Nats fallen over again

[Bantamzen]

The service NATS provides is reliable. There are ATC issues regularly all over the world on a daily basis - some of them are small and some of them are large. In July issues at the FAA New York area caused hundreds of flights to be cancelled and thousands delayed. Barcelona Tower had a power cut in August for only a few minutes and this led to 10 diversions, 5 cancellations and dozens of other flights incurred huge delays. These are just two recent examples. Italian ATC have two strikes planned in the near future. Two years ago Edinburgh ATC (non NATS) suffered huge delays one afternoon. You will only hear about these delays when you are affected by them or they make national news headlines.
The reliability of ATC is not just measured in terms of how frequently the system breaks due to errors in technology. Reliability of ATC is measured in how well they cope during bad weather, ground disruptions, airline disruption and staff shortages (strikes etc), emergency traffic and so on. NATS is very capable in coping with all of the above whereas many other control units around world are not. I believe NATS sets the standard on Air Traffic Control both in its levels of operational capacity, capability and reliability.
That is not to say that what occurred is acceptable - it absolutely isn’t. But the level of disruption caused by NATS failures is a direct consequence of how busy the skies and airports are in the UK.
NATS clearly do have an incentive to provide a reliable service. If they don’t then serious incidents happen. There is also the professional pride of the controllers.
These type of disruption events show how important it is to buy comprehensive travel insurance as soon as you book a trip. I’d say that goes for any mode of transportation. ‘Compensation’ is highly unlikely to be forthcoming due to the NATS disruption but with a solid insurance policy the holder should at least not be out of pocket.

Well I've been in a crowd of thousands at an airport to tell you it is not. The system should not be going down for hours the way it did, and as discussed this is not the first time. That's it, end of. I'm sorry to say be this post feels like it fell straight out of the press office at NATS.

We're (as in the passengers affected) not interested in all the time it is functional, we're interested when it does fall over and we are left either stuck at an outgoing airport waiting to be told the flight, and therefore the holiday, is cancelled, or worse being at a destination airport waiting to be told how long you're going to be stranded there. I don't know if you've ever been in such a situation, but if you have you'll better understand how very stressful it can be. I was travelling solo, and I had adequate insurance, plus plenty of funds / credit in case of such a scenario. Even so, it didn't change the fact that the chaos at Manchester started around the time I was due to board (16:00) until I finally made my way into arrivals around 22:00. By which time thousands of other passengers whose flights had been cancelled, and those whose flights that had arrived filling up the area and trying to figure out how to get home. Getting a hackney taxi would have been a lengthy wait and very expensive, and I didn't even bother looking to see what an Uber would have cost. So I had the choice of getting a train towards Manchester, then either hope to get there in time to make a last train in my home direction, or see if anyone could give me a lift. Thankfully a member of my family was able to come and pick me up, albeit with an over half hour wait trying to get to T2's pick up zone because at this point the jams into Manchester Airport were spilling onto the M56.

And I was one of the lucky ones, as once we had found out which baggage belt was being used for the cancelled flights, and barged my way through the literally packed hall, I was able to find my bag fairly quickly. I've since heard from some other people affected that it was closer to midnight before they were able to make their way to arrivals. Of course even they were relatively lucky, I've seen reports of people having to wait until yesterday to get back home when they were due to travel on Tuesday. Such is the impact of this failure. Yes those passengers should have been offered accommodation, or at the very least they should have been able to use their insurance to sort something out. However what is supposed to happen, and what is actually possible are two different things. Many people can find it difficult to find alternative accommodation, especially when the issue is only affecting the UK. As they are in an airport trying to book hotels, travellers from around Europe are still arriving and heading to their booked hotels, meaning that often there is little or no space locally for stranded passengers.

I realise this is getting a bit of a long post, but I think it's really important for the industry, especially those in charge of critical systems to wrap their heads around what the impact is on the ground. A few hours in the office tutting at a blank screen for staff, while the IT guys run around trying to sort it, translates into days of disruption and misery for tens, maybe even hundreds of thousands of passengers. And even though there are mechanisms in place to try to deal with the consequences, practically it's not always possible to make these work. Which is why all parts of the industry should be liable for failures. Quite frankly compensation for time lost, stress and even for some work time lost should most definitely be forthcoming, although as you point out it won't. But if it did, it would focus minds a little more to actually solving the problem, and ensuring that full redundancy is built in so that this never happens again.

