NATS not allowed to raise charges (merged thread)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Bermuda Shorts and Cessna Caravans
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, well, well.
Just watched BBC News at 1300.
Figures supplied by NATS themselves to the BBC revealed that despite this minor setback, management had succeeded in reducing costs to such an extent that we will have a surplus this year of 54 MILLION GBP
No doubt some of this will go towards rewarding the staff this year instead of funding management bonuses and refunds to the airlines.......
Just watched BBC News at 1300.
Figures supplied by NATS themselves to the BBC revealed that despite this minor setback, management had succeeded in reducing costs to such an extent that we will have a surplus this year of 54 MILLION GBP
No doubt some of this will go towards rewarding the staff this year instead of funding management bonuses and refunds to the airlines.......
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can juggle the figures how you like.
The settlement for the PFI contract fiasco with EDS was "significantly less than the £42.7m sought". Presumably financial provision was made to cover whatever the High Court action decided and NATS must now be sitting on a tidy surplus having settled out of court....... one that COULD fund the pay claim.
Don't forget also that NATS is already benefiting from its staff in the form of a PENSIONS HOLIDAY .
Something else that was alluded to on BBC News24 is the repayment of certain loans by 2005/6. Don't have the full details I'm afraid, but it seems the terms of these "loans" don't look very good after that date.
Rgds BEX
The settlement for the PFI contract fiasco with EDS was "significantly less than the £42.7m sought". Presumably financial provision was made to cover whatever the High Court action decided and NATS must now be sitting on a tidy surplus having settled out of court....... one that COULD fund the pay claim.
Don't forget also that NATS is already benefiting from its staff in the form of a PENSIONS HOLIDAY .
Something else that was alluded to on BBC News24 is the repayment of certain loans by 2005/6. Don't have the full details I'm afraid, but it seems the terms of these "loans" don't look very good after that date.
Rgds BEX
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"NATS is not so hard up"
'Teletext' news item reads:
"The part-privatised firm which runs air traffic control services has reacted with shock to a regulator's refusal to allow it to raise charges to airlines.
National Air Traffic Services wanted to raise fees in the wake of a downturn due to the events of September the 11
The Civil Aviation Authority ruled the current regime is right and presented figures showing Nats is not so hard up".
Sorry for those who selected the link I posted earlier - the story subsequently changed to a POA meeting heckling a Govt. minister - popular pass-time if ever there was!
rgds
T3
"The part-privatised firm which runs air traffic control services has reacted with shock to a regulator's refusal to allow it to raise charges to airlines.
National Air Traffic Services wanted to raise fees in the wake of a downturn due to the events of September the 11
The Civil Aviation Authority ruled the current regime is right and presented figures showing Nats is not so hard up".
Sorry for those who selected the link I posted earlier - the story subsequently changed to a POA meeting heckling a Govt. minister - popular pass-time if ever there was!
rgds
T3
Last edited by tug3; 21st May 2002 at 21:50.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Ecosse
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tug 3: Excellent link!
Unlikely I know, but any CAA peeps out there with a clue as to what figures were used to blow a serious hole in the "no money" argument?
Not those from the "2.2+3.7=6" school of maths I trust! (I always thought that sum would equal 5.9! Silly me...)
PS Bex: Cheers for yours
Unlikely I know, but any CAA peeps out there with a clue as to what figures were used to blow a serious hole in the "no money" argument?
Not those from the "2.2+3.7=6" school of maths I trust! (I always thought that sum would equal 5.9! Silly me...)
PS Bex: Cheers for yours
Last edited by fish food; 21st May 2002 at 16:26.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its CAA ERG that don't think the picture is as bad as NATS is painting...
If you want to wade through the whole report it's here:
http://www.caa.co.uk/erg/ergdocs/nat...reliminary.pdf
It does indeed say that things ain't so bad.
Whoever wrote it also has a sense of humour.In one paragraph it even suggests that TAG member airlines PAY THE EXTRA CHARGES while keeping the prices to everybody else to the agreed price cap. Don't suppose that's gone down to well
rgds BEX
If you want to wade through the whole report it's here:
http://www.caa.co.uk/erg/ergdocs/nat...reliminary.pdf
It does indeed say that things ain't so bad.
Whoever wrote it also has a sense of humour.In one paragraph it even suggests that TAG member airlines PAY THE EXTRA CHARGES while keeping the prices to everybody else to the agreed price cap. Don't suppose that's gone down to well
rgds BEX
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Somewhere on the warm side!
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA propose rejection of revised NATS charges
The CAA have today stated that they will be recommending that the revised ATC charges put forward by NATS be rejected.
NATS had been asking for the current 2003 formula of RPI-4% to be changed to RPI+4%. This 8% increase has been rejected by the CAA who do not appear to believe that the lack of revenue at present justifies changing the charging formula.
NATS appear to have been taken somewhat by surprise by this recommendation from the CAA. Not sure where NATS will now be getting their cash flow from in order to meet the objectives of the already revised Business Plan??
It would appear that NATS will have to seek investment from elsewhere......time for extending the loans from HMG and the banks perhaps? By what collateral can NATS offer?
Never mind future expansion and new technology, NATS will be struggling to sustain the existing infrastructure.
NATS had been asking for the current 2003 formula of RPI-4% to be changed to RPI+4%. This 8% increase has been rejected by the CAA who do not appear to believe that the lack of revenue at present justifies changing the charging formula.
NATS appear to have been taken somewhat by surprise by this recommendation from the CAA. Not sure where NATS will now be getting their cash flow from in order to meet the objectives of the already revised Business Plan??
It would appear that NATS will have to seek investment from elsewhere......time for extending the loans from HMG and the banks perhaps? By what collateral can NATS offer?
Never mind future expansion and new technology, NATS will be struggling to sustain the existing infrastructure.
