With 904 departures, I'm surprised you had room for any arrivals. :O

Right LFAJ, right... :ok:
But the point LFAJ, the point...
Isn't it time to leave these licensed years and decide to change with certified years ?... To be on our own and just work for us ?...
#EUATCOsCOLLECTIVE
#JustThinkAboutIt
@saintex2002

I know a few who really should be certified

When one is watching such a chaos in the EUATM... Joking is not the appropriate answer... Need more guts to win this war...
#EUATCOsCOLLECTIVE
@saintex2002

Very Worried
 

Hi all – I haven’t joined the conversation before now for two main reasons:

I hate the bunfights and willy waving contests that many of these threads often descend into.

I needed a little time to research some of the issues discussed here.

Today I wrote a lengthy email to my MP stating my concerns over the Gatwick situation and the implications it may have, not only for NSL, but any other ANSP bidding for airport contracts within the UK. I suggest others do the same. I shan’t disclose the full details of that missive but have outlined the points (trying to stick purely to bare facts) thus:

Gatwick airport are owned by Global Infrastructure Partners. The former Chief Executive of NATS (Prior to Richard Deakin) is a consultant to GIP (as stated on his Linked In profile). Some time late last year it appears that either DFS showed an interest in bidding for Gatwick - or GIP themselves approached DFS and asked them to tender (I am not certain but have heard rumours that the latter was the case).

Some time last year, the Managing Director of NSL, a person who is intimately acquainted with NATS commercial bids (and, as Managing Director, was responsible for protecting the future of the company) decided to resign from NATS. He left NSL on 6th December 2013. It appears that he then became “involved” with the DFS bid “very soon” after leaving. It would be interesting to know the actual timescales involved and I believe this to be an issue worthy of further investigation.

Then there is the issue of whether this was a totally fair playing field or not. For that we need to look at company structures. I think some of the conversations earlier in the thread have veered a little towards blind alleys and red herrings – specifically over whether either the DFS or NATS are subsidised by their respective Governments – this is missing the point.
When NATS was part-privatised, the NSL (airports) side of the business was “ring fenced” to prevent NERL from being able to subsidise the NSL business (therefore making them an unfair competitor in the market). Consequently, NSL pay a significant amount of money in payment for NATS corporate overheads - making it difficult for NSL to remain competitive.

DFS is wholly owned by the German Government. There is no evidence that they are “subsidised” by the Government (just as NATS were not subsidised prior to PPP – they were, in fact, net contributors to the Treasury). However, they enjoy all the protection that being a government agency involves. The DFS provides ATC services at 4 centres and 16 major airports – it has no competition at any of these units, no other ANSP is able to compete for business there. The majority of the rest of the “smaller” airports within Germany are run by The Tower Company. A number of other airports are run by Austro Control – this is not as a result of competition but by agreement - and with the cooperation of DFS.

Effectively there is no competition within Germany for airport business – the DFS appear to hold an almost complete monopoly – ironic, considering some of the crowing on this site about breaking the “NATS monopoly”. The Tower Company are a wholly owned subsidiary of the DFS – much like NSL is to NATS. The difference is that they do not appear to be subject to the same level of “ring fencing” as NSL and are therefore not hindered by the same onerous level of corporate overheads.

NSL have always operated in a competitive environment but are to be replaced by an ANSP that enjoys a total monopoly in its own country. For those non-NATS ATCOs applauding this result, think of this – if you find competing against NSL difficult, how much easier do you think it will be to compete against the DFS/Tower Company – or whatever it decides to call its UK operation?

So my question to my MP is this: is it fair or correct that a non-UK company is allowed to bid for a major piece of UK business, apparently free to operate in a way from which our main UK provider is prevented?

As for some of the comments about NATS being “too public sector minded” and a “dinosaur” – I find this a little unfair. Do we really believe a completely government owned organisation that does not need to compete within its own national boundaries is somehow sharper and less bound to the Jurassic Era?? I do not believe this to be the case – merely that they were lucky the two previously mentioned individuals became “available”.

Over on the NATS thread somebody stated that the NSL bid team “sc”*&ed up” – maybe it needs to be investigated whether they “sc”*&ed up” or were “sc”*&ed over”.

I’ve already written to my MP – I suggest those of you who are similarly concerned do the same.

Nicely put

Problem is the Govt doesn't give a flying f**k about UK assets transferring into the hands of foreign government-owned companies. The whole of the UK is up for sale.

Ministers just want them not to be on the public account and they really don't worry about who owns things and have got into all sorts of problems in the past. No-one in Govt knows how to write a contract for these things and that has led to some juicy scandals - not that they care

Norwegian Blue,

Assuming you work for NATS, you might want to check out the latest comments on the Gatwick news item.

LookingForAJob

I, more or less, agree with everything you say. But, I yearn for the certainty of days gone by !

Nothing that happens nowadays can be said to be favouring the overall interests of the ATCO, whether it's new technology or a more "commercial" approach.

Privatisation, Part-Privatisation ? - Not for me !

