Gatwick Flow Rate?

[ImPlaneCrazy]

Seems as though there are a ton of cancelled/delayed flights at LGW, with numerous diversions to LTN/other airports. Reportedly down to lack of ATC personnel.... anyone know more?

[Dct_Mopas]

Confirmed as a shortage of ATC staff by Gatwick airport twitter. Apparently short notice staff absence.

To have no spare/ standby/ slack for one controller going sick is really poor. Massively understaffed at LGW - you’d like to think the CAA would get involved.

[Denti]

Seems to happen quite often now. Does it have anything to do with the change in contract a while back for LGW ATC service?

[The Foss]

Confirmed as a shortage of ATC staff by Gatwick airport twitter. Apparently short notice staff absence.

To have no spare/ standby/ slack for one controller going sick is really poor. Massively understaffed at LGW - you’d like to think the CAA would get involved.
not the first time it’s happened at Gatwick in the last 12 months or so.. getting a bit tiresome now

[brianj]

Confirmed as a shortage of ATC staff by Gatwick airport twitter. Apparently short notice staff absence.

To have no spare/ standby/ slack for one controller going sick is really poor. Massively understaffed at LGW - you’d like to think the CAA would get involved.

What exactly could the CAA do to all the shortage problem? There is no magic solution. It requires good quality trainees in adequate numbers -but not too many many that there aren’t enough training seats! And still it takes many months to validate them.

[sheepless]

Typically organisations that employ controllers are driven by someone who watches a spreadsheet. Activities such as COVID, 9-11, contract renewals always concentrate the mind on the bottom line. Little relevance is given to the time it takes to train and the actual number of seats available to train in. This latter is normally the major problem.
Years ago we were training controllers in a European country and were told how many we had to provide classroom/simulator training for that year - All for one tower. It turned out that the actual On Job Training capacity was about 10% of the numbers receiving basic training.
Sadly the magic solution is always some years back - bean counting rarely looks further than the CEO's KPI's and bonus needs and normally they have moved on (with bonus) before the crises occurs.

[SWBKCB]

What exactly could the CAA do to all the shortage problem? There is no magic solution. It requires good quality trainees in adequate numbers -but not too many many that there aren’t enough training seats! And still it takes many months to validate them.

or fewer flights

[ATC Watcher]

or fewer flights
This is indeed par t of the problem. The bean counters generally cater for the average numbers of flights , not the peaks. In addition if an airline decides to move its hub from an airport for another one, the balance of traffic is sudden , meaning from decision to first flights can be weeks ( or even days in some cases. ) Recruitment to fully ops controller in a major airport is anything from a year ( for transfers) to up to 3 years for ab initio. So you'll always be behind.
Another unspoked factor is part time. Due to the ( welcomed) feminisation of the job , since it is rather well paid, many are requesting part time after their first kid, so you might have the numbers on paper but not available 100% of the time ,

That said, if a single controller call in sick and its supervisor is unable to immediately find a stand by duty to fill the gap, and this is causing the kind of disruptions we have see in EGKK, then it shows how tight their operations are .

[Neo380]

What exactly could the CAA do to all the shortage problem? There is no magic solution. It requires good quality trainees in adequate numbers -but not too many many that there aren’t enough training seats! And still it takes many months to validate them.

Er, stop NATS firing all 127 of its trainees during Covid (some were two weeks away from qualifying)? It's not as if this isn't a recurring problem for NATS, that they should have got on top of by now, and having taken a £1.5bn loan the 'speadsheet' argument is mute - this was straight mismanagement, hence: 'https://travelweekly.co.uk/news/air/ryanair-calls-for-resignation-of-nats-chief-after-latest-gatwick-flight-disruption' (the 7-figure bonus won't have helped)!

[Saintsman]

Doesn't this issue go back several years when NATS lost the ATC contract at Gatwick?

The new Gatwick company did such a 'great' job that they eventually handed it back for NATS to run. NATS inherited all the problems and a lot of them don't get resolved overnight, particularly with staff shortages.

Not that NATS are squeaky clean. Their recruitment and training policies over the last few years leave a lot to be desired.

[Del Prado]

NATS only got the contract back 11 months ago, the rot set in under ANS.

Neo380 or MoL pointing the finger at NATS are way off the mark.

https://travelradar.aero/nats-gatwick-airport/



The underlying problem generally with Air Traffic staffing is you have a small number of qualified people doing the job.
Say you need 4 or 5 ATCOs to run a radar bank or tower, to add another for contingency adds 20/25% to cost base. The sums are very different for an airline with 100s of pilots qualified on the same equipment.

[Neo380]

NATS only got the contract back 11 months ago, the rot set in under ANS.

Neo380 or MoL pointing the finger at NATS are way off the mark on this occasion.

https://travelradar.aero/nats-gatwick-airport/



The underlying problem with Air Traffic staffing is you have a small number of qualified people doing the job.
Say you need 4 or 5 ATCOs to run a radar bank or tower, to add another for contingency adds 20/25% to cost base. The sums are very different for an airline with 100s of pilots qualified on the same equipment.

Not way off at all - sacking all 127 trainees, when there was no financial need - and then complaining that you are short staffed, when you’ve just done the exact same thing a few years ago, is dysfunction.

NATS (staff) can take just as much blame for the ANS contract as anyone - failing 21/23 trainees (at one point) might have been because of the £1,000/day overtime rates, but it was also always the intention to force the contract back into NATS hands.

So be honest, and check your facts, please - this was a situation of NATS making.

[Del Prado]

So they should have kept the trainees on in case they won a contract 2 years later?
A contract that shouldn’t have been available until end of 2025?

You might think that’s a great way to run a business but it’s not something the customer would be happy to pay for.

[SWBKCB]

Gatwick aren't the only airport short of controllers

[Neo380]

So they should have kept the trainees on in case they won a contract 2 years later?
A contract that shouldn’t have been available until end of 2025?

You might think that’s a great way to run a business but it’s not something the customer would be happy to pay for.

NATS regret it. And NATS created ANS because one of its MDs couldn’t put up with the internal dysfunction any longer.
So yes, I do think you honour your commitment to a trainee when they’re 98% through training.

[Denti]

The underlying problem generally with Air Traffic staffing is you have a small number of qualified people doing the job.
Say you need 4 or 5 ATCOs to run a radar bank or tower, to add another for contingency adds 20/25% to cost base. The sums are very different for an airline with 100s of pilots qualified on the same equipment.

True, and not true as well. Especially considering that having a generous standby level at all times is cash wise peanuts considering the rest of the cost of running ATC at the worlds busies single runway airport. And even more so considering not doing so will increase the pressure to legislate financial responsibility in for a service promised and not provided, a service airlines have to pay handsomely for. After all, they are liable for measures they have to take to accommodate their customers. And for exactly that reason airlines nowadays actually play for peaks, not averages, and usually a higher than normally needed crewing level. You can operate a shorthaul aircraft on a full schedule at 3,5 to 4 crews per aircraft. However, it is usually done at 6 to 7 as that allows a much higher stability of the operation. Which is needed, in part due to ATC systems all over europe having not the required personnel and no financial incentive (liability) to provide it.

[Neo380]

True, and not true as well. Especially considering that having a generous standby level at all times is cash wise peanuts considering the rest of the cost of running ATC at the worlds busies single runway airport. And even more so considering not doing so will increase the pressure to legislate financial responsibility in for a service promised and not provided, a service airlines have to pay handsomely for. After all, they are liable for measures they have to take to accommodate their customers. And for exactly that reason airlines nowadays actually play for peaks, not averages, and usually a higher than normally needed crewing level. You can operate a shorthaul aircraft on a full schedule at 3,5 to 4 crews per aircraft. However, it is usually done at 6 to 7 as that allows a much higher stability of the operation. Which is needed, in part due to ATC systems all over europe having not the required personnel and no financial incentive (liability) to provide it.

As already stated NATS raised £1.5bn (BILLION!) mid-Covid, which more than covers the remainder of trainee costs (they were on apprentice rates already!) - the 'spreadsheet' excuse for what is now a serious issue just doesn't work.

[eglnyt]

As already stated NATS raised £1.5bn (BILLION!) mid-Covid, which more than covers the remainder of trainee costs (they were on apprentice rates already!) - the 'spreadsheet' excuse for what is now a serious issue just doesn't work.
NATS can't subsidise the NSL operations with NERL money. Whether or not it should have kept the En-Route trainees is one debate. Whether or not it should have kept any Airport trainees is far more complex and a different debate.

If NATS had emerged from the Covid crisis with a retained pool of trainees it would arguably have given them an unfair advantage over other suppliers such as ANS. Although of course those trainees, even if they fully completed the college, are a long way off providing any solution to the current issue. From ab-initio to the world's busiest single runway airport is quite a jump.

[Neo380]

There is a well crafted excuse for every piece of mismanagement in this organisation, but the truth is we’re back in ‘famine’ now, so ‘feast’ will follow and ‘famine’ will follow that.
It’s a cultural problem, as if succession planning is ‘something we don’t do here’.

[eglnyt]

There is a well crafted excuse for every piece of mismanagement in this organisation, but the truth is we’re back in ‘famine’ now, so ‘feast’ will follow and ‘famine’ will follow that.
It’s a cultural problem, as if succession planning is ‘something we don’t do here’.
Indeed. In most industries if such a high proportion of staff failed to reach the point at which they provided any payback on the investment made then you'd spend a lot of time refining that system until you remedied that problem. In ATC that "failure" has always been painted as success because we obviously only want the best people to succeed.

Feast and famine is a little harder. The airline business is tied to the world economy. Setbacks and in particular the length of them are difficult to predict. The setbacks after 9/11 and Covid were much shorter than most people expected. That after the 2008 crash was much longer. Somebody has to pay for that period you keep training controllers ready for the inevitable upturn and nobody wants to, least of all governments. The government funded ANSPs after 2008 cut back far more than the one funded by its customers that you dislike so much.

