NATS, Manchester, and some Charity work?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Dorset
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NATS, Manchester, and some Charity work?
Are the rumours true that NATS have been awarded the Manchester contract for a further 6 years on a zero profit basis?
If it is the case I would like to congratulate the company on another success
I hope my pension change and rumoured pay deal can help the company in delivering these "zero profit" services.
If it is the case I would like to congratulate the company on another success
I hope my pension change and rumoured pay deal can help the company in delivering these "zero profit" services.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: England
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if it's true then it will be an improvement! The present (previous) contract was on a "loose money" basis so it's a step in the right direction. 
If it was such good news how come it's not all over the Intranet? I Suspect there is a large BUT in there somewhere.
If it was such good news how come it's not all over the Intranet? I Suspect there is a large BUT in there somewhere.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the circular that came out yesterday, it is all but signed. The final details are being banged out regarding the total costs, but significant savings need to be made on this contract, above the ones already conceded to enable NATS to win the contract.
No guesses as to which pot those savings will come out of... another way for NATS to claim they can't afford pay rises or to keep the pension.
No guesses as to which pot those savings will come out of... another way for NATS to claim they can't afford pay rises or to keep the pension.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
loubylou
Have you read the Union circular about this? It sounds as though they are not too impressed with the way this contract was 'negotiated', and quite rightly so.
I was highlighting the double standards of our senior management team. I was speculating about the fact that NATS will bleat on about lack of money, and underperforming, whilst taking on a loss making contract.
I am glad that they are still employed by NATS - that does not mean that I think that the correct way to run a business is to take on a loss making contract. I'm sure many people in NSL will agree with that.
Or do you think NATS should apply for other contracts and deliberately make a low bid to get business, even though it means making a loss?
Despite what seems like some efforts by management to de-skill the operational staff, NATS are extremely good at separating aircraft - that is one of the reasons why our staff are well paid and hence the high cost of our contracts.
However, NATS is a business - does it make sense for a business to take on a contract that it knows will cost it money, not make it any?
I was of the understanding that NATS was financially challenged, hence the inability to continue the pension, and the reluctance to give a pay rise... it does not make sense financially, nor for the future security of the company, to knowingly take on a loss making contract.
In any other business, the shareholders would be up in arms over such practices. In times of financial difficulty it does not make sense to throw away money. The union reps that I know (and reading the circular it is seemingly apparent that the TUs feel the same), believe it is extremely poor practice by management.
Have you read the Union circular about this? It sounds as though they are not too impressed with the way this contract was 'negotiated', and quite rightly so.
I was highlighting the double standards of our senior management team. I was speculating about the fact that NATS will bleat on about lack of money, and underperforming, whilst taking on a loss making contract.
I am glad that they are still employed by NATS - that does not mean that I think that the correct way to run a business is to take on a loss making contract. I'm sure many people in NSL will agree with that.
Or do you think NATS should apply for other contracts and deliberately make a low bid to get business, even though it means making a loss?
Despite what seems like some efforts by management to de-skill the operational staff, NATS are extremely good at separating aircraft - that is one of the reasons why our staff are well paid and hence the high cost of our contracts.
However, NATS is a business - does it make sense for a business to take on a contract that it knows will cost it money, not make it any?
I was of the understanding that NATS was financially challenged, hence the inability to continue the pension, and the reluctance to give a pay rise... it does not make sense financially, nor for the future security of the company, to knowingly take on a loss making contract.
In any other business, the shareholders would be up in arms over such practices. In times of financial difficulty it does not make sense to throw away money. The union reps that I know (and reading the circular it is seemingly apparent that the TUs feel the same), believe it is extremely poor practice by management.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it does not make sense financially, nor for the future security of the company, to knowingly take on a loss making contract.
If the contract covers the local costs and you're only making a loss because of a large contribution to headquarters costs factored into your budget you may well still take on the contract because it still makes some contribution to the HQ overhead and that overhead would otherwise have to be spread around the remaining contract.
If the cost of withdrawal, usually redundancy, was greater than the loss you expect to make.
If you anticipated a possibility of reducing your costs within the term of the contract you may decide to run at a loss rather than withdrawing and hoping to reduce your costs enough to bid next time.
If the customer controls, or might in the future control, a large amount of your potential business and you might lose out on other contracts by withdrawing.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ISZ - not the end of the world, but you can see it from here.
