State of NATS

[Mak]

Hi all,

As a new pilot, I have obvious interest in the state of NATS. However I have failed to get a clear picture of the situation from the newspapers. From my badly informed position the privatisation seems to have turned a reasonably managed business that made no significant profit or loss into a massively indebted operation. Can someone shed some light on how we came to this situation?

In the meanwhile thanks to all ATCOs here for keeping up a good service under whatever working conditions you've been thrown into.

Mak

[BDiONU]

NATS was sold by the government and the price was borrowed by NATS to pay the government and is now the millstone around its neck, a debt of approx £70billion.
Previously NATS was a profitable company, the en-route fees more than covered its costs and allowed for future investment. Now the repayments on our huge debt mean that we don't have the money for investment we previously had. Selling us off was allegedly to allow us easier access to the money markets and the ability to invest properly in our business. No-one wants to loan money to a company who's debts are hugely leveraged!! Sigh!!
My viewpoint, please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Llamapoo]

I agree with your viewpoint, but is the debt really 70 BILLION? That's phenomenal! Anybody who wants to be a politician should really be prohibited from being one, because they obviously don't have the brains they were born with:mad: !

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<However I have failed to get a clear picture of the situation from the newspapers. >>

Did you honestly expect to?

Llamapoo - how right you are about politicians!

[Not Long Now]

I think you'll find it's around £700 million rather than the billions. The airlines actually stumped up around £50 million and borrowed the rest through NATS, hence the stupidly large debt, which has arisen from buying itself!

And as for the 'massively needed' investment, well some, infact quite a lot, went on penalty clauses paid to contractors when NATS cancelled lots of development projects. What a great deal for everyone!!!!!!

[jocko0102]

Kenny visited us the other day and was like a politician very evaisive.
We are in financial **** and management are concentrating on reducing the debt so investement etc are not a priority.
NATS is going nowhere apart from down the pan.
All he would say about idiot boy and his 62k was that it was in his contract.
Well thats ok then!!!

[tug3]

Although NATS doesn't pass on dividends to shareholders - it is run on a "not-for-profit" basis after all - what cash is left over at the end of the day goes to manage the company's debts and therefore NOT for the investment it so badly needs.

All Tony Blur and his cronies have done is throw back over £100 million of of the £750 million they got for selling NATS in the hope that the problems and the headlines go away. (Fat chance!!). God only knows what's in it for BAA to have them bother to stump up their most recent cash injection. (If I had shares in BAA I'd be asking a whole lot of questions at the next shareholder's AGM).

Ryanair may be the first airline bitching openly about the current state of NATS but I'm sure they won't be the last.

Rgds
T3

[Konkordski]

NATS is currently looking at a £230 million shortfall over the next five years.

Its latest plan is to cut the present debt to £600m by getting BAA and the Government to come up with £130m (split between the two).

While this will help relieve some of the pressure, it is acknowledged that the remaining debt will still be a huge burden and will require a fair amount of financial jiggery-pokery (including renegotiation of lending terms) to address in the long term.

It's also not entirely clear what BAA stands to gain for its £65m contribution.

In the meantime NATS wants to put a new set of charges in place (the ones which the CAA is now recommending) in order to help rebalance the books. Airlines won't like the fee hike, but what's the alternative?

[Nogbad the Bad]

State of NATS ???????

Well, let's put it this way Mak - what have you got to look forward to from NATS in the next few years :

Delays, delays and MORE delays (ALL attributable to NATS "management")

A work force that is fast becoming EXTREMELY p*ssed off at the flak that THEY are getting (ALL attributable to NATS "management")

NO improvements in the service provided, as NATS staffing levels will not improve in the forseeable future (ALL attributable to NATS "management")

But it's OK though, Mak, because NATS "management" believe themselves to be so GOOD, and the state of NATS will always be absolutely excellent........

.......so no worries there, then !! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[BDiONU]

We are not in a parlous state at all for next year, according to our esteemed leader:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2490425.stm

Not sure how we've managed to go from 30-40 ATCO's short this summer to only being a dozen short next year. Not much OJT going on and early retirements are still being taken.
In fact I'm sure that the latest staffing crisis numbers which I heard from on high a month agao were that we'd be a controller less next summer than we were this summer. Which makes us 31-41 less.
Hhhhmmm.

