Giving away our airspace and jobs
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Findo,
Why does everyone keep nattering on about New-ADN?
We needs an ADR routing east from NEW to the FIR boundary similar to the one that routes east from ADN to KLONN. That has nothing to do with traffic routing NEW ADN which has an airway available should the choose to use it.
In the absence of any evidence, we can all ignore the comments about EU funding.
You say that NATS will have to recover the lost revenue from somewhere an airlines should be worried.
Why?
The level of charges that NATS makes is set at European level and regulated by the CAA. NATS can only charge for the service it provides. Not providing a service in part of the Atlantic will not cost NATS more, it will be a saving due to either lower staff costs or more importantly, the ability to keep the same staff costs and utilise them in other areas where there is currently staff shortages.
ScOACC reguluarly runs out of capacity during peak times in the TMA causing us delay and costing us money. How about moving some controllers from the Ocean to Radar and using them in the TMA.
Not having NOTA is costing airlines money. We should have had it since the IAA comissioned the radar so why the delay?
As with most things, it seems that depite being aware for years that the IAA had the radar and the abilty to provide a better service, ScOACC stuck it's head in the sand. Very similar to privatisation.
If you guys worked hard to achieve the current privatised NATS (I note that your local MP voted in favour - obvously expressing your wishes) then you can not complain about reaping the rewards.
NATS is not the only private ATC provider in Europe. However, it is the only one which wants the benifits of privatisation with none of the risks.
The option to copy the IAA model was available and ignored. Too late to complain now.
Regards,
DFC
Why does everyone keep nattering on about New-ADN?
We needs an ADR routing east from NEW to the FIR boundary similar to the one that routes east from ADN to KLONN. That has nothing to do with traffic routing NEW ADN which has an airway available should the choose to use it.
In the absence of any evidence, we can all ignore the comments about EU funding.
You say that NATS will have to recover the lost revenue from somewhere an airlines should be worried.
Why?
The level of charges that NATS makes is set at European level and regulated by the CAA. NATS can only charge for the service it provides. Not providing a service in part of the Atlantic will not cost NATS more, it will be a saving due to either lower staff costs or more importantly, the ability to keep the same staff costs and utilise them in other areas where there is currently staff shortages.
ScOACC reguluarly runs out of capacity during peak times in the TMA causing us delay and costing us money. How about moving some controllers from the Ocean to Radar and using them in the TMA.
Not having NOTA is costing airlines money. We should have had it since the IAA comissioned the radar so why the delay?
As with most things, it seems that depite being aware for years that the IAA had the radar and the abilty to provide a better service, ScOACC stuck it's head in the sand. Very similar to privatisation.
If you guys worked hard to achieve the current privatised NATS (I note that your local MP voted in favour - obvously expressing your wishes) then you can not complain about reaping the rewards.
NATS is not the only private ATC provider in Europe. However, it is the only one which wants the benifits of privatisation with none of the risks.
The option to copy the IAA model was available and ignored. Too late to complain now.
Regards,
DFC
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Over the hills and faraway
Age: 62
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
So, our MP votes in favour of privatisation so therefore we are all in favour of it? Are you deliberately talking crap or are you really that ignorant?
With statements like that I feel Findo is being too kind when he says that we should read your posts with a large pinch of sea salt - an entire ocean load is required.
So, our MP votes in favour of privatisation so therefore we are all in favour of it? Are you deliberately talking crap or are you really that ignorant?
With statements like that I feel Findo is being too kind when he says that we should read your posts with a large pinch of sea salt - an entire ocean load is required.
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions.
Congratulations, it's worked !! And we can now see where the saying 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' comes from (see also DFCs posts on JAA/FAA licences/ratings - they're a good read too.).On the one hand DFC, you say that's there no requirement for a NEW-ADN Airway, an Airway which could provide an enhanced service to around 100 aircraft per day. It would reduce track miles which results in reduced fuel burn and less cost to the airlines (happy campers), which results in shorter flying times (pax become happy campers), reduced greenhouse gas emissions (the tree huggers become happy campers), and it also removes 100 aircraft from the Scottish TMA airspace which you complain about thus freeing up capacity and improving the throughput of that airspace and reducing delay and holding for all (airlines are happy, pax are happy, tree huggers are happy).
Compare that to your 'need' for a route East of NEW, a route which would probably serve the heady figures of around 10 flights a day maximum. Yep, that's a REAL priority isn't it. You also say that NEW-ADN traffic should route on the existing structure. Guess what ?? So could these flights from Newcastle. Join CAS at HAVEN, fly to GRICE, then P600 and P600D to KLONN. It's increased track mileage for sure, but if that principle is OK for the NEW-ADN saga then it's OK for the Newcastle-Scandinavian traffic as well.
You also carry charts in your aircraft, so next time have a look at them and see what there is to the East of Newcastle which would prevent the introduction of a route. Shouldn't be TOO difficult to work out really.
I think you also misunderstand how NATS charges are set. They are not set at a European level. What does happen is that Eurocontrol COLLECTS charges and distributes them to the Member States and ATS providers. The actual unit rate is set by the ATS provider or State, otherwise wouldn't Euroland just set everyone the same rate ?? Our glorious CAA have a formula which is used to set NATS charges (based on a reducing charge related to RPI), but it's sod all to do with Europe. It has been amended a few times based on changing circumstances.
A few more misconceptions for you to also ponder.
You are right that losing a piece of airspace does not increase costs. But nor does it reduce them in this case. The controllers who would have provided the service in that airspace still have airspace to control, the Oceanic Control Area. Oceanic does not work in geographical divisions and the charge to aircraft is the same no matter how little or how much of Oceanic airspace they fly through. Ergo for the Oceanic operation, it matters not a jot. And the NOTA in fact will not replace ANY Scottish sector airspace, so in terms of the number of controllers and the airspace covered, etc, it again matters not a jot. The costs remain exactly as they are today. What does change is the potential for some aircraft to no longer transit Scottish airspace and remain in Irish airspace/NOTA. This means increased revenue for the IAA and reduced revenue for NATS. This is the real crux of the matter since NATS costs remain the same but they now have less money coming in to service those costs. There are lots of different ways to deal with that. Save costs elsewhere maybe, or as a few people have tried to get across, increase the route charges overall to cover the shortfall. It's not rocket science.
