Nota
Thread Starter
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
From: Over the hills and faraway
Nota
Surprised no one has mentioned this yet but it looks as though a sizeable chunk of Oceanic Airspace is going to be given away to the Irish. The Northern Oceanic Transition Area would consist of the block of airspace between 10W (the current ScACC/OAC boundary) and 15W upto 57N though the actual coordinates have not been decided yet.
The Irish have a radar that can cover that area and make the rather dubious claim that the industry will save 40 million Euros per year through the benefits of radar surveillance in that area.
The NATS line for handing it over is that by doing so the IAA will not try and claim a bigger stake in the Shanwick Oceanic area where revenues are, at the moment, split 70/30 in favour of NATS. And it is not our sovereign airspce, anyway. Hmmmm....
At the open meeting held at ScACC last week, concerns were expressed at the possibility of ScACC losing traffic - either by new routes introduced from 15W that avoid ScACC airspace or by tactical rerouting by Shannon controllers - but we were assured that this would not be the case. Hmmmm again...
Despite all this, I can see no logical argument against it. If there is radar coverage out there, it would be stupid not to use it. I'm sure the airlines would benefit, though probably not to the tune of 40 Million Euros per year, from earlier climbs when eastbound and cutting a few corners when westbound.
From a ScACC level, we benefit from making the southwest sector that bit easier by not having to deal with OAC clearances with all the hassle that comes with it. Now that sounds a good idea to me...
Any other views on the matter?
The Irish have a radar that can cover that area and make the rather dubious claim that the industry will save 40 million Euros per year through the benefits of radar surveillance in that area.
The NATS line for handing it over is that by doing so the IAA will not try and claim a bigger stake in the Shanwick Oceanic area where revenues are, at the moment, split 70/30 in favour of NATS. And it is not our sovereign airspce, anyway. Hmmmm....
At the open meeting held at ScACC last week, concerns were expressed at the possibility of ScACC losing traffic - either by new routes introduced from 15W that avoid ScACC airspace or by tactical rerouting by Shannon controllers - but we were assured that this would not be the case. Hmmmm again...
Despite all this, I can see no logical argument against it. If there is radar coverage out there, it would be stupid not to use it. I'm sure the airlines would benefit, though probably not to the tune of 40 Million Euros per year, from earlier climbs when eastbound and cutting a few corners when westbound.
From a ScACC level, we benefit from making the southwest sector that bit easier by not having to deal with OAC clearances with all the hassle that comes with it. Now that sounds a good idea to me...
Any other views on the matter?
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
From: Greystation
considering NATS claims that its financial difficulties comes solely from the loss of revenue due to Sept 11th, that the oceanic traffic brings in all the money and no matter how much Ryanair/EasyJet etc expand they will never get close, if it then gives away oceanic airspace surely the financial department seriously needs investigating before commencing all the heads rolling.
Pure stupidity if you ask me.
Pure stupidity if you ask me.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 892
Likes: 6
From: southampton,hampshire,england
Revenue.
If we put our own radar in the right place we could have all the benefits referred to above. A couple of carefully chosen dual SSR sites would serve the purpose....and look at the map......we have land in the right places. All that is needed is the vision to proceed. Unfortunately even this is not the answer.....I suspect the negotiations may be a desperate attempt to head off the real answer, which is within NATS grasp, and that is a full Oceanic Control service using satellite link. The IAA are not stupid and in their shoes I would make the move that has reportedly been made. RADAR is not required!/////I sense government level involvement, what do you think?
Thread Starter
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
From: Over the hills and faraway
5milesbaby - According to management (so it must be true 
), 'giving away' a chunk of Oceanic airspace to the Irish will make no difference to Shanwick revenues as charges are made on a 'per flight' basis. They also added that oceanic airspace isn't really ours to give away.
055166k - I think you are probably correct on most counts. It was admited that it is a very political decision - the IAA's input into Shanwick is deminishing as more aircraft communicate via datalink and HF becomes less of an issue. Jobs in the west of Ireland are being lost and the IAA are understandably desperate to hang on to something. They could, apparently, rip up the Shanwick agreement with just two years notice so this is a compromise that suposedly benefits us both.
We could have stuck a radar in Northern Ireland that would have done the trick but the fact is that we haven't. The Irish have so they have the upper hand. And as I said, from a ScACC point of view Southwest sector becomes a lot less hassle. Of course, having done that they will probably give us sector 7 to make up for it...
