Prospect Request Meeting with Minister

Mr Jonathan Moor

Director Aviation Directorate
Department for Transport
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DR

Dear Jonathan

Thank you for the meeting with your team on 1 June. We certainly found it helpful to gain a clearer view as to the position of the Department on a range of issues. We also welcome the opportunity of an ongoing dialogue on the key challenges we face jointly going forward.

Following on from our meeting and having had the opportunity to reflect on the points put forward by your team there remain some areas of real concern. As we set out at the beginning of the meeting, our members working for NATS have made a fundamental contribution over the past number of years in terms of increasing capacity, dealing with increasingly complex airspace, keeping delays at an historic low whilst at the same time ensuring that safety remains of absolute paramount importance.

All of this has taken place against the backdrop of increased downward pressure in terms of costs as NATS remains the only ANSP provider in Europe which is both economically regulated and has contestable airports. At the meeting we made it clear that we made a distinction between the need for NATS to be “business like” in terms of service delivery (efficient and effective) and the increased drive that we are experiencing across the company of the need to generate profits and dividends for shareholders.

Our members have delivered in terms of safety, capacity, historically low delays and the ability to deal effectively with some of the most complex airspace in the world and we believe that this is despite and not because of the way in which NATS is uniquely structured as a result of the PPP. We are concerned that despite the assurances given by the Airline Group at the time of PPP that they were “in this for the next thirty years” and that their objective was that the organisation should be run on the basis of “not for commercial gain” – that the underpinning objectives and commitments given by these key stakeholders have changed.

As you will be aware, the both Prospect and PCS have sought over the past number of years to engage constructively with management on a range of issues as we have believed that this was both in the interests of our members and NATS. In particular over the past three years we have negotiated:

• Revised redundancy arrangements-which are less beneficial to the vast majority of staff.
• Revised pensions arrangements- which again are less beneficial to staff.
• A very modest pay deal which provides for RPI over a two year period.

From the perspective of our members, they believe that they have more than delivered in terms of service delivery to customers whilst at the same time agreeing to changes in their terms and conditions which have assisted NATS. Members believe that they have more than met their side of their bargain with regard to the proposition put forward at the time of PPP. Against that backdrop there is real anger amongst our members as to recent decision by the Board to pay a £43.5 million divided to shareholders. This anger has been compounded by the unilateral decision by NATS to take a further £45 million out of the business prior to CP3- with estimates that this will require a 17% headcount reduction across the organisation.

Industrial relations are best described as fragile at the moment. There is a real concern as to the future direction of NATS. Members are concerned about the increased emphasis on the need to generate a profit and deliver a dividend to shareholders and the impact that this may have on service delivery and ultimately safety. An example of this is the unilateral decision by management to seek to strip £45 million from the business prior to CP3. As indicated this equates to around 17% of the workforce. I should not have to emphasise the real challenges posed in terms of this type of head count reduction being achieved in a safety critical environment. We are concerned that such reductions will leave remaining staff under increased pressure and a loss of “organisational memory” and capacity in a safety critical environment.

It is also important that you are aware that should NATS seek to make compulsory redundancies that the unions are committed to resisting such a move and will ballot our members on industrial action.

Turning to more structural issues, we were most concerned with the comments in relation to the Airports ATC delivery side of NATS – NSL and what appeared to be a lack of strategic thinking in terms of the value and importance of this to ATM service delivery across the UK. We are concerned as to the dangers of further fragmentation and the fact that the UK is exposed on this issue in contrast to our European counterparts where the emphasis is on de-fragmentation and gate to gate service delivery.

The UK is unique in Europe in terms of our structure and we have the following concerns:

• Increased fragmentation of ATM service delivery has a negative impact in safety. Ask any safety experts and they will tell you that increased interfaces have a negative impact on safety.
• NATS, through the synergies of NSL and NERL working together provides the “backbone” of ATM service delivery within the UK.
• Through the synergies of NSL and NERL working together a level of “critical mass” is achieved. This enables support and investment in technology, procedures and staff training which enhance safety and service delivery.
• By providing the backbone of service delivery across the UK – NATS is a driver for enhanced safety and service delivery at non NATS units across the UK.
• A level of critical mass is needed to ensure the ongoing recruitment and training of staff in terms of ATM service delivery where there is a recognised world wide shortage.

We are deeply concerned that there seemed to be a lack of recognition as to the strategic and national importance of NSL and its importance to service delivery of the ATM function across the UK. This is recognised in Europe and elsewhere including the US. Simply leaving the future of NSL to “the market” and allowing a “thousand flowers to bloom” is neither strategic nor joined up thinking from an ATM perspective – particularly given developments in Europe. This approach would leave the UK uniquely exposed, fragmented and fragile and we believe would have a negative impact on both service delivery and safety

Given the above and the recent change in Ministers, we believe that is appropriate as per our original request that we have a meeting at Ministerial level in order to progress our concerns.

Yours sincerely

Garry Graham
National Secretary

The original letter can be downloaded HERE.