As an aside, the IAA were under the misconception that they could increase the number of Oceanic tracks with all this new airspace. Isn't it lucky then that they didn't understand the ICAO separation criteria for track construction when entry points don't start on the same longitude
They won't be able to deliver too much increased capacity on to or off the Oceanic tracks since the ICAO separation rules still apply. The advantage they may be able to offer is better flight profiles to and from them. I think it would be very interesting to see the Cost Benefit Analysis provided to the airlines comparing the status quo and the NOTA. An independent one perhaps ?? As for moving controllers to other areas because of the change in service provision. Great idea from a wormseye view, total non starter if you have the big picture. As mentioned above, Oceanic controllers will still be dealing with the same aircraft only in a reduced bit of the sky. But as they work in a vertical sectorisation, you still need the same number whether the aircraft enters the airspace at 10W, 15W or 20W. The ScACC controllers will still be operating the Southwest sector with the same number of bodies and the Oceanic track structure and it's movement around the sky will not be changed by the NOTA very much at all. Belfast TMA jet departures and arrivals are also unlikely to be reduced by the NOTA I would argue
But let's assume we could free up a body or two (ignore all the above, let's be hypothetical). You'd draft them in to help with the TMA. Errrrrr, to do what ??? The sector is already fully manned when it's busy so where would they sit, and what tasks could you give them ?? If you really had a clue about the TMA and why it has restrictions then you would know that it is never regulated due to staff shortages (wouldn't you ?? you seem to know everything else). It is regulated due to the CAPACITY of the airspace. This capacity comes about from the ability of the airfields to accept traffic (runway arrival rate), from the airspace structure (lack of manouevring room and limited holding airspace), from the complexity of the traffic flows (multiple crossing tracks, multiple climbing and descending aircraft, multiple aircraft performance characteristics, military restrictions, etc, etc, etc). So how does an extra body or two wave a magic wand and solve all that ??
Your comments on privatisation are not worthy of comment, since you obviously know nothing about the feeling of the staff of NATS and the campaigns which were run at the time. And lest the Moderator pull me up for abuse
Can you name the other private ATS en route operators in Europe please ??
Finally, there HAS been a radar facility on Rockall for many many years. It is operated by the British Ministry of Defence in support of missile firings from Benbecula Range. Maybe Ireland will attack it with some of their natty new PC9 aircraft and claim the territory for their new radar station. It could happen .. in DFC's world
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balix,
When that MP gets re-elected, I'll take £10 from you.
---
10W
The IAA are just as privatised as NATS in that the Government holds the majority of the shares. However, it seems that the IAA system works and provides lower charges. You can see how the shares are distributed in the IAA act on the IAA website.
Lets look briefly at the N Sea, starting at NEW, direct ADN about 140nm and via haven, 185nm. 15 min difference in a turboprop give or take.
Now lets take your option of a route to EKCH via NEW. routing east over the N Sea gives about 510nm. Taking the route you propose is 750nm (assuming a direct from Klonn). That is a difference of over 1 hour. What ATC world do you live in? Obvously the one which is money hungry and likes as many revenue Kms as possible.
East of New is the D513 complex. D513 max alt is 10,000. Where is the problem with an ADR with an appropriate base above that? Perhaps insted of seeking excuses, solutions would be better.
If there was a solid block preventing traffic routing east of NEW then there would not be any. I know and you state that there is no block and traffic does route that way.
Perhaps this constant negative response is an indication of an unwillingness to provide a service at all.
Belfast TMA departures work Antrim sector frequency. With all that oceanic traffic routing via Irish Airspace then there would be no need for a SW and Central split leaving 1 controller (and 1 planner in theory) free for other radar duties.
The TMA can be re-organised and resectorised. Needs more people (as well as equipment) to make it really work though. The airspace is partly in the pipeline.
Remember freeing up a body, not only makes them available but it removes the requirement to train people for the position they vacated. It also remives the requirement to give them breaks or to cover their leave. every ATC position requires more than 1 person to operate a shift.
---
I'll get DP to put a bag of salt on DMcC's desk.
Ah love letters in the salt.
---
Seriously though, this whole load of whinging is showing the true colours of the people at ScOACC. If Shannon can do a better job then let them and let ScOACC get on with improving it's own back yard.
Perhaps the next time BA lays off a few people becuase of the constantly changing aviation industry. No stop there. BA are laying off people. Get a grip ScOACC.
Regards,
DFC
When that MP gets re-elected, I'll take £10 from you.
---
10W
The IAA are just as privatised as NATS in that the Government holds the majority of the shares. However, it seems that the IAA system works and provides lower charges. You can see how the shares are distributed in the IAA act on the IAA website.
Lets look briefly at the N Sea, starting at NEW, direct ADN about 140nm and via haven, 185nm. 15 min difference in a turboprop give or take.
Now lets take your option of a route to EKCH via NEW. routing east over the N Sea gives about 510nm. Taking the route you propose is 750nm (assuming a direct from Klonn). That is a difference of over 1 hour. What ATC world do you live in? Obvously the one which is money hungry and likes as many revenue Kms as possible.
East of New is the D513 complex. D513 max alt is 10,000. Where is the problem with an ADR with an appropriate base above that? Perhaps insted of seeking excuses, solutions would be better.
If there was a solid block preventing traffic routing east of NEW then there would not be any. I know and you state that there is no block and traffic does route that way.
Perhaps this constant negative response is an indication of an unwillingness to provide a service at all.
Belfast TMA departures work Antrim sector frequency. With all that oceanic traffic routing via Irish Airspace then there would be no need for a SW and Central split leaving 1 controller (and 1 planner in theory) free for other radar duties.
The TMA can be re-organised and resectorised. Needs more people (as well as equipment) to make it really work though. The airspace is partly in the pipeline.
Remember freeing up a body, not only makes them available but it removes the requirement to train people for the position they vacated. It also remives the requirement to give them breaks or to cover their leave. every ATC position requires more than 1 person to operate a shift.
