The Queen's Speech - Privatisation
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Queen's Speech - Privatisation
The following was sent out today by NATS Corporate Communications:
"Extract from the Queen’s Speech relating to the Public Private Partnership for NATS:
'A Bill will be reintroduced to establish a Strategic Rail Authority, it will contain measures to improve bus services and reduce road congestion. It will include measures for National Air Traffic Services, to separate safety regulation from operational matters and deliver major investment in the next generation technology.'
The Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions said:
The Bill would allow for the setting up of a Public Private Partnership (PPP) to deliver air traffic services in the UK. Safety is paramount and responsibility for it would remain in the public sector. Safety regulation would be separated from service provision and a new economic regulatory framework established. The Civil Aviation Authority would have responsibility for airspace policy. The PPP would give NATS access to the finance and skills needed to maintain and raise safety standards, and to be a major player in the European air traffic control system.
The DETR also said:
No other model would achieve all of our objectives for NATS - maintaining and improving safety, securing long term investment and access to capital, build on NATS’ operational strengths, broaden its management capability and ensure NATS continues to work in the public interest.
National Air Traffic Services’ response to the announcement:
NATS WELCOMES GOVERNMENT PLAN FOR PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT IN AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
The Chairman of National Air Traffic Services (NATS), Sir Roy McNulty, today welcomed the Government’s announcement in the Queen’s Speech indicating that the Government is to press ahead with its plans to involve the private sector in the running of Britain’s air traffic control system by establishing a public private partnership (PPP).
Sir Roy said: 'We are delighted that the first major milestone leading to the PPP has been successfully cleared and that the Government is committed to the PPP. We now look forward to the Government’s detailed implementation plans and discussions on these plans with all the parties involved.
'We are pleased because we believe the PPP will deliver four crucial benefits.
First, we will have access to the £1 billion we need to build the New Scottish Centre and other investments in modern technology and capacity to cope with growing traffic safely and efficiently.
'Second, we will have access to the broader range of commercial management skills we need. Third, we will be able to compete in international markets and make the most of our reputation as the safest and most efficient air traffic controllers in the world.
'And fourth, we will be able to end the uncertainty that has hung over NATS for the last five years.'
Sir Roy said that the system around the world of nationally-based, state-owned air traffic control systems which has been in place since the end of the Second World War was set to change. It was important that Britain’s competitors did not steal a march on NATS.
'NATS now has a golden opportunity to become an early mover in a market that is being made ripe for development by new satellite technologies and by the ever increasing demands of our airlines and airport customers.'
With the number of air travellers using Britain’s airports expected almost to double over the next decade to 310 million, Sir Roy said that the best way of removing the threat of sharply rising delays was to deliver a successful PPP."
NATS Corporate Communications Department,
"Extract from the Queen’s Speech relating to the Public Private Partnership for NATS:
'A Bill will be reintroduced to establish a Strategic Rail Authority, it will contain measures to improve bus services and reduce road congestion. It will include measures for National Air Traffic Services, to separate safety regulation from operational matters and deliver major investment in the next generation technology.'
The Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions said:
The Bill would allow for the setting up of a Public Private Partnership (PPP) to deliver air traffic services in the UK. Safety is paramount and responsibility for it would remain in the public sector. Safety regulation would be separated from service provision and a new economic regulatory framework established. The Civil Aviation Authority would have responsibility for airspace policy. The PPP would give NATS access to the finance and skills needed to maintain and raise safety standards, and to be a major player in the European air traffic control system.
The DETR also said:
No other model would achieve all of our objectives for NATS - maintaining and improving safety, securing long term investment and access to capital, build on NATS’ operational strengths, broaden its management capability and ensure NATS continues to work in the public interest.
National Air Traffic Services’ response to the announcement:
NATS WELCOMES GOVERNMENT PLAN FOR PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT IN AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
The Chairman of National Air Traffic Services (NATS), Sir Roy McNulty, today welcomed the Government’s announcement in the Queen’s Speech indicating that the Government is to press ahead with its plans to involve the private sector in the running of Britain’s air traffic control system by establishing a public private partnership (PPP).
Sir Roy said: 'We are delighted that the first major milestone leading to the PPP has been successfully cleared and that the Government is committed to the PPP. We now look forward to the Government’s detailed implementation plans and discussions on these plans with all the parties involved.
'We are pleased because we believe the PPP will deliver four crucial benefits.
First, we will have access to the £1 billion we need to build the New Scottish Centre and other investments in modern technology and capacity to cope with growing traffic safely and efficiently.
'Second, we will have access to the broader range of commercial management skills we need. Third, we will be able to compete in international markets and make the most of our reputation as the safest and most efficient air traffic controllers in the world.
'And fourth, we will be able to end the uncertainty that has hung over NATS for the last five years.'
