NATS Lose Gatwick Contract (Split thread)
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2013
Location: .?????
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NATS Lose Gatwick Contract (Split thread)
Oh dear, DFS have got Gatwick.
Let's hope NATS treat the guys there better than they did the Birmingham staff after that contract loss.
Let's hope NATS treat the guys there better than they did the Birmingham staff after that contract loss.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: London
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See my post of 2 July
Just shows that in a real contest, NATS cannot compete.They have been molly coddled by the UK Government for far too long.Manchester’s next, then Cardiff.
The “sad part” is that the Spanish owners of Gatwick have ignored UK industry and the UK ATC profession and awarded the contract to the German DFS which won’t allow UK companies to bid for ATC contracts in their country.
It will be very interesting to see the terms & conditions which DFS will offer to the current NATS ATCOs and what NATS can do about stemming the haemorrhaging of all their ATC contracts. The answer was probably in the 'Reids'.
The “sad part” is that the Spanish owners of Gatwick have ignored UK industry and the UK ATC profession and awarded the contract to the German DFS which won’t allow UK companies to bid for ATC contracts in their country.
It will be very interesting to see the terms & conditions which DFS will offer to the current NATS ATCOs and what NATS can do about stemming the haemorrhaging of all their ATC contracts. The answer was probably in the 'Reids'.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very good news today, change is good!
What does the contract change mean in terms of the actual practicalities of the operation? For example, will NATS remove and take away their equipment or is it most likely this will stay in addition to the current structure of the unit as it is 'NATS style' for example, without any ATSAs etc
What does the contract change mean in terms of the actual practicalities of the operation? For example, will NATS remove and take away their equipment or is it most likely this will stay in addition to the current structure of the unit as it is 'NATS style' for example, without any ATSAs etc
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
t will be very interesting to see the terms & conditions which DFS will offer to the current NATS ATCOs
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: looking out of the window
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Change is good for who?
No doubt staff, equipment and service will remain. I guess it's cheaper for the airport and now the profit from the contract goes over seas as well.
Or are you a non-NATS ATCO who expects to walk into a KK job just because the management has changed?
No doubt staff, equipment and service will remain. I guess it's cheaper for the airport and now the profit from the contract goes over seas as well.
Or are you a non-NATS ATCO who expects to walk into a KK job just because the management has changed?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lady Atco, perhaps you should check your facts before you post, twice now you have made yourself look foolish by making incorrect statements, by the way, Gatwick hasn't had "Spanish" owners for several years, GIP are American.
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airport owner will own the equipment in the Tower. NATS was forced down that road during privatisation by the Government, presumably to stop NATS ripping everything out if they lost a contract.
Not sure about the supply of data, from radar feeds, etc, and the cost of maintenance for NATS bespoke equipment. Presumably NATS can charge for that after change over at commercial rates. Or DFS can supply it's own.
Not sure about the supply of data, from radar feeds, etc, and the cost of maintenance for NATS bespoke equipment. Presumably NATS can charge for that after change over at commercial rates. Or DFS can supply it's own.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Change is good in terms of there no longer being a rather unfair monopoly of ATC services at the major airports being provided by NATS.
Like what Ladyatco said, NATS have had an unfair advantage being partly subsidised by government and it is very refreshing to see this is now being broken up just like all modern industries are and should be, into a free market.
You sort of answered your own question too, if all the equipment, staff and service are to remain and continue, why does it have to be NATS that provides this, why not give someone else a chance to perhaps bring more innovation and a different approach in the future.
And no, I'm not a non-NATS ATCO but I'm sure there are a few out there who are also very happy with today's news for the points I mention above and more.
Like what Ladyatco said, NATS have had an unfair advantage being partly subsidised by government and it is very refreshing to see this is now being broken up just like all modern industries are and should be, into a free market.
You sort of answered your own question too, if all the equipment, staff and service are to remain and continue, why does it have to be NATS that provides this, why not give someone else a chance to perhaps bring more innovation and a different approach in the future.
And no, I'm not a non-NATS ATCO but I'm sure there are a few out there who are also very happy with today's news for the points I mention above and more.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me too T250.
Not all of the change I have seen in ATC has been good.
Step up to the microphone please….
Do you have a problem with the services that NATS provide?
Not all of the change I have seen in ATC has been good.
Step up to the microphone please….
Do you have a problem with the services that NATS provide?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whitelighter, it comes down to a choice between more of the same and something new.
Unfortunately on this occasion the owners of LGW saw more potential and innovation (or whatever it was) in DFS than in NATS, is this something that you find wrong or incorrect?
nothing lasts forever...
Unfortunately on this occasion the owners of LGW saw more potential and innovation (or whatever it was) in DFS than in NATS, is this something that you find wrong or incorrect?
nothing lasts forever...
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder what innovation DFS can bring realistically ?
Gatwick shifts up to 55 aircraft an hour already so hard to see that drastically improving. It is also well ensconced in London TMA airspace so will have to fit in with the greater good of the TMA, controlled by NATS.
Or maybe the innovation is being able to do it with a large Government subsidy with no questions asked, along with insider knowledge of all NATS business practices and finances ?
Gatwick shifts up to 55 aircraft an hour already so hard to see that drastically improving. It is also well ensconced in London TMA airspace so will have to fit in with the greater good of the TMA, controlled by NATS.
Or maybe the innovation is being able to do it with a large Government subsidy with no questions asked, along with insider knowledge of all NATS business practices and finances ?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: location, location!
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under TUPE conditions pension doesn't need to be matched like other T's & C's, therefore fairly easy to see how to construct a rival bid that is less, when you have a smaller pension provision overhead to factor in.
There is a caveat though; Any NATS employees that has been in employment since before part privatisation has a security blanket to protect the pension they currently receive if NATS loose any contracts, i.e. Birmingham, Gatwick. If the incumbent provider doesn't match the pension, NATS have to offer them a job elsewhere within the business. A large number of employees have exercised this right at Birmingham, maybe more than expected, and who knows how many at Gatwick also have that option and then choose to do the same.
This may open up opportunities to ATCO's from other units, as happened at Birmingham, but the training backlog created by this can be huge and in many ways only a success with the contribution and not an immeasurable amount of goodwill of the current ATCO's that are OJTI rated within the unit.
It could be argued though that in a few years any contracts lost by NATS, or indeed any new ones that they want to look at in the UK could be bid for with lower overheads as they would no longer have the burden of the final salary pension to factor in. They would be a leaner meaner company with a more competitive edge.
There is a caveat though; Any NATS employees that has been in employment since before part privatisation has a security blanket to protect the pension they currently receive if NATS loose any contracts, i.e. Birmingham, Gatwick. If the incumbent provider doesn't match the pension, NATS have to offer them a job elsewhere within the business. A large number of employees have exercised this right at Birmingham, maybe more than expected, and who knows how many at Gatwick also have that option and then choose to do the same.
This may open up opportunities to ATCO's from other units, as happened at Birmingham, but the training backlog created by this can be huge and in many ways only a success with the contribution and not an immeasurable amount of goodwill of the current ATCO's that are OJTI rated within the unit.
It could be argued though that in a few years any contracts lost by NATS, or indeed any new ones that they want to look at in the UK could be bid for with lower overheads as they would no longer have the burden of the final salary pension to factor in. They would be a leaner meaner company with a more competitive edge.