Ministers rejected NATS reimbursement plan before 2,000 UK flights were cancelled
The UK government opposed an amendment that would have forced air traffic control provider NATS to reimburse airlines for passenger compensation following its failures, only weeks before a major system outage this week led to roughly 2,000 flight cancellations and disrupted around 330,000 passengers. The revelation, raised by Liberal Democrat MP Luke Taylor in a Commons debate, has intensified scrutiny of NATS, which is 49% government-owned and has suffered three significant technical failures in three years. Ryanair and Wizz Air have both hit out at the provider, with Ryanair demanding the resignation of NATS chief executive Martin Rolfe.
The rejected amendment, tabled by Lord Young of Cookham during the passage of the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill, was withdrawn after ministers objected, despite having previously said they placed "considerable pressure" on NATS following earlier failures dating back to August 2023. The Civil Aviation Authority has told passengers they are unlikely to be entitled to compensation because the outage is likely to be classed as "extraordinary circumstances". Transport secretary Heidi Alexander has ordered an independent CAA review to report within six months, with NATS required to give an initial account of the failure within a week, while NATS has apologised and says its systems are now stable.
In short
- Ministers blocked a NATS compensation-reimbursement amendment before this week's outage
- Outage cancelled 2,000 flights, disrupting about 330,000 passengers
- Ryanair wants NATS boss to resign; government orders independent review
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Requiring NATS to reimburse airlines for passenger compensation could make the provider bear more of the costs caused by failures within its control, rather than leaving airlines and passengers to absorb them. Supporters may argue that clearer financial accountability would strengthen incentives to maintain reliable systems, especially given repeated outages and NATS’s partial government ownership.
The case against
A reimbursement requirement could make NATS liable for disruption even when an outage qualifies as extraordinary circumstances and airlines themselves owe passengers no compensation, or where responsibility is disputed. Ministers may reasonably prefer an independent review to establish what failed and who was at fault before imposing a new, potentially costly liability that could affect the provider’s ability to invest in resilient systems.
Explained simply
NATS is the organisation that manages air traffic control in the UK, helping aircraft use the country’s airspace safely. It is partly owned by the government, which holds a 49 per cent stake, and partly by private investors.
When air traffic control systems fail, flights can be delayed or cancelled, affecting passengers and airlines. Airlines may have to pay compensation to passengers, but they have argued that NATS should help cover those costs when its own systems cause disruption.
The Civil Aviation Authority regulates aviation and advises passengers on their rights, while the Department for Transport sets government policy. The debate over NATS’s responsibility matters because it concerns who bears the cost of failures and how the provider is held accountable.
Culture Government Politics Travel UK World