Ling]

Well, despite those plucky Lords's types last week rejecting the latest attempt to get PPP rolling, the House of Commons has just voted it through again.

They voted 321 for and 228 against, with a mere 37 Labour MP's opposing.

Very disappointing as it has been on the news all day saying that the Gov't might be defeated.

Guess it's batted off to the Lord's again soon.

(This is getting as boring as watching tennis!!!!)

So what now?

[250 kts]

Time to moisten the gunpowder and get the troops active and have a one day all out strike to show any potential new employers that we're not happy. Mind you after the pay ballot result , more chance of Princess Di walking into the ops room.

[Bright-Ling]

CONTROVERSIAL..but true!!

UNITED WE STAND....and all that

[2 sheds]

"Moisten gunpowder....." ??

D'OH!!

[form49]

The question is, how many of the buggers elected to take a day off and play golf and do some sightseeing in a faraway land (receivig an excellent ATC service during their flight in UK airspace)?
Lets hope the boys and girls in the "other place" see sense and send it back to parliament with a big fat "stick it up one of your exhaust systems two jags"

------------------
Turn left heading 230, close from the left, report established

[cleared2land 27left]

So back to the lords, is there any limit as to how many times it can go back and forth?

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

F49, 106? App/Area?

[Der SimMeister]

As I understand it, the best hope for those against PPP now is that the whole Transport Bill risks running out of Parliamentary time as the Queens Speech for the next session is due early next month. All business for the previous session has to be finished by then.

The Lords amendment with reference to Pensions was also overturned by the Government.

------------------
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by Der SimMeister (edited 16 November 2000).]

[250 kts]

2 Sheds . You're probably unaware of the ex BEC member who has for years used the phrase "we must keep the powder dry " for any major battles that IPMS may face in the future. That's why I used that phrase tongue in cheek. But the battles don't come much bigger than this. Get those e mails off to your MP, papers and anyone else you can think of that may be useful.

[cossack]

Just received an email response from my Labour MP.
He's toeing the party line, saying how PPP is much better than a full-blown Tory-style privatisation and how they have learnt the lesson of Railtrack and that's why it isn't a full sell-off just a way of getting private cash into the service.
Who's going to invest in NATS and not aim to make big profits? Can't think of anyone can you?
He tells me that we are suffering from "acute under-investment, low morale and an increasing workload".
The under-investment is their fault.
The low morale is their fault due PPP worries.
Increasing workload is a fact of life.
I asked him about the IPOC etc.
Funny, no answer on that!
They're STILL not listening!
Time to write again...

[250 kts]

Well done cossack. Don't suppose you could copy the email to EVERY labour t****r(sorry MP) is there? Guess there must be a list of addresses.

[Bright-Ling]

Or even CUT AND PASTE it here, so that we can all send it to a load!

Let's keep up the pressure...it's the only way.

[OrsonCart]

We must not think that the battle is over. Sit down and die or stand up and be counted, the choice is ours now, no complaints that our unions did not do enough.

Back our unions with our fight for sense.

Sod the pay award, this far more serious!!!

[RogerOut]

I'm sending off a VERY irate letter to my local (labour) MP regarding this fiasco, and hope they come chapping my door next time they want my vote.........
I urge others to do the same. Anyway if Tory Blairs unique form of democracy pushes through the PPP where do we stand on industrial action? Can we or can't we? Will we really have public opinion on our side if we take action on our pensions? What a complete shambles! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[BuzzLightyear]

Was watching "Despatch Box" last night on BBC2. They had some Labour bod on banging away about how it was the only way forward for ATC in this country.

One of his best howlers was that the money would "buy us more Air Traffic Controllers". Doh!! Why did I bother to do all that training so many years ago, they could have just bought me!!

When are these people going to realise the reality of the hard work that goes into becoming a controller? Your average "Joe" on the street probably won't, which worries me as this is probably one of the arguments they will try to throw to the public should we stand firm and take the appropriate action to end this sad, sorry fiasco!

Maybe it will go into the next session, but the invisible man, a.k.a. Johnny Two Jags, won't let it go. Where was he by the way when the Housing Minister presented the Bill this time? Probably scared the big boys would take his ball away.

Remember Ladies and Gentlemen "our skies are not for sale"(and I mean that most sincerely,folks) :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

------------------
To infinity and beyond

[2 sheds]

250 kt

Thanks for enlightening me - the subtlety had eluded me! Agree entirely with your sentiments - the letter to 2 Jags has already gone.

[cossack]

This is the letter I received from my Labour MP.

"Yesterday's Commons debate on the National Air Traffic Service - which I listened to in the Chamber - generated more heat than light and a smaller rebellion than last time.

What it was about was this: everyone accepts that NATS is suffering from acute under-investment, low morale and an increasing workload. With a new European 'open skies' policy on the horizon, the number of major Air Traffic Control centres in Europe is likely to fall by half, to 6 or 7, in the next 10 years. NATS cannot survive as it is now.

The question is not 'does it need
investment?' But 'where will that
investment come from?'

Only a few airports actually use NATS, including the major ones and
therefore most civil air traffic movement. Outside "the big 3" airports, NATS already provides air traffic services on commercial contracts as though it was a private company. Others provide their own, private, air traffic control - like East Midlands. There is absolutely no suggestion that these
are any less safe than NATS ATC services. Are state owned aircraft saferthan private ones?

It is in no one's interests to allow safety standards to slip and the legislation guarantees that they will not. In response to the safety lobby, new NATS will not set, monitor or enforce safety standards - that will be done by a tougher CAA in future.

