Prepared by: NATS (En Route) plc NATS Protected NATS (En Route) plc CMA Statement of Case - 28 November 2019 [RP3 Reference: NERL003] NATS PROTECTED NATS (En Route) plc 2 NATS Protected Page 2 of 199 NATS (En Route) plc 3 Table of contents 1. Foreword 8 1.1. Foreword by Martin Rolfe, CEO 8 2. Introduction 11 2.1. NERL’s request for a redetermination 11 2.2. Areas of focus for the CMA’s redetermination 13 2.2.1. Setting the right opex allowance 13 2.2.2. Setting the right capex allowance 14 2.2.3. Achieving the right level of capex governance 14 2.2.4. Facilitating technology based improvements in the Oceanic service 16 2.2.5. Setting the right cost of capital 16 2.3. Overview of the areas of difference between NERL and the CAA 17 2.4. Structure of the Statement of Case 19 3. Background to RP3 and the context for the CMA’s redetermination 23 3.1. Overview 23 3.2. Our approach to RP3 23 3.2.1. Key challenges facing NERL in RP3 23 3.2.2. The impact of our experience during RP2 32 3.2.3. Our approach to developing the RP3 business plan 36 3.2.4. We consider that our RP3 business plan best serves the public interest 40 3.3. Our concerns with the CAA’s RP3 Decision 43 3.3.1. The CAA’s RP3 Decision does not achieve the right balance in the public interest 43 3.3.2. Concerns about the CAA’s evidence base 45 3.4. Our expectations for the CMA’s redetermination 45 3.4.1. Legal framework for the CMA’s redetermination 45 3.4.2. NERL’s perspective on the ‘public interest’ test 46 4. Traffic 49 4.1. Overview 49 4.2. Introduction 50 4.2.1. The role of traffic forecasts 50 4.2.2. Trends in traffic volumes 50 4.3. Background 50 4.3.1. NERL’s traffic forecast 50 4.3.2. STATFOR’s traffic forecast 51 4.3.3. Traffic forecasts used for RP2 51 4.4. Basis of NERL’s plan 52 NATS Protected Page 3 of 199 NATS (En Route) plc 4 4.5. The CAA’s RP3 decision 52 4.6. Why we believe the CAA’s decision is not in the public interest 53 4.7. Conclusion 54 5. Airspace Change Organising Group 55 5.1. Overview 55 5.2. Introduction 55 5.3. Background 56 5.3.1. Discussions between stakeholders about NERL’s role 56 5.4. Basis of NERL’s plan 56 5.5. The CAA’s RP3 Decision 57 5.6. Why we believe the CAA’s decision is not in the public interest 57 5.7. Conclusion 58 6. Service quality targets 59 6.1. Overview 59 6.2. Introduction 60 6.2.1. NERL’s performance on delays 60 6.3. Background 62 6.3.1. Interaction between delivering transitional change and delays 62 6.3.2. Scope of NERL’s service quality targets 62 6.4. Basis of NERL’s plan 63 6.5. The CAA’s RP3 Decision 63 6.6. Why we believe the CAA’s decision is not in the public interest 64 6.7. Conclusion 66 7. 3Di targets 67 7.1. Overview 67 7.2. Introduction 68 7.3. Background 68 7.4. Basis of NERL’s plan 68 7.5. The CAA’s RP3 decision 69 7.6. Why we believe the CAA’s decision is not in the public interest 69 7.7. Conclusion 70 8. Opex 71 8.1. Overview 71 8.2. Introduction 73 8.3. Background 74 8.3.1. NERL has a high proportion of fixed opex costs 74 8.3.2. Historic cost-reduction measures 74 8.4. Basis of NERL’s plan 75 8.4.1. Our approach to developing our business plan 75 8.4.2. Key considerations for our RP3 opex proposals 75 8.5. The CAA’s RP3 Decision 78 NATS Protected Page 4 of 199 NATS (En Route) plc 5 8.5.1. £43m reduction to opex 79 8.5.2. £24m reduction to non-regulated income opex 79 8.5.3. Allowance for the Opex Flexibility Fund (OFF) 79 8.5.4. Allowance for ACOG 80 8.6. Why we believe the CAA’s decision is not in the public interest 80 8.6.1. Historic efficiency savings are not a robust rationale for RP3 reductions 80 8.6.2. Historic outperformance is not a robust rationale for RP3 reductions 81 8.6.3. The CAA’s % efficiency challenge is not similar to NERL’s 81 8.6.4. There are serious concerns with the Steer/Helios report 81 8.6.5. The CAA’s challenge is not consistent with comparator data 82 8.6.6. The CAA’s RP3 Decision is inconsistent