Sir Roy said that the system around the world of nationally-based, state-owned air traffic control systems which has been in place since the end of the Second World War was set to change. It was important that Britain’s competitors did not steal a march on NATS.
'NATS now has a golden opportunity to become an early mover in a market that is being made ripe for development by new satellite technologies and by the ever increasing demands of our airlines and airport customers.'
With the number of air travellers using Britain’s airports expected almost to double over the next decade to 310 million, Sir Roy said that the best way of removing the threat of sharply rising delays was to deliver a successful PPP."
NATS Corporate Communications Department,
Guest
Posts: n/a
I can't believe they are going ahead with this one.
What next....
Auctioning off levels on the NAT Track structure?
"What am I bid for Flight Level 320 on the core track today folks.....ten thousand ...Thank You Sir!......Sold to the chap in the dark glasses at the back of the room!!"
Or how about giving a discount on separation minima.....the more you pay the better you'll be separated....forget to pay and we'll forget all about that thousand foot stuff we give the others......Ha Fu**ing Ha!
What next....
Auctioning off levels on the NAT Track structure?
"What am I bid for Flight Level 320 on the core track today folks.....ten thousand ...Thank You Sir!......Sold to the chap in the dark glasses at the back of the room!!"
Or how about giving a discount on separation minima.....the more you pay the better you'll be separated....forget to pay and we'll forget all about that thousand foot stuff we give the others......Ha Fu**ing Ha!
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
From: UK
and the assurances given by NATS management and the Government about guaranteeing our pensions, pay etc are worth as much as Andrew Smith's Labour conference speech when he said " our air is not for sale"
Put it in legislation or we wont believe a word.
Put it in legislation or we wont believe a word.
Guest
Posts: n/a
try this...
NATS is privatised, and regulated by SRG - no reduction in safety. Along comes "TechBits Plc" "Excuse me NATS, we have invented a new piece of kit that makes ATC even more safe than it is now. Cost you 50 million pounds."
"Err, no thanks, eat into our profits too much"
What could SRG do about that? Nothing. No incentive to invest, no legislation can insist on it....
NATS is privatised, and regulated by SRG - no reduction in safety. Along comes "TechBits Plc" "Excuse me NATS, we have invented a new piece of kit that makes ATC even more safe than it is now. Cost you 50 million pounds."
"Err, no thanks, eat into our profits too much"
What could SRG do about that? Nothing. No incentive to invest, no legislation can insist on it....
Guest
Posts: n/a
I am prepared to be corrected. However, can SRG INSIST on "new" safety equipment, or merely ensure MINIMUM standards.
With most privatisations, the money paid by the buyer can be invested into the company (part of it at least). In this case, the money is to be used to fill holes in Prescotts spending plans. How will a new part-owner benefit from thei huge investment?
------------------
"The Hamster my friend, is blowing in the wind"
With most privatisations, the money paid by the buyer can be invested into the company (part of it at least). In this case, the money is to be used to fill holes in Prescotts spending plans. How will a new part-owner benefit from thei huge investment?
------------------
"The Hamster my friend, is blowing in the wind"
Guest
Posts: n/a
mr chips,
speculation on my part but it I would imagine that a new SRG would be able to insist on new equipment where necessary to ensure maintenance of standards.
the CAA in its present form does, (I feel), a decent job in regulating UK aviation and the UK holiday flight market through the ATOL scheme. If anything I would suggest that an independent SRG would be more likely to flex its muscle with a privatised NATS than it does at present - if only because no-one wants another Paddington. Does anyone complain about SRGs regulation of the numerous "non-NATS" airfields in this country?
As for the proceeds of any sale, from what I've seen the proceeds of previous privatisations have been used to write off the debt accumulated and to pay for tax cuts or perhaps spend on something else. The proposed sale of NATS does not change anything here.
As for benefits to a new owner - these have been well covered in previous threads but no doubt include a large tax allowance for the new parent company by making this investment,lots of scope for cutting costs in support and admin. services - already we've had contracting out of security and the start of a rundown of MOD Police and Fire cover- and of course that big pension surplus.
speculation on my part but it I would imagine that a new SRG would be able to insist on new equipment where necessary to ensure maintenance of standards.
the CAA in its present form does, (I feel), a decent job in regulating UK aviation and the UK holiday flight market through the ATOL scheme. If anything I would suggest that an independent SRG would be more likely to flex its muscle with a privatised NATS than it does at present - if only because no-one wants another Paddington. Does anyone complain about SRGs regulation of the numerous "non-NATS" airfields in this country?
As for the proceeds of any sale, from what I've seen the proceeds of previous privatisations have been used to write off the debt accumulated and to pay for tax cuts or perhaps spend on something else. The proposed sale of NATS does not change anything here.