---
I'll get DP to put a bag of salt on DMcC's desk.
Ah love letters in the salt.
---
Seriously though, this whole load of whinging is showing the true colours of the people at ScOACC. If Shannon can do a better job then let them and let ScOACC get on with improving it's own back yard.
Perhaps the next time BA lays off a few people becuase of the constantly changing aviation industry. No stop there. BA are laying off people. Get a grip ScOACC.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Spanish Riviera
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a short comment. I got my 12nm as opposed to 3 from Articles 1 & 2 of the Chicago Convention (defining sovereignty of territory) and definition of "Territorial Waters". The attached link discusses territorial waters.
http://reference.allrefer.com/encycl.../waters-t.html
It is my understanding that the UK regulates under the 12nm rule and not the 3nm. If I am wrong, then I apologise.
http://reference.allrefer.com/encycl.../waters-t.html
It is my understanding that the UK regulates under the 12nm rule and not the 3nm. If I am wrong, then I apologise.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: PIK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whipping boy. Not sure if this has any relevance because the current international ATC boundaries are established with inter Government agreement and now treated as "sovereign" airspace. This seems to be backed up by the practicality that the air defence organisations now consider that airspace as their boundaries.
DFC you continue to post mainly rubbish but you do seem to have grasped the fact that losing traffic means losing jobs.
Just tell me another ATC company in the world that you can actually buy if you so desire ? Hence NATS is the only privatised ATC company in the world. It does act like other privatised companies and is reducing staff numbers and reducing costs just like BA and others.
10W has made the point that your (if you actually are a pilot) airline will be charged extra to make up for the lost revenue.
DFC you continue to post mainly rubbish but you do seem to have grasped the fact that losing traffic means losing jobs.
Just tell me another ATC company in the world that you can actually buy if you so desire ? Hence NATS is the only privatised ATC company in the world. It does act like other privatised companies and is reducing staff numbers and reducing costs just like BA and others.
10W has made the point that your (if you actually are a pilot) airline will be charged extra to make up for the lost revenue.
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Over the hills and faraway
Age: 62
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
Sorry, are we on the same planet here?
Ah, obviously we are not...
Oooo, you do have a hang up about the place, don't you. Did you once fail to validate here or something?
When that MP gets re-elected, I'll take £10 from you
Perhaps this constant negative response is an indication of an unwillingness to provide a service at all.
Get a grip ScOACC
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balix,
That is the most regular line trotted out when people don't agree with someone from NATS. What do you do with people who are unable to make the grade that makes them so anti?
However, you can not include me in that group. My english isn't good enough.
Anyway, I had heard that everyone validates at ScOACC - that is why they send all the failures from LACC, LTCC and MACC there.
You have given me a great suggestion for our company. Every passenger who complains at the customer service or check-in desk will be asked "did we turn you down for a job?"
---
Arran,
It is not possible for me to buy a controlling stake in NATS because a) the UK Government hold onto that and b) being from elsewhere in Europe, I am prevented by the UK legislation designed to stop NATS being run by a non-UK entity (national security and all that stuff).
NATS is not a PLC as far as I am aware. Would have been a bit embarrasing to have one's shares worthless shortly after floatation on the exchange and probably suspended. Bit tooo public that!
Haven't had anyone say that the service provided will be worse than currently available.
Extra costs?, even a small increase in the charge accrued by a few fuel efficient short haul flights could be easily balanced against the much larger route charge and fuel saving available to heavy thirsty long-haul flights from a more efficient lower cost direct routing via IAA airspace.
Join NOTA and SOTA and push west using ADS etc and from a pilot's point of view, ScACC having handed the O to Shannon will have a few more ATCO's available for domestic re-sectorisation.
There is one thing that the EU does pay for - The Irish to patrol in much of Shanwick's and part of Scottish's airspace. Perhaps we should ask them to have a look at Rockall the next time they pass. Nice Spannish aeroplanes paid for by the EU as well and fitted with a radar etc that has been paid for by the EU. Check them out the next time they visit the UK.
---
10W,
Was it you that strated a thred about the cost of providing an FIS at ScACC some time back? and about wanting to get rid of the ATSA that does the job in certain parts? It seems to have disappeared very quickly. Do I detect a common thred that the Scotts are very worried about money?
Will there be a cost over-run on the new annex?
Regards,
DFC
Oooo, you do have a hang up about the place, don't you. Did you once fail to validate here or something?
However, you can not include me in that group. My english isn't good enough.
Anyway, I had heard that everyone validates at ScOACC - that is why they send all the failures from LACC, LTCC and MACC there.
You have given me a great suggestion for our company. Every passenger who complains at the customer service or check-in desk will be asked "did we turn you down for a job?"
---
Arran,
It is not possible for me to buy a controlling stake in NATS because a) the UK Government hold onto that and b) being from elsewhere in Europe, I am prevented by the UK legislation designed to stop NATS being run by a non-UK entity (national security and all that stuff).
NATS is not a PLC as far as I am aware. Would have been a bit embarrasing to have one's shares worthless shortly after floatation on the exchange and probably suspended. Bit tooo public that!
Haven't had anyone say that the service provided will be worse than currently available.
Extra costs?, even a small increase in the charge accrued by a few fuel efficient short haul flights could be easily balanced against the much larger route charge and fuel saving available to heavy thirsty long-haul flights from a more efficient lower cost direct routing via IAA airspace.
Join NOTA and SOTA and push west using ADS etc and from a pilot's point of view, ScACC having handed the O to Shannon will have a few more ATCO's available for domestic re-sectorisation.
There is one thing that the EU does pay for - The Irish to patrol in much of Shanwick's and part of Scottish's airspace. Perhaps we should ask them to have a look at Rockall the next time they pass.
Nice Spannish aeroplanes paid for by the EU as well and fitted with a radar etc that has been paid for by the EU. Check them out the next time they visit the UK. ---
10W,
Was it you that strated a thred about the cost of providing an FIS at ScACC some time back? and about wanting to get rid of the ATSA that does the job in certain parts? It seems to have disappeared very quickly. Do I detect a common thred that the Scotts are very worried about money?
