IPMS backing PPP?

[North of the Border]

According to a small para about four from the end of the link below, IPMS and BALPA are going to come out in favour of the Airline PPP bid sometime next week.
I thought IPMS was against PPP, not agreeing to it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1172000/1172710.stm

NOTB

[This message has been edited by North of the Border (edited 16 February 2001).]

[Spoonbill]

I think that all both IPMS and BALPA have agreed, (however reluctantly, and whatever they may tell the press), that PPP is going to happen anyway. The Airline group being the best of the bunch from everyones point of view.
With any luck, the recent posts about SERCO sacking to ATC Contract Managers for (allegedly) failing to make the contratct run at a profit, will convince :rolleyes: the Government that they are unworthy of getting the contract.

[Mr Chips]

Even PCS accept that we need to get the best of a bad deal - PPP looks set to happen.

The only hpe is that after the general election, Blairs majority is so low, that we could actually get it overturned....

Until then - I prefer the airline bid to SERCO

[pitts2]

I WOULD NOT BE TOO CONFIDENT WITH THE AIRLINES CAPABILITY, I FLY FOR A MAJOR EUROPEAN AIRLINE AND THEIR FOCUS WILL BE TO KEEP COSTS AND INVESTMENT TO THE LOWEST TO AVOID ANY ESCALATION IN ANS CHARGES TO OUR VERY TIGHT OPERATING COSTS. THEY MIGHT LEAVE SOME OF THE RUNNING TO CURRENT NATS BUT BEING ON THE INSIDE OF AN AIRLINE SUPPOSING TO BE ONE OF THE SAFEST, DO NOT BE TOO CONFIDENT THAT THEY WILL PUT SAFETY FIRST WHEN IT COMES TO SPENDING THE MONEY NEEDED IF IT HURTS THE AIRLINE OPERATION BUDGETS. I CANNOT REALLY COMMENT ON THE OTHERS BIDDERS,LOCKHEED MARTIN, MAJOR SYSTEM SUPPLIER , AMERICAN, NO REAL MAJOR PROVEN ATC SYSTEMS ANYWAY. SERCO, NOT HAD MUCH DELAING, ITS ATCO's EVERYTIME I FLY INTO THE MIDDEL EAST HAVE ALWAYS BEEN VERY GOOD, QUITE A FEW EX BRITS. FOR ALL THE BIDDERS IT WOULD BE COMMITNING BUSINESS SUICIDE AND IN ANY EVENT ACCORDING TO ALL THE DEBATE ON THE TRANSPORT BILL , SAFETY REQUIREMENTS WILL BE ENBEDDED AND AS ALL OF US KNOW HERE IN THE UK WE DO HAVE THE BEST SAFETY SYSTEM IN THE WORLD AND NATS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NEW OWNERS WILL CARRY ON PROVIDING THE SAME HIGHLY SAFE SERVICE. I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT ALL THE NATS STAFF AND THE NEW OWNERS WILL ALL PUT SAFETY FIRST, AFTER ALL THE NEW OWNERS ARE ALSO PASSENGERS. EVERYONE OF THE BIDDERS ACCORDING TO MY BRIEF INVESTIGATION ALL HAVE EXCELLENT SAFETY TRACK RECORDS IN AVIATION. AS FOR COMMENTS BEING MADE OF THE PPP LEADING TO RAILTRACK OF THE SKIES, HOW AVIATION CAN EVEN BE COMPARED TO THE RAIL INDUSTRY ESPECIALLY IN REGARD TO THE SAFETY REGIMES IS REALLY STRETCHING IT A BIT FAR. TEH RAIL PRIVATISATION WAS A FIASCO BECAUSE THEY TRIED TO APPLY AN AIRLINES TYPE MODEL TO AN INDUSTRY THAT IT CANNOT BE ADOPTED TO. IT ALSO SEEMS THAT SOME GENERAL OPINION COMMING THROUGH THIS RUMOURS BOARD THAT THE PPP WILL GO AHEAD ANYWAY, IF IT IS THE CASE BE RESPONSIBLE AND PROFESSIONAL AS ALL YOU IN NATS CLAIM TO BE AND MAKE IT WORK, WHEN IT GOES THROUGH. WITH THE EVER CROWDED SKIES AND PRESSURE ON US PILOTS AS WELL AS YOU ATCO'S WE NEED YOU FOCUSSED ON KEEPING US SEPARATED, OR PERHAPS WE SHOULD STRIKE SO THAT YOU LOOSE YOU INCOME BECAUSE THERE IS NO TIN TO PUSH, BUT PERHAPS FLYING AROUND AT FL350 WE DO NOT ALWAYS HAVE OUR FEET FIRMLY ON THE GROUND. I WILL NOW GET OFF MY HYDE PARK CORNER AS I WILL BE SPEAKING TO YOU ALL ON THE RT SHORTLY.

[pitts2]

Sorry about the spelling on the last posting. Typical pilot I hear you all saying. Sqwaking Standby

[Steep Approach]

I think the Government is up to a classic tactic. Letting out little leaks that it's 'in the bag' for the contract to go to the least favourable bidder with the workers. Then when the bidder is announced and is the opposite to what was suspected, everyone breathes a sigh of releif and steps back. The staff of NATS will have been conned, PPP is STILL the worst possible option whoever ends up as the strategic partner.