[Del Prado]

…….. one of its MDs couldn’t put up with the internal dysfunction any longer..

It might have been the big wheelbarrow full of cash too. 🤷‍♂️

[Neo380]

Indeed. In most industries if such a high proportion of staff failed to reach the point at which they provided any payback on the investment made then you'd spend a lot of time refining that system until you remedied that problem. In ATC that "failure" has always been painted as success because we obviously only want the best people to succeed.

Feast and famine is a little harder. The airline business is tied to the world economy. Setbacks and in particular the length of them are difficult to predict. The setbacks after 9/11 and Covid were much shorter than most people expected. That after the 2008 crash was much longer. Somebody has to pay for that period you keep training controllers ready for the inevitable upturn and nobody wants to, least of all governments. The government funded ANSPs after 2008 cut back far more than the one funded by its customers that you dislike so much.

Its not a matter of liking or not liking eglnyt; it’s a matter of getting to the truth, and not just trying to ‘spin’ your way out of every predicament.

[pax britanica]

Another piece of crumbling infrastructure in the Uk., it seems to me interesting that an airport the size of Gatwick grinds almost toa halt because a couple of people get sick at the same time , the peopel running ATC services there have a simple mission, provide the service , not make as much moneyas possible from doing so. It seems like a gulf has opened between the management world and reality. Managers across the board only looking at the short term or their own paychecks, Directors are their partners in crime as well.

Obvioulsy this industry like many has ups and downs and years back the downs were accepted as part of doing business, you didn't make much profit, perhaps a loss, that year but after a couple of years back in the black again. That seems to be a crime nowadays and entities have to make a profit or minimal loss every year with the result that there is no long term planning or slack in the system and many key aspects of the business do not have a quick fix, Training ATCOS pilots and Licensed engineers takes time and money and the people cannot be made to appear as if by magic.

Same with Drs, hospitals, police etc etc etc.

Until we come to understand that the L on a P&L account is sometimes unavoidale and soemtimes must just be sucked up for the good of the business then we will continue to have these failings . In my own industry , telecoms, BT sacked/made deundant thousands of technical guys and girls because modern digital equipment didnt go wrong as much as the old stuff . Within a couple of years along comes the internet and need for second phone lines and oh dear we ahvent got any staff to install lines and upgrade exchange equipment bcuase the becuase the previous regine got rid of them all.and the exclelent training programmes BT gave their people.

How do we stop short termism causing massive disruption just so a few people can get bousses for doing the wrong thing for the user/ customer.??

[Nimmer]

NATS don’t actually provide the ATC for Gatwick, it is done by the subsidiary company NATS solutions. Different terms and conditions, but the same amount of planes to control. Basically cheap NATS!!
not sure how the recruitment is going!!

[Imagegear]

"The Bean Counters have it!, the Bean Counters have it!." with apologies to Mr Speaker.

IG

[eglnyt]

"The Bean Counters have it!, the Bean Counters have it!." with apologies to Mr Speaker.

IG
So you set your airports up as limited companies with shareholders and are then shocked when they behave just like limited companies with shareholders. What did anybody expect to happen?

[ZOOKER]

NATS needs to get back to basics. You can't start training until you're 18, so applicants should have 2 A Levels under their belts. Maths, Geography, Science or computer based. Failing that, 5 GCSE's with 2 years of relative aviation experience. If candidates have a degree, so much the better. Get rid irrelevant 'aptitude' tests and the layers of HR bods with fluffy job-titles. Get ATCOs out there on the recruiting circuit, and, depending what the WEF (et al), have planned, have a BIG look at present staffing & manpower planning.

[eglnyt]

NATS needs to get back to basics. You can't start training until you're 18, so applicants should have 2 A Levels under their belts. Maths, Geography, Science or computer based. Failing that, 5 GCSE's with 2 years of relative aviation experience. If candidates have a degree, so much the better. Get rid irrelevant 'aptitude' tests and the layers of HR bods with fluffy job-titles. Get ATCOs out there on the recruiting circuit, and, depending what the WEF (et al), have planned, have a BIG look at present staffing & manpower planning.
Is there any evidence to suggest that academic qualification prior to recruitment has any bearing on success in validation at unit ? Just interested. A few years back I got the impression that the percentage of trainees with degrees had increased greatly in the last 20 years but then of course so has the general percentage of the population.

[Jonty]

If people keep failing the training, it’s not the people at fault.

just a thought.

[ZOOKER]

eglnyt...We went through in 1979-1982. About 36 on the course, all of which had the qualifications I outlined above. I think there were 4 who didn't qualify/validate. Three ended up as senior ATSAs, one guy left the service completely, a great shame. A couple failed the odd exam, but ended up re-sitting stuff and eventually validating. Of those who validated, 4 left and became senior airline captains. So, about a 90% success rate, in terms of unit validations achieved.

[eglnyt]

eglnyt...We went through in 1979-1982. About 36 on the course, all of which had the qualifications I outlined above. I think there were 4 who didn't qualify/validate. Three ended up as senior ATSAs, one guy left the service completely, a great shame. A couple failed the odd exam, but ended up re-sitting stuff and eventually validating. Of those who validated, 4 left and became senior airline captains. So, about a 90% success rate, in terms of unit validations achieved.
Lots of variables since 1979 though and one group is a small sample. It would be interesting to know what it looks like over a longer period & whether there was a point at which validation rates dropped significantly. I believe 18 year olds now are just as clever and intelligent as they've ever been they just know different stuff nowadays. The intensity at Gatwick in the 1980s was very different to now.

[ZOOKER]

Lots of variables since 1979 though and one group is a small sample. It would be interesting to know what it looks like over a longer period & whether there was a point at which validation rates dropped significantly. I believe 18 year olds now are just as clever and intelligent as they've ever been they just know different stuff nowadays. The intensity at Gatwick in the 1980s was very different to now.

Oh yes. The validation rates/CATC pass rates went down when SHL first became involved. They plugged in with us for 2 or 3 weeks, went away, and came back with a presentation of what they thought NATS needed. A series of 'tests' that bore no relation to what ATC was about. Just the same bog-standard stuff they had sold to the WH Smith/Barclays/Woolworths management-trainee selectors. They gave a presentation at EGCC and many of the seniors ATCOs, some of whom were ex-military aircrew couldn't understand a lot of it. It was totally irrelevant to ATC.

[eglnyt]

Oh yes. The validation rates/CATC pass rates went down when SHL first became involved. They plugged in with us for 2 or 3 weeks, went away, and came back with a presentation of what they thought NATS needed. A series of 'tests' that bore no relation to what ATC was about. Just the same bog-standard stuff they had sold to the WH Smith/Barclays/Woolworths management-trainee selectors. They gave a presentation at EGCC and many of the seniors ATCOs, some of whom were ex-military aircrew couldn't understand a lot of it. It was totally irrelevant to ATC.
Interesting if there was that drop off. It has always been the story that low completion rates had always been the case and indeed trumpeted as good because NATS has to be so selective.

[Eric T Cartman]

There were 20 at the start of my Course in 1972. By the end, in 1975, 1 had left due medical fail, only 3 had been chopped & one left to be a pilot. Everyone of the remaining 15 went on to validate. Can NATS achieve a similar pass rate nowadays I wonder ?

[chevvron]

There were 20 at the start of my Course in 1972. By the end, in 1975, 1 had left due medical fail, only 3 had been chopped & one left to be a pilot. Everyone of the remaining 15 went on to validate. Can NATS achieve a similar pass rate nowadays I wonder ?
Started a 3 year ATCO Cadet course in '71 having been an assistant for 2.5 years.
23 cadets started, one resigned after the 4 week 'Basic' course.
6 got 'chopped', 5 on Aerodrome control and one on Area, 16 eventually graduated in '74. One exam fail and you were chopped, no re-sits allowed after one fail in those days.
In later years it wasn't unusual to have 16 graduate but to do so, they had to 'combine' 2 courses of 20 to 22 each to get that number.

[kcockayne]

I’m not sure that “academic standards” are that important, rather than “aptitude”. 23 out of 24 completed our Cadet Course. Only a very few were rated “high level” in academic assessment (university degrees). All were ex ATCAs, which is very telling, to my mind. I don’t think so many would have “made it” in modern times.

[chevvron]

I’m not sure that “academic standards” are that important, rather than “aptitude”. 23 out of 24 completed our Cadet Course. Only a very few were rated “high level” in academic assessment (university degrees). All were ex ATCAs, which is very telling, to my mind. I don’t think so many would have “made it” in modern times.
I always found I had more trouble in training those with degrees than those who were ex ATCAs but the problem is, the aptitude tests 'suit' those with degrees so they get selected even if the're ex ATCAs with lots of experience or even FISOs with hours of experience.
On our terminal course, they set us some aptitude tests; we couldn't understand most of them.

[eglnyt]

I always found I had more trouble in training those with degrees than those who were ex ATCAs but the problem is, the aptitude tests 'suit' those with degrees so they get selected even if the're ex ATCAs with lots of experience or even FISOs with hours of experience.
On our terminal course, they set us some aptitude tests; we couldn't understand most of them.
In the 70s, 80s & 90s a far smaller percentage went to University and you were still selecting near the top academically from A level students and those who'd proceeded to A level even if they didn't complete. Nowadays that same level will almost all proceed to university. ATC is now one of the few real alternatives to university and at 18 most won't know that.

[Brian 48nav]

Hi Andy,

Glad to see you're still 'on the perch'.

Regards, Brian W

[IFPS man]

Hi to you also, Brian! Can’t keep an old dog down!! Hope all is well with you..
regards,
Andy

[kcockayne]

I always found I had more trouble in training those with degrees than those who were ex ATCAs but the problem is, the aptitude tests 'suit' those with degrees so they get selected even if the're ex ATCAs with lots of experience or even FISOs with hours of experience.
On our terminal course, they set us some aptitude tests; we couldn't understand most of them.
Same thing happened with us - didn’t fill me with confidence that they had any idea about how to assess people !

