London SVFR - all OK?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hampshire UK
Age: 70
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JimBall. ATCO Two emphatically does not make the point that if you do not pay for the service, then you should not get the service! Please read my first post again. If you were making a commercial decision about where to allocate limited resources in the most effective manner to fulfil the needs of your customer with the least disruption to scheduled services, what would you decide?
The ownership of the airspace is a moot point. If staff are not available to provide a service in the airspace, then the service cannot be provided. The SVFR service is effectively subsidised by the airlines. Any revenue obtained by charging for the SVFR service would go back to the airlines in my opinion.
DFC - see your PMs.
The ownership of the airspace is a moot point. If staff are not available to provide a service in the airspace, then the service cannot be provided. The SVFR service is effectively subsidised by the airlines. Any revenue obtained by charging for the SVFR service would go back to the airlines in my opinion.
DFC - see your PMs.
Thread Starter
Trying to keep the worms in the can.......ATCO TWO I can't understand why you think that the commercial airline shareholders of NATS deserve any kind of payment. Have you studied the shareholder position ?
The Airline Group Ltd, a consortium of seven airlines, has the majority of voting rights and 41.9% of the shares of NATS Holdings Ltd. The Secretary of State for Transport owns 48.9% of the share capital, BAA plc 4.2% and NATS Employee Sharetrust Ltd the remaining 5%.
So - the majority shareholder is the taxpayer. That'll be all those little people asking for SVFR.
Presumably you believe that the non-shareholding airlines should enjoy less access than the 7 ? You refer to "your customer" - who is that ?
The root of this discussion is manpower. For whatever reason, there isn't enough. I trust the majority shareholder is aware.
The Airline Group Ltd, a consortium of seven airlines, has the majority of voting rights and 41.9% of the shares of NATS Holdings Ltd. The Secretary of State for Transport owns 48.9% of the share capital, BAA plc 4.2% and NATS Employee Sharetrust Ltd the remaining 5%.
So - the majority shareholder is the taxpayer. That'll be all those little people asking for SVFR.
Presumably you believe that the non-shareholding airlines should enjoy less access than the 7 ? You refer to "your customer" - who is that ?
The root of this discussion is manpower. For whatever reason, there isn't enough. I trust the majority shareholder is aware.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hampshire UK
Age: 70
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you so much JimBall for explaining the allocation of shares within NATS. As a shareholder myself I am aware of the figures. My customers are the airlines, the airports to which we are contracted to provide an ATC service, and other airspace users who choose to avail themselves of air traffic services. The majority shareholders in the case of NATS do not provide its revenue, nor subsidise its costs. NATS' revenue comes from the Air Navigation Service charges paid by its commercial customers. Where did I suggest that the SVFR service was only subsidised by the Airline Group?
Please answer the question I posed in my last post about the allocation of resources.
The manpower available is sufficient, but no operation is immune from short notice intangibles like sickness.
Please answer the question I posed in my last post about the allocation of resources.
The manpower available is sufficient, but no operation is immune from short notice intangibles like sickness.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BD
Thread Starter
Lordy, it's the time of goodwill to all.....ATCO TWO
But the taxpayer created NATS. The taxpayer is the majority shareholder. And, guess what, we pay our taxes on the profits we make and through other forms of indirect taxation. If NATS was wholly owned by the private sector, you might have an argument.
The resources shouldn't be limited. Hell's teeth - this is the busiest piece of local airspace in Europe. The revenue generated by NATS (and the taxpayer) in this part of the UK is gigantic. Why is the service under-resourced ?
When the service is available it is top notch and it's a great 2-way relationship. (I won't go into details about what we're doing for NATS at the moment...). But if London is under-resourced then someone high up at NATS needs to take notice before the majority shareholder gets to hear about it.
Yep. And guess who pays taxes ? Bit like the costs of HGVs on the public roads..........especially the ones without UK registrations.
NATS is now, whether we like it or not, a commercial organisation that needs to make money for its shareholders.
If you were making a commercial decision about where to allocate limited resources in the most effective manner to fulfil the needs of your customer with the least disruption to scheduled services, what would you decide?
When the service is available it is top notch and it's a great 2-way relationship. (I won't go into details about what we're doing for NATS at the moment...). But if London is under-resourced then someone high up at NATS needs to take notice before the majority shareholder gets to hear about it.