As for benefits to a new owner - these have been well covered in previous threads but no doubt include a large tax allowance for the new parent company by making this investment,lots of scope for cutting costs in support and admin. services - already we've had contracting out of security and the start of a rundown of MOD Police and Fire cover- and of course that big pension surplus.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fair enough Bill, I take your point about SRG - although there is still quite a strong link between them and NATS, but i guess that there always will be. i am simply not reassured by the "independent regulator" thing - even the lottery is not properly regulated (advertising in breach of agreements etc).
Basically though, i am not convinced that privatisation is a good thing - changes to pay and conditions would be a worry at least.
Having said that, somepractices within NATS need a shake up - we are a wee bit parochial in places....
As someone else said - we could do with more views on this - how many ATC PPRuNers are there?
------------------
"The Hamster my friend, is blowing in the wind"
Basically though, i am not convinced that privatisation is a good thing - changes to pay and conditions would be a worry at least.
Having said that, somepractices within NATS need a shake up - we are a wee bit parochial in places....
As someone else said - we could do with more views on this - how many ATC PPRuNers are there?
------------------
"The Hamster my friend, is blowing in the wind"
Guest
Posts: n/a
SRG regulation is (and please feel free to correct me if anyone knows better) fairly lax under the current system. Both in NATS and non-NATS a/d's. WHen was the last time you heard of SRG insisting on new equipment at an airfield?
They wanted (for example) EGAA to have SSR for years and NATS/EGAA simply said no.
When they do find equipment faults (and this is a bit apocryphal) they simply insist they are fixed. They never fine, or actually close (or even restrict) operations until it is fixed.
That system may work ok at the moment (I don't think it does) but it won't work at all come privatisation.
My 10p wasn't meant to be quite so long.
They wanted (for example) EGAA to have SSR for years and NATS/EGAA simply said no.
When they do find equipment faults (and this is a bit apocryphal) they simply insist they are fixed. They never fine, or actually close (or even restrict) operations until it is fixed.
That system may work ok at the moment (I don't think it does) but it won't work at all come privatisation.
My 10p wasn't meant to be quite so long.
Guest
Posts: n/a
For info...
The Transport Sub-Committee of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee will be hearing oral evidence in pursuance of this inquiry in a Committee Room in the Palace of Westminster as follows:
Wednesday 1 December at 4.00 pm British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA)
Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators
at 4.40 pm Public and Commercial Services (PCS) Union
Institute of Professionals, Managers and Specialists (IPMS)
Wednesday 8 December at 4.00 pm National Air Traffic Services Limited
at 4.30 pm Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)
at 5.00 pm Ministers and officials from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
The Transport Sub-Committee of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee will be hearing oral evidence in pursuance of this inquiry in a Committee Room in the Palace of Westminster as follows:
Wednesday 1 December at 4.00 pm British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA)
Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators
at 4.40 pm Public and Commercial Services (PCS) Union
Institute of Professionals, Managers and Specialists (IPMS)
Wednesday 8 December at 4.00 pm National Air Traffic Services Limited
at 4.30 pm Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)
at 5.00 pm Ministers and officials from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Guest
Posts: n/a
I agree with Bill. CAA/SRG does fine job with UK Airlines & other aviation matters, and if anything is likely to flex its' muscles on NATS as soon as it can to stamp its authority. Safety will always be paramount, NATS will not have any choice...
Other positive from privatisation is that NATS can/will start to get involved in the huge amount of international ATM business that goes on outside of UK & Europe incl helping USA/Africa/India/Russia get themsleves sorted. And in longer term possibly even take over their operations in one way or another. Only privatisation will allow such action....and mark my words, liberalisation and new technology will push this along...
I would hope that soon NATS will be able to build on its already excellent operational & safety record and really develop in to an organisation where employees are truely proud to work....which many might not agree exists in todays climate....
Sorry to disappoint those that disagree .... don't mean to provoke any anger .... just the way I feel....
Other positive from privatisation is that NATS can/will start to get involved in the huge amount of international ATM business that goes on outside of UK & Europe incl helping USA/Africa/India/Russia get themsleves sorted. And in longer term possibly even take over their operations in one way or another. Only privatisation will allow such action....and mark my words, liberalisation and new technology will push this along...
I would hope that soon NATS will be able to build on its already excellent operational & safety record and really develop in to an organisation where employees are truely proud to work....which many might not agree exists in todays climate....
Sorry to disappoint those that disagree .... don't mean to provoke any anger .... just the way I feel....
Guest
Posts: n/a
SRG doing a good job?
How many Airprox's have ended with the recommendation 'SSR for Aldergrove'. It was ruled out each time due to cost for years.
I don't think it's even in now.
What about a vertical presentation of radar data of traffic in the holding stack ?
Still not on the cards.
