Serco
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
From: uk
Serco
A news paper report suggested that Serco have negotiated a hostile bid if CAA does not approve an increase in route charges. Byers is not ready to pour more money into Nats and as a means of funding will oust TAG and embrace Serco.
If this rears its head folks we must fight it to the hilt and walk out if that's what it takes.
Just Passing Another Moment
If this rears its head folks we must fight it to the hilt and walk out if that's what it takes.
Just Passing Another Moment
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
From: escaped from NERC
What a convenient moment for such a rumour to surface - just as NATS get round to the belated negotiations for this pay round!
Could it be that somebody "leaked" this story to try to make all those nasty ATCOs accept a poor pay deal in order to keep the SERCO ogre at bay?
Could it be that somebody "leaked" this story to try to make all those nasty ATCOs accept a poor pay deal in order to keep the SERCO ogre at bay?
niknak
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
From: UK
As efficiant as SERCO are, in the current economic climate,
1 - they do not have the cash, and
2 - they could not raise the cash to buy out TAG and then raise the extra money required to keep NATS running.
Aviation is a very small part of the SERCo groups' operations, and they are unable to, and always will be unable to, run an organisation like NATS, for the same reasons which applied when their first bid failed.
End of story.
1 - they do not have the cash, and
2 - they could not raise the cash to buy out TAG and then raise the extra money required to keep NATS running.
Aviation is a very small part of the SERCo groups' operations, and they are unable to, and always will be unable to, run an organisation like NATS, for the same reasons which applied when their first bid failed.
End of story.
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere beyond the sea
SERCo running NATS is a little like the fly swallowing the elephant but in the end they have the capability of doing the job safely, efficiently and above all cost effectively.
In order to accomplish the task the whole business needs an overhaul, something that the government recognized, but wasn't willing to do itself so it opted for privatisation and hoped somebody else would sort out the mess. Having little or no experience in ATC management the airline group, the winning bidder, has failed to carry out these reforms.
Before you all get on your high horses I'm not talking about reforming ATC standards, which I know are second to none, but all those costly peripheral perks, jollies, meetings, cars, early goes, standby shifts, etc. Even the most vehement anti privatisation critics must agree these exist. There's also the little matter of excessive layers of middle management. This is where SERCo shines as these layers are cut out as power is devolved down to unit level wherever this is possible whilst maintaining standards and yes, that dirty word profitability.
As is was SERCo were kept out of the running by a campaign of misinformation lead by those that should know better. One major point of misinformation was a supposed decline in ATC standards that would result from SERCo cost cutting. This was total rubbish as it presumed that the independent regulator, SRG, would watch quietly on the sideline.
SERCo is better off without NATS and as far as I can see will stay right away from any so-called take-over bid. That does not mean they will not be invited to participate in assisting with NATS management and they will no doubt accept if the price is right.
NATS will be all the better off if this happens.
In order to accomplish the task the whole business needs an overhaul, something that the government recognized, but wasn't willing to do itself so it opted for privatisation and hoped somebody else would sort out the mess. Having little or no experience in ATC management the airline group, the winning bidder, has failed to carry out these reforms.
Before you all get on your high horses I'm not talking about reforming ATC standards, which I know are second to none, but all those costly peripheral perks, jollies, meetings, cars, early goes, standby shifts, etc. Even the most vehement anti privatisation critics must agree these exist. There's also the little matter of excessive layers of middle management. This is where SERCo shines as these layers are cut out as power is devolved down to unit level wherever this is possible whilst maintaining standards and yes, that dirty word profitability.
As is was SERCo were kept out of the running by a campaign of misinformation lead by those that should know better. One major point of misinformation was a supposed decline in ATC standards that would result from SERCo cost cutting. This was total rubbish as it presumed that the independent regulator, SRG, would watch quietly on the sideline.
SERCo is better off without NATS and as far as I can see will stay right away from any so-called take-over bid. That does not mean they will not be invited to participate in assisting with NATS management and they will no doubt accept if the price is right.
NATS will be all the better off if this happens.
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
From: Southern UK
"SERCo running NATS is a little like the fly swallowing the elephant but in the end they have the capability of doing the job safely, efficiently and above all cost effectively.