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zooker
Supermarkets tend to make a significant profit on their other businesses. Other airports will look at the Manch thing, and think 'We'll have some of that too'
Look on the bright side, NSL is fast becoming a not for profit organisation, just like the union demanded back at privatisation.
Supermarkets tend to make a significant profit on their other businesses. Other airports will look at the Manch thing, and think 'We'll have some of that too'
Look on the bright side, NSL is fast becoming a not for profit organisation, just like the union demanded back at privatisation.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't seen anything official through the company about this yet, but I should point out there is a major difference between a loss-making contract and a zero profit contract. If any company provides a service at cost price, and it is genuinely meeting its costs (pay, pension contributions, loan repayments etc), it can happily continue to do that year after year, servicing the ongoing running costs. As I learned in business studies many years ago, not all companies exist to make profit!
What you cannot do at cost price, is show a profit on the balance sheets, whatever you plan to do with those profits (re-invest, save or distribute to staff or shareholders). I don't believe NATS would accept a loss-making contract in this day and age unless they were certain to recoup it in other ways, such as showcasing its expertise at complex airport ATC.
What you cannot do at cost price, is show a profit on the balance sheets, whatever you plan to do with those profits (re-invest, save or distribute to staff or shareholders). I don't believe NATS would accept a loss-making contract in this day and age unless they were certain to recoup it in other ways, such as showcasing its expertise at complex airport ATC.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NS - That's all very well when talking about contracts in singularity - NATS can claim it is has a zero profit contract at Manchester if all other aspects of NATS business are taken into account (staff costs can be hidden within NSL as a whole for instance).
However, When looking at contracts on an individual cost versus charge basis, one may well find that the individual contract is making a loss.
In effect, as Zooker said, treating certain contracts as loss leaders.
As for
I think that argument is moot as long as NATS has the Heathrow contract (not in any way belittling Manchester with that comment).
And as you state, not all businesses exist to make profit, but NATS actually does, albeit in a somewhat woolly 'not for commercial gain' kind of way.
As such, taking on a contract that is going to make a loss is a bad thing 9if that's what this EGCC contract means). Reading the union circular, that should be available at every unit, the wording infers that this will indeed be a loss makng contract.
Personally, I have a foot in both camps - one the one hand, I think we should have the contract for a variety of reasons - Showcasing, as you stated is one. Keeping a broad base of practical ATC experience is another, keeping NATS employees employed is yet another.
On the other hand, I can see the very strong arguments for not doing it, the biggest one being that we are striving to save money all over the company and are making a huge swathe of people redundant (or just not renewing contracts) - some people (such as some of the engineering contractors as one example), are probably still very much needed, but contractors are an easy, knee-jerk way of saving money without having to admit to the outside world that you are making redundancies.
The problem all stems from PPP. If that had not been pushed through, then NATS would have been in a less grey area when it comes to for profit/not for profit status...
The sickening thing is that the Labour back-benchers are putting up more of a fight against the Post Office PPP than they ever did against Tony 'our Skies Are Not For Sale' Blairs move to PPP NATS
However, When looking at contracts on an individual cost versus charge basis, one may well find that the individual contract is making a loss.
In effect, as Zooker said, treating certain contracts as loss leaders.
As for
...such as showcasing its expertise at complex airport ATC...
And as you state, not all businesses exist to make profit, but NATS actually does, albeit in a somewhat woolly 'not for commercial gain' kind of way.
As such, taking on a contract that is going to make a loss is a bad thing 9if that's what this EGCC contract means). Reading the union circular, that should be available at every unit, the wording infers that this will indeed be a loss makng contract.
Personally, I have a foot in both camps - one the one hand, I think we should have the contract for a variety of reasons - Showcasing, as you stated is one. Keeping a broad base of practical ATC experience is another, keeping NATS employees employed is yet another.
On the other hand, I can see the very strong arguments for not doing it, the biggest one being that we are striving to save money all over the company and are making a huge swathe of people redundant (or just not renewing contracts) - some people (such as some of the engineering contractors as one example), are probably still very much needed, but contractors are an easy, knee-jerk way of saving money without having to admit to the outside world that you are making redundancies.
The problem all stems from PPP. If that had not been pushed through, then NATS would have been in a less grey area when it comes to for profit/not for profit status...
