Nats wants to double UK commercial flights
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sussex and Asia
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nats wants to double UK commercial flights
This should cause howls of protest from the anti-aviation brigade in the UK over the coming weeks.
In a document leaked to The Sunday Times Nats outlines plans to restructure Britain’s existing air corridors and add new ones in preparation for a doubling of the number of flights over the UK from 2.4m a year today to almost 5m by 2030. A confidential aeronautical map drawn up by Nats points to sharp increases in the number of aircraft using the 15 or so air corridors that criss-cross Britain, and the creation of several new flight paths and six new stacking areas where aircraft fly in circles while waiting for landing slots.
Steve Charlish, a commercial pilot who has led a campaign against increasing air traffic over the East Midlands, said: “If Nats were proposing a new motorway or bypass you could object but one thing you cannot do is touch the airspace above because that is owned by the crown - you’ve got no right of objection.”
Nats is, however, merely implementing an expansion policy drawn up by the government and set out in its 2003 aviation white paper. In it, Labour announced that it wanted to see new runways built at Stansted, Heathrow, Birmingham and Edinburgh. It also proposed increasing capacity at numerous other airports including Coventry, Doncaster, Lydd, near Dover, Kent International at Manston, Bristol and Wolverhampton. Overall, about 40 airports were given the go-ahead to expand.
full story here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1364880.ece
In a document leaked to The Sunday Times Nats outlines plans to restructure Britain’s existing air corridors and add new ones in preparation for a doubling of the number of flights over the UK from 2.4m a year today to almost 5m by 2030. A confidential aeronautical map drawn up by Nats points to sharp increases in the number of aircraft using the 15 or so air corridors that criss-cross Britain, and the creation of several new flight paths and six new stacking areas where aircraft fly in circles while waiting for landing slots.
Steve Charlish, a commercial pilot who has led a campaign against increasing air traffic over the East Midlands, said: “If Nats were proposing a new motorway or bypass you could object but one thing you cannot do is touch the airspace above because that is owned by the crown - you’ve got no right of objection.”
Nats is, however, merely implementing an expansion policy drawn up by the government and set out in its 2003 aviation white paper. In it, Labour announced that it wanted to see new runways built at Stansted, Heathrow, Birmingham and Edinburgh. It also proposed increasing capacity at numerous other airports including Coventry, Doncaster, Lydd, near Dover, Kent International at Manston, Bristol and Wolverhampton. Overall, about 40 airports were given the go-ahead to expand.
full story here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1364880.ece
Last edited by Ye Olde Pilot; 11th Feb 2007 at 02:55. Reason: spelling mistake
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NATS want to double UK commercial flights
Thats the Government who will increase taxes on car users etc as part of the green policy, yet want to increase numbers of runways etc.
Mind you what do you expect from a political party that berated the tories for selling of public assets, then claimed "our skies are not for sale", thenm sold off NATS and saddled the company with hundreds of millions in debt.
As for Steve Charlish - is he really a commercial pilot?? How can someone in the industry be so ignorant of the facts? NATS are planning new airspace to enable it to cope with the predicted rise in flight numbers.
It is doing this now because it takes years to design, develop, test and implement new procedures and airspace. It would be irresponsible for NATS to stick their heads in the sand and try to get by with airspace that was on the whole, designed years ago, and is now starting to show it's limits.
As an aside, NATS are continually looking at ways of changing procedures etc to help it cope with traffic which has been increasing year on year. It can normally get away with small tweaks to the system, however the predicted growth needs a re-vamp of the airspace, which is what NATS are looking at, at their own expense.
NATS continues to develop, continues to control increases in numbers of aircraft in some of the most complex and congested airspace in the world, yet continues to decrease ATC attributable delays into mere seconds per aircraft, and has a safety record which although already second to none, is getting even better.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for Steve Charlish - is he really a commercial pilot?? How can someone in the industry be so ignorant of the facts?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: London, England
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to mention the fact that the NATS En-Route side is bound by price capping set by the CAA in order to reduce the costs passed on to the airlines.
In short.... NATS bears the cost of the restructuring of airspace as a part-privatised industry left with mountains of debt by a Labour government under a financial regulation forced upon them by the CAA in order to reduce costs to the airlines that will inevitably benefit from the restructuring of the airspace by the increased no./more efficient operation of their flights.