[2 six 4]

You little cynic BDiONU. ;)

Of course we will be better off next year. Working Practices with early starts, more efficient sector opening times, 7th day working will deliver at least 15% better efficiency.

Add to that exporting our airspace to Manch and Prestwick we will have loads of extra bodies :D :D

No the Chief Exec wouldn't be saying this if he wasn't supremely confident would he ??

Let me see..... that is one chicken, two chickens, three .......

[BEXIL160]

Kenny, Kenny, Kenny (sigh).... Now just where did you get your figure of "only 15 controllers short next year"???

Let me guess. Mr Cheese 'n Ham?

Now, Kenny, we've been here before haven't we? Let's recap. Who was it that told you that NATS had 60 controllers too many last year? Aha! Has the penny dropped?

The FACTS. New validations are FAR outstripped by retirements. When controllers retire they take several validations with them (T+P, different sectors). Most of the "new" controllers are single sector only, some "T" only.

Overtime, and minor changes to WPP will help, BUT NOT GREATLY. They might just enable Swanwick to run at LAST SUMMERS levels, but no more.

It will take YEARS, before NATS has enough controllers. There is no quick fix. Be honest, with your customers and your staff. It would help.

Rgds BEX

[Nogbad the Bad]

I thought this might be enough for a new thread, entitled...........

<<Everitt Lied To Again By His "managers">>..............

Does he REALLY believe this.........does he, does he ??????????????

If he does, then we really do have NO HOPE for the future !!!

Come ON Mr Everitt......WISE UP.........try NOT to believe the lies that your minions are telling you !!! If you want the truth, talk to your REAL staff, the ones who count, but are despised by those that LIE to you !!!!

ARE YOU LISTENING ?????????????????????

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[DistantRumble]

Are there statistics available indicating that can give a clear picture of this ?

e.g controllers vs sq. miles of airspace(lost/gained to manch/prest) vs controllers required vs recruit vs attrition

that can clearly demonstrate to the lay (that's me) person the impact that the NATS changes are having ?

[BDiONU]

Yes there are all sorts of metrics available, but they are 'NATS In Confidence' so cannot be posted in this forum.

[torpids]

According to the Public Accounts Committee who yesterday questioned Everitt. the Airline Group only put up £50million,
BA chucked in another £15million, and the rest of the money to fund PPP came from the Banks - who will take £600million
interest. The last two are down to NATS (our employers) and not the Airline Group. That makes a debt exposure of £1.4BILLION
and ignores the £1billion NATS is planning to borrow to fund future developments.
Goodbye Pension Fund?:eek: Time to get out I think, because legislation protects those already receiving pensions (Did you see Panorama on Sunday?) and not those still employed.
Staff shortages could be the least of our problems.

[tug3]

Sheeeeeeeeee-it Torpids!!!! Cheer us all up why don't you! Just when I thought things couldn't get worse.

Think I'll stage a 'Reginald Perrin' and get a 'Death in Service' wad for my missus. (Who I will of course arrange to meet in some exotic far off place with cheap booze and loads of sunshine!)

Rgds
T3

[BEXIL160]

Hang on a minute.

Who is the BIGGEST shareholder in NATS? Thats right, the UK government. Like it or not, and they won't, they will still have to shoulder the responsibility if NATS becomes insolvent (if it isn't already).

Makes a bit of a mockery of the PPP doesn't it? One of the governments much touted reasons for going ahead with it was that it would enable NATS to borrow (get shafted?) on the open market. Of course this could have been done without selling ANY part of NATS. Why wasn't it? Treasury "rules" said/say that HMG would have to underwrite any funds borrowed on the open market and this would be reflected in the PSBR. Not good PR for Tony or Gordon. But then arbitrarily changing "rules" doesn't seem to bother them either.

However, since HMG is going to have to underwrite the whole enterprise anyway post PPP, whats the difference? You may well ask. It might have something to do with the £750m the government coffers recieved for the part sale of NATS. Looks good on the balance sheet short term, you see. Long term, well, PPP will have been very bad news for everyone involved. NATS, the airlines, the government and the travelling (tax paying) public.

Rgds BEX