Privatized ATC, pros and cons
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We normally work:
Radar - hour on/hour off (except when it's busy on radar; even then it's rare to do more than 90 mins on/half hour off)
Tower - hour and a half on/forty-five minutes off (except when it's quiet; then it's hour about)
We can expect an early go at least twice a cycle (i.e. to leave the building an hour early - sometimes two hours early).
Our shift pattern (familiar to NATS folk) is MM, AA, NN, S, three days off. Shifts are:
Morning 0700-1400, Afternoon 1400-2200, Night 2200-0700 (there are some variations but I won't complicate matters).
To my mind, this roster is a bit of a doss. I'm sorry if that's an affront to some people, but in every other job I had I seemed to be in work a lot more than I am now. In fact, if I was offered a decent pay rise in return for working longer hours, I'd offer it serious consideration (in principle, at least).
Radar - hour on/hour off (except when it's busy on radar; even then it's rare to do more than 90 mins on/half hour off)
Tower - hour and a half on/forty-five minutes off (except when it's quiet; then it's hour about)
We can expect an early go at least twice a cycle (i.e. to leave the building an hour early - sometimes two hours early).
Our shift pattern (familiar to NATS folk) is MM, AA, NN, S, three days off. Shifts are:
Morning 0700-1400, Afternoon 1400-2200, Night 2200-0700 (there are some variations but I won't complicate matters).
To my mind, this roster is a bit of a doss. I'm sorry if that's an affront to some people, but in every other job I had I seemed to be in work a lot more than I am now. In fact, if I was offered a decent pay rise in return for working longer hours, I'd offer it serious consideration (in principle, at least).
Last edited by 1261; 21st Jun 2002 at 09:54.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some interesting posts. My humble opinion is that NATS's problems have been exacerbated by a greedy and dishonest government. Originally they (the Govt) were asking for £500m in return for a 46% share in the company. They then let a perceived bidding war break out to push the price to £800m before selling it to the one group who had an inherent and active interest in a safe and efficient ATC system - the Airline Group. (Having just taken £800 million quid, guess how much the government is going to re-invest in air transport? Sod all is how much).
Meanwhile, the Airline Group - who genuinely want to invest in, and improve, the ATC system - are now being shafted by the banks wanting the interest payments on the damn great loan they had to take out to buy NATS. Before a penny gets invested, TAG are £800 million out of pocket. (Plus interest). And don't forget, the biggest shareholder is still the government with 49%.
Now I'm sorry if I'm being naive, simplistic or just too angry, but why can't the government put a bit of that cash back into the system? A cynical colleague suggested that Blair 'n' Brown would like to see NATS go bankrupt so they can do a Railtrack: take the company back into public control for a pittance, and keep the original £800 million for the Treasury. But that would be dishonest, and therefore wouldn't happen....would it?
As one of the posts above said, though, when you're plugged in, you're just doing the job as best you can - and probably the majority of ATCOs enjoy the job! (but don't tell the boss)
Meanwhile, the Airline Group - who genuinely want to invest in, and improve, the ATC system - are now being shafted by the banks wanting the interest payments on the damn great loan they had to take out to buy NATS. Before a penny gets invested, TAG are £800 million out of pocket. (Plus interest). And don't forget, the biggest shareholder is still the government with 49%.
Now I'm sorry if I'm being naive, simplistic or just too angry, but why can't the government put a bit of that cash back into the system? A cynical colleague suggested that Blair 'n' Brown would like to see NATS go bankrupt so they can do a Railtrack: take the company back into public control for a pittance, and keep the original £800 million for the Treasury. But that would be dishonest, and therefore wouldn't happen....would it?
As one of the posts above said, though, when you're plugged in, you're just doing the job as best you can - and probably the majority of ATCOs enjoy the job! (but don't tell the boss)
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: In the sun
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many promises will be made about investment etc some of which will sound good, but promises will be broken, those in charge will change, policy will change and, as we have found, it only takes one incident such as 9/11 for everything to go down the pan. Plus, of course, events such as 9/11 will be used as an excuse for making wholesale changes whether warranted or not.
Bear all this in mind when making up your mind about privatisation.
I would fight against it and wish we in the UK had been more forceful with our opposition. I would have been even more inclined to strike about privatisation than the current pay dispute, although wouldn't rule that out either.
Bear all this in mind when making up your mind about privatisation.
I would fight against it and wish we in the UK had been more forceful with our opposition. I would have been even more inclined to strike about privatisation than the current pay dispute, although wouldn't rule that out either.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Down South
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I very much doubt this awful government of ours would let NATS go bankrupt - first of all think of the loss of dosh - Air Transport is still probably the most efficient method of squirting goods around the country. Look at the mess the roads and rail are in. I think when the PPP was being pushed through we were all being blinded by the dreaded SERCO, the evil dooer that was going to cut our pay in half, kill our pensions and put down our dogs. On reflection I think they were maybe the better choice - they certainly know how to manage.
