cactusmike

Myopic, I don't really think so. I do not fly around with my head in the sand, I try to keep up on all the news in the industry. It just struck me as ironic that as our piloting profession is under attack from management, with retirement programs a thing of the past and paycuts the norm we are asked to go to bat for a labor group that has achieved well deserved pay increases in their last contract but are out to surpass any COLA increases by their new demands. Hey, you get what you negotiate, not what you deserve, we all know that, but don't ask me to support another huge increase in the FAA payroll when the service I get now is not any better than it was 25 years ago when I started.

Where do you think the money comes for the FAA budget? Bush wants us to pay user fees to support the FAA. Do you want to go the way of Europe and see all small aircraft flying disappear under the mounds of fees and paperwork it will take to do a touch and go? Hey, flying that 50 seat RJ? They want to charge you the same nav fee as a 747. How long do you think you will get to fly that RJ if the costs per segment skyrocket? It'll be great for the mainline guys because it won't pay to put anything smaller than a 737 on a route but it will kill the feed concept.

Here's where I got my info on the NY TRACON sick scam:
(from AIN - corporate guys will be familiar)

NY Tracon controllers
Topping (or should that be bottoming?) the 2005 underachievers list were the air traffic controllers at the New York Tracon, where 25 percent of the incumbents reportedly earned more than $200,000 per year, or roughly $8,000 less than the U.S. Vice President.

Under a unique union staffing schedule, New York controllers worked three hours and 39 minutes during an eight-hour shift, significantly less than controllers at any other Tracon, according to an independent audit team called in by the FAA, but “understaffed,” according to the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA).

As a result of the union schedule, overtime at the NY Tracon reached an average of $3.6 million per year, compared with $21,000 per year using the approach that other Tracons employ. Nonetheless, the audit team uncovered instances of controllers illegally “gaming” the system to get yet more overtime pay.

Health and stress issues also arose at the Tracon, where controllers consistently used more than 100 percent of their sick leave. Stress–for which a doctor’s certificate is not required–also took a significant toll. At the NY Tracon, controllers claimed 3,030 hours of Workers Compensation for job-related stress in the first 14 weeks of last year. During the same period, combined stress-related absences from the Potomac, Atlanta, Southern California, Northern California and Chicago Tracons totaled 504 hours.

NATCA President John Carr said,“The FAA has created this chaos by its own hand. It has understaffed the facility.” The FAA responded that with 225 controllers, “the facility is more than adequately staffed,” and pointed out that 170 controllers could operate the Tracon safely, under proper scheduling.

In December, the FAA said contract talks with NATCA were deadlocked over union demands on pay, scheduling and work rules and called for federal mediation. The FAA stated that controller pay has increased by 74 percent since the last contract in 1998. Nevertheless, the union reportedly wants a 5.6-percent pay increase every year for the next four years, a seven-hour workday and–presumably for their New York brethren–50 percent more sick leave. –A.W.

dckozak

It takes just as much time, space and manpower for a RJ (or Cessna for that matter) to be controlled as it does a 747. Should 747 operators subsidize the system just because (their) aircraft are the largest flying??

You gotta be kidding,? right? The Vice president If he
paid to be the VP the cost to us would still be too high.
Anyway, I'm sure he 's making a lot more from raising oil prices than he'll ever be paid by the US Treasury.

miker1369

AWEMIKE,
First off you are more than welcome to read the FAA and NATCA's offer at www.natca.org or at www.fairfaa.com. When we went into talks we did ask for a pay raise 9 months ago, then status quo, and then $1.4 Billion in concessions. That is the way labor talks work. The FAA went into the talks with $1.9 billion and left the the talks with 1.9 Billion. That is not good faith bargaining. Also if you look at the way the federal government works and the way the budget system is set up, you could take all of our pay away and the FAA can't legally and wouldn't move the funds into making the system better for you. Our funds go back into the big pot of government.

