What they wanted from the deal

Achieved

Comments

To avoid NATS going into administration, with the attendant uncertainties and risks to the business

Yes

To ensure that Users made only a proportionate contribution through higher prices, as part of a wider financial solution

Arguably Yes

Also coupled with strengthening of the performance regime

To ensure that NATS' finances should be sufficiently robust to withstand future downturns in traffic

Arguably Yes

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 reasonable limits, Yes

The Banks take the view that NATS' managers were already free to run the business

Price increases worth some £100 million to NATS over the first two control periods up to 2010 [ALL PARTIES, apart from a minority of Airlines]

Yes

The CAA had earlier rejected a request from NATS for much larger increases

A "volume flex" which ensures that NATS no longer bears the full risk of downturns in traffic, because its prices will adjust automatically in response [ALL]

Yes

The flex is in some respects more generous than originally requested but currently runs to 2005 only

Bears own transaction costs (£1 million)

No

NATS paid their advisers' fees of £1 million