Maybe it should all be paid for by the new tax that is being levied on passengers.... sounds only fair... bet it doesn't happen though!!
In short.... NATS bears the cost of the restructuring of airspace as a part-privatised industry left with mountains of debt by a Labour government under a financial regulation forced upon them by the CAA in order to reduce costs to the airlines that will inevitably benefit from the restructuring of the airspace by the increased no./more efficient operation of their flights.
Maybe it should all be paid for by the new tax that is being levied on passengers.... sounds only fair... bet it doesn't happen though!!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Mind you what do you expect from a political party that berated the tories for selling of public assets, then claimed "our skies are not for sale", thenm sold off NATS and saddled the company with hundreds of millions in debt.
Surely that makes NATS a commercial company that stands to benefit from a growth in air traffic.
Can this development all be attributed to altruism?
Mind you what do you expect from a political party that berated the tories for selling of public assets, then claimed "our skies are not for sale", thenm sold off NATS and saddled the company with hundreds of millions in debt.
Surely that makes NATS a commercial company that stands to benefit from a growth in air traffic.
Can this development all be attributed to altruism?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
antilla
part of 'the deal' when privatised was that NATS was to be run as a 'not for profits' company (though how this ties in with shareholders I do not know).
The fact of the matter is, NATS had over £600 million debt passed on from the governement. It made 'profits' last year of around £60 million. So with loans etc and interest, how long is it going to take to repay that debt?
Coupled with the fact that to keep up with air traffic numbers, NATS has to invest in future systems etc, therefore incurring more cost.
So a question back at you antilla - if this growth (non NATS attributable) is going to happen (at the benefit of the governement thru taxes, the airlines thru revenue); how can it happen without the so called altruistic motives of NATS in redeveloping airspace?
If the airspace is not redeveloped, we cannot cope with the predicted numbers - fact.
The numbers are rising and will continue to do so unless governement and airlines put a stop to it - fact.
If NATS do not develop an infrastructure that can cope with this, then
NATS will wither and die, and be sold to soemone else (most likely a foreign investor, on a for profit basis)
NATS will make a profit from overflight increase (if you look at the money it makes though, it's not a huge amount); but this money will mainly need to be re invested. Swanwick, nice, shiny and fairly new, will need replacing with newer systems....... work has to commence now to make sure those systems are in place in a timely manner.
So altruistic maybe - but only because if the company is run in the manner it should be as agreed when flogged off to bolster governement coffers, it needs to make money to develop.
It's not a one off job - NATS cannot design a system then walk away and reap dividends evermore... of only it were that simple!!
The other option is to let things stand as they are, then watch as the UKs economy falters.
The Governement are not entirely stupid - the amount of money that is produced through the air industry is vast, coupled with taxes through flight supplements etc, the Governement know that the country would go to rats if this infrastructure was not developed and maintianed!
part of 'the deal' when privatised was that NATS was to be run as a 'not for profits' company (though how this ties in with shareholders I do not know).
The fact of the matter is, NATS had over £600 million debt passed on from the governement. It made 'profits' last year of around £60 million. So with loans etc and interest, how long is it going to take to repay that debt?
Coupled with the fact that to keep up with air traffic numbers, NATS has to invest in future systems etc, therefore incurring more cost.
So a question back at you antilla - if this growth (non NATS attributable) is going to happen (at the benefit of the governement thru taxes, the airlines thru revenue); how can it happen without the so called altruistic motives of NATS in redeveloping airspace?
If the airspace is not redeveloped, we cannot cope with the predicted numbers - fact.
The numbers are rising and will continue to do so unless governement and airlines put a stop to it - fact.
If NATS do not develop an infrastructure that can cope with this, then
NATS will wither and die, and be sold to soemone else (most likely a foreign investor, on a for profit basis)
NATS will make a profit from overflight increase (if you look at the money it makes though, it's not a huge amount); but this money will mainly need to be re invested. Swanwick, nice, shiny and fairly new, will need replacing with newer systems....... work has to commence now to make sure those systems are in place in a timely manner.
So altruistic maybe - but only because if the company is run in the manner it should be as agreed when flogged off to bolster governement coffers, it needs to make money to develop.
It's not a one off job - NATS cannot design a system then walk away and reap dividends evermore... of only it were that simple!!
