Luton radar going to NATS?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Luton radar going to NATS?
Following a review, consultant Vector Management has recommmended taking radar approach services away from Luton's in-house team and giving them to NATS at LATCC.
Additionally, the consultant has recommended outsourcing Luton tower ATC services to commercial contractor SerCo.
Unison union is extremely unhappy about this, claiming that:
- Luton's low-cost carrier base will be shafted by whatever fees NATS decides to impose (especially post-privatization)
- All the supposed traffic-flow benefits of moving approach control to LATCC don't really exist (and besides, Luton controllers already have some nifty traffic-flow procedures of their own)
- Vector is favouring NATS because the two have financial interest in each other
- SerCo isn't up to the job, because it has failed to win contracts at similarly-busy UK airports. Unison compares the higher number of mandatory safety reports it says are being filed at Liverpool (which has SerCo ATC) with the number at Luton, to emphasize its point.
Any thoughts?
Additionally, the consultant has recommended outsourcing Luton tower ATC services to commercial contractor SerCo.
Unison union is extremely unhappy about this, claiming that:
- Luton's low-cost carrier base will be shafted by whatever fees NATS decides to impose (especially post-privatization)
- All the supposed traffic-flow benefits of moving approach control to LATCC don't really exist (and besides, Luton controllers already have some nifty traffic-flow procedures of their own)
- Vector is favouring NATS because the two have financial interest in each other
- SerCo isn't up to the job, because it has failed to win contracts at similarly-busy UK airports. Unison compares the higher number of mandatory safety reports it says are being filed at Liverpool (which has SerCo ATC) with the number at Luton, to emphasize its point.
Any thoughts?
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was a thread here about a month ago and known at LATCC about 3 years ago.
GW has been destined for LATCC since TC was invented. Once we swallowed Stansted and that corner became a bit busier it was only a matter of time before it merged into TC. The only thing that would stop it would be a reversion of LL and KK to approach units at the airports. Not likely this side of privatisation. And never after it.
Tower contracting out ? A probable consequence of former decisions. We always said that the non NATS best insurance policy was NATS remaining in the public sector as the market leader. Im afraid your silence (or quiet s******ing) on the matter will ultimately come back to haunt your pay packet.
GW has been destined for LATCC since TC was invented. Once we swallowed Stansted and that corner became a bit busier it was only a matter of time before it merged into TC. The only thing that would stop it would be a reversion of LL and KK to approach units at the airports. Not likely this side of privatisation. And never after it.
Tower contracting out ? A probable consequence of former decisions. We always said that the non NATS best insurance policy was NATS remaining in the public sector as the market leader. Im afraid your silence (or quiet s******ing) on the matter will ultimately come back to haunt your pay packet.
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big Chief,
What's the link with Vector and NATS then ? I've never heard of them before (Vector that is !!)
------------------
10 West
UK ATC'er
[email protected]
ICQ 18043595
[This message has been edited by 10W (edited 26 June 1999).]
What's the link with Vector and NATS then ? I've never heard of them before (Vector that is !!)
------------------
10 West
UK ATC'er
[email protected]
ICQ 18043595
[This message has been edited by 10W (edited 26 June 1999).]