), 'giving away' a chunk of Oceanic airspace to the Irish will make no difference to Shanwick revenues as charges are made on a 'per flight' basis. They also added that oceanic airspace isn't really ours to give away.055166k - I think you are probably correct on most counts. It was admited that it is a very political decision - the IAA's input into Shanwick is deminishing as more aircraft communicate via datalink and HF becomes less of an issue. Jobs in the west of Ireland are being lost and the IAA are understandably desperate to hang on to something. They could, apparently, rip up the Shanwick agreement with just two years notice so this is a compromise that suposedly benefits us both.
We could have stuck a radar in Northern Ireland that would have done the trick but the fact is that we haven't. The Irish have so they have the upper hand. And as I said, from a ScACC point of view Southwest sector becomes a lot less hassle. Of course, having done that they will probably give us sector 7 to make up for it...
Thread Starter
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
From: Over the hills and faraway
Dunno about that AyrTC - it wasn't mentioned whilst I was there but I had to leave a couple of minutes before the end.
Has this not happened before, the other way round? Didn't London have (and maybe they still do) access to an Irish radar? I seem to remember the name Mount Gabriel from the dim and distant past.
Has this not happened before, the other way round? Didn't London have (and maybe they still do) access to an Irish radar? I seem to remember the name Mount Gabriel from the dim and distant past.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 892
Likes: 6
From: southampton,hampshire,england
Irish Radar
Yes we have the Gabriel at Swanwick. Marvellous coverage. Can see traffic well west of Shannon and down the Southwest Approaches.....an excellent tool for tactical appreciation and routeing strategy. The availability of this Radar is a major benefit to the whole Lands End / Strumble sector operation. Correspondingly any radar picture can therefore be piped into Scottish, or perhaps this is the start of OUTSOURCING YOUR JOBS TO AN OFFSHORE LOCATION. Be warned my brothers and sisters.
Thread Starter
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
From: Over the hills and faraway
055166k
Thanks for the warning but these are not OUR jobs that they are outsourcing. It is introducing jobs where previously they didn't exist. And I know that this new Irish radar could be piped into ScACC and it would be very useful for it to be so as it would provide back up to the Tiree Radar.
I know that we should all be sceptical at new proposals - experience shows us that such scepticism is not misplaced - and I do find it hard to believe some of the claims that are being made for the NOTA but despite all that the decision still seems like a no-brainer to me.
Oh, and I believe that when Shannon started controlling the SOTA, you London boys who were valid on Lands End at the time were highly delighted that your oceanic interface was taken away.
Thanks for the warning but these are not OUR jobs that they are outsourcing. It is introducing jobs where previously they didn't exist. And I know that this new Irish radar could be piped into ScACC and it would be very useful for it to be so as it would provide back up to the Tiree Radar.
I know that we should all be sceptical at new proposals - experience shows us that such scepticism is not misplaced - and I do find it hard to believe some of the claims that are being made for the NOTA but despite all that the decision still seems like a no-brainer to me.
Oh, and I believe that when Shannon started controlling the SOTA, you London boys who were valid on Lands End at the time were highly delighted that your oceanic interface was taken away.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
From: Sunny Scotland
I think that any notion that our Irish colleagues will not be re routing aircraft is cloud cuckoo land. I'm sure that their management will see the gains in revenue that could be made by routeing eastbounds via strumble from 15w avoiding SCACC. This is done already for some eastbounds which we have no control over, but have our management considered the loss in revenue that will occur if the same is done westbound?
I would have thought that southwest despite being intense at times is also a high revenue earner for the company and that by giving away associated airspace it will affect revenues at a time when we can least afford to.
Just a thought but as shareholders what do other NATS employees think of our management agreeing to "give" airspace and revenue to one of our direct competitors?
I would have thought that southwest despite being intense at times is also a high revenue earner for the company and that by giving away associated airspace it will affect revenues at a time when we can least afford to.
Just a thought but as shareholders what do other NATS employees think of our management agreeing to "give" airspace and revenue to one of our direct competitors?
Thread Starter
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
From: Over the hills and faraway
So, you believe that Shannon controllers will be instructed by their management to re-route eastbound traffic south for purely revenue reasons? Would you do something like that? Bloody sure I wouldn't. They may well re-route traffic for tactical reasons or to allow an aircraft to cut corners in the same way as we might stick MIMKU traffic through the IOM but isn't this the sort of service all ATC units should be providing?
Anyway, it is still early days and I suspect that all this sort of thing has to be sorted out. Ultimately, however, you can't deny aircraft a better service merely to ensure they fly through a certain bit of airspce (which most of them will still do in any case).
Anyway, it is still early days and I suspect that all this sort of thing has to be sorted out. Ultimately, however, you can't deny aircraft a better service merely to ensure they fly through a certain bit of airspce (which most of them will still do in any case).