The other option is to let things stand as they are, then watch as the UKs economy falters.
The Governement are not entirely stupid - the amount of money that is produced through the air industry is vast, coupled with taxes through flight supplements etc, the Governement know that the country would go to rats if this infrastructure was not developed and maintianed!
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steady on chaps
My reading of the situation is that NATS are doing forward planning in case air travel over the UK grows as some forecasts suggest.
Now what else would you expect (and require) a professional organisation charged with handling air traffic do? Sit on their hands?
NATS has no more control over the amount of air traffic than I do, they are just lumbered with handling how ever much market forces cause.
I would expect correspondents on this forum to appreciate that.
Now what else would you expect (and require) a professional organisation charged with handling air traffic do? Sit on their hands?
NATS has no more control over the amount of air traffic than I do, they are just lumbered with handling how ever much market forces cause.
I would expect correspondents on this forum to appreciate that.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John,
I think if you read the posts, antilla is the only one who may be in dissagreement with you!!
Ye olde pilot was, i think, merely putting up the link for comment and to bring it to the websites attention!
I think if you read the posts, antilla is the only one who may be in dissagreement with you!!
Ye olde pilot was, i think, merely putting up the link for comment and to bring it to the websites attention!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
If the airspace is not redeveloped, we cannot cope with the predicted numbers - fact.
I don't dispute that for a moment, but I am still trying to get my head around where those predictions came from.
This government publicly deplored the old process of "Predict and Provide" in connection with the road network, yet it seems to have engaged in precisely that process when deciding that new runways were needed to cope with the predicted growth in aviation.
Perhaps I just need to be more cynical of politicians' utterances.
If the airspace is not redeveloped, we cannot cope with the predicted numbers - fact.
I don't dispute that for a moment, but I am still trying to get my head around where those predictions came from.
This government publicly deplored the old process of "Predict and Provide" in connection with the road network, yet it seems to have engaged in precisely that process when deciding that new runways were needed to cope with the predicted growth in aviation.
Perhaps I just need to be more cynical of politicians' utterances.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Antilla
I may be overly cynical... but then again, amnongst many others but quotes such as "our skies are not for sale", "Iraq has WMDs that can be deployed at 45 mins notice" and "There is no A10 HUD footage" tend to make me so!!
I may be overly cynical... but then again, amnongst many others but quotes such as "our skies are not for sale", "Iraq has WMDs that can be deployed at 45 mins notice" and "There is no A10 HUD footage" tend to make me so!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sussex and Asia
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
As for Steve Charlish - is he really a commercial pilot?? How can someone in the industry be so ignorant of the facts?
Again, another case of selective journalism - he's a Commercial Balloon pilot
Sorry Chilli.. we do not know that. Why has no one slated this fact before?Where are the likes of Balpa and others when it comes to this sort of story emerging. Probably down the pub counting up their pension rights!
John Farley presents a more balanced view for me.
As for Steve Charlish - is he really a commercial pilot?? How can someone in the industry be so ignorant of the facts?
Again, another case of selective journalism - he's a Commercial Balloon pilot
Sorry Chilli.. we do not know that. Why has no one slated this fact before?Where are the likes of Balpa and others when it comes to this sort of story emerging. Probably down the pub counting up their pension rights!
John Farley presents a more balanced view for me.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ye Olde Pilot
"Again, another case of selective journalism - he's a Commercial Balloon pilot "
Sorry Chilli.. we do not know that.
"Sorry Chilli.. we do not know that.
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Any long-term development which is taking place in European airspace is happening under the umbrella of the Single European Sky programme, which will deliver huge environmental benefits.
Traffic doubling by 2030 - that's an average annual increase of just over 3%. Aircraft will be much more eco-friendly by then, airspace improvements will have delivered huge savings in green-house gas production - all in all total emissions will not be significantly greater than today, maybe even less.
Traffic doubling by 2030 - that's an average annual increase of just over 3%. Aircraft will be much more eco-friendly by then, airspace improvements will have delivered huge savings in green-house gas production - all in all total emissions will not be significantly greater than today, maybe even less.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Charlish seems to be in the habit of telling the press he's a commercial pilot when promoting the various campaign against (powered) aviation protest groups which he's either founded or in which he's an activist.