The sickening thing is that the Labour back-benchers are putting up more of a fight against the Post Office PPP than they ever did against Tony 'our Skies Are Not For Sale' Blairs move to PPP NATS
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont really think that we can criticise New Labour MPs for not standing up against NATS privatisation when the employees themselves were not prepared to make a stand against it. After all those that did protest (Mrs Dunwoody for example) at least arranged for guarantees for the NATS employees pension rights, a guarantee that the employees themselves have just voluntarily relinquished.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Cloud Nine
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont really think that we can criticise New Labour MPs for not standing up against NATS privatisation when the employees themselves were not prepared to make a stand against it.
I think the (embarassed) Union should show some spine and now be highlighting and shouting about the absolute hypocrisy of the Government's stance.
The whole reason for the flawed PFI/PPP model in the first place was to get the risk and debt off the PSBR (Public Sector Borrowing Requirement). We now see Government bailouts of PFI projects, and calls for Government to plug the hole in the Royal Mail pension fund. never mind that the PSBR is totally wa##ered with the banking crisis.
I said then, and I'll say it again - the Union duped us into 'keeping our powder dry' over PPP and waiting until ..... errr ..... the pension issue.
We played by the rules, acted 'responsibly', worked 'together' ... and exactly where did it get us ?
But having seen our National Officers presentation on the pension, I am of the view that THEY who represent US are actually jealous of the amount ATCOs get paid and just think we are overpaid spoilt whingers. What hope is there in that case ?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PH-UKU.
I see your point particularly about Prospect, but have to disagree. In my opinion the unions have little or no influence on the management aims and policies. Working Together and other initiatives are just "figleaves" to hide that lack of influence and control. I do think that they are doing their members a disservice by continuing with this farce. The unions should come clean and admit that they cannot influence the management, particularly after the pension vote and allow each individual to make provision for their own professional and financial welfare.
I see your point particularly about Prospect, but have to disagree. In my opinion the unions have little or no influence on the management aims and policies. Working Together and other initiatives are just "figleaves" to hide that lack of influence and control. I do think that they are doing their members a disservice by continuing with this farce. The unions should come clean and admit that they cannot influence the management, particularly after the pension vote and allow each individual to make provision for their own professional and financial welfare.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manchester Airport Group Plc
The principal activities of the company are the ownership, operation and development of airport facilities within the UK.
The Company operates airports in Manchester, Nottingham East Midlands, Bournemouth and Humberside.
The Council holds 112,353,999 El shares, equivalent to 55% of the company's share capital.
At the year ended 31st March 2008, the company had net assets of £938,200,000 (£861,000,000 at 31st March 2007).
The profit before tax was £87,800,000 and after tax was £80,800,000 (profit before tax £80,900,000 and after tax £67,700,000
2006-07).
The principal activities of the company are the ownership, operation and development of airport facilities within the UK.
The Company operates airports in Manchester, Nottingham East Midlands, Bournemouth and Humberside.
The Council holds 112,353,999 El shares, equivalent to 55% of the company's share capital.
At the year ended 31st March 2008, the company had net assets of £938,200,000 (£861,000,000 at 31st March 2007).
The profit before tax was £87,800,000 and after tax was £80,800,000 (profit before tax £80,900,000 and after tax £67,700,000
2006-07).
These figures are in line with International Accounting Standards.
Hardly strapped for cash are they ?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hardly strapped for cash are they ? 
Mind you, MAG Plc are a customer, so at least by negotiating a loss making contract, NATS Management are self fulfilling one of vision 2011 aims 'in tune with our custimers'.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 5116N00044W
Age: 76
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
But Heathrow does not do approach, so Manchester is the only 2 runway airport in the UK with an approach function!
There may also be the opportunity of moving into the other MAG airports - I seem to recall that the Buy One Get One Free offer took place after the last EGCC contract was negotiated. (Hurn anyone?)
..such as showcasing its expertise at complex airport ATC...
I think that argument is moot as long as NATS has the Heathrow contract
There may also be the opportunity of moving into the other MAG airports - I seem to recall that the Buy One Get One Free offer took place after the last EGCC contract was negotiated. (Hurn anyone?)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Box Hill or Bust
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But Heathrow does not do approach, so Manchester is the only 2 runway airport in the UK with an approach function!