 

[Sun Chariot]

How it works now:
NATS has its performance targets set by and monitored by the CAA. The CAA can levy a financial penalty upon NATS.
Certain airports have service-levels as part of commercial contract between an airport and NATS - which may include financial penalty if a SLA s breached by NATS.

NATS does not pay direct compensation to airlines for delay or cancelled flights, operational disruptions (i.e. of a system outage).
Airline compensation or operational losses resulting from air traffic control delays are absorbed by the airlines themselves under EU/UK261 rules; but NATS will incur financial penalties indirectly through the CAA’s price control adjustments.

Quite frankly compensation for time lost, stress and even for some work time lost should most definitely be forthcoming, although as you point out it won't. But if it did, it would focus minds a little more to actually solving the problem.

I agree the impacts of 2024, 2025 and 2026 must generate improvements to how these data-errors and faults / outages are flagged (for human interaction) and resolved.

I'm not clear what compensation you are referring to? As a flight passenger, your contract is with your airline. If your post means you expect NATS to compensate you for delay to your flight, then isn't that corollary the same as expecting Network Rail to compensate you for a delay to your train service, or Hitachi to reimburse you if an IET toilet doesn't work and you need to alight the train to use a station's lavatory?

As NATS is half-owned by UK Government and 42% by airlines, I fear a compensation culture will take government money away from the very investment needed to stop this happening in future.

 

[Bantamzen]

How it works now:
NATS has its performance targets set by and monitored by the CAA. The CAA can levy a financial penalty upon NATS.
Certain airports have service-levels as part of commercial contract between an airport and NATS - which may include financial penalty if a SLA s breached by NATS.

NATS does not pay direct compensation to airlines for delay or cancelled flights, operational disruptions (i.e. of a system outage).
Airline compensation or operational losses resulting from air traffic control delays are absorbed by the airlines themselves under EU/UK261 rules; but NATS will incur financial penalties indirectly through the CAA’s price control adjustments.


I agree the impacts of 2024, 2025 and 2026 must generate improvements to how these data-errors and faults / outages are flagged (for human interaction) and resolved.

I'm not clear what compensation you are referring to? As a flight passenger, your contract is with your airline. If your post means you expect NATS to compensate you for delay to your flight, then isn't that corollary the same as expecting Network Rail to compensate you for a delay to your train service, or Hitachi to reimburse you if an IET toilet doesn't work and you need to alight the train to use a station's lavatory?

As NATS is half-owned by UK Government and 42% by airlines, I fear a compensation culture will take government money away from the very investment needed to stop this happening in future.

We are already in an era of compensation culture. For example a few weeks ago Manchester Airport Group got hacked, and a large amount of personal data was stolen. Within hours of the notifications going out, there were legal companies offering services to claim compensation. So that boat has sailed.

But this culture is underpinned by poor performance from private and public companies. Constant failures of a critical aviation system aren't just slight moments of annoyance, they have massive impacts on a lot of people and a lot of companies, as I discussed about above. And as a passenger, I don't actually care whose fault it was. What I am concerned about is it is the passengers that often have to suffer the consequences of these organisation's stuff ups, sometimes lasting for days whilst the airlines recover. Personally I think that in very severe cases where the issue was avoidable, then passengers should expect some form of compensation (I also think the same when Network Rail stuff up too BTW). Who should pay for it? Well that will depend on whose fault it is, and who owns the fault and perhaps the government where they have farmed out services to save money. Will it be expensive? Yes it will, major stuff ups do.

Will it happen? Of course not, the passengers / customers are always the last in consideration, especially in situations like Tuesday. Making the people responsible more directly accountable, instead of some arbitrary fine to the CAA, might just focus minds a bit more to make sure that things like this don't happen again and that they invest properly in redundancy / backups.

 

[Sun Chariot]

Passengers absolutely can expect financial compensation for severe delay or abandonment. It's the preserve of the long-established travel insurance sector.
I have little empathy for those who choose to not protect themselves.

Since the introduction of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Legislation, legal vultures do - I agree - swoop on any potential money-making opportunities if GDPR Article 32 or Article 33 or Article 34 can be batted about by them.
MAG data-breach, as you rightly point out, was an example of shysters spinning their "get your personal compensation" BS.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Making the people responsible more directly accountable, instead of some arbitrary fine to the CAA, might just focus minds a bit more to make sure that things like this don't happen again and that they invest properly in redundancy / backups.