[Neo380]

If people keep failing the training, it’s not the people at fault.

just a thought.

Correct

NATS don’t actually provide the ATC for Gatwick, it is done by the subsidiary company NATS solutions. Different terms and conditions, but the same amount of planes to control. Basically cheap NATS!!
not sure how the recruitment is going!!

'It's not NATS, it's NATS Solutions' Hahaha!

It might have been the big wheelbarrow full of cash too. 🤷‍♂️

Always, 'the golden wheelbarrow"...

NATS can't subsidise the NSL operations with NERL money. Whether or not it should have kept the En-Route trainees is one debate. Whether or not it should have kept any Airport trainees is far more complex and a different debate.

If NATS had emerged from the Covid crisis with a retained pool of trainees it would arguably have given them an unfair advantage over other suppliers such as ANS. Although of course those trainees, even if they fully completed the college, are a long way off providing any solution to the current issue. From ab-initio to the world's busiest single runway airport is quite a jump.

But are trainees defined as 'en route trainees' and 'airport' trainees', or is this just another excuse? At least when I was there this decision was being taken later...

[chevvron]

'It's not NATS, it's NATS Solutions' Hahaha!
I really don't know what is different; I retired when it was NATS En Route Ltd (Area Radar) and NATS Services Ltd (Aerodromes) so apart from pay and conditions, what is so different about NATS Solutions? I only know that before NATS lost the contract (temporarily) the guys at Gatwick Tower were 'ace' at shifting the traffic.

[Eric T Cartman]

"If people keep failing the training, it’s not the people at fault"True up to a point but if the initial selection process is flawed, there's a problem. If you put a donkey in the Derby, it's not the jockey's fault when it doesn't run ! It seems the problems got worse once aptitude testing & Outward Bound courses for Cadets became trendy & the pool of 'known quantity' ATCAs diminished. Also, I've never understood the logic of chopping Cadets who'd got through ADC/APC/APR then failed Area for example and then went out with their valid ratings to what used to be called "non-state" units. How much time & money did that waste ? :-(

[eglnyt]

I really don't know what is different; I retired when it was NATS En Route Ltd (Area Radar) and NATS Services Ltd (Aerodromes) so apart from pay and conditions, what is so different about NATS Solutions? I only know that before NATS lost the contract (temporarily) the guys at Gatwick Tower were 'ace' at shifting the traffic.

It is entirely about terms and conditions. If you bid for a contract, in particular for one currently held by somebody else, you need to be able to offer terms and condition similar to those the other parties are offering. NATS Solutions is the vehicle to do that. Still NATS but not constrained by the collective bargaining agreements that other parts of NATS have. For example NSL staff could/can move elsewhere within NSL if their airport contract is lost and they choose not to transfer to the new provider. NATS Solutions staff may not have that option

As Nimmer says whether that helps attract staff when you need to is an issue and there is a risk that those in NATS Solutions will be disgruntled when they inevitably find out the terms and conditions that apply elsewhere.

[eglnyt]

"If people keep failing the training, it’s not the people at fault". True up to a point but if the initial selection process is flawed, there's a problem. If you put a donkey in the Derby, it's not the jockey's fault when it doesn't run ! It seems the problems got worse once aptitude testing & Outward Bound courses for Cadets became trendy & the pool of 'known quantity' ATCAs diminished. Also, I've never understood the logic of chopping Cadets who'd got through ADC/APC/APR then failed Area for example and then went out with their valid ratings to what used to be called "non-state" units. How much time & money did that waste ? :-(

Didn't the practice of chopping those who failed area end in the early 90s? I certainly know of one group that were chopped for that reason and a short while later HR were cap in hand asking them to come back to fill gaps at Airports. And is it not the case that courses have been streamed as Airports/Area right from the start for a while now?

Lots of ANSPs, not just NATS, have been searching for the magic criteria that allows you to identify those candidates that will be successful at the recruitment stage. I'm not sure anybody has managed it yet. I suspect it's moved on from the original SHL and similar tests though. The problem is that most controllers will say just recruit people exactly like me. I've worked with controllers for more years than I care to remember and they are all different. The other problem is that the demands and the skills required, in Area at least, may have changed.

[AvionicsHippo]

Er, stop NATS firing all 127 of its trainees during Covid (some were two weeks away from qualifying)? It's not as if this isn't a recurring problem for NATS, that they should have got on top of by now, and having taken a £1.5bn loan the 'speadsheet' argument is mute - this was straight mismanagement, hence: '' (the 7-figure bonus won't have helped)!


That is insane, two weeks away from qualifying. No wonder they have staff shortages if that's how they treat them!!!

[parkfell]

I was on No.54 course in 1983. 16 began & 16 completed the area rating courses. One failed to validate at LATCC & eventually went to an airfield. A much older (32) ex ATSA reverted back. The youngest was aged 18 who without any previous aviation experience scored 90% in Aerodrome oral exam.
It was commended by the examination board chairman one Des Crouch. Probable a spotter in his youth (?)

The recruitment board chairman Mike McAvoy (?) was I believe a keen spotter & those who had shown an interest in aviation stood a much better chance than those with little or no interest. The motivation to be an ATCO is always something that interests me.
Clearly a certain amount of grey matter is part of the equation.
Get that bit right & the failure rate would be far less. When MM was eventually replaced, the fail rate apparently increased.

Fancy aptitude testing conclusively proves one thing ~ you are good are aptitude testing.
Ask the right Qs in the first place must be the answer.

[ManUtd1999]

The motivation to be an ATCO is always something that interests me.

Times have certainly changed - in my interview as part of the latest recruitment round I wasn't once asked "why do you want the job?

Personally I think these "competency-based" questions don't really prove anything apart from your ability to tell a good story, but maybe that is just me being bitter......

[chevvron]

The recruitment board chairman Mike McAvoy (?) was I believe a keen spotter & those who had shown an interest in aviation stood a much better chance than those with little or no interest. The motivation to be an ATCO is always something that interests me.
Clearly a certain amount of grey matter is part of the equation.
Get that bit right & the failure rate would be far less. When MM was eventually replaced, the fail rate apparently increased.

Fancy aptitude testing conclusively proves one thing ~ you are good are aptitude testing.
Ask the right Qs in the first place must be the answer.
Mike McEvoy to be correct. He and the great Len Vass (who was a controller at Farnborough in the '50s) were both on my watch at LATCC (lucky for me; I was still an ATCA 2 at that time) and both provided great inspiration giving myself and other prospective Cadets a 'pep' talk when we were selected for ATCO Cadet interviews.
I frequently met both of them later in life; when I was asked to take command of an ATC Squadron which I ran in my spare time, Mike, whose son was already one of my senior cadets, volunteered his services as an instructor and Len became SATCO Boscombe Down so we met frequently.
Although I put my name forward as a 'recruiter', my own SATCO at Farnborough always 'blocked' me saying he couldn't release me due workload or something similar thus regerettably I was unable to participate in the recruitment process.

[eglnyt]

Times have certainly changed - in my interview as part of the latest recruitment round I wasn't once asked "why do you want the job?

Personally I think these "competency-based" questions don't really prove anything apart from your ability to tell a good story, but maybe that is just me being bitter......
Were you given some things to learn? And perhaps asked how difficult you found that?

[eglnyt]

There was a question in the House of Lords this afternoon. Lord's questions are usually less political than those in the Commons and therefore more useful but do sometimes suffer from their Lordships not having the same research support to help them understand the domain.

The Government's response was from somebody that had read the brief which is unusual from this Government. From the Government's reply it would appear that NATS are still considered the solution rather than the problem but they might only enjoy that status for the next month or so. It would also seem that the shortage of staff on that shift was not just due to sickness, I'll leave others to listen to the response and draw their own conclusion as to the other factor.

Unfortunately follow up questions didn't help draw anything out because they were confusing the En-Route licensed operation with the commercial side of NATS.

[ATC Watcher]

I'll leave others to listen to the response and draw their own conclusion as to the other factor.
.
For us non Brits who are not following your parliament debates , can you tell us what this other factor is ?

[eglnyt]

For us non Brits who are not following your parliament debates , can you tell us what this other factor is ?
The minister spoke of 2 unrelated operational incidents which caused withdrawal pending review.

[parkfell]

…Although I put my name forward as a 'recruiter', my own SATCO at Farnborough always 'blocked' me saying he couldn't release me due workload or something similar thus regrettably. I was unable to participate in the recruitment process.

I believe that ATCOs should play a significant part in the recruiting of cadets.
The process must start with the ATCOs effectively validating the proposed aptitude tests, presumably designed by psychologists(?) who think they know was makes an ATCO tick.

The most successful selection for pilot training is a ‘grading course’.
BAeFC ex A2 QFIs [George, Iain, & ‘Tag’] conducted them (14 hours flying in a PA28) for Cathay students (9007 course et seq) which significantly improved the success rate. Yes, expensive but long term worth its weight in gold.

ATCO selection needs a similar process of practical assessments to demonstrate basic skills & a learning curve.
What is paramount in my view is an actual interest in some aspect of aviation.

[eglnyt]

Whilst Chevron may not have been released other controllers were released and took part. The use of controllers may have changed more recently, there are others on here who were previously involved that may be able to clarify that.

Involving Controllers in the recruitment of already qualified controllers is a no-brainer. For ab-initio it may not be so obvious. Unless controllers somehow have a hidden sense that detects the qualities that will lead to successful validation why would they be any more successful at finding the right people than anybody else? The danger is that in the absence of that hidden sense they might instead select people that remind them of themselves at that age. If your controllers are mainly male and from a certain ethnicity that may not be a good thing and could lead to issues for the hiring organisation.

We know who took the tests, we know what they scored, we know who successfully validated and who struggled. We can also assume that those who validated passed the tests at some point. Unfortunately we are missing any information on whether those who weren't selected because of their test results would have validated. Validating the tests on existing controllers wouldn't give us any more than we already know. That would need an organisation brave enough to take a selection of those that failed and put them through the course to see what happens.

