Remaining 49% of NATS to be privatised
 

The Telegraph reports that the government intends to sell off the remaining 49% of NATS.

From the actual Spending Review:
2015 Corporate and financial assets
1.302 The government is seeking up to a further £5 billion of corporate and financial asset sales by March 2020, building on successes in the last Parliament. Through the Spending Review up to £4.6 billion of assets have been identified. Subject to a value for money assessment, the government will:
•allow Network Rail to sell assets and re-invest proceeds in rail infrastructure
•press ahead with the privatisation of the Green Investment Bank with a sale expected to be concluded during 2016-17
•explore the sale of the government’s 49% shareholding in NATS (air traffic services)
•consult on options to move operations of the Land Registry to the private sector from 2017
•develop options to bring private capital into the Ordnance Survey before 2020
•sell Department of Health (DH) corporate and financial assets: Community Health Partnerships subordinated debt and Credit Guarantee Finance lending to Private Finance Initiative projects

They have 'explored' the possibility before... It is an asset to them, they would be stupid not to declare it in a spending review and to state they will 'explore' the sale.

Doesn't mean they will do it.

Given the current security climate, it would be difficult for them to justify selling off the control of sovereign skies

Our skies are not for sale. I think I may have heard that before somewhere:=

I've always wondered about that....

If, for example, NATS was fully privatised, in what way would the UK not have 'control' of its 'sovereign skies'?

Would the commerical shareholders of NATS magically have a say in whether the UK ADIZ is no longer monitored? Or a say in scrambling QRA?

Fully commercial companies have provided aerodrome and approach services for years, has there been a problem with that, or do UK 'soveriegn skies' only exist above FL100?

Or are we saying that the CAA would no longer have any oversight of civil ATC procedures?

Or that new, privately owned NATS would ignore DfT policy?

Not saying I'm in favour of the UK government divesting their stake by any means, just curious. What do people think would happen?

Depends on who buys it.

SGC

Does anyone know what the Chinese for "cleared to climb and maintain 6000ft" is?

Ey'up.......
Non-standard phraseology alert.

Sorry, thought there might have been sensible debate to be had.

One has learned one's lesson.

No doubt if the sale goes ahead that we'll become another of our national assets used to increase the income of another country's government.

What's 49% of NATS actually worth........Maybe £300 million based on current share price alone. Maybe more if there are a number of interested parties.

Even if it made £600 million it hardly seems a financially prudent move by the government to sell considering NATS makes reasonable profits.....potentially £80 million per annum into the governments coffers in the past few years.

I do love Labours criticism (which is a concern) of the governments possible sale of the remaining 49% stake in NATS, who quickly Labour take the moral high ground .



But deputy prime minister John Prescott was pressing ahead with the sell-off at the beginning of this week despite a threatened revolt by Labour MPs. Prescott wants to sell 51 percent of the state-owned National Air Traffic Service (NATS) to private businesses.
The move flies in the face of a clear pledge given by New Labour before the 1997 general election that "our air is not for sale".

Precisely, its a non argument, it is the RAF and the rest of the UK's air defence organisation that controls and maintains the sovereignty of our airspace. NATS provide air traffic control services, two very different things.

NATS (en-route) is essentially a regulated utility. The principle that these organisations can make profits, pay dividends and have non-UK shareholders with very substantial stakes has been accepted for many years. In practical terms this makes ownership of the shares currently belonging to the UK government irrelevant.

Headset19,

Do you think Spanish ATCOs feel the same way about FerroNATS? They work for a company part owned by a British organisation.

Gatwick airport management don't seem to be worried that they've awarded the contract to a subsidiary of a German company, which is a relationship far closer than that of a partial shareholder.

I like to be presented with both sides of the story. I don't believe I've seen a cogent, descriptive case for why it would all end in tears. A lot of those against just seem to say 'because I said so, and if you don't agree with me you're stupid'.

If we have a more articulate case for the status quo, should we not be using it?

Well said, Gonzo !..

And, BTW, isn't it in the air to privatize the whole 9 FABs and turn them all into a Friends' Big One privatized ATM Co. ?..

Or are we ready to take it over and sell our skills to manage ourselves that f***in' SES they made for their freinds ?..

#EUATCOsCOLLECTIVE

#UnikKINDofSTUFF

@saintex2002

This principle may have been accepted in the UK for many years. The other "regulated" utilities in the UK have led to more-expensive energy, and fragmented and expensive public transport and water supply, all of which have acted as a brake on widespread development of these services in the UK, compared to those in other better-run European countries.

The German President, no less, took a different view on handing over air navigation services in that country to a completely private company.

FWIW.

Gonzo, I'm sure there are many roles and tasks that NATS undertakes that are of a sensitive nature as far as civil defence and intelligence are concerned. Would it really be in the UK's best interests to have that information passed to a foreign government?
Wasn't there a spying/bugging scandal with Huawei or another Chinese mobile phone manufacturer in the U.S.? (Implying clear links with commercial companies and state espionage agencies)

I'm with the poster above, why sell a company for half a billion when your getting a 10% dividend? The risk/reward benefit just isn't there.

Politics!

Private good, State owned bad.

Repeat again and again and again.

With apologies to George Orwell's Animal Farm.

So are our security processes in such a poor state that, say, a group of executives from the Universities Superannuation Scheme can walk into Swanwick and come away with sensitive documents?

Where do we think these future shareholders will be getting all this classified information from?