The amount of money that NATS can charge is determined by the regulator, not by NATS, so it isn't quite as straightforward as NATS not wanting to invest. Airlines put a lot of pressure on the regulator to minimise the charges that NATS can levy.

Regulator sets out Provisional Decision on NATS airline charges | UK Civil Aviation Authority

www.caa.co.uk

The regulator has proposed price controls that mean that NERL would be forecast to increase the average unit rate for its regulated activities over the period 2023 to 2027 inclusive compared with 2022 by approximately 26 per cent from £42 to £53 in 2020 prices, or from £47 to £64 in nominal terms.

Despite these increases, NERL's charges are expected to stay below the average level experienced in the Reference Period 2 (RP2) price control period from 2015 to 2019

The fact they put their prices up by 26% and that those higher prices are still lower than they were ten years ago suggests to me that the regulator cut their charges too far for the 2019 to 2023 period.

Redundancy and backups cost money. Their key stakeholders want redundancy and backups but also want NATS to be more "efficient." Multiple backups that you never use are seen as inefficient.

I've seen reports of people having to wait until yesterday to get back home when they were due to travel on Tuesday. Such is the impact of this failure. Yes those passengers should have been offered accommodation, or at the very least they should have been able to use their insurance to sort something out. However what is supposed to happen, and what is actually possible are two different things. Many people can find it difficult to find alternative accommodation, especially when the issue is only affecting the UK.

This falls back on the airlines.

Airlines have reduced their staffing at airports to basically a skeleton staff and, in many/most cases, everyone you see at the airport wearing the airline's uniform is actually working for a sub-contractor. The reason why they can't cope when there's a major failure is because they don't have enough staff and the few staff they do have are not empowered to make decisions. So to hear the likes of Ryanair lecturing NATS on redundancy and back-ups and resilience, well.

Airlines have made people wait several days because they don't want to pay the money it costs to fly someone home on a different airline.

People are wary of paying for things out of their own pocket and then reclaiming because some airlines make this as difficult as possible. And I'm not just talking about the usual suspects- Ryanair, Wizz, Vueling- either. The likes of BA can take months to process a right-to-care reimbursement claim, no wonder people are wary of spending their own money on hotels or alternative transport. And travel insurance won't pick up things the airlines should be paying for.

This is where I heap praise on EasyJet and on Jet2. I got caught up in the 2023 NATS meltdown and took the ferry home from Liverpool rather than the plane. I put my reimbursement claim for the ferry in to EasyJet on the Monday and it was in my bank account by Friday. My boss was in a similar position with Jet2, they cancelled his holiday because of it (and he was very disappointed) but the refund was back in his account within a week.

 

[bahnause]

The amount of money that NATS can charge is determined by the regulator, not by NATS, so it isn't quite as straightforward as NATS not wanting to invest. Airlines put a lot of pressure on the regulator to minimise the charges that NATS can levy.

Regulator sets out Provisional Decision on NATS airline charges | UK Civil Aviation Authority

www.caa.co.uk

The fact they put their prices up by 26% and that those higher prices are still lower than they were ten years ago suggests to me that the regulator cut their charges too far for the 2019 to 2023 period.

Redundancy and backups cost money. Their key stakeholders want redundancy and backups but also want NATS to be more "efficient." Multiple backups that you never use are seen as inefficient.

Then there’s the issue of live systems with various interfaces and ‘backups’. When safety-critical functions are thrown into the mix, it quickly turns into a nightmare with an astronomical price tag. Systems with hot standby tend to experience the same faults on both systems at the same time.

 

[Sun Chariot]

I'll add a couple of points to the excellent + factually correct post by @Tetchytyke

End-2019, CAA had set and agreed with NATS, MoD, airlines, the next 4-year period for pricing (charges to airlines for the services provided by NATS and other Air Navigation Service-Providers). CAA had also reached agreement of investment released to NATS for that four-year period.

Then came a little global pandemic thing...
A 90% drop in 2020's first half forecasted revenue.
Enormous pressure from airlines upon CAA and NATS, to cut the pricing charged to the airlines.
Wide-reaching role redundancies at NATS. I know first-hand.
Very significant cutback and deferral of investment planned 2020-2023.

Safely cannot be - and was not at any point - compromised. But older assets and tech had to run on longer. "Digital Twin" was an aspired concept back then; it certainly wasn't the de facto architectural model.