[parkfell]

…..We know who took the tests, we know what they scored, we know who successfully validated and who struggled. We can also assume that those who validated passed the tests at some point. Unfortunately we are missing any information on whether those who weren't selected because of their test results would have validated. Validating the tests on existing controllers wouldn't give us any more than we already know. That would need an organisation brave enough to take a selection of those that failed and put them through the course to see what happens.

The final sentence reminds me what the RAF did I believe in the late 1960s/early 1970s? If let us say a grade C or higher was normally required to be selected for pilot training, a number of grade D candidates were also selected unbeknown to the training dept.
Nature took its course & a far greater number failed the initial JP course. This was as much about testing the integrity of the training world to ensure that the standards were being maintained before the split into fast jet/rotary/multi engine.

You could hardly imagine any commercial ANSP contemplating such a course of action…?

[chevvron]

ATCO selection needs a similar process of practical assessments to demonstrate basic skills & a learning curve.
What is paramount in my view is an actual interest in some aspect of aviation.
Like the graduate I heard of who turned up for an ATCO interview thinking he'd be standing out on the apron waving a pair of bats about?
Yes it actually happened.

[alfaman]

Whilst Chevron may not have been released other controllers were released and took part. The use of controllers may have changed more recently, there are others on here who were previously involved that may be able to clarify that.

Involving Controllers in the recruitment of already qualified controllers is a no-brainer. For ab-initio it may not be so obvious. Unless controllers somehow have a hidden sense that detects the qualities that will lead to successful validation why would they be any more successful at finding the right people than anybody else? The danger is that in the absence of that hidden sense they might instead select people that remind them of themselves at that age. If your controllers are mainly male and from a certain ethnicity that may not be a good thing and could lead to issues for the hiring organisation.

We know who took the tests, we know what they scored, we know who successfully validated and who struggled. We can also assume that those who validated passed the tests at some point. Unfortunately we are missing any information on whether those who weren't selected because of their test results would have validated. Validating the tests on existing controllers wouldn't give us any more than we already know. That would need an organisation brave enough to take a selection of those that failed and put them through the course to see what happens.
Agree, might have written that myself. I'd add, whilst the anecdotes from years gone by are mildly interesting, they don't relate to the situation as it is now. ATCOs have been actively involved in recruitment for at least the last 20 years that I know of, & the effect on the success or otherwise made little difference, in my experience. There's much more at play when it comes whether ultimately someone validates or not.

[ATC Watcher]

There's much more at play when it comes whether ultimately someone validates or not.
Indeed , and since this thread seems to have been hijacked into UK recruitment methods , let me add this anecdote from outside the UK : In the 70s, Eurocontrol Luxemburg institute saw passing dozen of ATC ab initio courses one after the other with some 10 nationalities at the time . The selection was done by a simple 1 hour interview performed by aging British nationals , the result was predictable, lots British or Irish selected and 100% white males ,( You select a clone of yourself, a well known bias ) failure rate was around 20% but traffic was very low with basic tools
In the 80s and 90s selection became more rigorous, but still no women ( or just one or two to show we were being modern ) then we went for scientific recruitments via an outside firm , and FEATS. was introduced which many other Countries did follow . result : 60-70% failure rate. .the record being a complete course in Schiphol where nobody succeeded on OJT :a 100% failure rate.
In the meantime the job changed a lot , far more traffic , modern digital tools, simulators, better coaches, , more women interested , but also a new generation of people who many consider this job as a nice way to finance their hobbies and that do not intend not work on the frequency for 35 years as most of us did.
Add a management that is focusing almost exclusively on saving money instead of being interested in providing a service , and you start to see young controllers moving out of the Ops rooms for other careers , and even trainees resigning before full validation.
​​​​​​​
Having recently discussed this with a business head hunter his assessment was : " ATC is not a very attractive profession for Generation Z and we are all fishing in the same pond, with a smaller number of fish in it " .
IT seems to ne more interesting to them , so AI and more automation might save us in the future :rolleyes:

[mike current]

The whole UK and European ATC network is crippled on a daily basis by restrictions and flow rates. A very high number of flights don't depart on time and the inbound night time rotations scheduled for midnight arrive back at UK airports at 3 in the morning.
Why the obsession with Gatwick?

[Del Prado]

The whole UK and European ATC network is crippled on a daily basis by restrictions and flow rates. A very high number of flights don't depart on time and the inbound night time rotations scheduled for midnight arrive back at UK airports at 3 in the morning.
Why the obsession with Gatwick?

Youd have to read the first page and perhaps the media from the day to better understand. The delays, cancellations and airborne diversions that day were exceptional enough to make the news and questions be asked in House of Lords.

it wasn’t originally a general moan thread, there was a specific incident.

[mike current]

Youd have to read the first page and perhaps the media from the day to better understand. The delays, cancellations and airborne diversions that day were exceptional enough to make the news and questions be asked in House of Lords.

it wasn’t originally a general moan thread, there was a specific incident.

Speaking of which.. ATC staffing causing significant delays at Gatwick as we speak :)

[eglnyt]

Speaking of which.. ATC staffing causing significant delays at Gatwick as we speak :)
Cue travellers demanding to know why it hasn't been sorted as they've had over a week to do that.

This week they've played the Covid card which is likely to upset a certain contingent even more.

[parkfell]

More delays together with diversions due staff illness (?covid)

[cura]

Such a shame to read about Gatters problems both here and also in the national press.
It's crown as being the busiest single runway ops seems to have fallen.
I remember the 80/90's when it really was flourishing, having shaken the charter airport label off and it was busy with intercontinental flights, now it looks to have gone full circle. That's sad to see.

[Alsacienne]

Can military ATC not be drafted in to help out?

[jumpseater]

Can military ATC not be drafted in to help out?

Nope. They’re not appropriately qualified, military vs civilian tower controlling is similar but very different, for example the tower/ground phraseology, it would take too long to train them, when time could be better spent training civilian licensed controllers. The military controllers would almost certainly need to do a civilian conversion course, and then the local training and validation to civilian Mats Pt1 & 2 standards for the aerodrome they would be controlling at.
I very much doubt there are ‘spare’ MoD controllers available, civilian conversion course availability, or locally rated civilian tower instructors available, even if the legal and technical challenges could be overcome in a timely manner.

[Alsacienne]

Thanks for a pertinent and clear reply.

[Del Prado]

Can military ATC not be drafted in to help out?

“Even an experienced air traffic controller takes at least nine months to qualify at Gatwick, and very few are able to do so, as Gatwick is such a busy and complex air traffic environment.”

[Equivocal]

I see from the news today that GAL are asking operators to cancel around 80 departures in the coming week. I’m curious as to how this will ameliorate the high rate of sickness. Can anyone in the know explain how things are being managed?

[chevvron]

Possibly by bandboxing; you might be able to combine (say) 'delivery' with another position for short periods thus permitting the mandatory rest periods.
As Gatwick is 'standalone' ie there is no approach control unit on site, you only have a limited number of controllers rostered for duty unlike years ago when there was an approach control unit situated downstairs in the tower and someone spare could always nip upstairs to give someone a break.

[andymartin]

Sounds as though couple of staff have the symptoms of a common cold, found an old Covid test kit in the back of the drawer left over from couple of years ago, tested and hey presto I'm positive! Perfect excuse not to come to work.

[ATC Watcher]

Perfect excuse not to come to work.
:rolleyes: except as an ATCO you do not need excuses, if you are not feeing fit to work , you simply don't and that's it
as to COVID infections on the rise, this is not only among controllers and in the UK unfortunately, look at the BA.5 variant numbers.

[Mr Good Cat]

COVID is a threat to us all.

Well, not really, but keep drinking the Kool-Aid four years on.

Funny how it doesn't affect fully-private organisations. Just inefficient, taxpayer-subsidised, dinosaur ones?

[jumpseater]

Funny how it doesn't affect fully-private organisations. Just inefficient, taxpayer-subsidised, dinosaur ones?

Its a legal requirement for any UK ATCO to declare themselves unfit for work if they are unfit, regardless of the medical condition cold/covid etc etc. Anyone who plugs in and is unfit because they’re helping out, taking one for the team will potentially be going to jail or sued out of existence if they have an incident, where their health played an issue in the chain of events.

A controller, pilot, license holder etc who declares themselves unfit due a health issue is being professional, regardless of the disruption it may cause. The amateurs around the industry need to learn that lesson and understand it.

[Del Prado]

Funny how it doesn't affect fully-private organisations. Just inefficient, taxpayer-subsidised, dinosaur ones?

NATS is part privatised, the government owns less than half. Rather than being tax payer subsidised, it regularly pays dividends to it’s shareholders, including the government.

[Luc Lion]

Can military ATC not be drafted in to help out?
Alsacienne, your avatar's name suggests that you may be French.
You may then be aware of the Nantes mid-air collision in 1973.
The replacement of civilian air controllers with military ones (plan Clément Marot) was definitely deemed to be one of the cause of the disaster.

The final report of the accident:
https://bea.aero/fileadmin/documents/docspa/1973/ec-c730305/pdf/ec-c730305_19.pdf

[parkfell]

“Even an experienced air traffic controller takes at least nine months to qualify at Gatwick, and very few are able to do so, as Gatwick is such a busy and complex air traffic environment.”

Are there any recently retired LGW ATCOs….just a thought…

[Saab Dastard]

Let's keep this on topic, please. There's a covid thread in JB for those that feel strongly about it.

[Alsacienne]

Merci beaucoup Luc Lion!

[chevvron]

Bear in mind the 'legal limit' for alchohol is far lower for controllers (and presumably aircrew) than it is for driving a car.

[Flight Master]

I think the best way to view this current situation is like a game of Jenga. Each block being a different factor in UK aviation running efficiently. Over the last few years (last decade maybe 🤔) blocks have been getting removed here and there and for a time it was okay but now it’s getting quite wobbly as more blocks shift. No one party is really to blame here and finger pointing won’t get us anywhere.