Will there be a cost over-run on the new annex?
Regards,
DFC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: PIK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to contradict you again DFC but NATS is a PLC which is why it is the only privatised ATC service in the world. Otherwise how could the staff and the airlines all be shareholders. We all have our certificates which do go up and down in value.
The UK Government do not hold a controlling stake in NATS. The major shareholding is with the consortium of airlines which bought NATS. The Government and the staff hold the other shares. So if you wish to buy a majority shareholding in NATS then stockmarket companies are the ones you would be buying from. Go on make them an offer !!
Legislation to stop a non UK person or company from buying shares in NATS ?? Well Britannia hold about one seventh of the airline group shares and they are ..... German. easyJet are an equal shareholder and at their founder and larges shareholder was .... Greek.
Extra costs ? Well you haven't quite grasped the facts about the NOTA yet. Only those airlines operating to southern UK and France are likley to benefit on the Atlantic routes to balance against raised charges on non Atlantic services. So if you are Frankfurt or Amsterdam based you get no benefit and a raised charge. If you have no trans Atlantic services you lose out completely. There is also a certain irony in the Irish carriers having to pay overall increased charges to NATS while their Government owned ATC company creams in loadsa extra money.
The UK Government do not hold a controlling stake in NATS. The major shareholding is with the consortium of airlines which bought NATS. The Government and the staff hold the other shares. So if you wish to buy a majority shareholding in NATS then stockmarket companies are the ones you would be buying from. Go on make them an offer !!
Legislation to stop a non UK person or company from buying shares in NATS ?? Well Britannia hold about one seventh of the airline group shares and they are ..... German. easyJet are an equal shareholder and at their founder and larges shareholder was .... Greek.
Extra costs ? Well you haven't quite grasped the facts about the NOTA yet. Only those airlines operating to southern UK and France are likley to benefit on the Atlantic routes to balance against raised charges on non Atlantic services. So if you are Frankfurt or Amsterdam based you get no benefit and a raised charge. If you have no trans Atlantic services you lose out completely. There is also a certain irony in the Irish carriers having to pay overall increased charges to NATS while their Government owned ATC company creams in loadsa extra money.
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
Here we go again. But it is fun
Anyway, I had heard that everyone validates at ScOACC - that is why they send all the failures from LACC, LTCC and MACC there.
NATS is not a PLC as far as I am aware.
Haven't had anyone say that the service provided will be worse than currently available.
Join NOTA and SOTA and push west using ADS etc and from a pilot's point of view, ScACC having handed the O to Shannon will have a few more ATCO's available for domestic re-sectorisation.
(Revocation of licence by the UK Secretary of State would free NATS from service provision responsibilities) Alternatively, the NATS (En Route) Licence which specifies the airspace within which NATS is licenced by the UK CAA and Government to provide Air Traffic Services could be disputed in court as it lays down a term of 10 years for provision in the airspace contained within the UK AIP at the time the licence came in to force. But then I'm not a lawyer
The Irish to patrol in much of Shanwick's and part of Scottish's airspace. Perhaps we should ask them to have a look at Rockall the next time they pass. Nice Spannish aeroplanes paid for by the EU as well and fitted with a radar etc that has been paid for by the EU. Check them out the next time they visit the UK.
Anyway, we prefer noisy Nimrods. At least they can find submarines, loiter for far far longer, have longer range, can air to air refuel for endurance as long as the crew meals last and toilets don't overflow, carry out SAR and drop dinghies, provide top cover co-ordination with the RCC and so on.
Was it you that strated a thred about the cost of providing an FIS at ScACC some time back? and about wanting to get rid of the ATSA that does the job in certain parts? It seems to have disappeared very quickly. Do I detect a common thred that the Scotts are very worried about money?
Try here
Future of Scottish Information
The FISOs at ScACC have always received my support as I am sure they would testify. Whether it be taking them for flights, or passing on appreciative emails from satisfied customers, or whatever.
Scotts ?? They make porridge oats. I think they are a part of the Quaker Company (in turn owned by Pepsico) so you can buy Stock on them if you want to invest ok:
Will there be a cost over-run on the new annex?
The IAA are just as privatised as NATS in that the Government holds the majority of the shares.
Not a criticism of the way the IAA is formed and run at all, it's what we should have in the UK. Just pointing out more holes in the DFC view of the world.
Lets look briefly at the N Sea, starting at NEW, direct ADN about 140nm and via haven, 185nm. 15 min difference in a turboprop give or take. Now lets take your option of a route to EKCH via NEW. routing east over the N Sea gives about 510nm. Taking the route you propose is 750nm (assuming a direct from Klonn). That is a difference of over 1 hour. What ATC world do you live in? Obvously the one which is money hungry and likes as many revenue Kms as possible.
East of New is the D513 complex. D513 max alt is 10,000. Where is the problem with an ADR with an appropriate base above that? Perhaps insted of seeking excuses, solutions would be better.
As the users of these areas can make them active at any time in accordance with Airspace Management procedures, how can you publish a route as you suggest ? Well, there is a way. But you would have to make it a Conditional Route. Probably a CDR2 or maybe a CDR3. Although there is nothing to say that CDRs can't be Advisory Routes, there is also nothing to say that they can be and there is certainly no precedent for them in the UK or Europe that I know about.
But you are addressing the wrong agency here. The provision of Air Traffic Services, the agreement and establishment of ATS Routes all lie with the UK Regulator. That's the Directorate of Airspace Policy in the CAA. They have an Airspace Charter which details how airspace can be changed or requested. You or your company could raise an Airspace Change Proposal with them. Negotiate with all the airspace users and agencies, do the environmental impact case (easy with a route over the sea), agree with the CAA that everyone is happy and a few months later in an AIRAC cycle your route magically appears. I am sure we in NATS would be happy to give you the time to hear your formal proposals as part of the Charter Process. As would the MoD, etc, etc.
If there was a solid block preventing traffic routing east of NEW then there would not be any. I know and you state that there is no block and traffic does route that way.
Perhaps this constant negative response is an indication of an unwillingness to provide a service at all.