Hhhhmmm you, as a commercial operator, are being paid by whomever hires you to fly. Yet you make no payment for the service from ATC. So effectively you're making money from a service provided by the taxpayer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hampshire UK
Age: 70
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The taxpayer created NATS? Really? I thought it was the government. Does the taxpayer pay revenue to NATS? No of course not, but NATS returns revenue to the taxpayer. The airlines who pay for our services expect value for money and are forever pressing NATS to reduce its charges and overheads. As I have stated, the airlines subsidise the SVFR position at the moment, but would they be always be happy for this situation to continue? Just a question.
Again as I have stated, the resources are sufficient for the SVFR operation. It is only when unforeseen and exceptional circumstances such as short notice sickness occur that service provision is compromised.
And you still have not answered my question!!!
Again as I have stated, the resources are sufficient for the SVFR operation. It is only when unforeseen and exceptional circumstances such as short notice sickness occur that service provision is compromised.
And you still have not answered my question!!!
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the government made NATS create NATS. The government set a price for NATS privatisation (£600m) and NATS had to raise the money on the open market in order to pay the government. Since privatisation the taxpayer has put no money into NATS but has received £600m into the public coffers plus the bonuses from the shares. NATS is a revenue generator for the taxpayer.
But as I've explained above the taxpayer doesn't pay anything towards the running of NATS, in fact they make money. So your analogy doesn't work. Personally I'd feel quite uncomfortable using a free service but charging a 3rd party
BD
Yep. And guess who pays taxes ? Bit like the costs of HGVs on the public roads..........especially the ones without UK registrations.
BD
Thread Starter
And you still have not answered my question!!!
SVFR is not some sort of bonus. It is a part of the ANO. If we have to pay for it - fine. But then the service would have to be delivered.
And let's not delude ourselves that the £600m paid by NATS was the true value of our national airspace and the infrastructure that supported it at the time. Like any other privatised entity, NATS had to be at an attractive price.
As for "selling a free service to a third party" - meet me anytime to discuss that suggestion! Do you have any idea how much it costs to run a private aviation business ? I'll bear your thoughts in mind when I sign the cheque for this year's corporation tax. If we follow this train of thought you'll be charging truckers for signposts.
How many "British" airlines pay UK tax ? How many airline multi-millionaires live here year round and don't pay as much tax as the cleaner in your office ?
Still - all I originally asked was "is all well......?"
Thanks for the answer(s). And best wishes for Christmas and the New Year.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And let's not delude ourselves that the £600m paid by NATS was the true value of our national airspace and the infrastructure that supported it at the time. Like any other privatised entity, NATS had to be at an attractive price.
As for "selling a free service to a third party" - meet me anytime to discuss that suggestion! Do you have any idea how much it costs to run a private aviation business?
How many "British" airlines pay UK tax ? How many airline multi-millionaires live here year round and don't pay as much tax as the cleaner in your office ?
And best wishes for Christmas and the New Year.
BD
Thread Starter
Oh Beady - I'm almost taking your bait.
If you really mean that, then I am dumbfounded by your complete disregard for the economic engine that keeps this UK going.
What would you like me to do - become a drain on the State ? Ask an employer to pay my pension ? Stop employing people who contribute to the economy ? Stop buying 40,000 litres a year of AVGAS at 1.16 net a litre - 80% of which is tax that goes back to the State ?
It's called enterprise - and we graft for every penny.
No one is twisting your arm to run your private business!
What would you like me to do - become a drain on the State ? Ask an employer to pay my pension ? Stop employing people who contribute to the economy ? Stop buying 40,000 litres a year of AVGAS at 1.16 net a litre - 80% of which is tax that goes back to the State ?
It's called enterprise - and we graft for every penny.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hampshire UK
Age: 70
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can easily answer my question about resourcing, by looking at the situation as I described it in purely practical and commercial terms. You do not need any expertise in ATC whatsoever.
Thames Radar is contracted to provide Approach Radar services to London City and Biggin Hill Airports. SVFR is under no such contract.
The question is ultimately - do you close Thames Radar or SVFR, if you have an unforeseen staff shortage? What would you do JimBall? Where is the greatest impact on the operation likely to be? Should thousands of fare paying passengers be inconvenienced, or just a single aircraft unable to carry out a particular task? Logically, what is your answer?
Thames Radar is contracted to provide Approach Radar services to London City and Biggin Hill Airports. SVFR is under no such contract.
The question is ultimately - do you close Thames Radar or SVFR, if you have an unforeseen staff shortage? What would you do JimBall? Where is the greatest impact on the operation likely to be? Should thousands of fare paying passengers be inconvenienced, or just a single aircraft unable to carry out a particular task? Logically, what is your answer?