Is NATS to blame for the issues at Gatwick? Yes and no. The problem started, as it did across the company, when they ignored the upcoming retirement issues. However recruitment has mostly managed to mitigate that for now. ANS taking Gatwick messed things up there. The issue created by NATS wasn’t sorted after they lost the contract and it’s showing now that they have it back.

As mentioned Gatwick is notoriously hard to validate at so it’s not a quick fix. The fix was needed prior to NATS losing the contract and whilst ANS had it.

Will other units follow suit? That remains to be seen. Covid was the real issue. New validations weren’t possible during the pandemic. Valid ATCOs struggled to get time never mind pushing trainees through.

Could something have been sorted with NATS, the CAA and UK gov to allow things to keep moving more smoothly than they did? Probably but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

The argument regarding letting the trainees go doesn’t really float either. While I personally think they should have been kept on, from a business perspective it just didn’t make sense, particularly when the financial future of the company was unknown. We now know that the finances were sorted so it would have been okay. Again, hindsight.

Validations for trainees who weren’t let go haven’t even finished yet. So the trainees who were let go are only just coming into the live operational environment. Given that Covid financial help ended ages ago could any company have realistically been expected to keep anyone on for that length of time with no return at all? Ultimately the sacked trainees wouldn’t have made any difference to todays problems.

Regarding recruitment as far as I know the process has been streamlined and more people are coming through. This just means that the drop out rate is increasing and the trainees that do come through to live training are of a poorer quality and are struggling/failing. Is the training to blame fully? Probably not. Outdated airspace and increased demand is equally to blame.

This all comes at a time where there’s pressure to be greener and return to being profitable whilst trying to negotiate pricing with the regulator and airlines in a similar situation. Michael O Leary makes me laugh when he criticises NATS staffing levels saying it needs to improve whilst simultaneously pushing back on NATS budget and how much he needs to pay for services. Can’t have it both ways.

Does NATS have issues? Yes. But so does everyone else and it’s a lot deeper than just recruitment or training.

[mike current]

Can military ATC not be drafted in to help out?

Many civilian trainees that passed a selection process, an initial rating course, a Gatwick specific simulator transition course and 300 plus hours of live training have failed to qualify.

Military ATC training is to a lower standard so unlikely to be a solution.

The high failure rate of training is the real problem behind Gatwick shortages. Plenty of money and resources were thrown at it by the previous ANSP without success. Covid is only exacerbating the problem of an already tight roster.

[chevvron]

The high failure rate of training is the real problem behind Gatwick shortages.
This has always been the case.
I know of two controllers, already experienced elsewhere, who were posted there and were told to their faces 'we're going to make sure you fail'
It was only one or two OJTIs who would do this; most of the guys and gals there were OK. I don't know why people would do this; one of the trainees told me 'if your face didn't fit, you were failed on purpose'.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Why is Gatwick such a challenge for ATC vs LHR or MAN? Is it the single runway issue for the Tower controller?

[sheepless]

I've always thought that if a control position needs a super human to operate it then maybe the position/operation/system should be changed.

[brianj]

Why is Gatwick such a challenge for ATC vs LHR or MAN? Is it the single runway issue for the Tower controller?

At Gatwick the most difficult position for ATCO validation has always been “GROUND”. The airport manoeuvring areais relatively small in geographical size leading to lack of available stands therefore making stand occupancy a very serious problem. Aircraft then have to ground hold awaiting stands cause taxiway blockages for movements and this is worsened by the number of towed movements required to move aircraft on and off the stands. Necessary airfield works further complicate the ability to move aircraft on the ground. The airport continue to attempt to satisfy the demand for increased movements by airlines when perhaps a stop to this is put on until infrastructure is improved and maybe a second “GROUND” ATCO is established in periods. Alas there is likely to be a long wait for the necessary ATCO’s to achieve validation and meanwhile the problems will be exacerbated by the planned use of the Northern Runway for dual runway operations. Such use of the Northern Runway May of course resulting more failures for trainees validating on the “TOWER” position! At least bear in mind the increased stress on validated ATCO’s which may be an issue at present?

[chevvron]

At Gatwick the most difficult position for ATCO validation has always been “GROUND”.
Forgive me if I'm a bit out of date but at the larger airports, doesn't the 'Ground' controller work in concert with the lighting panel operater who selects/deselects the centrelines and stop bars and the two must operate in total harmony to make things work.

[FlyboyUK]

Does make me wonder sometimes whether we could do with two separate ground frequencies for different parts of the airport like a lot of other bigger airports. Sometimes it’s really hard to get a call in and lots of people not listening out and stepping on each other is a frequent issue.

[chevvron]

Does make me wonder sometimes whether we could do with two separate ground frequencies for different parts of the airport like a lot of other bigger airports. Sometimes it’s really hard to get a call in and lots of people not listening out and stepping on each other is a frequent issue.
But that would mean Gatwick Airport Ltd having to spend money; I dare say the controllers (now NATS again) have suggested it but unless there is sufficient money to fund such a thing it would fall on deaf ears.
NATS will have negotiated a contract which just about covers the present system but any increases of staffing, equipment etc would need a new contract too especially when you have to take into account extra staff on new control positions also needs extra staff to provide more extra rest periods as required by the CAA.

[Neo380]

I think the best way to view this current situation is like a game of Jenga. Each block being a different factor in UK aviation running efficiently. Over the last few years (last decade maybe 🤔) blocks have been getting removed here and there and for a time it was okay but now it’s getting quite wobbly as more blocks shift. No one party is really to blame here and finger pointing won’t get us anywhere.

Is NATS to blame for the issues at Gatwick? Yes and no. The problem started, as it did across the company, when they ignored the upcoming retirement issues. However recruitment has mostly managed to mitigate that for now. ANS taking Gatwick messed things up there. The issue created by NATS wasn’t sorted after they lost the contract and it’s showing now that they have it back.

As mentioned Gatwick is notoriously hard to validate at so it’s not a quick fix. The fix was needed prior to NATS losing the contract and whilst ANS had it.

Will other units follow suit? That remains to be seen. Covid was the real issue. New validations weren’t possible during the pandemic. Valid ATCOs struggled to get time never mind pushing trainees through.

Could something have been sorted with NATS, the CAA and UK gov to allow things to keep moving more smoothly than they did? Probably but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

The argument regarding letting the trainees go doesn’t really float either. While I personally think they should have been kept on, from a business perspective it just didn’t make sense, particularly when the financial future of the company was unknown. We now know that the finances were sorted so it would have been okay. Again, hindsight.

Validations for trainees who weren’t let go haven’t even finished yet. So the trainees who were let go are only just coming into the live operational environment. Given that Covid financial help ended ages ago could any company have realistically been expected to keep anyone on for that length of time with no return at all? Ultimately the sacked trainees wouldn’t have made any difference to todays problems.

Regarding recruitment as far as I know the process has been streamlined and more people are coming through. This just means that the drop out rate is increasing and the trainees that do come through to live training are of a poorer quality and are struggling/failing. Is the training to blame fully? Probably not. Outdated airspace and increased demand is equally to blame.

This all comes at a time where there’s pressure to be greener and return to being profitable whilst trying to negotiate pricing with the regulator and airlines in a similar situation. Michael O Leary makes me laugh when he criticises NATS staffing levels saying it needs to improve whilst simultaneously pushing back on NATS budget and how much he needs to pay for services. Can’t have it both ways.

Does NATS have issues? Yes. But so does everyone else and it’s a lot deeper than just recruitment or training.

What a truly pathetic list of excuses.

So '127 qualified trainees would have made no difference to the current staffing shortage', etc. Really?!

Go and have a look at yourself in the mirror please 'FlightMaster' (in case you're unsure you're checking for integrity).

[ATC Watcher]

What a truly pathetic list of excuses.

So '127 qualified trainees would have made no difference to the current staffing shortage', etc. Really?!


I am am not familiar with the Gatwick situation but I can very well compare staff shortages, complexity of work positions , ability to accept trainees on OJT and training failures rates. which are similar to my old Centre environment. And then the points made by Flight master are all relevant.
A few facts of life in ATC.
1- the more complex the traffic situation , the longer it takes to validate and the higher the failure rate will be. .
2- The longer it takes to validate the more OJT ( e.g. Coaching on live traffic) you will need. and there are only so much positions you can put a trainee on.
3- More trainees arriving in one go mean less training time OJT for each , =even longer training times and more demand on available coaches.
4- if your departure rate exceed trainees income, you will have people just finished validating being promoted to coaches themselves to train the new arriving trainees, This leads to dilution of expertise.

This is a perfect vicious circle if your ability to train new people to replace departures and the raise of traffic has not been planned correctly many years before. Cancelling 127 trainees ( and I wonder how many of those 127 were planned for Gatwick) was indeed a mistake in hindsight., Even more so since the traffic rebounded to post 2019 levels in almost one go,, which was definitively not what was expected in 2020. Hindsight is a wonderful thing to apportion blame.

One thing could really help : a complete redesigning of the airspace to be it more simple to operate , to make training easier and faster.

Finally this is not a UK thing ,almost everybody operating complex ATC systems is in the same situation . in Europe the German DFS is one of them , and the US/FAA at its large complex facilities. Look at the staff shortage and failure rate in New York ARTCC , Towers and Tracon .

[andymartin]

What a truly pathetic list of excuses.

So '127 qualified trainees would have made no difference to the current staffing shortage', etc. Really?!

Go and have a look at yourself in the mirror please 'FlightMaster' (in case you're unsure you're checking for integrity).
Hear hear. Surely the most basic requirement of any business is to recruit, train and retain enough staff!? You can't blame Covid for ever.

[eglnyt]

What a truly pathetic list of excuses.

So '127 qualified trainees would have made no difference to the current staffing shortage', etc. Really?!