Look through the AIP. You will not find that ScACC have any responsibility for the provision of Radar Services outside Controlled Airspace. No defined Radar Service Areas, no LARS, no Military Middle Airspace Radar Services (our Scottish Military colleagues do that but are not NATS). Even the provision of Radar Advisory Service on the ADRs is not specified. It can be done procedurely. Once again, these are not services laid down by NATS, they are those laid down by the CAA. I am sure if they wanted ScACC to provide any sort of mandatory service then that could be negotiated as part of the licence, either by inclusion in the AIP or as a specific service ... and as a business, presumably NATS would name its price. Quite simply, NATS and ScACC provide services well over and above those which they are legally obliged to. Our core services are what get priority, particularly things like resolving delays, since these cost the company money (as well as the airlines). You may not like it, but when you turn something which should be a publicly run organisation and funded as such in to a private business then you can't expect any charity. I wouldn't expect the bloke next door to mow my lawn just because he happened to be doing his own.
If you have any beefs because of that, particularly about safety, then you should either raise them with the CAA who would decide if any changes should be made to the airspace and service provision based on their risk assessment and duty to ALL airspace users. Or you could take advantage of the existing route structure. As pilot in command, it's your call. Your main opponent however is going to be the MoD .... Good Luck !!!
Belfast TMA departures work Antrim sector frequency. With all that oceanic traffic routing via Irish Airspace then there would be no need for a SW and Central split leaving 1 controller (and 1 planner in theory) free for other radar duties.
The TMA can be re-organised and resectorised. Needs more people (as well as equipment) to make it really work though. The airspace is partly in the pipeline.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Spanish Riviera
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10W, a couple of genuinely interested quickies:
Firstly, lifted from the ScACC RAS thread (author NorthSouth):
I would suggest that this is an interesting and pragmatic development. One would presume that NATS & MoD have reached a mutually satisfactory arrangement for this route?
Nevertheless, if the ADN-NEW airway is so important, where is the evidence of NATS fervently pursuing an ACP? Has the issue been presented to JFADT?
Firstly, lifted from the ScACC RAS thread (author NorthSouth):
As from 15 April, the NATS Standard Route Document is being amended to list the ATC preferred route for traffic up to FL215 between Aberdeen and Newcastle/Norwich as ADN DCT NEW (it's currently listed as via P600, TLA and L602). A footnote warns that radar services on the direct route may be limited and only those with a formal contract can use Scot Mil.
Nevertheless, if the ADN-NEW airway is so important, where is the evidence of NATS fervently pursuing an ACP? Has the issue been presented to JFADT?
Last edited by Whipping Boy's SATCO; 3rd Mar 2004 at 15:39.
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Over the hills and faraway
Age: 62
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dfc
Actually, it was more to do with the fact that you obviously have some small amount of knowledge about the place (and some of the people who work there) and a monumental chip on your shoulder. Sort of fits the profile. However, not to worry.
You've still not explained the logic behind the MP voting for privatisation means all we employees were for it, just some bizarre statement about a £10 bet.
That is the most regular line trotted out when people don't agree with someone from NATS
You've still not explained the logic behind the MP voting for privatisation means all we employees were for it, just some bizarre statement about a £10 bet.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on DFC give us your wisdom.
We are going to destabalise the whole of Shanwick's flight data processing system to rush into benefits for some customers ???
That is improved customer service ?
We are going to destabalise the whole of Shanwick's flight data processing system to rush into benefits for some customers ???
That is improved customer service ?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balix,
Your local MP tells you all that they will oppose the privatisation and help keep jobs in the local area. They obvously told you all a a right yarn.
Privatisation of NATS could cost the local area several well paid jobs and I bet you £10 that they get re-elected.
If your neighbours, friends and elected representatives don't care less about your job security then why should anyone else?
Forget the £10 bet - I should have bet you Eur10 since by the time your local MP retires that will be the currency you are paid in.
---
10W,
The National Air Traffic Services PLC was set up after the financial restructuring so that money could be obtained in return for selling shares to the financial institutions. To date, I am not aware that any shares have been sold.
However, the important thing is that it is currently impossible for a private investor to obtain a controling stake in NATS since to do so they would need to purchase 51% of the shares. Purchase of the TAG shares would yield 46% - the maximum possible currently. It is not possible to buy the staff shares since the staff are requried to hold 5%. The government holds the rest and while dilution of the government stake to not below 25% is possible, there is little doubt that such a move could finally light that well dried powder and cause the government problems that it doen't want at present.
Companies Office say that one of the many NATS companies registered sells dodgy videos from Soho in London - nice side-line!
The Secretary of State can relieve NATS from it's licensed obligations but can not relieve the UK form it's obligations under ICAO. Of course, the UK could pull off the Atlantic at the drop of a hat. Think that BA etc might suffer a little though.
Perhaps before you totally discount the posibility of an advisory route on the North Sea, you should have another look at your map. D513 max altitude 10,000. D513A and 513B are separated by 23nm of open airspace. To the east of that, there are some refueling areas and more danger areas however, there is never less than 16nm between them at their closest point.
Yes NATS is not the airspace provider - but if it wants to be a service provider then it needs the airspace to do it in. Does NATS want to provide a service over the N Sea?
To me it looks like provision was made during the airspace design for traffic routing west from INBOB to the UK coast about 25nm north of NEW which could turn south once west of D513A.
I am not an airspace designer however, I can not see a problem with provision of a Class F extenstion to P18 to the NE of NEW for 25nm and thense to INBOB. This would then provide the airspace within which ScACC could within it's current rules provide a RAS or as correctly say provide a procedural service to participating traffic.
Of course, your answer is simply no no no no no no.
Perhaps the OACC applied the same logic to other areas where people are now complaining because another ATS provider is going to provide a better service.
That is why I think the two are linked - another provider could possible provide the service that many request on a daily basis overthe north sea but that would cost NATS money and we would be back round to loosing airspace and jobs again.
You ask - Is the airspace in the Shanwick FIR below FL55 Shanwick airspace? - Of course - it is the Shanwick FIR and no other ATS provider has responsibility for the provision of FIS in that airspace. Just the same that the airspace betwen NOTA and ther Western Isles is the Scottish FIR - Scottish airspace.
