I guess costs are going to be reduced, just a matter of where

Ya see, you leave and the ship sinks! ;):D

Money money money...
 

The bottom line is “money”.

DFS won the contract simply because they were cheaper than NATS.Same reason as the Birmingham contract and the next NATS one !!

NATS ATCOs are some of the best in the world, as are many other ATCOs, however their management still think like civil servants.They are not in the same ‘commercial’ world as other contractors.

NATS needs to wake up, think about cutting their overheads and their bloated head office set up.They need to cut ATCO salaries and staff more realistically, down to competitive levels and then they will be able to compete.It will take several years and lots of contract losses before they do wake up tho’.

As for DFS, if they cannot attract at least 14 ATCOs and 6 OJTIs from the current NATS staff they will struggle to take over.So current staff, here is your ideal (short term) blackmail opportunity.Hold out until the last day of the TUPE transfer and watch DFS squirm.They will have to offer you incredible benefits to attract the 14 ATCOs required.But, you do need to stick together as divided you will fall !!

DFS only need ADV/ADI ratings so it won’t be that difficult to attract foreign ATCOs with those skills.

Seriously though……….It's worrying…And anyone who dis-agrees is telling fibs.

Zooker,

I agree, it is worrying and I think the rot has set in. Too busy trying to conquer the world and trumpeting the opening of new offices around the World, whilst taking our eye off the ball in the UK.

Birmingham are fairly often calling TC to ask us to reduce the inbound flow due to lack of staff... one wonders if Gatwick will be the same...

I know Gatwick wanted to up their game regarding number of movements this year... looking at 60+ per hour throughout the day. This was all dependant on information sharing systems and technology developed by NATS. Obviously they will not get access to this now unless they pay, which will in turn make the DFS contract more expensive than the headline figure that they have tendered, unless of course Gatwick owners decide they do not want more movements per hour, which I doubt.

As the 2014 NATS Annual Report & Accounts says;

"I thank (ex-NATS senior manager heavily involved in this deal only a few months after resigning from NATS) for his long service to NATS and the foundation he provided for its growth strategy."

Quite :E

LadyAtco - when you say NATS needs to cut ATCO salaries I think you insinuate that NATS overpays it's ATCOs compared to those operating on a more commercial basis. And in some cases this is indeed true. Not sure it's the case with DFS though.

Interesting to note that DFS runs on a totally not-for-profit basis, unlike NATS, and is wholly owned and subsidised by the government, unlike NATS.

Perhaps actually it is DFS that aren't quite competing on a level commercial playing field.

2 sheds disagree, Lady ATCO is spot on. DFS need the controllers, Gatwick guys and girls it is time to stand together and negotiate your T's and C's as one.

DFS may indeed recruit controllers to work at Gatwick, as you say 2 sheds, but these controllers still need to be trained by the controllers whose job they are taking. I personally wouldn't be trying too hard to train this controller, unless of course there is a cash incentive!!!

I would see this as good opportunity to make a very high salary, with a few bonuses, including extra cash for UCE, OJTI, cash for trainees who validate. Etc

The words HOW MUCH, need to the big part of a Gatwick controllers phraseology, plus the words, NO, and oh yes, sorry we are not turning up for work tomorrow, unless you do as we say!!!

It's a fight, you need to have guts and big balls and everybody needs to stand together as one. Probably best to form your own union.

Of course this last statement is where it will collapse, the will always be one or two who are selfish and weak.

Good luck, a part of me would love to be there stirring it up.

I don't think NATS needs to cut it's salaries!

It is a benchmark. The controllers work at the busiest regional airports and Britain's only hub. They control the the upper airways and the TMA's.

It has been a guideline for non NATS units to judge what to pay their controllers. The more a NATS controller gets payed, the more a non NATS controller could demand or walk to a better unit that pays better.

There are Radar controllers out there getting payed very well for doing not a lot. They get payed well because there aren't many of them. :p:p

There are not countless numbers of people willing to self sponsor to become controllers, unlike our pilot cousins. Why would there be, the view is not as good.
This I feel has also been misunderstood by every ATS provider that think our salaries should be aligned with pilots.

A past general manager at Heathrow, who was an ATCO, told us once that we had no idea how much power was in our hands. 'nuff said.

I thought that I was saying that there is no reason why most of the current ATCOs would not stay at Gatwick!

2 s

I thought we were still waiting for evidence that DFS is 'subsidised' by the German government.

Anotherthing, "I know Gatwick wanted to up their game regarding number of movements this year... looking at 60+ per hour throughout the day. This was all dependant on information sharing systems and technology developed by NATS. Obviously they will not get access to this now unless they pay, which will in turn make the DFS contract more expensive than the headline figure that they have tendered, unless of course Gatwick owners decide they do not want more movements per hour, which I doubt."
Surely that's up to GAL if they want to get involved in improving things. Presumably DFS are simply contracted to provide ATC. Any increase derived from whatever systems from NATS would have to be extra funds from GAL if they deem it worthy?

Gatwick will still be a customer of NATS will they not? The DFS contract is for the Tower services. Approach Radar services will still be provided by NATS from TC at Swanwick. So the NATS-Gatwick Airport relationship does not end here.

One questions who the current ANSP is at EGBB? And why the unit is not properly manned?

We are still indeed waiting. Despite the shock and even outrage on this thread that Gatwick dare subcontract a different provider...


It is indeed worrying though. And whoever it was that said NATS and it's management are stuck in a public sector mindset was probably nearest the mark.

Thoughts to our colleagues at Gatwick who are in a very uncertain time with no doubt some difficult months ahead.

A past general manager at Heathrow, who was an ATCO, told us once that we had no idea how much power was in our hands. 'nuff said.


I suppose that was about 50 years ago, didn't you leave about 20 years ago, The world has moved on.

Not Long Now, Tomohawk

Yes it is up to GAL and that is my point. They want(ed) the extra movements. If they still do then they will have to pay NATs which means the overall contract for services will cost more than just the DFS contract. I understand that NATS were going to practically give GAL the tools to up the runway occupancy rate as part of any contract; obviously now that is not an option, therefore if GAL do not want to stand still, they will need to pay NATS so that is extra money in addition to the DFS contract.

As for why BB is not properly manned; no idea. However it is true, time to time they phone TC for assistance

Luv Pringles, the world hasn't moved on. Controllers still have a lot of power, we just choose not to use it.

DFS need planes landing and departing at Gatwick airport, they can't do that without controllers, fact. The Gatwick controllers could demand a huge premium to do that job, they won't of course because they worry about losing their jobs.

However if they stand up for themselves and stay together, a wage rise can be obtained. Unfortunately too many people think like yourself.

I'd heard a rumour the other day that Birmingham had asked or needed to move the handover day back due to things not being ready