Go and have a look at yourself in the mirror please 'FlightMaster' (in case you're unsure you're checking for integrity).

Whatever your views on the 127 nobody posting on here has any evidence one way or the other to say whether keeping them would have made any difference in this situation.

If NATS has had enough suitable trainees to put through the process at Gatwick since they regained the contract then releasing the trainees during the pandemic is not a factor. None of us have seen the action plan agreed between NATS and Gatwick so we don't know who is currently going through the system or, if they are ab-initio recruits, which ATC College produced them.

There is a hole in the system which would have occurred whether or not the trainees were retained. At the time with the contact restrictions in place, both legally and necessary to protect the operation, nobody was able to carry out the on the job training required to turn ATC College graduates into actual controllers. The final stages at the College also involve close contact between instructor and student so they would have been stuck on that few weeks from graduation for quite some time.

[Dan Dare]

With reference to the "127 qualified trainees" I would be truly astounded if any organisation anywhere in the world was keeping staff during COVID just in case they won a contract at sometime in the the future for an organisation short of staff. NATS have only recently regained the Gatwick contract and ANS for their whole time there were trying to train people fast enough to match their needs.

A unit the size of Gatwick can't sensibly have more than 5 active trainees at a time. Training takes about a year and there will always be some attrition so it would be a good year when you get 4 new qualified ATCOs. These also have to replace people moving on/burn-out/retirements/loss of medical/etc.so it would be surprising of they can be fully staffed by the 2030s. Hindsight is a marvellous thing, but maybe airports and ANSPs should do their best not to get short staffed in the first place.

[eglnyt]

I am am not familiar with the Gatwick situation but I can very well compare staff shortages, complexity of work positions , ability to accept trainees on OJT and training failures rates. which are similar to my old Centre environment. And then the points made by Flight master are all relevant.
A few facts of life in ATC.
1- the more complex the traffic situation , the longer it takes to validate and the higher the failure rate will be. .
2- The longer it takes to validate the more OJT ( e.g. Coaching on live traffic) you will need. and there are only so much positions you can put a trainee on.
3- More trainees arriving in one go mean less training time OJT for each , =even longer training times and more demand on available coaches.
4- if your departure rate exceed trainees income, you will have people just finished validating being promoted to coaches themselves to train the new arriving trainees, This leads to dilution of expertise.

This is a perfect vicious circle if your ability to train new people to replace departures and the raise of traffic has not been planned correctly many years before. Cancelling 127 trainees ( and I wonder how many of those 127 were planned for Gatwick) was indeed a mistake in hindsight., Even more so since the traffic rebounded to post 2019 levels in almost one go,, which was definitively not what was expected in 2020. Hindsight is a wonderful thing to apportion blame.
.
None of those 127 were planned for Gatwick. At the time NATS didn't have the contract for Gatwick and it wasn't expected to be renewed until 2026. Any student controllers intended for Gatwick would have been at Langen or another College if ANS were using independent colleges.

[Flight Master]

What a truly pathetic list of excuses.

So '127 qualified trainees would have made no difference to the current staffing shortage', etc. Really?!

Go and have a look at yourself in the mirror please 'FlightMaster' (in case you're unsure you're checking for integrity).
I would love to know what NATS have done to you to make you so bitter.

I specifically said I thought sacking them was the wrong idea from a personal standpoint. I think it was absolutely shocking.

However being able to see the bigger picture rather than just jumping to oh NATS are the devil doesn’t suggest a lack of integrity by any means.

For the record you wouldn’t have 127 qualified trainees ready to combat the staff shortage. You would have 127 (minus failures) trainees who have passed through the college and are ready to start on the job training. The overwhelming majority of these trainees were en route and wouldn’t be able to impact anything. The ones who were airports would have been posted prior to the Gatwick contract changing hands so the answer to how many of them would be earmarked for Gatwick is a massive ZERO.

As stated the trainees who had reached this stage already and weren’t let go are only just validating. Let’s not ignore the fact that those close to validating pre Covid needed to start OJT from near enough the beginning after Covid due to the CAA requiring this and traffic levels meant they couldn’t just jump back to where they were. The 127 would not be anywhere near this stage unless they were the few who ended up at an airport.

Ultimately the staff shortages at NATS are their own fault. But this has been in the making for well over a decade. There are however a huge number of additional factors that have contributed to making this worse in certain places.

[SWBKCB]

But if the 127 had completed their training they would have increased the pool of available controllers at a time of national (international?) shortage and allow people to move around the system. Yes, maybe the current shortage couldn't be predicted, but binning people so near to the end of training looks short sighted.

[Del Prado]

But if the 127 had completed their training they would have increased the pool of available controllers at a time of national (international?) shortage and allow people to move around the system. Yes, maybe the current shortage couldn't be predicted, but binning people so near to the end of training looks short sighted.

It was explained earlier that NERL (the regulated business) can’t recruit and train controllers and then pass them to NATS solutions (the low cost arm? which recently won the gatwick contract) because that would give an unfair commercial advantage to NATS solutions.
Like it or not, ATC at airfields is a competitive environment.
Perhaps it’s this race to cut costs and win contracts that caused the staff shortages at Gatwick which NATS very recently inherited from the previous ATC provider.

[eglnyt]

But if the 127 had completed their training they would have increased the pool of available controllers at a time of national (international?) shortage and allow people to move around the system. Yes, maybe the current shortage couldn't be predicted, but binning people so near to the end of training looks short sighted.
They were near the end of their college phase. They were still a long way from being "available" controllers. The next stage of training has traditionally been the bottleneck and it is not unusual for college graduates to be held in limbo for some time before they can proceed to that phase. The constraints of the pandemic were only going to make that bottleneck worse.

[chevvron]

I did the 3 year ATCO Cadet course back in the '70s.
Why does everything nowadays sound so complicated compared to that?

[1985]

They were near the end of their college phase. They were still a long way from being "available" controllers. The next stage of training has traditionally been the bottleneck and it is not unusual for college graduates to be held in limbo for some time before they can proceed to that phase. The constraints of the pandemic were only going to make that bottleneck worse.

Hardly any were even at the end of the college. Maybe 20? had finished the course or coming up to summatives. The rest were on basic or foundation courses so the normal attrition rate would have happened on those courses.

In hindsight it was a massive mistake to get rid of them and not retain them so that when the tap needed turning on again they were waiting to go. That may have helped at other units especially AC and TC.

As has been said NO trainees from the college can be posted to Gatwick as the contract is legally with another company not NATS. Any trainee from the college has to volunteer to quit NATS and be employed by NATS Solutions on a worse contract and no backup options if they fail to validate. I'm presuming that Gatwick knew this when NATS stepped in and if they didn't either NATS didn't tell them or they didn't read the contract. Or that NATS Solutions didn't know they couldn't get trainees from NATS.

But as we are fully staffed and we don't turn up to work anyway (according to MOL) more trainees probably aren't the answer....

[Neo380]

C’mon guys this is nothing short of dissembling….

The ‘ex-NATS’ validators as GTW ensured the trainees failed:

a. The data point is 21/23

b. The incentive was the £1,000 per diem ‘overtime’ they earned when there were insufficient staff

NERL and NATS Solutions are contracting entities, do you honestly, really, hope anyone will believe you that no staff were able to move between contracts? (Mirror again, please).

[chevvron]

NERL and NATS Solutions are contracting entities, do you honestly, really, hope anyone will believe you that no staff were able to move between contracts. (Mirror again, please).
From what I understand (and I may be wrong) NERL trained controllers primarily for Area Radar not aerodromes; NSL trained controllers would have been suitable to fulfil NATS Solutions contracts.

[1985]

C’mon guys this is nothing short of dissembling….

The ‘ex-NATS’ validators as GTW ensured the trainees failed:

a. The data point is 21/23

b. The incentive was the £1,000 per diem ‘overtime’ they earned when there were insufficient staff

NERL and NATS Solutions are contracting entities, do you honestly, really, hope anyone will believe you that no staff were able to move between contracts. (Mirror again, please).

I have no idea whether the OJTIs at EGKK failed people on purpose. Even with £1K overtime I have no idea why they'd want to.

NERL is not, has never been and never will be a contracting entity for airports. NERL is for the regulated en route side of NATS.

NSL is the existing part of NATS that bids for airports (it does EGLL for example) and lost EGKK originally.

NATS Solutions is a third entity that bids for airports but in some way that I'm not sure of can be cheaper than NSL because it has less overheads to pass onto the contracts. It provides services to mainly ex mil airfields. And now EGKK
​​​​​​
NSL and NERL are part of NATS. Trainees at the college are employed by NATS.

NATS Solutions are legally not part of NATS. Hence trainees employed by NATS can't be sent to work at EGKK. They have to volunteer to be sent there on worse T&C's. The Union rightly made sure that they have to volunteer, quit and be re-employed to get to EGKK. Just posting someone from one employment contract to another (that is worse) is not a slope we or anyone want to start down.

[Neo380]

‘I have no idea whether the OJTIs at EGKK failed people on purpose. Even with £1K overtime I have no idea why they'd want to.’

I’m going to call that comment completely disingenuous, and that’s just because this is a professional discussion forum.

[1985]

‘I have no idea whether the OJTIs at EGKK failed people on purpose. Even with £1K overtime I have no idea why they'd want to.’

I’m going to call that comment completely disingenuous, and that’s just because this is a professional discussion forum.

You can call it whatever you want. I know what you are implying and that in my opinion is just flat out rubbish. It's as bad as MOL implying that we don't turn up for work because we were pissed the night before.

My unit is understaffed and we are trying to train our way out of it. Overtime at a not too dissimilar rate is available and I can categorically say that no trainee is being failed so the OJTIs can get more overtime. No ATCO wants to work harder and do more shifts at work if they don't have to. What we want is for the trainees to validate so that we can do our job and go home and not think about it. If EGKK has had trouble validating trainees I'll trust my colleagues to have done their best to get them to the standard required and unfortunately fail them if they don't. We are professionals and to say otherwise is pretty crappy.

