View Full Version : Air traffic privatisation in cash crisis - Airline statement

30th Sep 2001, 15:19
Moderators, please don't move this to the ATC board.

This is news relevant to all of us.

Airline Statement (http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/story.jsp?story=96806)

Comments from you guys at the pointy end would be appreciated :)

[ 30 September 2001: Message edited by: 160to4DME ]

30th Sep 2001, 17:35
It just goes to show why a NATIONal service should be provided by the NATION - i.e. the governmen. Yes - it tends to be cumbersome and beaurocratic because the Whitehall civil servants know so little, but have to give the impression that they know so much, but when you privitise, it is mandatory to add profit to the costs of providing a service. Hence the total cost to the users - our employers - must rise.

Red Spitfire Driver
30th Sep 2001, 22:19
Already, senior government sources are privately referring to the Nats deal as "air track", drawing parallels with the now-disastrous privatisation of Britain's rail network

Perhaps 'Senior Government Sources' should get off there a*ses and buy out the Airline Group for a bargan price ??

30th Sep 2001, 23:30
I'm surprised Two Jags wasn't quized about it this morning on the BBC, but there again, the BBC are so far up the **** of this government, it's hardly surprising things have gone quiet.

The Government are still a major shareholder, so why are they conspicuous by their silence ?

It has never seemed quite right to me that an industry which provides an essential national service based on safety should be anything other than that.

The fact that NATS has repeatedly returned a profit is a bonus, the icing on the cake.

The claimed benefit of PPP was that inward investment would be drawn into the business. What happens to this promise when our owners' core business is in dire straights and their very existance is being questioned ?

Rumours are rife as to where the staff reductions are going to come from.

I also think managers have lost the plot when they refer to important "Perks" as being unnecessary.
I regard a liaison visit to another unit as the best way to better understand the workings of and interaction between our neighbouring colleagues.
I regard a fam. flight as THE most important way of gaining a more thorough understanding and respect for the tasks you guys have to perform and how our actions can have a huge impact on your workload.

By the way, these "Perks" are taken IN OUR OWN TIME !

We have now been told these are both suspended TFN.

This isn't saving money; this is erosion of the basic foundations of UNDERSTANDING the job.

One member of staff was last week reprimanded for throwing away a red pen. It was considered "Fine for the job." The fact that it wrote like a paint brush was missed on the enlightened manager.

If we are having to save on 20 pence felt pens, just HOW serious is the situation within the company ?

If I wrote with the same pen for the rest of the year, the saving wouldn't even come close to the cost of all the exec. car parking passes this unit stumps up for. Why, when there are plenty of staff car parks ??

I'm a professional;
All my colleagues are professional;
We do a job, we do it bl00dy well, and TAG should be in no doubt that we will protect that level of professionalism to the end.

It was always the argument of ATCOs and IPMS that NATS shouldn't be partially privatised; the repercussions arising from the bizarre and tragic events of September are showing how horribly prophetic the warnings were, and it's far from over. :(

[ 30 September 2001: Message edited by: 160to4DME ]

1st Oct 2001, 10:43
Yes - 'Biffer 2 Jags' was allowed to get away with shameless plugs for Trust-me-Tone and his gang on the sycophantic BBC yesterday.

But the warning about AirTrack needs to be heeded; the next Tanker Transport aircraft (FSTA) for the RAF is supposed to be acquired and operated through a PPP as well! The lucky contractor chosen to provide this blatantly mercenary service is supposed to fund it by using the 'surplus' aircraft to take advantage of the huge demand available for 3rd party revenue generation in the civil sector (!!) and will be able to do so quite easily, or so the DPA suits think, because there'll always be plenty of warning of military call-back requirements............

No - for some things PPP is a complete piece of ar$e. Most, it seems!!

2nd Oct 2001, 01:11
What a surprise.....NOT!!!!

How much are you willing to bet that the government pushes whatever plan the airlines come up with, regardless if it will work or not to ensure they don't take any further flak over their complete incompentence.

Then in a couple of years time once NATS has been pillaged, the government will blame the airlines for mis-management, ala railtrack and setup a cosy little committee to investigate the running of NATS.

After all if the airlines can't get it right in their own business, what hope have we got with them trying to run NATS.

2nd Oct 2001, 03:27
Maggie - now those were the days - when BA were a world class airline. Sadly these days our collective social conscience elects social-liberal-conservatives like WankTone. A decision to make - deffering is a decision.

I abbor nationalization as it tends to be badly run and out of date (BR, Coal) but when it comes to saftey, there is no argument. Couldn't the goverment raise a bond issue and like red ken proposed for the tube. That way people who know the business keep and have the experience to renew and expand the business. But that would need a decision .....