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent! So I'll take yours.
The economic engine is that companies (etc) pay for the services they obtain from other companies (etc). If a company provides a service for which they don't get paid then eventually they'll run out of money and go down the plug hole. NATS is a substantial revenue generator for the UK in the service it provides to commercial traffic and for which that commercial traffic pays. If more 'private aviation companies' exploited loopholes by obtaining a service from NATS for which they don't pay then NATS would:
Either go down the plug hole
or
would be forced to approach the regulator in order to obtain exemption from having to provide that service as a part of its licence
or
have the law changed in order to be able to charge for the currently freely provided service.
BD
If you really mean that, then I am dumbfounded by your complete disregard for the economic engine that keeps this UK going.
Either go down the plug hole
or
would be forced to approach the regulator in order to obtain exemption from having to provide that service as a part of its licence
or
have the law changed in order to be able to charge for the currently freely provided service.
BD
Thread Starter
OK. Final post. First, I don't see how I can answer ATCO TWO's question. I have no idea how many controllers it takes on a Sunday afternoon to run TC and/or SVFR. But there's someone who does - and that same person would know that every winter/summer/whenever there is a sickness or (if like the average workforce) some "sickness" amongst some members of staff. Given that ATC is a nationally-critical industry, you would have to assume that there is a back-up plan ? If not, then how come your management overhead is so high ?
If the National Grid and other essential utilities can cope with flu and Christmas shopping, then NATS can do the same.
(I knew you wouldn't want to hear this answer).
Beady: ignoring your flawed "exploitation" argument, if there's a problem with the system, let's get it fixed. If that means charging for a SVFR service, then let's get it done.
There are many operators who benefit from SVFR. However, if NATS persuades DAP to change the airspace classification to something more sensible, SVFR won't be needed !
All we have to do then is convince the various Class D airspaces around the UK that an NSF is not necessary - nor legally required! Happy Christmas to Birmingham, Manchester and, on occasions, Bournemouth who all seem to have their own rule book.
Please - go ahead and explain why we have to deal with different rules in different places ? Rules that aren't even legal.
I would love to relate the conversation I had with a NATS manager in an English region who maintained that he had the right to invent his own rules.....
If the National Grid and other essential utilities can cope with flu and Christmas shopping, then NATS can do the same.
(I knew you wouldn't want to hear this answer).
Beady: ignoring your flawed "exploitation" argument, if there's a problem with the system, let's get it fixed. If that means charging for a SVFR service, then let's get it done.
There are many operators who benefit from SVFR. However, if NATS persuades DAP to change the airspace classification to something more sensible, SVFR won't be needed !
All we have to do then is convince the various Class D airspaces around the UK that an NSF is not necessary - nor legally required! Happy Christmas to Birmingham, Manchester and, on occasions, Bournemouth who all seem to have their own rule book.
Please - go ahead and explain why we have to deal with different rules in different places ? Rules that aren't even legal.
I would love to relate the conversation I had with a NATS manager in an English region who maintained that he had the right to invent his own rules.....
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are many operators who benefit from SVFR. However, if NATS persuades DAP to change the airspace classification to something more sensible, SVFR won't be needed !
BD
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BD
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point being that the airlines are not NATS only customer. Your comment
is factually incorrect.
You could also say that the public 'own' the majority of the risk.
But as I've explained above the taxpayer doesn't pay anything towards the running of NATS
You could also say that the public 'own' the majority of the risk.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My statement is factually correct. The MoD purchase a service from NATS. If the MoD chose to purchase that service elsewhere NATS would not go down the plughole because NATS would then require less workstations, less staff, less real estate etc. Whereas the NHS, for example, is reliant upon the taxpayer as thats who pays for it. 
BD
BD
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As galling as it is to say it, BDiONU's correct. 
One of BAE Systems' largest customers is the MoD (probably the largest, but haven't checked as I write this). Does that mean that 'taxpayers' fund BAE Systems? No. Taxpayers' money is used to fund the MoD, who then use that to purchase services and hardware from suppliers, such as BAE and NATS.
Even pre-PPP, I'm sure that NATS actually generated revenue for the Exchequer, rather than the other way around.
One of BAE Systems' largest customers is the MoD (probably the largest, but haven't checked as I write this). Does that mean that 'taxpayers' fund BAE Systems? No. Taxpayers' money is used to fund the MoD, who then use that to purchase services and hardware from suppliers, such as BAE and NATS.
Even pre-PPP, I'm sure that NATS actually generated revenue for the Exchequer, rather than the other way around.