Step Up for Aviation Labor

[wmuflyguy]

Your post reminds me of something that happened in Australia, last year I think, where the tower shut down because the one and only controller left to go to the bathroom.

Another time, the tower shut down, again in Australia, when the relief shift person failed to show up. The on duty controller locked the doors and went home.

That would be pretty awesome at like LGA or ORD.

 

[Metro752]

Walk out May 1st

 

[big_al]

I hear that private industry can do it cheaper.

ask the "private industry" how much they would charge to send a letter

 

[big_al]

Dear Mr. Citizen:
We are sorry your home and your lifelong possessions were detroyed by fire last night. Only one firefighter was assigned to duty since our statistical analysis showed that relatively few fires occur on Wednesday nights at 0300 a.m. We had to cut back somewhere in order to deploy our resources effectively and ensure a profit for our stockholders. We hope in the future to serve your fire defense needs at a more appropriate time. Best of Luck.

John Doe, CEO S.U.C. Systems Underwriters Corporation.

Step up now or Kiss It Goodbye.

exactly! It boggles the mind how many people fail to realize this

 

[GVFlyer]

Thanks, a lot different than the figure I had heard. Personally I am completely against any privatization plan, I would think most pilots would agree.

I agree with you that US ATC privatization would be disasterous.

In the interest of fair plan here is the other side of the story. The FAA news release says average controller pay and benefits total $166K per annum.

http://www.faa.gov/news/news_story.cfm?contentKey=3848


The Wall Street Journal article states that average controller pay is $161K while New York controllers may make over $200K.

http://www.careerjournal.com/salaryhiring/industries/airlines/20050405-mccartney.html



GV

 

[GIVDrvr]

Once again this is not about equal time. But it is about FAIR PLAY which is binding arbitration. If a 30 percent pay cut is the product at least it is decided fairly. If I could email the bankruptcy court to support any one of the legacy carriers that have been on the cutting side while management is on the cashing side i would do that to.

FWIW from what I've heard those salary figures cited include the Agency's contribution to medicare,FICA, 401ks,etc. Its not like controllers at TEB are cashing 160K paychecks. They are not.

 

[Hold West]

Someone in one of these threads asked how to save money, then, in the FAA without cutting controllers' pay?

I was thinking about that last night, and came up with something worth mentioning. I work in a medium-size facility with about 80 controllers. To "manage" that operation we have:

1 Air Traffic Manager
1 Assistant Air Traffic Manager
1 Support Manager
2 Operations Managers
8 Staff Specialists
10 Operations Supervisors
5 Traffic Management Coordinators

Yep, 28 people to oversee 80. And those are just the air traffic management types, those who were controllers and whose job requires controller experience. I am not counting our tech ops wizards (understaffed too) or our automation support folks or our office administration people.

So where do you think we should start cutting?

 

[Vector4fun]

Someone in one of these threads asked how to save money, then, in the FAA without cutting controllers' pay?

How about making the idiots in Management who squandered One and a Half Billion Dollars on the Advanced Automation System, with absolutely NOTHING to show for it, pay it all back? That's right folks, according to the GAO, the FAA spent $2.5 BILLION dollars back in the 1990s on the AAS, and only $1.1 Billion went towards projects that were NOT cancelled. $1.5 Billion went right down a rat-hole somewhere. Now the Administrator is going to impasse on a contract with her largest Union over $400-500 million spread over five years.


$1.5 Billion down a rat hole, pat the suits on the back, re-decorate their offices in Washington D.C., pass out some awards.

NATCA offers $1.4 Billion in concessions, and the Administrator turns that down and insists on $1.9 Billion; going to impasse, destroying morale, cutting controller pay, possibly causing havoc with the ATC system over $500 million spread over five years.

For all you airline pilots:

If an unfavorable contract causes 2000 controllers to elect to retire in the next two years, (almost 4000 will be eligible, I'm being conservative) and the resulting controller shortage causes just a 10% increase in delays for the Airlines, those delays will cost your airlines that half million bucks we're talking about each and every one of those five years. That's using the ATA's own figures on costs of ATC delays. The Administrator is going to the matt to save the FAA $500 million over five years, but it could very easily cost the airlines and other users more than five times that amount in extra delays.