In schools, hospitals and elsewhere we are harnessing a wealth of private capital and putting it to good work in enhancing public services. Our public/private partnerships (PPP) are more just, more accountable and better managed than Tory privatisation route. In the new NATS, the government will
own 46% including a 'golden share' and the workforce will own 5%.

The new law will technically allow the private share to rise to 75% - because European law insists on this flexibility. We have no intention of implementing this. Defence and security issues are not relevant to this debate, as the military have their own ATC service. The future is bright for NATS. Without this investment, faster, bigger and more sustained than the public sector alone could afford, we could lose NATS
completely to foreign competition in the next few years. This way, we have cash available for capital investment whilst releasing even more cash for our priority revenue spending areas such as health and education.

You asked:
Has the privatisation of British Rail and the formation of Railtrack been a success?
> We have of course learned the lessons of Railtrack which is why we are NOT proposing 100% sell-off and NOT proposing that the new NATS has sole responsibility for safety.

Have the number of safety related incidents since rail privatisation increased or decreased?
> I don't know. Investment under the public authority was clearly inadequate
and the quality of management there is arguably no worse now than it was then. Fatal incidents regrettably are at a similar level as before. Numbers of passengers are up by 20% and number of services by over 1300.

Did your party support rail privatisation when in opposition?
> No, but we can't pretend it did not happen and we can't turn the clock back.

Didn't your party say whilst in opposition that "our air is not for sale"?
> Yes, which is why this will be a partnership enlisting private capital for the public good, and why the private interest will not control the safety standards."

This was my reply to which I have not yet received a response:

"You have answered some of my questions in a way that leaves me in no doubt that you support the government in its endeavours.
You have, however, either ignored or chosen not to answer some of my other questions. I shall restate them and would be grateful if you could furnish me with answers.

Will the private partner be paying dividends to shareholders from the profits made by NATS?
Why is the trust model proposed by IPMS and others regarded as unsuitable for NATS when it is used successfully elsewhere?
What about the suitability of the bidders I raised in my previous email?
By selling off part of NATS you will raise perhaps £500m. How far will this go in relation to health and education?

You state that NATS is suffering from acute under-investment, low morale and an increasing workload. This is true. The under-investment is government controlled. The low morale is caused by uncertainty brought about by your PPP proposals. Increasing workload is a fact of modern life.

We need investment and stability. Investment would be forthcoming from the trust models we have proposed. Stability, we feel, will not be forthcoming by selling off a chunk of NATS to raise some cash for a hospital or a school. If you do succeed in your aims and PPP goes ahead, the money raised should be spent on aviation and not siphoned off for other projects that should be paid for from taxation.

I do not disagree with your statement that we already operate as a commercial company tendering for airport contracts. We have gone through a streamlining in the last 10 years that makes us much more efficient. I feel that by having a private company running NATS these efficiencies will be taken too far and the service will suffer.

Your argument for safety is based on the premise that I believe that the only safe ATC service is a publicly owned ATC service. This is not so. I agree that East Midlands or Newcastle are just as safe as NATS. These services are not run for profit. They are run by the airport operator to facilitate the operation at their airports. Their profits are made from the airlines paying landing fees and passengers shopping. Shopping is how BAA makes the majority of its money, hence its desire to build another terminal at Heathrow. Yes it will attract more passengers but it will be full of shops also.

Even though the rebellion was less than last time there are still a lot of people who believe this is not the right way to go. Our efforts to oppose PPP will continue."

We've still got a big fight on our hands but if we keep fighting its a fight we can win.
Get writing to your MPs and get everyone you know to do the same. It may not make the difference but if it does go wrong we can say "we told you!"

[BuzzLightyear]

Interesting reply and I notice that like most politicians he was a bit cagey about some of the questions we really want to know the answers to.

By the way is "new" NATS the same as New Labour? If it is I think I prefer the "old" one! Warts 'n' all!!!

------------------
To infinity and beyond

[Postman Pat]

It seems a bit strange that the only reason that HMG can dredge up to justify the sale of NATS is the investment argument. If they are going to raise £500m from the sale then surely they should give that money to the new company for the needed investment.

PP

[OrsonCart]

LUTON AIRPORT

Following on from a review of its business the previous management at Luton decided to contract out its air traffic control unit. This had been an 'in-house' operation since the airport first opened, but due to the lack of understanding of this area of the company, its management decided to seek a contractor to undertake the provision of ATC.

The union representing the ATC staff convinced its management to contract the entire unit to National Air Traffic Services (NATS). Through many months of negotiations, an acceptable contract was put in place an on November 1st 2000 all the ATC staff transferred from Luton airport into NATS employment.

The staff union UNISON decided that there was no chance of the unit remaining within the airport control soon after it was hit with legal action!

The staff within ATC had been using archaic radar displays and were not being provided with the modern equipment that is needed within a rapidly expanding business and complex air traffic control environment. Their radar displays were over 25 years old and could not support the latest vital data required by a pressuirsed air traffic controller within an increasingly busy environment, which has developed since the launch of a 'low fare airline' in 1995.

The union requested that they be given equipment that would be modern and reliable and even went public over its concerns due to a lack of response from its management; the regulator for aviation safety SRG endorsed this safety issue. The response from the then incumbent management was: -

"We are disinclined to invest in non revenue generating expense" and took legal action against the staff representative, his full time union official and UNISON itself!

UNISON resisted forcibly. Needless to say that common sense and safety were recognised by the barristers. This legal action was soon dropped and a new radar room and radar displays were installed for this summer (At little cost)!

This is a REAL private sector view toward air traffic control. Profit ahead of safety.