You are quite corect that Belfast TMA departrures who get high enough before London or Shannon take control may work SW. However, with the atlantic traffic load reduced, SW should have plenty of spare capacity.
The new Annex has already cost NATS plenty of money which was not budgeted for in litigation and cancelation costs as a result of the start stop start management of the project. Hopefully everythign else comes in well below budget so that the costs will not over-run.
As has been said, airlines take everything into account when planning routes to fly. I can see it being very possible for traffic from Frankfurt to route to Brest and there to the NW corner of NOTA if the routecharges and UK delays make it worthwhile. Paris traffic would no doubt benifit from avoiding the traffic jam between BNE and POL - as would UK ATC in being able to advertise lower delays.
Being one sky it makes sense to spread the traffic load that causes North Sea problems across France and up through Ireland.
That thred regarding the FIR is not the one. The one I referred to was only there for 2 days before being deleted no doubt as a result of the negative comments to the complaint that FIS cost too much money.
---
The TMA we are told is being revised and peak time delays will be reduced. I am happy to await the result and see.
"The Shanwick computer will be destabilised"
Shows what rubbish computing you are using. Atlantic operators were told some time ago that technology was being upgraded and a new annex being built onto the OACC to house all this wonderful technology.
Sounds like that new technology is old hat.
The customer desrves honesty for it's money.
Regards,
DFC
Your local MP tells you all that they will oppose the privatisation and help keep jobs in the local area. They obvously told you all a a right yarn.
Privatisation of NATS could cost the local area several well paid jobs and I bet you £10 that they get re-elected.
If your neighbours, friends and elected representatives don't care less about your job security then why should anyone else?
Forget the £10 bet - I should have bet you Eur10 since by the time your local MP retires that will be the currency you are paid in.
---
10W,
The National Air Traffic Services PLC was set up after the financial restructuring so that money could be obtained in return for selling shares to the financial institutions. To date, I am not aware that any shares have been sold.
However, the important thing is that it is currently impossible for a private investor to obtain a controling stake in NATS since to do so they would need to purchase 51% of the shares. Purchase of the TAG shares would yield 46% - the maximum possible currently. It is not possible to buy the staff shares since the staff are requried to hold 5%. The government holds the rest and while dilution of the government stake to not below 25% is possible, there is little doubt that such a move could finally light that well dried powder and cause the government problems that it doen't want at present.
Companies Office say that one of the many NATS companies registered sells dodgy videos from Soho in London
- nice side-line! The Secretary of State can relieve NATS from it's licensed obligations but can not relieve the UK form it's obligations under ICAO. Of course, the UK could pull off the Atlantic at the drop of a hat. Think that BA etc might suffer a little though.
Perhaps before you totally discount the posibility of an advisory route on the North Sea, you should have another look at your map. D513 max altitude 10,000. D513A and 513B are separated by 23nm of open airspace. To the east of that, there are some refueling areas and more danger areas however, there is never less than 16nm between them at their closest point.
Yes NATS is not the airspace provider - but if it wants to be a service provider then it needs the airspace to do it in. Does NATS want to provide a service over the N Sea?
To me it looks like provision was made during the airspace design for traffic routing west from INBOB to the UK coast about 25nm north of NEW which could turn south once west of D513A.
I am not an airspace designer however, I can not see a problem with provision of a Class F extenstion to P18 to the NE of NEW for 25nm and thense to INBOB. This would then provide the airspace within which ScACC could within it's current rules provide a RAS or as correctly say provide a procedural service to participating traffic.
Of course, your answer is simply no no no no no no.
Perhaps the OACC applied the same logic to other areas where people are now complaining because another ATS provider is going to provide a better service.
That is why I think the two are linked - another provider could possible provide the service that many request on a daily basis overthe north sea but that would cost NATS money and we would be back round to loosing airspace and jobs again.
You ask - Is the airspace in the Shanwick FIR below FL55 Shanwick airspace? - Of course - it is the Shanwick FIR and no other ATS provider has responsibility for the provision of FIS in that airspace. Just the same that the airspace betwen NOTA and ther Western Isles is the Scottish FIR - Scottish airspace.
You are quite corect that Belfast TMA departrures who get high enough before London or Shannon take control may work SW. However, with the atlantic traffic load reduced, SW should have plenty of spare capacity.
The new Annex has already cost NATS plenty of money which was not budgeted for in litigation and cancelation costs as a result of the start stop start management of the project. Hopefully everythign else comes in well below budget so that the costs will not over-run.
As has been said, airlines take everything into account when planning routes to fly. I can see it being very possible for traffic from Frankfurt to route to Brest and there to the NW corner of NOTA if the routecharges and UK delays make it worthwhile. Paris traffic would no doubt benifit from avoiding the traffic jam between BNE and POL - as would UK ATC in being able to advertise lower delays.
Being one sky it makes sense to spread the traffic load that causes North Sea problems across France and up through Ireland.
That thred regarding the FIR is not the one. The one I referred to was only there for 2 days before being deleted no doubt as a result of the negative comments to the complaint that FIS cost too much money.
---
The TMA we are told is being revised and peak time delays will be reduced. I am happy to await the result and see.
"The Shanwick computer will be destabilised"
Shows what rubbish computing you are using. Atlantic operators were told some time ago that technology was being upgraded and a new annex being built onto the OACC to house all this wonderful technology.
Sounds like that new technology is old hat.
The customer desrves honesty for it's money.
Regards,
DFC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: PIK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC you are pretty good at throwing lots of words without a lot of accuracy.
Our local MP did oppose privatisation and did achieve changes to the proposed legislation. Not least was the inclusion of a requirement to build a new centre at Prestwick.
Well you seem to have missed the point again. The 46% shareholding is the voting shares in the company and as such hold control. They are owned by private companies and will be sold if you make them a nice offer.
The North Sea stuff you can discuss elsewhere as there are other threads.
There was no litigation and the cancellation costs are part of the project costs when it is completed. Nothing to do with start stop management and everything to do with being the only privatised ATC en route service. After 9/11 there was no money to spend so unlike the other ATC providers round the world we had to take immediate action to reduce spending for a period. You would rather we just kept on spending and passed the whole costs on to the reduced number of flights ?