LookingForAJob.. You have PM..

Thanks for the heads-up Gonzo – Obviously I hadn’t seen it before posting! However, I still stand by what I said. There is something smelly about this

Looking For a Job – Thanks, you too make your points eloquently – and I can see where you’re coming from but I have a slightly different take. Firstly, I am more than happy to accept if my conclusions are somehow incorrect – please let me know where you believe I may have erred. They were drawn from internet research and talking to contacts both within and outside the company (including a couple of contacts who have worked for DFS).

Also - this is not just "whinging" about losing a contract. This is being alarmed about the way this contract may have been handled. You rightly say that the UK market has been a competitive environment for a long time. However, we will have to agree to differ about whether NATS has received preferential treatment in the past. Personally, I don’t agree but I get where you’re coming from. Despite what many think, it has never been an easy task for NATS to acquire or protect an airport contract and we have lost as well as gained over the years (Birmingham, for example). However, the "NATS bashing" (not from your good self, I hasten to add) I do find a little irksome. Complaints are rare that, say, Airservices have preferential treatment in Australia or, likewise, the FAA in the US - or even the DFS in Germany.

You state that we have a competitive market in Europe but that is just my point. This is not actually the case. Can you imagine the furore in France or Germany if NATS were to take the contracts for CDG or FRA? My background is also not restricted to NATS and the UK – and I can assure you that such a thing would be vehemently opposed in several quarters in those countries – especially if NATS were viewed as being allowed to operate in a way from which their national providers were prohibited. ATCOs in both of these countries are not so concerned about "keeping their powder dry".

As far as staff movement is concerned – fair enough, but we are not just talking about a couple of middle managers. We are talking about the former chief executive and a managing director – I’d just like to be assured that the "timings" add up.

I sense that we probably share similar concerns about the way aviation and in particular, air navigation service provision is heading – these are challenging times. I’m one of those "dinosaurs" that feels ATC is not a fit subject for privatisation but, "hey ho", we have what we have and, as you rightly say, the World is changing. However, the "business is business" angle I see differently. Fine, if we were in a truly open and competitive market where all providers were free to operate and compete everywhere. However we are not, we are in an incredibly one-sided market – and this is where it is not just business - there are politics involved. It is, after all, politicians who created this situation in the first place!

Finally, spare a thought for our colleagues who are worried about what will be happening to them in the future – and those of us who are worried about who is next and whether this could even mean the end of NATS as an airport ANSP! I think it’s about time I thought about collecting my pension (while I still have one)!

I'm sure accountants and senior managers leave or retire from DFS & The Tower Company regularly. It's time NATS hired one or two of them.

After all as they say in Germany, Was ist sauce für die gans ist sauce für die gans. ;)

As NATS is part German owned already, why would there be a furore in Germany if they were to win contracts out there?

<<FWIW, under European-wide legal systems, individuals are normally licensed whilst organisations are certified.>>

I've now realised - Lookingforajob lacks a sense of humour! A lot of people I worked with should have been certified... but it was always the real loonies that made the best ATCOs.

Currently on leave so have not seen latest intranet re Gatwick.

If there was something illegal about DFS bid then fair enough, NATS has a point regarding appeal etc.

However if the complaint is just because DFS has a different structure re funding/costings than NATS (set up when we went through PPP) then I'm afarid we just need to suck it up.

NATS proclaims to be a World Leader in ATC... maybe the fact is that we are too complacent....

Too expensive more like.The CTC overheads are killing NSL.:hmm:

A comment presumably based on detailed knowledge of the costing of the NATS Gatwick bid or perhaps just an assumption on your part.

In this case you needed a certain amount of "overhead" to be invited to bid. If price were everything and capability beyond the immediate Tower operation wasn't required it would have been a very different short list. DFS is just as capable as NATS, in some areas more capable because it hasn't been subject to quite as much pressure on costs over the last 15 years.

We don't know the details of either bid and probably never will but it is always easier for the newcomer to bid low than it is for the incumbent. The newcomer can take a loss justified on the benefit of breaking into a new market and establishing a presence whereas taking a loss just to retain existing business is a very quick way of ending up with no business at all.

anotherthing

"NATS proclaims to be a World Leader in ATC... "

Concorde was a World Leader in passenger flying - it failed because it was not cost effective. I believe that there is a parallel with NSL.

"NATS has been granted a court injunction blocking Gatwick airport chiefs from concluding a deal with German rival DFS to provide tower services."

From :

Injunction blocks German move on Gatwick | Air Traffic Management | Air Traffic Management - ATM and CMS Industry online, the latest air traffic control industry, CAA, ANSP, SESAR and NEXTGEN news, events, supplier directory and magazine

NATS Lose Gatwick Contract (Split thread)
 

It unfortunately counts for very little. Gatwick may be forced to go through the process again, properly, but they will surely still award DFS the gig.

Not great to bite the hand that feeds you, wonder how Gatwick Airport Limited now see NATS having sought an injunction against them for a business decision that they disagree with. It's almost childish.