 

[Terry Tibbs]

On days like mass meltdown such as the above it’s unrealistic to expect airlines to be able to reroute, rebook and recover flights anywhere near as quickly as you would like. A view of the departure board in any airport with every single flight showing ‘delayed’, ‘contact airline’ or even ‘cancelled’ should really indicate to the viewer that something massive is going on. If it’s on the news - like this NATS - failure was then clearly nothing is going to happen very quickly even once recovery begins. The capacity in terms of aircraft, staff, airspace and airports just isn’t there for quick recovery.

’Airlines have made people wait several days because they don't want to pay the money it costs to fly someone home on a different airline.’ That may well be the case sometimes but in other cases the capacity is just not there to get people where they want to go. On routes that operate daily or less it will naturally take a while to recover passengers to where they want to be. If it is the former then that is what travel insurance is for.
’And travel insurance won't pick up things the airlines should be paying for.’ Any policy I use I always check to see if it has a time limit on when my journey can be recovered. My current policy states 8 hours. So if I have not been offered alternative transportation to my destination within 8 hours of my planned departure time I can seek alternative travel (within reason - not a private plane or limo) and will be reimbursed. If alternative travel is unavailable then I can seek accommodation as well as transportation to that accommodation.
To answer Bantamzen’s question - I have been in your situation on several occasions both as a passenger and a crew member. The levels of frustration are totally understandable and I sympathise to a degree with it all. I also understand that people want alternative accommodation when disruption occurs but the level seen on days like the NATS meltdown usually means all accommodation books up very fast and then runs out. Again, this is where a good, comprehensive travel insurance policy will be invaluable.

I think everyone - indeed I advise everyone - should look for and study the conditions of a solid travel insurance policy. Good ones will not come cheap and that’s for a reason. I’m astounded at the amount of people who travel either without insurance or with insurance that covers the absolute minimum but was clearly bought as it was the cheapest. I have used my own travel insurance in situations like this I was in far better place to make plans and continue my journey and I still arrived the same day.

 

[Tetchytyke]

’Airlines have made people wait several days because they don't want to pay the money it costs to fly someone home on a different airline.’ That may well be the case sometimes but in other cases the capacity is just not there to get people where they want to go. On routes that operate daily or less it will naturally take a while to recover passengers to where they want to be. If it is the former then that is what travel insurance is for.

I am yet to see a travel insurer who will pay out where the legal obligation for reimbursement rests with the airline. Every policy I've ever had has the same exclusion, they will not pay out if someone else has the legal obligation to pay out instead.

In this case, the legal obligation under UK/EU261 is for the airline to reimburse right-to-care costs such as additional accommodation or rerouting on another flight/mode of transport. So travel insurers won't entertain these sorts of claims.

My insurance covers me for all the things that aren't covered by the airline's legal obligations, such as the cost of unused accommodation if I simply decide to turn around and go home. But they won't cover reimbursement of rerouting or additional accommodation where the airline should be paying for it.

Infrequent routes illustrate my point about airlines refusing to honour their rerouting obligations. I'm struggling to think of many routes where there is a genuinely infrequent service, what is much more common is that one airline will serve a route infrequently (usually at times of peak demand) but other airlines will serve a route more frequently. Airlines in this situation will often tell their passengers that they have to wait for the next flight operated by them, even if other airlines are operating much more frequently, either directly or indirectly.

 

[Terry Tibbs]

Your ability – or inability – to find and select what I would consider a comprehensive travel insurance policy is neither here nor there to be honest. Whether you believe what I say I have in my policy, frankly I could not care less. My friends and family (those who travel regularly) all have similar cover too. I recommend revisiting your policy when it’s next up for renewal.

The whole point of many insurance is to cover for losses that someone else ought to pick up. That driver who crashed into you and drove off should have paid you damages but didn’t so your insurance covers it. The NHS should treat you and your family in a timely manner but often they don’t so your medical insurance covers for it. That burglar who illegally broke into your house didn’t return what they stole so your home insurance covers it. That airline who was meant to reroute you ASAP and give you refreshments and accommodation didn’t do any of that (because they believed they were not on the hook for this) so quality travel insurance covers for this.