Back to the point. Privatisation of the ATC system can be a very good thing. If it's done right and the safety is there as top priority. The extra investment that can be generated is almost unlimited. Certainly from an engineering point of view the extra cash that it could, if done right, generate would be greatly appreciated. There liesw the problem though. To be in a government type post means you don't know how to mange or run a commercial environment. It might be a good idea to get an independant consultant in to manage the change. But, if aprivate, or part-privatised ATC system/company were to manage a project like Swanwick first of all we wouldn't all be sat here on the sunny South Coast of England now. How many private companies would let a contracted company dictate time scales and costs? Then do you think they'd let it go 2 times over budget? The FAA has a prime opportunity here to show the rest of the world how to privatise an ATC system and do it right.
Out of interest I'm against this PPP we have now, as I'm against total privatisation of ATC. But why would anyone wearing a suit listen to a little snot nosed engineer like me? Make sure your voice is heard loud otherwise you'll get pi$$ed on like all of us in NATS.
Back to the point. Privatisation of the ATC system can be a very good thing. If it's done right and the safety is there as top priority. The extra investment that can be generated is almost unlimited. Certainly from an engineering point of view the extra cash that it could, if done right, generate would be greatly appreciated. There liesw the problem though. To be in a government type post means you don't know how to mange or run a commercial environment. It might be a good idea to get an independant consultant in to manage the change. But, if aprivate, or part-privatised ATC system/company were to manage a project like Swanwick first of all we wouldn't all be sat here on the sunny South Coast of England now. How many private companies would let a contracted company dictate time scales and costs? Then do you think they'd let it go 2 times over budget? The FAA has a prime opportunity here to show the rest of the world how to privatise an ATC system and do it right.
Out of interest I'm against this PPP we have now, as I'm against total privatisation of ATC. But why would anyone wearing a suit listen to a little snot nosed engineer like me? Make sure your voice is heard loud otherwise you'll get pi$$ed on like all of us in NATS.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I think when the PPP was being pushed through we were all being blinded by the dreaded SERCO, the evil dooer that was going to cut our pay in half, kill our pensions and put down our dogs. On reflection I think they were maybe the better choice - they certainly know how to manage"
what???
OK.. NATS has problems, we all know that.. but if Serco had taken over, life would never have been the same again for anyone who's not an atco, facing cuts in pay, pension rights, always assuming they hadnt been made compulsorarily redundant.
And the ATCO's would have felt the consequences too.
BB
______________________________________
Serco eats babies
what???
OK.. NATS has problems, we all know that.. but if Serco had taken over, life would never have been the same again for anyone who's not an atco, facing cuts in pay, pension rights, always assuming they hadnt been made compulsorarily redundant.
And the ATCO's would have felt the consequences too.
BB
______________________________________
Serco eats babies
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In case you haven't noticed, Ben, life isn't ever going to be the same for any of us in the future, ATCO or not. I'm starting to wonder whether SERCo wouldn't have been the better option myself, given the current quagmire we find ourselves in!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Down South
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point exactly 12. They might be murderers when it comes to non-essential types, but they certainly get rid of the fatty layers of managers and hangers on that are making this company the nightmare it is at the moment. Sure things might be worse, but they couldn't be all that much worse. Besides, we'd have such a strong 49% stakeholder who have never mis-lead or lied to us, so our interests, such as saftey, pensions and the price of Bananas in the Canteen would be safe.
Bring back Prescott, that's what I say!! On that subject has anyone noticed how strikingly similar Maggie Thatcher and Johnnie Prescott look?
Bring back Prescott, that's what I say!! On that subject has anyone noticed how strikingly similar Maggie Thatcher and Johnnie Prescott look?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"In case you haven't noticed, Ben, life isn't ever going to be the same for any of us in the future, ATCO or not. "
Yes, true, and a fair point.
The point I was trying to make is that things would have been even worse with Serco, with their "cash is king, squeeze the terms and conditions of the workers, and asset strip as much as possible" ethos. They would have been there to make as much profit as possible. Fair enough, but not suitable for ATC.
While the ATCO's would have been ok, the rest of NATS would have faced severe attacks on T&C, and their jobs, considerably beyond what we have seen with the AG (with the knock on effects that the ATCO's will have faced due to the assistants all having been sacked, etc.)
Certainly the AG could have got better management in than they have.. I dont think they've made the most of the opprtunity they've had to do that.. e.g. CC is still there.
BB
__________________________________
Serco eats babies
Yes, true, and a fair point.
The point I was trying to make is that things would have been even worse with Serco, with their "cash is king, squeeze the terms and conditions of the workers, and asset strip as much as possible" ethos. They would have been there to make as much profit as possible. Fair enough, but not suitable for ATC.
While the ATCO's would have been ok, the rest of NATS would have faced severe attacks on T&C, and their jobs, considerably beyond what we have seen with the AG (with the knock on effects that the ATCO's will have faced due to the assistants all having been sacked, etc.)
Certainly the AG could have got better management in than they have.. I dont think they've made the most of the opprtunity they've had to do that.. e.g. CC is still there.