in its treatment of years 1-3 and 4-5 84 8.6.7. The potential consequences of giving effect to the CAA’s cost reductions will be contrary to the public interest 84 8.7. Conclusion 86 9. Non-regulated income 87 9.1. Overview 87 9.2. Introduction 88 9.3. Background 89 9.3.1. NERL focus on regulated activities 89 9.3.2. Categories of non-regulated single till income 89 9.4. Basis of NERL’s plan 90 9.5. The CAA’s RP3 Decision 91 9.6. Why we believe the CAA’s decision is not in the public interest 92 9.7. Conclusion 92 10. Pensions 93 10.1. Overview 93 10.2. Introduction 94 10.3. Background 94 10.3.1. DB and DC scheme on-going service costs 94 10.3.2. DB scheme deficit repair costs 95 10.4. Basis of NERL’s Plan 97 10.5. The CAA’s RP3 Decision 98 10.6. Why we believe the CAA’s decision is not in the public interest 98 10.7. Conclusion 100 11. Capex Funding / Capex Governance 101 11.1. Overview 101 11.2. Introduction 103 11.3. Background 104 11.3.1. Infrastructure requirements for an ATM business 104 NATS Protected Page 5 of 199 NATS (En Route) plc 6 11.3.2. Investment Programme Changes during RP2 105 11.3.3. The RP2 transformation programme 106 11.3.4. Practical challenges in delivering change in the ATM industry 106 11.3.5. Scale and complexity of our investment programme 107 11.3.6. The importance of retaining some flexibility within the governance framework 107 11.3.7. Improvements to our internal governance arrangements 107 11.4. Basis of NERL’s Plan 108 11.4.1. We followed the CAA’s guidance on the preparation of our plan 108 11.4.2. We consulted with our customers 109 11.4.3. Our investment programme is based upon a wide range of drivers 109 11.4.4. The impact of the governance framework on the development of our plan 110 11.4.5. We proposed an integrated portfolio of programmes alongside enhanced governance 111 11.5. The CAA’s RP3 Decision 111 11.5.1. Capex funding 112 11.5.2. Capex governance 112 11.6. Why we believe the CAA’s decision is not in the public interest 112 11.6.1. Capex funding proposals 113 11.6.2. NERL Impact Assessment of the CAA’s RP3 Decision 114 11.6.3. The interaction between the capex and opex reductions 116 11.6.4. Capex governance proposals 117 11.6.5. Potential consequences of implementing the CAA’s RP3 Decision 121 11.7. Conclusion 123 12. Oceanic 124 12.1. Overview 124 12.2. Introduction 126 12.2.1. Background 126 12.2.2. Structure of NERL’s Oceanic operations 127 12.2.3. How is Oceanic air traffic control currently delivered? 128 12.2.4. Technology transformation – the potential role of satellite technology 128 12.2.5. Investment by NSL into Aireon LLC 129 12.2.6. Relationship between the Oceanic and en route businesses 129 12.3. Basis of NERL’s plan 130 12.4. The CAA’s RP3 Decision 131 12.5. Why we believe the CAA’s decision is not in the public interest 132 12.5.1. Satellite data costs – Aireon 132 12.5.2. Inappropriate implied equivalence of the Oceanic and en route businesses 132 12.5.3. Lack of proportionality 133 NATS Protected Page 6 of 199 NATS (En Route) plc 7 12.5.4. Risks to international obligations, cooperation and interoperability in Oceanic airspace 133 12.5.5. Enforced cross-subsidy 133 12.5.6. The CAA’s Safety Duty is not given priority over costs 134 12.6. Conclusion 134 13. Cost of capital and financeability 135 13.1. Overview 135 13.2. Introduction 137 13.2.1. Context for the RP3 WACC 137 13.2.2. Basis of our plan 138 13.2.3. The CAA’s Financeability Duty 138 13.3. Key areas of disagreement 139 13.3.1. Total market return 140 13.3.2. Asset beta 144 13.3.3. The risk free rate 149 13.3.4. Debt beta 150 13.3.5. Cost of debt 150 13.4. Why we believe the CAA’s decision is not in the public interest 151 13.5. Conclusion 152 14. Annex - ExCDS Case Study 153 14.1. Context 153 14.2. Objectives 153 14.3. Project Management 153 14.4. Development and Evaluation 154 14.5. Transition 155 14.6. Benefits Realisation 155 14.7.