[Flight Master]

I think it’s safe to say neo is just a troll who has been upset by NATS. Actually wondering if it’s MOL himself?

Anyone who actually knows what they are talking about knows that staff shortage doesn’t need to be engineered at the company for overtime to happen right now and they also know that £1000 is not the number at Gatwick.

[Neo380]

You can call it whatever you want. I know what you are implying and that in my opinion is just flat out rubbish. It's as bad as MOL implying that we don't turn up for work because we were pissed the night before.

My unit is understaffed and we are trying to train our way out of it. Overtime at a not too dissimilar rate is available and I can categorically say that no trainee is being failed so the OJTIs can get more overtime. No ATCO wants to work harder and do more shifts at work if they don't have to. What we want is for the trainees to validate so that we can do our job and go home and not think about it. If EGKK has had trouble validating trainees I'll trust my colleagues to have done their best to get them to the standard required and unfortunately fail them if they don't. We are professionals and to say otherwise is pretty crappy.

Well, that's the opinion of the trainees - having taken them over when they were 'failed', just so that they could validate somewhere. Plus the money is the explanation, and letting ANS's contract 'fail' so that it could revert to NATS.

You fail to mention that many of these staff were on loan from NATS to ANS. So, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks, it's a duck.

Plus failing 21 out of 23 was way too unsubtle, (or demonstrates that the OJTIs couldn't do their jobs).

'I think he doth protest too much' (Shakespeare). The fact is the story's rumbled; but like ever NATS commentator on here, you have an excuse for everything, even when the truth is staring you in the face.

[zonoma]

NATS Solutions, NATS NERL, and NATS NSL are different companies. That alone blows most of the negatives here out of place. Including the "127" that could never be posted to Gatwick.......

[Rwy1234]

I know of two British ATCOs with a lot of relative experience (20 years experience each) now working abroad at very busy units that applied for Gatwick last year are were turned down. Having worked with both for many years I know they are very able ATCOs and ones you would want on your team, I thought it was very strange that both were turned down at the same step, knowing how far up the creek Gatwick now is I find turning these two down even more strange.

[Neo380]

I know of two British ATCOs with a lot of relative experience (20 years experience each) now working abroad at very busy units that applied for Gatwick last year are were turned down. Having worked with both for many years I know they are very able ATCOs and ones you would want on your team, I thought it was very strange that both were turned down at the same step, knowing how far up the creek Gatwick now is I find turning these two down even more strange.

A colleague spent 3 hours on the tarmac at Gatwick at 11pm on Monday (returning from Airspace Integration World, Madrid), which was enough to put me off from attending. So well done!

We are relying on public ignorance to get away with ‘staffing shortages’ as an excuse for bad planning - your comment only supports this. RyanAir also knows it’s the case, but with dissembling on this scale they could never bring a successful case (for breach of contract?) or win with the CAA.

There is zero integrity in this situation though - if the Met Police, for instance, said they had organised themselves into ‘foot patrol, vehicle and office staff’, and consequently didn’t have the people to meet your critical need there would be outrage. Some of the commentators on this thread need to reflect on that.

And ‘the data’s the data’. It was 127 ATCO apprentices that were let go, some of them were two weeks from qualifying and had been more than two years ‘in the system’. And the validation FAILURE rate at Gatwick exceeded 90% (for a factual reason).

[ATC Watcher]

Amazing remarks. I like the police comparison by the way , so if an airline has a shortage of pilots , he could go into an aeroclub and put C152s pilots instead ?, and if you are short of staff in Gatwick you can take a guy from the UAE above 40 years old ( if they had 20 years experience they would be at least that old ) to pass OJT in a high density facility ? You know the time it takes to train and the failure rate of a conversion controller above 40 ?

NATS Solutions, NATS NERL, and NATS NSL are different companies
as a non Brit I fail to understand this NATS complexity. Sounds ;like a banking verbiage to avoid taxes and responsibility . Are these companies also registered in funny countries? .

For me , the UK put Gatwick ATC for auction some years ago , the DFS got it, but took over the controllers., Then the DFS stopped before the end of the contract (not a surprise if you know how the DFS works) so it came back to NATS, again with the same staff . So for me the current controller situation has nothing to do with this musical chair exercise , or does it ?

[Neo380]

Amazing remarks. I like the police comparison by the way , so if an airline has a shortage of pilots , he could go into an aeroclub and put C152s pilots instead ?, and if you are short of staff in Gatwick you can take a guy from the UAE above 40 years old ( if they had 20 years experience they would be at least that old ) to pass OJT in a high density facility ? You know the time it takes to train and the failure rate of a conversion controller above 40 ?


as a non Brit I fail to understand this NATS complexity. Sounds ;like a banking verbiage to avoid taxes and responsibility . Are these companies also registered in funny countries? .

For me , the UK put Gatwick ATC for auction some years ago , the DFS got it, but took over the controllers., Then the DFS stopped before the end of the contract (not a surprise if you know how the DFS works) so it came back to NATS, again with the same staff . So for me the current controller situation has nothing to do with this musical chair exercise , or does it ?

Nope - same people, same school, same knowledge. They just need to validate on a new airport. This is all about poor planning, not excuses.

[eglnyt]

Amazing remarks. I like the police comparison by the way , so if an airline has a shortage of pilots , he could go into an aeroclub and put C152s pilots instead ?, and if you are short of staff in Gatwick you can take a guy from the UAE above 40 years old ( if they had 20 years experience they would be at least that old ) to pass OJT in a high density facility ? You know the time it takes to train and the failure rate of a conversion controller above 40 ?


as a non Brit I fail to understand this NATS complexity. Sounds ;like a banking verbiage to avoid taxes and responsibility . Are these companies also registered in funny countries? .

For me , the UK put Gatwick ATC for auction some years ago , the DFS got it, but took over the controllers., Then the DFS stopped before the end of the contract (not a surprise if you know how the DFS works) so it came back to NATS, again with the same staff . So for me the current controller situation has nothing to do with this musical chair exercise , or does it ?

For the benefit of our foreign readers, and some UK ones too.

In the UK ATC at Airports is the "responsibility" of the Airport. Some Airports choose to provide their own ATC others contract that out to a "specialist" ATC provider. The number varies from time to time but there are about 50 Air Navigation Service Providers recognised by the CAA. The Airport is free to choose on whatever terms it feels are appropriate and the Service Level Agreement will depend upon what they are willing to pay for. It is ultimately the Airports problem if the supplier fails to deliver but it isn't without risk for the ANSP either. The public will expect an expensive ATC service even if the airport doesn't pay for one. And in the Gatwick case although some here have convinced themselves it is all the fault of NATS and others have decided it isn't in any way the fault of NATS, the public are totally convinced it's the fault of NATS. Although NATS regularly gets blamed for issues at airports it has never provide the ATC service for.

En-Route ATC is the "responsibility" of the UK Government. It issues a licence to an ATC Provider to provide that service. The licence lasts for about 15 years and the terms of that licence are re-negotiated every 5 years. Currently that licence is held by NATS through its NERL subsidary.

Because En_Route ATC is quite a large business compared to Airport ATC there was concern that the holder of that licence could use the income from that to subsidise its Airport Business and compete unfairly. To prevent that NATS is required to run the part of its business that controls en-route airspace (NERL) as a different financial entity to the part of its business that competes against others for Airport's business (NSL). There was also the problem that NERL's profits are regulated and ultimately any excess profit is returned to the customer. That's fine for a regulated monopoly but where NATS operates commercially and competes against others it would have no incentive to compete if any profit was taken away.

NATS staff are in the main actually employed by a parent company and then "charged" out to one of the two subsidaries depending on their role. The total costs of any staff used in NSL have to be paid for by the NSL subsidary.

If you win a contract at an Airport previously held by another company you are almost certainly going to inherit most of the staff. They will be on different terms and conditions to NSL staff. Not necessarily worse but different. Merging two different sets of terms and conditions is difficult but you'd have to do that to bring those staff into NSL. To avoid that problem NATS chooses to bid for that business through NATS Solutions rather than NSL. NATS Solutions doesn't have the collective bargaining terms and conditions that NSL has so it can bring staff across much easier and indeed transfer them away again if it later loses the contract. That arrangement is not unique to NATS. DFS bid for Gatwick and Edinburgh through their subsidary ANS which was set up for pretty much the same reasons.

All these companies are UK registered at the same address although nowadays the "brass plate" is some letraset on a window.

It wasn't the UK that put Gatwick up for auction. Gatwick is a private company owned by shareholders. None of those shareholders are actually British so it was actually a foreign owned entity that selected a subsidary of a company wholly owned by the German Government to provide their ATC service.

We don't know, because it isn't in the public domain, exactly when the problems started at Gatwick. Without knowing that we don't know whether it is NATS or ANS or Both who are responsible.

[eglnyt]

Nope - same people, same school, same knowledge. They just need to validate on a new airport. This is all about poor planning, not excuses.

"Just" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

[ATC Watcher]

Thank you for your explanations eglnyt ; I learned something here.
when you say :
It wasn't the UK that put Gatwick up for auction. Gatwick is a private company owned by shareholders. None of those shareholders are actually British so it was actually a foreign owned entity that selected a subsidiary of a company wholly owned by the German Government to provide their ATC service
I suppose MOL knows this too ,in fact he does exactly the same with his companies , some located in Malta and elsewhere. It you want a free liberal market, you get what you asked for, so why is he barking at NATS and asking his compatriot friend to resign ?

[eglnyt]

Thank you for your explanations eglnyt ; I learned something here.
when you say :

I suppose MOL knows this too ,in fact he does exactly the same with his companies , some located in Malta and elsewhere. It you want a free liberal market, you get what you asked for, so why is he barking at NATS and asking his compatriot friend to resign ?
He may be loud but he is neither mad or stupid. He's well briefed and he knows exactly how it all works. It just suits his narrative to portray others as the problem.