I don’t think you quite understand that sometimes it’s not a matter of airlines won’t reroute you but they simply cannot reroute you. They also cannot magic up hotel rooms, taxis, food and drink vouchers. It’s just not physically possible, most likely for a few days, in a large disruption scenario. Same for accommodation etc. No matter how many times you bang your fist and stamp your feet and shout ‘Look after me according to EU261’ in some situations that just will not ever work. An airline may claim something like the NATS situation is outside of their control and therefore their obligations are more limited. Maybe you will get that cup of coffee and a voucher but I’d say that probably isn’t the priority at that point. At least for me it wouldn’t be. That is where your travel insurance, a comprehensive travel insurance is valuable.

I will add that I have never claimed both from an airline and the travel insurance. Once I was deposited a token gesture after a disruption event so I rang my insurer and arranged to repay them this amount.

Your assertion of there not being many infrequent flight routes is somewhat parochial. I can think of many routes in Europe alone which operate infrequently without codeshare.

 

[pitdiver]

The amount of money that NATS can charge is determined by the regulator, not by NATS, so it isn't quite as straightforward as NATS not wanting to invest. Airlines put a lot of pressure on the regulator to minimise the charges that NATS can levy.

Regulator sets out Provisional Decision on NATS airline charges | UK Civil Aviation Authority

www.caa.co.uk

The fact they put their prices up by 26% and that those higher prices are still lower than they were ten years ago suggests to me that the regulator cut their charges too far for the 2019 to 2023 period.

Redundancy and backups cost money. Their key stakeholders want redundancy and backups but also want NATS to be more "efficient." Multiple backups that you never use are seen as inefficient.


This falls back on the airlines.

Airlines have reduced their staffing at airports to basically a skeleton staff and, in many/most cases, everyone you see at the airport wearing the airline's uniform is actually working for a sub-contractor. The reason why they can't cope when there's a major failure is because they don't have enough staff and the few staff they do have are not empowered to make decisions. So to hear the likes of Ryanair lecturing NATS on redundancy and back-ups and resilience, well.

Airlines have made people wait several days because they don't want to pay the money it costs to fly someone home on a different airline.

People are wary of paying for things out of their own pocket and then reclaiming because some airlines make this as difficult as possible. And I'm not just talking about the usual suspects- Ryanair, Wizz, Vueling- either. The likes of BA can take months to process a right-to-care reimbursement claim, no wonder people are wary of spending their own money on hotels or alternative transport. And travel insurance won't pick up things the airlines should be paying for.

This is where I heap praise on EasyJet and on Jet2. I got caught up in the 2023 NATS meltdown and took the ferry home from Liverpool rather than the plane. I put my reimbursement claim for the ferry in to EasyJet on the Monday and it was in my bank account by Friday. My boss was in a similar position with Jet2, they cancelled his holiday because of it (and he was very disappointed) but the refund was back in his account within a week.

Jet2 were good for my wife and I. They cancelled the flight on the 8th September and the holiday as well. The whole amount had been refunded by Sunday the 13th..

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don’t think you quite understand that sometimes it’s not a matter of airlines won’t reroute you but they simply cannot reroute you.

If there are no seats available on any airline at any price from the city you are in or from nearby cities then yes. Occasionally that happens. Likewise with hotels.

What is far more common is that they simply don’t want to pay the price.

It’s why I generally prefer to sort myself out and claim back later. Airlines which reimburse promptly get my business. Airlines which don’t, don’t.

An airline may claim something like the NATS situation is outside of their control and therefore their obligations are more limited

Their right to care obligations are not limited by whether it is their fault or not.

Whether you believe what I say I have in my policy, frankly I could not care less.

Who is your insurer? I’d be delighted to give my business to an insurer which doesn’t have the standard exclusion that they won’t cover things which are covered by UK/EU261 or the Montreal Convention, or by ATOL or ABTA.

Your assertion of there not being many infrequent flight routes is somewhat parochial. I can think of many routes in Europe alone which operate infrequently without codeshare.

I can think of lots of routes which operate infrequently.

What I can’t think of is many routes where there are literally no alternatives. Even somewhere as remote as Limoges has Bordeaux less than two hours down the road or Paris three hours away on a train.

Example: mate of mine was told by Ryanair that he’d have to wait several days for the next Ryanair flight from Berlin to Manchester. No, they couldn’t reroute him. So he chose from one of the multiple daily indirect flights operated by Lufthansa, KLM, or BA. Infrequent route, yes, but plenty of indirect alternatives.