[WebCreator]

Reality dictates that PPP is the ONLY option if NATS is to receive the funding it needs over the coming years in order to safely integrate the forecast traffic growth, and to stay "ahead of the game". Which PPP option is best is still up for grabs, as the current offering is nothing like the best...I think we have to accept PPP and now worry about how it's implemented, and by whom. The airlines are in many ways as mercenary as anyone else, but who wants the first disaster on their conscience - it would be commercial suicide. Those that are supported by venture capital will most probably NOT make the grade as the returns just aren't there for the VC's. Those with a commercial base, independently funded and comprised of a mixture of companies have greater chance of success, and because of their make up, less opportunity to individually interfere.

[OrsonCart]

My view from a totally biased point of view.

1. Outlaw PPP on safety grounds. Trouble is the airline group satisfy the safety criteria.

2. Back the airlines and condone PPP.

Back the airlines, get representation on thier board, work with them to gain the best possible sucess for NATS staff, the airlines investment and the governments involvement within the entire process.

The airlines want to reduce delays, charges and fly safely. If we can convince them that thier investment is sound, surely we can help make this situation one that the staff can be proud of and want to contribute into, rather than be shafted? This means accepting PPP.

Good to see Paul Noon writing in the Times today. IPMS seem to have thier heads screwed on in backing a potential winner?

Do we oppose Labour's ideas, or manipulate a bidder to be a winner for the airlines, NATS staff, the government and still hold the moral high ground against profit controlling ATC?

We can influence the future, the vote being conducted is indicative of the staff's concern that the epic troubles of the rail infrastructure operator are not transferred into the skies.

Like me or loathe me, I could not give a *hit, protect what you have, for someone somewhere wants to take it away.

[eyeinthesky]

You maybe saw the article in the 'Telegraph' today. The most telling paragraph was that which referred to ATCOs as paid between £30000 and £60000 and 'militantly resistant to change' or something like that. This is just what management and government want the public to think, as it clouds the real issue. You can bet your life that this theme will be developed over the next few weeks. We and, most importantly, our Union MUST ensure that this is not allowed to happen. As soon as it does, we start to lose public support. There was in the same article a greying of the distinction between our objections to the OCT programme and those to PPP. So come on, IPMS, get up there and ensure the public have a correct understanding of the situation. You are our public voice in this and that's why we pay our subscriptions! Let's see some of that supply of 'dry powder' being out to good use.
If the public think that their Easter holidays are likely to be disrupted by a bunch of overpaid stick-in-the-muds then we might as well kiss goodbye to any support we now have. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"

[get'em to heaven & back]

webcreator- you are wrong! PPP is not the only option, an Independent Privately Owned Company (IPOC) is the best way forward, satisfying every condition that the government wants/ needs to satisfy bar one- no money into the treasury from a sale. The other effect is the fundamental most important one- NO SHAREHOLDERS AND THEREFORE NO PROFIT MOTIVE!!!!! But Johnny 2 Jags has sold out his old labour principles so much that he's not prepared to consider it.

And enough of this defeatist talk, THIS IS NOT A DONE DEAL UNLESS ATC GIVES UP! Rally your IPMS/ PCS rep and leave them in no doubt that you are determined to walk out to save your jobs, terms and conditions, in the case of airport staff your ability to remain in the same company as your area colleagues (especially if you want to switch at some point in the future) and last, but not least (from me), to safeguard the ATC system from any moves away from the 100% safety orientation we all hold so dear (in the form of that little yellow licence!).

p.s if IPMS do come out and "back" PPP in any way, shape or form before it actually IS a done deal I for one will be demanding the resignation of every member of the BEC!

[WebCreator]

I was really referring the the sell off being inevitable, whatever it's called. The IPMS lists IPOC as one of the PPP options and I absolutely agree it would be a better route. That's why I've constantly been saying that there are two aspects of this battle that are worth fighting for - the RIGHT way for NATS to become independent and the RIGHT partner to make it happen. The sell-off is the only thing that's guaranteed, how it's achieved is up for grabs.

[Bright-Ling]

Webcreator:

To start with, I thought that you were going to be good for the anti-PPP brigade. Unfortunately, you have proved me wrong.

Why are you saying that PPP is the only way to gain investment?? I thought that if the Govt changed the rules we COULD collect the fees for ourselves? Isn't that the fact??

Why are we always being told that it is inevitable??? Are you management??????

Thankyou for your thoughts and possibly best intentions but you are NOT helping the cause.

[WebCreator]

Right let's clear this up once and for all. PPP (in my mind anyway) is an umbrella term for NATS becoming independent of the CAA and then being able to raise finances etc as needed. There were originally 5 or 6 different ways proposed, all coming under the PPP umbrella - one was the current proposal, another was IPOC for example. The IPMS put forward a document to the Government with it's views as to the pros and cons of each method. The current flavour of PPP (46% sell to a private company, 5% retained for staff and 49% retained by govt) is not what I consider to be the best route - that seems not only to be my opinion - I thought we were actually in agreement on that. So, just so we're clear - I do not think the best way forward is the current proposal. I do think there are better ways of achieving the same aims. I am not management, I'm not in the employ of the government, NATS, CAA, SERCO or The Sun - I work for myself. I absolutely, completely and utterly support everything that's been said (with the the exception of FJ of course) and I hoped I was helping the cause.

[form49]

Web Creator, just to go on the record here, I personally think that you've one a good job in promoting the anti-ppp cause. It's nice to know that there are members of the flying public out there who actualy give a damn about what happens to NATS.
I thank you for your efforts and taking the time to create the web site.
Don't get too disheartened with what you read on these pages, keep fighting for the cause!!!

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

[WebCreator]

Thanks "form".

Also, I have contacted Jeremy Paxman via BBC.co.uk and suggested a forum for a debate - we'll see what comes of it. It would be great if he were to give a grilling to to Prescott, MacDonald etc...maybe, just maybe..!