The government claims this privitisation is different to Railtrack because we have a separate watchdog to govern us already.
That watchdog knows the biggest risk of a mid-air collision is in the stack yet NATS is doing nothing to remedy it.
How will SRG force a new owner to invest in safety when it cannot or will not force the present Nats management to develop and install equipement to make the stacks safe ?
How many Airprox's have ended with the recommendation 'SSR for Aldergrove'. It was ruled out each time due to cost for years.
I don't think it's even in now.
What about a vertical presentation of radar data of traffic in the holding stack ?
Still not on the cards.
The government claims this privitisation is different to Railtrack because we have a separate watchdog to govern us already.
That watchdog knows the biggest risk of a mid-air collision is in the stack yet NATS is doing nothing to remedy it.
How will SRG force a new owner to invest in safety when it cannot or will not force the present Nats management to develop and install equipement to make the stacks safe ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Maybe we'll get our own watchdog like the other privitised utilities - Oftel, Ofwat etc. Could be part of SRG will be revamped into Ofblip or the like, or given this government's love of beaurocracy, maybe 'Ofblip' would oversee SRG overseeing us. And I'm not laughing as I write this either, who knows what will be dreamt up in the wake of the Paddington disaster.
[This message has been edited by Wee Jock (edited 23 November 1999).]
[This message has been edited by Wee Jock (edited 23 November 1999).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dear Vertigo
You say that the greatest risk of collision is in a stack.
Is this correct - have you any evidence to substantiate this statement.
You also say NATS are doing nothing about it.
Tut-tut old boy. You obviously don't have the contacts to inform you what NATS are up to.
You say that the greatest risk of collision is in a stack.
Is this correct - have you any evidence to substantiate this statement.
You also say NATS are doing nothing about it.
Tut-tut old boy. You obviously don't have the contacts to inform you what NATS are up to.
Guest
Posts: n/a
how about "offsick" for a NATS regulator?
anyway, intentionally blank and vertigo, I did not mention SRGs current performance. your point about SSR at EGAA is valid but that is precisely why an independent SRG is required. CAA/SRG in its role as airline and holiday regulator may have faults but, maybe I'm wrong, the UK probably has of the worlds best civil aviation fleets and the public in the UK is the least likely to lose its money to dodgy travel companies. Post-privatisation, is the part of SRG that deals with UK ATC going to work to a lower set of standards? I think not...
As an ATCO opposed to PPP I think that regulation post-privatisation is the least of our worries.
anyway, intentionally blank and vertigo, I did not mention SRGs current performance. your point about SSR at EGAA is valid but that is precisely why an independent SRG is required. CAA/SRG in its role as airline and holiday regulator may have faults but, maybe I'm wrong, the UK probably has of the worlds best civil aviation fleets and the public in the UK is the least likely to lose its money to dodgy travel companies. Post-privatisation, is the part of SRG that deals with UK ATC going to work to a lower set of standards? I think not...
As an ATCO opposed to PPP I think that regulation post-privatisation is the least of our worries.
Guest
Posts: n/a
"Expert"
A/c 1,000 feet above you, A/c 1,000 feet below you, all wanting to descend. Dangerous? How difficult is this to work out? Are there are incidents in the stacks? level busts? Would a level bust in such a situation be more dangerous than anywhere else? I think this is all fairly obvious, but I'm no expert!
I saw a bit of a programme on Discovery about the Manchester incident. There was a call for smoke hoods, but the CAA didn't act. Just a comment....
------------------
"The Hamster my friend, is blowing in the wind"
A/c 1,000 feet above you, A/c 1,000 feet below you, all wanting to descend. Dangerous? How difficult is this to work out? Are there are incidents in the stacks? level busts? Would a level bust in such a situation be more dangerous than anywhere else? I think this is all fairly obvious, but I'm no expert!
I saw a bit of a programme on Discovery about the Manchester incident. There was a call for smoke hoods, but the CAA didn't act. Just a comment....
------------------
"The Hamster my friend, is blowing in the wind"
Guest
Posts: n/a
ATC expert (sic).
Of course the greatest risk is in the stack. SRG reccomended display of levels many moons ago (over ten years) and NATS are "still looking into it". EGAA see messages passim. Not to mention SMR.
SRG is not going to be given powers that enable it to force a private NATS to buy expensive new equipment. It would be commercial suicide for a plc to buy into a company where they have no control on future expenditure and are unable to increase costs at will.
Of course the greatest risk is in the stack. SRG reccomended display of levels many moons ago (over ten years) and NATS are "still looking into it". EGAA see messages passim. Not to mention SMR.
SRG is not going to be given powers that enable it to force a private NATS to buy expensive new equipment. It would be commercial suicide for a plc to buy into a company where they have no control on future expenditure and are unable to increase costs at will.