Complete hor***t. Frankfurt - Brest - 57N15W 57N20W ? yeah yeah. What sort of economics drives that route ?
I presume you are referring to the Shanwick FDP system. It happens to be one of the best and most efficient ATC Oceanic systems in the world. So much so that the Canadians are very keen to incorporate a whole lot of the technology in the new combined Canadain and UK system. What is being talked about here is this whole NOTA nonsense has not been thought through. The costs incurred by changing the current system in it's last few years of life are completely out of proportion when a new one is on the way. History also shows that major software changes take time to settle in to stability.
So it does. The honesty to say who is paying for this equipment given to the Irish and what the actual cost to all the customers is likley to be. 
Our local MP did oppose privatisation and did achieve changes to the proposed legislation. Not least was the inclusion of a requirement to build a new centre at Prestwick.
However, the important thing is that it is currently impossible for a private investor to obtain a controling stake in NATS since to do so they would need to purchase 51% of the shares. Purchase of the TAG shares would yield 46% - the maximum possible currently.
The North Sea stuff you can discuss elsewhere as there are other threads.
The new Annex has already cost NATS plenty of money which was not budgeted for in litigation and cancelation costs as a result of the start stop start management of the project.
There was no litigation and the cancellation costs are part of the project costs when it is completed. Nothing to do with start stop management and everything to do with being the only privatised ATC en route service. After 9/11 there was no money to spend so unlike the other ATC providers round the world we had to take immediate action to reduce spending for a period. You would rather we just kept on spending and passed the whole costs on to the reduced number of flights ?
I can see it being very possible for traffic from Frankfurt to route to Brest and there to the NW corner of NOTA if the routecharges and UK delays make it worthwhile.
"The Shanwick computer will be destabilised"
Shows what rubbish computing you are using. Atlantic operators were told some time ago that technology was being upgraded and a new annex being built onto the OACC to house all this wonderful technology.
Shows what rubbish computing you are using. Atlantic operators were told some time ago that technology was being upgraded and a new annex being built onto the OACC to house all this wonderful technology.
The customer desrves honesty for it's money.
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Over the hills and faraway
Age: 62
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh hullo DFC, had the past few days off, have you?
Right, the local MP, who goes by the name of Sandra Osborne, does precisely what the whips tell her. She also sends round electioneering leaflets telling the local electorate that she personally is responsibe for the survival of ScOACC. Yes, she tells us a right yarn, she is a politician after all. Not a good one, obviously, but a politician nevertheless. If re-elected, it won't be down to votes from ScOACC ATCOs. Many of them don't live in her constituencey, anyway. She is complete red herring in this discussion. Well, a complete old trout at any rate
Meanwhile, your reasons for being somewhat anti-ScOACC seem to rest on the lack of an ADR from NEW to INBOB. Well, I don't think you will find anyone at ScOACC who would say no to such an ADR. At least, no one who doesn't wear a uniform. They might question its usefulness bearing in mind the lack of traffic that goes on the route but it would allow the TYNE controller to provide a reasonable service to yourself and the other flight that uses it every day.
In an ideal world, we would provide a decent service for all commercial traffic going more or less wherever they wanted to go. Hence the wish for a NEW-ADN airway that would be well used every day. However, we have to live in the real world in which there are other airspace users than just commercial traffic.
It seems to me that you should be aiming your complaints at the airspace policy department and not taking things out personally on ScACC controllers. However, I won't hold my breath.
Right, the local MP, who goes by the name of Sandra Osborne, does precisely what the whips tell her. She also sends round electioneering leaflets telling the local electorate that she personally is responsibe for the survival of ScOACC. Yes, she tells us a right yarn, she is a politician after all. Not a good one, obviously, but a politician nevertheless. If re-elected, it won't be down to votes from ScOACC ATCOs. Many of them don't live in her constituencey, anyway. She is complete red herring in this discussion. Well, a complete old trout at any rate
Meanwhile, your reasons for being somewhat anti-ScOACC seem to rest on the lack of an ADR from NEW to INBOB. Well, I don't think you will find anyone at ScOACC who would say no to such an ADR. At least, no one who doesn't wear a uniform. They might question its usefulness bearing in mind the lack of traffic that goes on the route but it would allow the TYNE controller to provide a reasonable service to yourself and the other flight that uses it every day.
In an ideal world, we would provide a decent service for all commercial traffic going more or less wherever they wanted to go. Hence the wish for a NEW-ADN airway that would be well used every day. However, we have to live in the real world in which there are other airspace users than just commercial traffic.
It seems to me that you should be aiming your complaints at the airspace policy department and not taking things out personally on ScACC controllers. However, I won't hold my breath.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arran's view said
Perhaps you should read the NATS anual reports.
Here is what the NATS Annual report says;
"In 2002, exceptional charges of
£84.3m arose from the strategic decision to
defer the development of the New Scottish
Centre following PPP and the impairment of
work performed at that date as well as staff
redundancy and litigation costs."
Here is another quote;
"NATS still faces many challenges as we have
set ourselves a target to deliver more than
£200 million of cost savings by the end of
2005. This target is £30 million higher than the
target set under the Financial Restructuring."
So you can see that job losses are on the cards no matter what changes are made unless you can find the savings elsewhere.
And here is another;
"Exceptional costs fell by £12m due to the prior year's
costs including the settlement of a contract dispute
associated with the flight data processing system."
That refers to the OACC system.
Seems like NATS spends lots of money on disputes with contractors.
I think that every airline would prefer to see it's enroute charges being used to provide decent services - not to pay for lawyers and litigation in contract disputes.
Now where was it that opened a new centre on time and on budget? Perhaps they are the ones who can provide the service without risk of more wasted money?
Regards
DFC
PS - Balix, days off now followed by standby. Don't prune while away - too busy drinking
There was no litigation and the cancellation costs are part of the project costs when it is completed
Here is what the NATS Annual report says;
"In 2002, exceptional charges of
£84.3m arose from the strategic decision to
defer the development of the New Scottish
Centre following PPP and the impairment of
work performed at that date as well as staff
redundancy and litigation costs."