BB
__________________________________
Serco eats babies
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
couldn't have put it better myself BB
the other problem is that no matter who owns NATS the same management team are in place and will the best will in the world the majority are not business men but atcos and engineers which is hardly the best background for the commercial world we are supposed to be in, when it comes to getting new or retaining contracts.being in a commercial world not only means giving what your customers want but also getting the best deal for your company and finding a happy balance between the 2. sometimes it feels that NATS is good at the first and not at the second
prof
the other problem is that no matter who owns NATS the same management team are in place and will the best will in the world the majority are not business men but atcos and engineers which is hardly the best background for the commercial world we are supposed to be in, when it comes to getting new or retaining contracts.being in a commercial world not only means giving what your customers want but also getting the best deal for your company and finding a happy balance between the 2. sometimes it feels that NATS is good at the first and not at the second
prof
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over here in the states we're getting rumors that the UK is possibly considering doing away with the privatized ATC system and putting back into the gov't.
Any truth to this? I can't seem to find any news stories on this.
Any truth to this? I can't seem to find any news stories on this.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stuck Mike;
I don't know where you are hearing that rumor... As far as we can see in the press clippings that we see on NATCA.net there is nothing afoot for the govt. to take over again. It appears to be to much of a face saving thing.
I don't know where you are hearing that rumor... As far as we can see in the press clippings that we see on NATCA.net there is nothing afoot for the govt. to take over again. It appears to be to much of a face saving thing.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stuck Mike;
I don't know where you are hearing that rumor... As far as we can see in the press clippings that we see on NATCA.net there is nothing afoot for the govt. to take over again. It appears to be to much of a face saving thing.
I don't know where you are hearing that rumor... As far as we can see in the press clippings that we see on NATCA.net there is nothing afoot for the govt. to take over again. It appears to be to much of a face saving thing.
BTW, it's "StuckMic", not "Stuck Mike"
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all,
It is with great interest that I read this thread. I am surprised that the majority of the opinions about privatisation is focussed on working conditions instead of safety. I am not saying that working conditions are not important but IMHO privatisation can be a bad idea for safety in many ways and isn't that more important?
Don't forget, if you're not happy with what you do you can always pull the plug and go and do someting different.
It is with great interest that I read this thread. I am surprised that the majority of the opinions about privatisation is focussed on working conditions instead of safety. I am not saying that working conditions are not important but IMHO privatisation can be a bad idea for safety in many ways and isn't that more important?
Don't forget, if you're not happy with what you do you can always pull the plug and go and do someting different.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
actas
Of course safety is the most important, the reason people are complaining about conditions is that now NATS has been privatised, people have to work their butts off to maintain the same level of safety without the same level investment being put in to the company. This level has gone from too little to f### a$$.
With the bank cutting of our money supply and demanding their money back, any little cash that is available to help the ATC, is wrapped up in so much that there is more chance of England winning a World Cup, than being able to get some money.
Any NATS staff think that there appears for be more people trying to manage them now and with more red tape, than before PPP?
Answers on a £50 note so I can afford to do what actas suggests and get out
Of course safety is the most important, the reason people are complaining about conditions is that now NATS has been privatised, people have to work their butts off to maintain the same level of safety without the same level investment being put in to the company. This level has gone from too little to f### a$$.
With the bank cutting of our money supply and demanding their money back, any little cash that is available to help the ATC, is wrapped up in so much that there is more chance of England winning a World Cup, than being able to get some money.
Any NATS staff think that there appears for be more people trying to manage them now and with more red tape, than before PPP?
Answers on a £50 note so I can afford to do what actas suggests and get out
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Hairy Badger (and others)
there is another thread going on about the question whether ATC stafff is really that much underpaid so maybe this belongs there but I'll reply here anyway.
Without wanting to be opinonated I would like to ask you, did you ever take the trouble to log your actual "working" hours. That is: how much time do you really spend at the "tube"? I wouldn't be surprised at all if you would be. It's probably less then you think. On the other hand it could well be more then before PPP, but that would merely indicate how much it was then.
It seems to me that you don't need money to get out. On the contrary, you'd get the money IF you get out. You do need a lot of guts though and believe me, I know, I've been there. From those days I still carrry the memory of destructive complaining that seems so typical for Air Traffic Controllers that do feel unrecognised by their management. I am convinced that a little more of that would take away the need for more money, privatised or not.
actas
there is another thread going on about the question whether ATC stafff is really that much underpaid so maybe this belongs there but I'll reply here anyway.
Without wanting to be opinonated I would like to ask you, did you ever take the trouble to log your actual "working" hours. That is: how much time do you really spend at the "tube"? I wouldn't be surprised at all if you would be. It's probably less then you think. On the other hand it could well be more then before PPP, but that would merely indicate how much it was then.
It seems to me that you don't need money to get out. On the contrary, you'd get the money IF you get out. You do need a lot of guts though and believe me, I know, I've been there. From those days I still carrry the memory of destructive complaining that seems so typical for Air Traffic Controllers that do feel unrecognised by their management. I am convinced that a little more of that would take away the need for more money, privatised or not.
actas
