What they wanted from the deal | Achieved | Comments |
To avoid the company going into administration or other sub-optimal situations which would cause uncertainties and risks to the business and its customers | Yes | Other sub-optimal situations included "do-minimum" programmes |
To avoid having to divest assets in a way that would damage the future viability of the company | Yes | In particular, NATS Services Ltd |
To free NATS management to run the business without being subjected to the full range of project finance-type constraints imposed by lender banks within the original PPP facilities agreements | Within reasonable limits, Yes |
|
To enable the Company to commence procurement within its 10 year investment programme | Yes | Initial contracts have been signed for Radars and software |
To ensure that NATS' finances should be sufficiently robust to withstand future downturns in traffic | Yes | Though the Company is still exposed to some traffic risk from the severest scenarios |
What the other parties wanted them to contribute to the deal [Which parties] | Conceded | Comments |
Cost cuts estimated at some £170 million over CP1 [ALL] | Yes | Down from £200m, (pay settlement) |
Agreement to a tighter performance regime, which will penalise them more heavily for causing delays to flights [CAA] | Yes | Ceiling doubled to £10m |
Agreement to more exacting financial reporting to the CAA, and restrictions on NATS' freedom to change financial arrangements without referral to CAA [CAA] | Yes | Listed in revised licence requirements |
Bears own transaction costs [All parties] | Yes | Mainly advisers fees |