Ironically because of Brexit he was forced to create a British subsidary of his Irish Airline to operate his British domestic routes.

[Neo380]

For the benefit of our foreign readers, and some UK ones too.

In the UK ATC at Airports is the "responsibility" of the Airport. Some Airports choose to provide their own ATC others contract that out to a "specialist" ATC provider. The number varies from time to time but there are about 50 Air Navigation Service Providers recognised by the CAA. The Airport is free to choose on whatever terms it feels are appropriate and the Service Level Agreement will depend upon what they are willing to pay for. It is ultimately the Airports problem if the supplier fails to deliver but it isn't without risk for the ANSP either. The public will expect an expensive ATC service even if the airport doesn't pay for one. And in the Gatwick case although some here have convinced themselves it is all the fault of NATS and others have decided it isn't in any way the fault of NATS, the public are totally convinced it's the fault of NATS. Although NATS regularly gets blamed for issues at airports it has never provide the ATC service for.

En-Route ATC is the "responsibility" of the UK Government. It issues a licence to an ATC Provider to provide that service. The licence lasts for about 15 years and the terms of that licence are re-negotiated every 5 years. Currently that licence is held by NATS through its NERL subsidary.

Because En_Route ATC is quite a large business compared to Airport ATC there was concern that the holder of that licence could use the income from that to subsidise its Airport Business and compete unfairly. To prevent that NATS is required to run the part of its business that controls en-route airspace (NERL) as a different financial entity to the part of its business that competes against others for Airport's business (NSL). There was also the problem that NERL's profits are regulated and ultimately any excess profit is returned to the customer. That's fine for a regulated monopoly but where NATS operates commercially and competes against others it would have no incentive to compete if any profit was taken away.

NATS staff are in the main actually employed by a parent company and then "charged" out to one of the two subsidaries depending on their role. The total costs of any staff used in NSL have to be paid for by the NSL subsidary.

If you win a contract at an Airport previously held by another company you are almost certainly going to inherit most of the staff. They will be on different terms and conditions to NSL staff. Not necessarily worse but different. Merging two different sets of terms and conditions is difficult but you'd have to do that to bring those staff into NSL. To avoid that problem NATS chooses to bid for that business through NATS Solutions rather than NSL. NATS Solutions doesn't have the collective bargaining terms and conditions that NSL has so it can bring staff across much easier and indeed transfer them away again if it later loses the contract. That arrangement is not unique to NATS. DFS bid for Gatwick and Edinburgh through their subsidary ANS which was set up for pretty much the same reasons.

All these companies are UK registered at the same address although nowadays the "brass plate" is some letraset on a window.

It wasn't the UK that put Gatwick up for auction. Gatwick is a private company owned by shareholders. None of those shareholders are actually British so it was actually a foreign owned entity that selected a subsidary of a company wholly owned by the German Government to provide their ATC service.

We don't know, because it isn't in the public domain, exactly when the problems started at Gatwick. Without knowing that we don't know whether it is NATS or ANS or Both who are responsible.

Yes, it’s a competitive environment, but we do know exactly when, how and why it went wrong. And even NERL has to justify it costs, so when at Reporting Period 3 it was asked to enact performance improvements, a very normal business practice, and replied that ‘it was not in the country’s or the business’s (sic) interests to do that’, we saw exactly the non-competitive, market-rigging stranglehold NATS has on the ‘market’ for what it is. (Apologies, but not really, if the truth hurts).

[eglnyt]

Yes, it’s a competitive environment, but we do know exactly when, how and why it went wrong. And even NERL has to justify it costs, so when at Reporting Period 3 it was asked to enact performance improvements, a very normal business practice, and replied that ‘it was not in the country’s or the business’s (sic) interests to do that’, we saw exactly the non-competitive, market-rigging stranglehold NATS has on the ‘market’ for what it is. (Apologies, but not really, if the truth hurts).
We've had this discussion before on a different thread and it is in no way relevant to whatever is happening at Gatwick but for the benefit of those who didn't plough through that thread.

The amount that NATS is allowed to charge for its en-route services, ie the Eurocontrol unit charge, is set every 5 years. The CAA sets the rate, the customers (airlines) and NATS and others submit their contributions to that process and the CAA produces a draft recommendation. NATS can accept that recommendation or appeal. If it wishes it can apply to the Competitions and Marketing Authority for a review, that is the arbitration body laid down in the process.

It would come as no surprise to anybody that the customers, one in particular, and NATS have opposing views as to what the price should be. NATS is entitled to fight its corner during that process and, having accepted well below the rate of inflation price increases in the previous periods, decided to do so for RP3. It was up to the CAA and ultimately the CMA to decide if they had a valid point. It is a monopoly which is why it is regulated. That doesn't mean NATS can't make its point forcefully if it chooses to do so. Ultimately a pandemic threw the market up in the air so we will never know who was right. And if you want a company to have a long term investment you have to give it a long enough licence period to allow it to fund that investment. You could call it a stranglehold but it's an inevitable outcome if you want to remove investment from the public purse.

[Neo380]

We've had this discussion before on a different thread and it is in no way relevant to whatever is happening at Gatwick but for the benefit of those who didn't plough through that thread.

The amount that NATS is allowed to charge for its en-route services, ie the Eurocontrol unit charge, is set every 5 years. The CAA sets the rate, the customers (airlines) and NATS and others submit their contributions to that process and the CAA produces a draft recommendation. NATS can accept that recommendation or appeal. If it wishes it can apply to the Competitions and Marketing Authority for a review, that is the arbitration body laid down in the process.

It would come as no surprise to anybody that the customers, one in particular, and NATS have opposing views as to what the price should be. NATS is entitled to fight its corner during that process and, having accepted well below the rate of inflation price increases in the previous periods, decided to do so for RP3. It was up to the CAA and ultimately the CMA to decide if they had a valid point. It is a monopoly which is why it is regulated. That doesn't mean NATS can't make its point forcefully if it chooses to do so. Ultimately a pandemic threw the market up in the air so we will never know who was right. And if you want a company to have a long term investment you have to give it a long enough licence period to allow it to fund that investment. You could call it a stranglehold but it's an inevitable outcome if you want to remove investment from the public purse.

The investment should still offer value for money, otherwise you’re simply gouging passengers who are ultimately your only source of revenue - yes, we did discuss it in a previous thread, and I pointed out £100m projects where 90% of activities were unnecessary, so despite your weasel/corporate PR words, yet again, your arguments try to deny the facts!

[eglnyt]

The investment should still offer value for money, otherwise you’re simply gouging passengers who are ultimately your only source of revenue - yes, we did discuss it in a previous thread, and I pointed out £100m projects where 90% of activities were unnecessary, so despite your weasel/corporate PR words, yet again, your arguments try to deny the facts!
I wouldn't disagree with the objective. You may consider that it currently doesn't but capital expenditure is all part of the pricing process. The Investment Plan is submitted as part of the process, independently reviewed by an organisation of the CAA's choosing, subject to comment by all stakeholders and them forms part of the licence conditions for that charging period. Whether that process works to deliver value for money is a matter for others not NATS.

If NATS fails to deliver the improvement promised in its investment plan it will ultimately suffer because those expected improvements will guide the expected price next time around.

[Neo380]

I wouldn't disagree with the objective. You may consider that it currently doesn't but capital expenditure is all part of the pricing process. The Investment Plan is submitted as part of the process, independently reviewed by an organisation of the CAA's choosing, subject to comment by all stakeholders and them forms part of the licence conditions for that charging period. Whether that process works to deliver value for money is a matter for others not NATS.

If NATS fails to deliver the improvement promised in its investment plan it will ultimately suffer because those expected improvements will guide the expected price next time around.

Ever time, you deflect responsibility from NATS, are they entirely unaccountable?

The 90%/£90m cost was because one (NATS, senior) person's bonus depended on spending that much - so he was hardly likely to expose, any more than you are, that it was a complete waste of money!

So this was ENTIRELY NATS fault, nobody else's. And there is no evidence that NATS 'suffered' any consequences whatsoever. We know what happened to the 'expected price next time round' - NATS refused to improve on it!

[eglnyt]

Ever time, you deflect responsibility from NATS, are they entirely unaccountable?

The 90%/£90m cost was because one (NATS, senior) person's bonus depended on spending that much - so he was hardly likely to expose, any more than you are, that it was a complete waste of money!

So this was ENTIRELY NATS fault, nobody else's. And there is no evidence that NATS 'suffered' any consequences whatsoever. We know what happened to the 'expected price next time round' - NATS refused to improve on it!
There will be wastage and pet projects that shouldn't have been approved in any organisation of that size. But that's 65% of annual capital spend & 15% of the spend in a charging period. To pass that under the nose of the Regulator, Independent Reviewer, the customers and the shareholders (who fund part of the spend through retained profits) and not get found out is quite a feat.

[chevvron]

The problems started with the initial change from Nats to ANS.
I can't recall the exact numbers but about 7 Atcos (20%) took the option of staying with Nats - - GAL knew this was a possible outcome but took the risk anyway.


GAL took a risk on a new atc provider knowing atco levels could plummet to extremely difficult levels.
It has backfired spectacularly. They have tried to rectify this by bringing Nats back but the problem is far bigger than any of them wish to admit.

It's happened in the past; a new ATS provider bids for a contract assuming that almost all the people in post will be willing to transfer.
At Boscombe Down in 1992 for instance, the company which 'won' the contract knew they had only previously provided APP and had little experience of APS provision and then only about 2 of the incumbents elected to transfer from NATS and they were due to retire within a few years anyway. This meant the 'new' provider had to try to get APS rated controllers in to train up and were unable to get enough suitably rated controllers with the required experience hence in this particular case as the operations were already military orientated albeit using civilian staff the RAF were asked to take over the contract.
In another case I heard of, the 'new' provider decided that he could provide the service with fewer controllers and when the contract commenced, the new provider fired all the controllers then offered contracts to a few of the remaining ones.