In another article: 'Steve, a 47-year-old commercial pilot' said many people might regard the Leicestershire village where he lives as "the back of beyond," but "I chose to live here because I wanted splendid isolation ..... no industry, no major roads, no trains and in the middle of the night there is a dead silence and then all of a sudden... (the noise of an aircraft.)"
He claimed then (2005) it had been more than two years since he had a decent night's sleep.
'When the planes come over head it sounds like thunder and I'm 26 nautical miles from the airport,' he adds.
Poor chap. He'd found a place with no industry, no major roads and no trains and then aeroplanes go and spoil his rural idyll.
He also featured in this item on the BBC website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/l...re/4176456.stm
Some interesting extracts:
And, before the changes:
Given a choice between living under a flight path or living next to someone like Mr Churlish, I'm happy I live where I do - under a flight path. IMHO, his choice to live 'in the back of beyond' is a great blessing to those who might otherwise have him as a neighbour.
antilla
Perhaps it suited them to say that at the time, but realise "Predict and Provide" is a sensible process?
I hope so. (Re road, rail and and air transport.)
FL
In another article: 'Steve, a 47-year-old commercial pilot' said many people might regard the Leicestershire village where he lives as "the back of beyond," but "I chose to live here because I wanted splendid isolation ..... no industry, no major roads, no trains and in the middle of the night there is a dead silence and then all of a sudden... (the noise of an aircraft.)"
He claimed then (2005) it had been more than two years since he had a decent night's sleep.
'When the planes come over head it sounds like thunder and I'm 26 nautical miles from the airport,' he adds.
Poor chap. He'd found a place with no industry, no major roads and no trains and then aeroplanes go and spoil his rural idyll.
He also featured in this item on the BBC website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/l...re/4176456.stm
Some interesting extracts:
East Leicestershire residents made 475 complaints in the last three months.
The airport's Brain Conway said: "One person has complained 203 times, another complained 65 times which gives you an idea of the impact on people." The complaints came from 111 people in the east of the county affected by flight paths for the first time.
The airport's Brain Conway said: "One person has complained 203 times, another complained 65 times which gives you an idea of the impact on people." The complaints came from 111 people in the east of the county affected by flight paths for the first time.
In the three months leading up to the flight path changes, when planes flew over more people, there were 854 complaints from all areas.
Three quarters of them came from one person - who submitted 615 comments about aircraft movements.
Three quarters of them came from one person - who submitted 615 comments about aircraft movements.
antilla
This government publicly deplored the old process of "Predict and Provide" in connection with the road network, yet it seems to have engaged in precisely that process when deciding that new runways were needed to cope with the predicted growth in aviation.
I hope so. (Re road, rail and and air transport.)
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 11th Feb 2007 at 17:21.
StandupfortheUlstermen
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Peoples' Democratic Republic of Wurzelsetshire
Age: 53
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commercial balloon pilot or not, he's definitely a balloon!
This fine piece of journalism (yeah right!
) belies the fact that air traffic is on the increase. All NATS is trying to do is plan for the projected growth. It's a shame that our government doesn't plan the remaining parts of our so called 'transport system' in the same professional way NATS does with airspace changes.
This fine piece of journalism (yeah right!
) belies the fact that air traffic is on the increase. All NATS is trying to do is plan for the projected growth. It's a shame that our government doesn't plan the remaining parts of our so called 'transport system' in the same professional way NATS does with airspace changes.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in a document leaked to The Sunday Times from Nats, the company that emerged from National Air Traffic Services and now manages Britain’s air traffic control systems
NATS emerged from NATS eh???
Last edited by Lookatthesky; 11th Feb 2007 at 18:59.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Asgard
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lookatthesky:
In effect, yes Nats used to stand for National Air Traffic Services.....in a "rebranding" exercise some while ago, the initials stopped standing for anything (bit like BAA I think). Why this was done is a mystery however.
In effect, yes Nats used to stand for National Air Traffic Services.....in a "rebranding" exercise some while ago, the initials stopped standing for anything (bit like BAA I think). Why this was done is a mystery however.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Southampton
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, Nats emerged from National Air Traffic Services (as stated) in a fimble - esque explosion of swirly stripes and colours! 
Last edited by Arkady; 11th Feb 2007 at 20:29. Reason: edited to say "Damn, beat me to it"
