Heathrow Director
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re your firat para Mooncrest. You'd better ask NATS Management. Speaking as a Heathrow ATCO at the time, not all of us wanted to move but in the end it worked pretty well. It's all to do with bean-counting.
Thanks HD. The question of money is never far away. And for Heathrow Approach controllers, at least West Drayton wasn't much change travel-wise. Not so for the other London airports. Luton controllers got a new employer in NATS as well.
Bren,
I always thought the bean-counters must have been livid when they saw how many extra bums in seats were required for the various 'splits'.
If IIRC before the split LL O/R was 75 valid ATCOs plus the hangers-on, to achieve the split required 45 TWR & 45 APC, an increase of 20% and 5 of the latter received promotions to be Group Sups. If the figures were the same for KK & SS that must have meant another 10 or so ATCOs.
I expect the same happened when LATCC split into Terminal and En-Route.
Personally I thought it was a complete waste of time and money to put the Approach functions into West Drayton, and I can't believe management in their wisdom were looking ahead to when, in LL's case, there would be a new tower - I think work on the latter ( regarding furniture, manning etc ) didn't start until later in the 90s.
I always thought the bean-counters must have been livid when they saw how many extra bums in seats were required for the various 'splits'.
If IIRC before the split LL O/R was 75 valid ATCOs plus the hangers-on, to achieve the split required 45 TWR & 45 APC, an increase of 20% and 5 of the latter received promotions to be Group Sups. If the figures were the same for KK & SS that must have meant another 10 or so ATCOs.
I expect the same happened when LATCC split into Terminal and En-Route.
Personally I thought it was a complete waste of time and money to put the Approach functions into West Drayton, and I can't believe management in their wisdom were looking ahead to when, in LL's case, there would be a new tower - I think work on the latter ( regarding furniture, manning etc ) didn't start until later in the 90s.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't believe that for one moment! I opted to move to TC, yet after all the effort of validating on LL APC I was held back because it was over-subscribed! I have a letter telling me that I would have to wait eighteen months for a transfer! It never happened!
Even then it's unlikely because:
NATS would have to pay the Southend controllers for a house move.
NATS would have to pay the Southend controllers who move the same salary band as other Swanwick controllers.(The highest NATS salary band)
Those Southend controllers who move to Swanwick would be required to cross train on at least one other sector there (eg Essex Radar) in order to provide flexible manning.
Those Southend controllers who stay at Southend would 'lose' their approach radar C of C and be unable to provide combined TWR/APS during 'quiet' periods if it was approved by SRG.
The only plus is that NATS could operate the Southend Airport contract using controllers who only hold ADV/ADI ratings as at Luton, Stansted and City.(and pay them the lowest salary band)
TDM
Malc, I think you're right - I can think of at least another 3 who wanted to go with APC - Mike Turner ( who did make it across a few years later ), Kevin Day and Darrell Brindley. Bobby Cowell ( RIP ) went a couple of years later as he was fed up with his WM!
Malc, I think you're right - I can think of at least another 3 who wanted to go with APC - Mike Turner ( who did make it across a few years later ), Kevin Day and Darrell Brindley. Bobby Cowell ( RIP ) went a couple of years later as he was fed up with his WM!
Last edited by Brian 48nav; 9th Feb 2019 at 08:49. Reason: spelling and addition
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plus some queue-jumping too. All very poorly managed...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever someone will pay me to do fun stuff
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mooncrest 
Given that Southend is regarded as a London airport nowadays, what are the chances of its Approach/Radar function being ensnared by Swanwick ?
Given that Southend is regarded as a London airport nowadays, what are the chances of its Approach/Radar function being ensnared by Swanwick ?
Originally Posted by chevvron
Nil unless NATS gets the contract to become ANSP at Southend.
Even then it's unlikely because:
NATS would have to pay the Southend controllers for a house move.
NATS would have to pay the Southend controllers who move the same salary band as other Swanwick controllers.(The highest NATS salary band)
Those Southend controllers who move to Swanwick would be required to cross train on at least one other sector there (eg Essex Radar) in order to provide flexible manning.
Those Southend controllers who stay at Southend would 'lose' their approach radar C of C and be unable to provide combined TWR/APS during 'quiet' periods if it was approved by SRG.
The only plus is that NATS could operate the Southend Airport contract using controllers who only hold ADV/ADI ratings as at Luton, Stansted and City.(and pay them the lowest salary band)
Even then it's unlikely because:
NATS would have to pay the Southend controllers for a house move.
NATS would have to pay the Southend controllers who move the same salary band as other Swanwick controllers.(The highest NATS salary band)
Those Southend controllers who move to Swanwick would be required to cross train on at least one other sector there (eg Essex Radar) in order to provide flexible manning.