Cost effectiveness above safety. 'Nuff sed.
Edited for crap grammar
Cost effectiveness above safety. 'Nuff sed.
Edited for crap grammar
Last edited by Bev Bevan; 16th April 2002 at 18:12.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
From: England
clipped_wings, while I agree that NATS could be run better in some areas I would take issue with some of your sweeping statements.
"costly peripheral perks, jollies, meetings, cars, early goes"
- well yes, early goes on the odd occasion - traffic in the big world varies enormously as does complexity and weather. Can not be totally predicted or flowed and must be staffed for otherwise we are criticsed for causing delays. This is not a competition to see how few people we can use - this is transportation of human beings in aluminimum cylinders five miles up - and as 'Bev Bevan' points out "above all cost effectively" just about sums up the SirCO approach!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As for the rest, what perks??? what jollies??? meetings - what do you mean. Does SirCO run with individual staff never communicating or deciding policy??? - thinking about it probably so! Ideal way to run a safety critical industry I would think! Cars - I wish!!!
"costly peripheral perks, jollies, meetings, cars, early goes"
- well yes, early goes on the odd occasion - traffic in the big world varies enormously as does complexity and weather. Can not be totally predicted or flowed and must be staffed for otherwise we are criticsed for causing delays. This is not a competition to see how few people we can use - this is transportation of human beings in aluminimum cylinders five miles up - and as 'Bev Bevan' points out "above all cost effectively" just about sums up the SirCO approach!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As for the rest, what perks??? what jollies??? meetings - what do you mean. Does SirCO run with individual staff never communicating or deciding policy??? - thinking about it probably so! Ideal way to run a safety critical industry I would think! Cars - I wish!!!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
From: England
Small point I'm in NATS, I understand the SERCO knocking, but do you really think they could have done as GOOD a job as TAG?????? Let's stop fighting against SERCO, think back that's why we're in the state we are now in.
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere beyond the sea
Yes above all make a profit!
That’s how businesses survive and prosper and improve standards. Without profit there is no investment, without investment you wouldn’t be reading this on a computer screen and you wouldn’t have all those nice planes to keep food on your the table and a roof over you heads.
Name me one successful airline that doesn’t make a profit so why should providing air navigation services be any different?
That’s how businesses survive and prosper and improve standards. Without profit there is no investment, without investment you wouldn’t be reading this on a computer screen and you wouldn’t have all those nice planes to keep food on your the table and a roof over you heads.
Name me one successful airline that doesn’t make a profit so why should providing air navigation services be any different?
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
From: UK
CLIPPED WINGS, Service 'a facility supplying some public demand ' .
Now you'll be saying 'What about water, telephones and power!', well the difference is that if ATC cock it up, the results are rather more deadly, rather more quickly, to rather more people.
Some things are best left in non-profit-making hands- even if they are a bit inefficient. I'd rather have that than a money-making scare-a-minute ATC system!
KEEP IT SAFE OUT THERE!
Now you'll be saying 'What about water, telephones and power!', well the difference is that if ATC cock it up, the results are rather more deadly, rather more quickly, to rather more people.
Some things are best left in non-profit-making hands- even if they are a bit inefficient. I'd rather have that than a money-making scare-a-minute ATC system!
KEEP IT SAFE OUT THERE!
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
From: England
clipped_wings, because it's infrastructure like roads, police, ambulance, fire brigade etc. Has to be there whatever and has to move whatever traffic is there.
Airlines, to be brutal, can go bust and another can take their place. ATC is DIFFERENT and must be there...and the consequences of an error do not bear thinking about!
I repeat, of course it should be run well, but not for profit! We don't expect the police, fire or ambulance to 'make a profit' why on earth should the ATC 'safety service' make a profit????????
Airlines, to be brutal, can go bust and another can take their place. ATC is DIFFERENT and must be there...and the consequences of an error do not bear thinking about!
I repeat, of course it should be run well, but not for profit! We don't expect the police, fire or ambulance to 'make a profit' why on earth should the ATC 'safety service' make a profit????????