BTW, I personally became eligible to retire last summer. (Thank God)

I was thinking about that last night, and came up with something worth mentioning. I work in a medium-size facility with about 80 controllers. To "manage" that operation we have:

1 Air Traffic Manager
1 Assistant Air Traffic Manager
1 Support Manager
2 Operations Managers
8 Staff Specialists
10 Operations Supervisors
5 Traffic Management Coordinators

Yep, 28 people to oversee 80.

That's just about the same ratio at my facility. One chief for every three indians. But that's just in the field. There's another thousand or more chiefs running around in the Regional and National Offices.

So where do you think we should start cutting?

About half the MSS grade positions, natch.

 

[PC800]

...[FONT=Verdana,Trebuchet MS,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva]the FAA has chosen to pursue a twisted interpretation of the law to unilaterally impose contract terms on its workers.[/FONT]

Um, no. While you'll seldom find me defending anything the FAA does, that's not what's happening here.

Most government employees don't have the right to negotiate for wages or benefits, and are severely limited with regard to what they can negotiate with regard to working conditions. Government employees accept these terms as a condition of employment, and in return receive adequate salaries, generous benefits, and job security that is (for the most part) unmatched in the private sector.

That was the case with air traffic controllers, too, back in the days of PATCO-- and we all know what happened when PATCO staged a strike in an attempt to force the government to negotiate items that were, by law, non- negotiable.

However, in 1996, the Clinton administration agreed to give NATCA an unprecedented amount of leeway (in comparison to other government employee unions) in negotiating wages, benefits, and working conditions-- under the condition that, in the event impasse was reached, Congress would be offered the opportunity to resolve the situation. If they failed to do so, the last, best FAA offer would be imposed.

At that time, NATCA had a choice-- they could continue to have the same rights, responsibilities and options as all other government unions, or they could accept the Clinton administration offer, including the imposition of the FAA contract offer in case of an impasse unresolved by Congress.

They CHOSE to accept the new deal-- this is no "twisted interpretation" of the law-- they knew that was the deal, and they agreed to it.

Now, understandably, they don't like it, and they're asking Congress to change the rules so they can get out of it. Maybe Congress will (and I hope they do, since a lot of my former colleagues at ORD are making such big money these days that I can't buy a meal when we get together <g>). But, to be fair, Congress would be totally within their rights to say fine, we'll let you out of the deal you made in 1996-- all you have to do is agree to work under the same rules as all the other government employees.

If that were to happen, trust me, NATCA couldn't agree to that "last, best" FAA offer fast enough!

 

[GIVDrvr]

Um, no. While you'll seldom find me defending anything the FAA does, that's not what's happening here.

Um, Yes. That is exactly what is happening here. The current contract contains an 'evergreen clause' that provides for the entire contract to continue in force until another Agreement in reached between the parties. The FAA is pursuing a policy that 224 Representatives and 37 Senators have already agreed is unfair. See HR4755 and S2201 both searchable at www.loc.gov

Most government employees don't have the right to negotiate for wages or benefits, and are severely limited with regard to what they can negotiate with regard to working conditions.

I see. I will advise AFSCME and their 1.4 million govt employee members that their negotiated rights no longer exist.

At that time, NATCA had a choice-- they could continue to have the same rights, responsibilities and options as all other government unions, or they could accept the Clinton administration offer, including the imposition of the FAA contract offer in case of an impasse unresolved by Congress.

Funny I can find nothing in the Congressional Record regarding NATCA being given any choices. Title 49 s. 40122 concerning FAA Reform is a public law passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President...levels of Govt well above even the most ambitious Union activist's reach. This legislation also containes numerous requirements for the Administrator to negotiate changes to the personnel policy...which she has conveniently overlooked.

They CHOSE to accept the new deal-- this is no "twisted interpretation" of the law-- they knew that was the deal, and they agreed to it.

Once again they 'chose' the Agreement that the Parties signed and ratified. The one the Administrator thought was good enough to ask the Union to extend for two years in 2004. The one that has the 'evergreen clause' she reaffirmed with her signature in 2004. And the one that 261 Members of Congress have stood up to defend.

But, to be fair, Congress would be totally within their rights to say fine, we'll let you out of the deal you made in 1996-- all you have to do is agree to work under the same rules as all the other government employees.

I sure the Administrator and you will have a chuckle over your 'fairness' at her weekly bridge game. Also funny that course of action you suggest has never been floated by anyone else. ATC, like law enforcement, or fire fighters is unique working environment. Each of those employee groups have negotiated their own unique set of work rules and have unique retirement plans as well
​