Here is another quote;
"NATS still faces many challenges as we have
set ourselves a target to deliver more than
£200 million of cost savings by the end of
2005. This target is £30 million higher than the
target set under the Financial Restructuring."
So you can see that job losses are on the cards no matter what changes are made unless you can find the savings elsewhere.
And here is another;
"Exceptional costs fell by £12m due to the prior year's
costs including the settlement of a contract dispute
associated with the flight data processing system."
That refers to the OACC system.
Seems like NATS spends lots of money on disputes with contractors.
I think that every airline would prefer to see it's enroute charges being used to provide decent services - not to pay for lawyers and litigation in contract disputes.
Now where was it that opened a new centre on time and on budget? Perhaps they are the ones who can provide the service without risk of more wasted money?
Regards
DFC
PS - Balix, days off now followed by standby. Don't prune while away - too busy drinking
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: PIK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
A little knowledge is a silly thing.
The Government chose to impose PFI for the Oceanic computer relpacement, then chose to privatise NATS, then realised a PFI within a privatisation was nonsense and NATS had to extract itself from the contract the Government said was necessary.
The airline group decided to change the operating system for the new centre and put the whole thing back on the market. Those were the costs incurred. Not anything to do with the building itself and there was no litigation with the contractors or project staff who were then stopped because of 9/11.
So we suffered from government's changing their minds regularly and the effects of the worst recession in history. If we hadn't been privatised the government would have picked up the costs like most other countries. Hardly justifies your comment about NATS spending time and money in disputes.
We know there have been job losses and more on the cards. That is the "pleasure" of working for a privatised company taking a short term view. Unfortunatley for the grades affected they are all engineering and support and they have been hit hard and will be again. Meanwhile the irish are charging millions a year for operators sitting monitoring HF services which are declining in use each month as more and more airlines use datalink.
The whole point about the NOTA was part titled giving away our jobs and when we give away more income to the subsidised irish service we will lose more jobs. Lets just wait and see when the true costs come out whether all the customers agree with you.
A little knowledge is a silly thing.
The Government chose to impose PFI for the Oceanic computer relpacement, then chose to privatise NATS, then realised a PFI within a privatisation was nonsense and NATS had to extract itself from the contract the Government said was necessary.
The airline group decided to change the operating system for the new centre and put the whole thing back on the market. Those were the costs incurred. Not anything to do with the building itself and there was no litigation with the contractors or project staff who were then stopped because of 9/11.
So we suffered from government's changing their minds regularly and the effects of the worst recession in history. If we hadn't been privatised the government would have picked up the costs like most other countries. Hardly justifies your comment about NATS spending time and money in disputes.
We know there have been job losses and more on the cards. That is the "pleasure" of working for a privatised company taking a short term view. Unfortunatley for the grades affected they are all engineering and support and they have been hit hard and will be again. Meanwhile the irish are charging millions a year for operators sitting monitoring HF services which are declining in use each month as more and more airlines use datalink.
The whole point about the NOTA was part titled giving away our jobs and when we give away more income to the subsidised irish service we will lose more jobs. Lets just wait and see when the true costs come out whether all the customers agree with you.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arran,
Read the company report. The above quotes are cut and paste. They clearly indicate litigation and contract dispute costs.
So you agree that it isn't an airspace matter - it is simply a money and jobs matter.
You are making the same argument that many of us made when the Flight Engineer's time was at an end. Before that someone made the same complaint about the loss of the navigator and the radio operator.
Perhaps we should never progress.
However we can not deny that service will improve.
We pay a per-contact fee for HF services. If they have radio operators sitting round and nobody calling then that is up to them. We pay the same fee to the OACC regardless of which method we use and no doubt datalinking saves the OACC money.
If your only reason for complaining about the airspace change is the loss of jobs then you must be against datalinking. After all with datalink on every aircraft you won't need the nice clearance delivery people now will you?
That brings us back to money - which the airlines pay - which pays you. TAG is a great idea since it ensures that the airlines are at the table making the decisions.
There is no such thing as a "job for life" anymore.
You made claims that the radar was paid for by the EU but you can't back that up with any reference. have a look at the EU web site.
You now claim that the IAA provides a subsidised service. Who provides the subsidy and what evidence do you have?
I am waiting for an airline to come out and say that having a radar service in NOTA is worse than having a procedural service provided by the OACC.
Regards,
DFC
Read the company report. The above quotes are cut and paste. They clearly indicate litigation and contract dispute costs.
So you agree that it isn't an airspace matter - it is simply a money and jobs matter.
You are making the same argument that many of us made when the Flight Engineer's time was at an end. Before that someone made the same complaint about the loss of the navigator and the radio operator.
Perhaps we should never progress.
However we can not deny that service will improve.
We pay a per-contact fee for HF services. If they have radio operators sitting round and nobody calling then that is up to them. We pay the same fee to the OACC regardless of which method we use and no doubt datalinking saves the OACC money.
If your only reason for complaining about the airspace change is the loss of jobs then you must be against datalinking. After all with datalink on every aircraft you won't need the nice clearance delivery people now will you?
That brings us back to money - which the airlines pay - which pays you. TAG is a great idea since it ensures that the airlines are at the table making the decisions.
There is no such thing as a "job for life" anymore.
You made claims that the radar was paid for by the EU but you can't back that up with any reference. have a look at the EU web site.
You now claim that the IAA provides a subsidised service. Who provides the subsidy and what evidence do you have?
I am waiting for an airline to come out and say that having a radar service in NOTA is worse than having a procedural service provided by the OACC.
Regards,
DFC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: PIK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC has it not occurred to you that no matter how many calls are made on HF or what basis they are paid then the Irish are still recovering all their costs and profit from a decreasing number of calls ?
Subsidised service ? How come the Irish are proposing doing the NOTA service for nothing for the first 2 years ? All those extra ATCOs and equipment and not charging for it ? Just done out of the goodness of their hearts.
Subsidised service ? How come the Irish are proposing doing the NOTA service for nothing for the first 2 years ? All those extra ATCOs and equipment and not charging for it ? Just done out of the goodness of their hearts.