Those Southend controllers who stay at Southend would 'lose' their approach radar C of C and be unable to provide combined TWR/APS during 'quiet' periods if it was approved by SRG.
The only plus is that NATS could operate the Southend Airport contract using controllers who only hold ADV/ADI ratings as at Luton, Stansted and City.(and pay them the lowest salary band)
Issues such as staff redeployment are secondary and would not necessarily require a single organisation to operate all facilities involved although, admittedly, it is likely to make things easier and to offer additional tangible benefits.
There is a final, complicating factor which could come into play where the UK, as a State, determines that combining service provision in the way you suggest might better enable limited airspace resources to be used. The CAA has the power to 'direct' changes to be made to the way that services are provided. Whilst these powers are rarely used and are traditionally focused on ensuring safety of aircraft operations, performance obligations and targets might equally be drivers for use of these powers. Of course, the performance scheme is a European Commission initiative and may not be of concern either to the UK or Southend from 30th March.
Last edited by LookingForAJob; 10th Feb 2019 at 22:35. Reason: chevvron's request
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and of course it wouldn’t be NATS/NSL that would, in this hypothetical situation, bid for the Southend contract. It would be ‘NATS Solutions’.
I wonder if there’s room in the City remote tower ops room for another airport?.........
I wonder if there’s room in the City remote tower ops room for another airport?.........
A slightly more realistic answer might consider that all civil ATC in the UK is provided by (to one extent or another) private companies. Each company will have its business objectives and will, all things being equal, seek to achieve those objectives. Amongst those objectives there will be some related to finance and others to market profile. To take the example of Southend, it is possible to imagine that NATS could provide approach services at a lower cost than the operators of the airport are able (economies of scale and the like playing a part). Of course if such a situation were to be investigated, set against a reduced cost the airport operator would consider many things including whether it loses anything of substance - including reputation - by giving up its ability to operate approach services independently and whether NATS could meet its service level requirements. Assuming minimum service levels could be assured, any such non-monetary losses would be weighed up against the cost savings and the business objectives. The same sort of debates would be had by NATS in order to evaluate whether it would be interested in seeking to provide those services to Southend.
Issues such as staff redeployment are secondary and would not necessarily require a single organisation to operate all facilities involved although, admittedly, it is likely to make things easier and to offer additional tangible benefits.
There is a final, complicating factor which could come into play where the UK, as a State, determines that combining service provision in the way you suggest might better enable limited airspace resources to be used. The CAA has the power to 'direct' changes to be made to the way that services are provided. Whilst these powers are rarely used and are traditionally focused on ensuring safety of aircraft operations, performance obligations and targets might equally be drivers for use of these powers. Of course, the performance scheme is a European Commission initiative and may not be of concern either to the UK or Southend from 30th March.
Issues such as staff redeployment are secondary and would not necessarily require a single organisation to operate all facilities involved although, admittedly, it is likely to make things easier and to offer additional tangible benefits.
There is a final, complicating factor which could come into play where the UK, as a State, determines that combining service provision in the way you suggest might better enable limited airspace resources to be used. The CAA has the power to 'direct' changes to be made to the way that services are provided. Whilst these powers are rarely used and are traditionally focused on ensuring safety of aircraft operations, performance obligations and targets might equally be drivers for use of these powers. Of course, the performance scheme is a European Commission initiative and may not be of concern either to the UK or Southend from 30th March.
Could you please edit this as it credits all the quote to Mooncrest, whereas it is actually mine.
I was merely answering Mooncrests query re the provision on APS for Southend from Swanwick. No doubt NATS have looked at taking over as ANSP at Southend, however their bid will be for the cheapest solution and as the airport operator has, in recent years, spent loadsa money upgrading the provision of ATC, I don't think they would be very happy if a new ANSP decided to abandon all the expensive radar and other equipment which has been installed in the last few years.
Thanks for all the input folks. My question was purely hypothetical and I hadn't expected such detailed responses. Interesting reading.
Who was the ATC provider at Luton prior to the Approach function being transferred to Swanwick ? I believe it was in-house until relatively recently.
I'm sure Southend would get to hang on to their new radar and whatever other landing aids they have, in the unlikely event of NATS coming along. The Approach/Radar controllers would still need them, they would just be seated in front of a console somewhere else.
Who was the ATC provider at Luton prior to the Approach function being transferred to Swanwick ? I believe it was in-house until relatively recently.
I'm sure Southend would get to hang on to their new radar and whatever other landing aids they have, in the unlikely event of NATS coming along. The Approach/Radar controllers would still need them, they would just be seated in front of a console somewhere else.
ATC was provided in house, originally the staff were employed by the local authority, then by the airport company when the authority transferred it over in the mid 1990s. That contract was taken over by NATS in Autumn 2000.