Also to respond to your comment "don't ask me to support another huge increase in the FAA payroll when the service I get now is not any better than it was 25 years ago when I started"; If the service hasn't changed in 25 years you should be extremely pleased becuase while the service may not have changed, traffic has. Traffic has increased at least three times what it was 25 years ago, with less people and less facilities. Becuase if you compare it to the rest of the real world, as traffic increases (autos, consumers, housing, etc) service levels drop and prices increase. So if it is the same as what it was 25 years ago, then we must be doing a hell of job, so I guess I will take your comment as a compliment.

As far as user fees go, I am sorry to tell you, they are coming wether I take a pay cut or not this administration has had an agenda from the start. All I can say is wait and see, personally I think user fees are a bad idea, but that to is a whole different issue that has nothing to do with Air Traffic Controllers, that is once again management and the FAA. What the AOPA and airline unions should be calling for is, to make the FAA stop wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on programs that fail from the start and trying to make the airlines pay for it, but that too is a whole nother issue. You have to understand the nature of the beast (FAA), we have always been in the safety buisness, this administration is running us like a corporate buisness, not a federal agency. Which in some ways I guess could be good, but in others devastating. My job is to keep metal moving at 500 knots and prevent it from hitting, not giving a ****, wether your company paid this fee and that company paid that fee so they should get priority, or that company shouldn't have to hold. And I know that is what will happen, it already does in a way. Most of your company's have direct lines to our TMU and ask for priority all the time over other company's because thats thier hub. The system is not suppossed to work that way, it is first come, first serve.

I don't know what AIN is, but I do know what federal law is:
Annual aggregate compensation (basic pay, locality-based comparability payments, premium pay - also subject to the premium pay cap as explained above - and other payments as defined in 5 CFR 530.202) cannot exceed Level I of the Executive Schedule ($183,500 in 2006). Also again the statistics on my previous response to you about our pay is from the Department of Labor, not a press release from Marion Blakey.

The only way any federal employee, with the exception of the President and VP, could ever make over $200,000 is overtime, lots of overtime, mostly of which is not by choice. We do not enjoy 6 days a week ten hours a day. Which again we would not have all this OT, if we have good staffing. Once again management approves OT, not the union, so if misuse and abuse was going on, it was management approving it. Also once again if the abuse went on, you are comparing a small percentage of controllers to all of us. Thats not fair, I know that not all America West pilots fly drunk, but if I lived with your thought process I guess none of us should ever be supportive of America West or its pilots. And even though you are not supportive of my cause, I am supportive of your company and all the other Air Carrier's out there. I give short cuts whenever I can, even after we got a directive from the FAA telling us last November to leave all A/C on filed routes unless ATC deems neccessary to change it, meaning I am not suppossed to short cut you unless it is an advantage to me. Shortcuts are rarely an advantage to me, I don't really care if you get to your destination early or not, but I try to help you all out as much as I can. Just remember that next time you are flying, short cuts are not a rite its a privilege, we do it to be nice. I want your airlines to be successful, why can't you want your ATC system to be? Pilots help make the system successful as do controllers.

By the way, the staffing numbers that you used for New York Tracon from the AIN are not the original agreed upon numbers, the FAA has recently adjusted most ATC facility's staffing numbers lower to make it look like we are not understaffed. As an example, Facility X was authorized 60 controllers two years ago, now it is authorized 45.

Also it is amazing that after the FAA said we were deadlocked, they continued to negogiate and agree on over 100 articles until NATCA asked for a mediator in March.

miker1369

Government Executive: Impasse continues in FAA-union negotiations

Talks between the National Air Traffic Controllers Association and the Federal Aviation Administration remain deadlocked despite a push from the union and a key senator to resume negotiations over a labor contract.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, a member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which oversees FAA, said last week that the agency moved too quickly in declaring an impasse and the two sides should come back to the table to find an equitable resolution.

In a letter to FAA Administrator Marion Blakey, Snowe said the process that kicks in once an impasse is declared has not been tested by the court system and a negotiated settlement is truly in the best interest of all parties. That process allows FAA to send a final proposal to Congress, which then has 60 days to act before the agency is legally permitted to impose the offer's conditions.

FAA is proposing an offer that would create $1.9 billion in savings, while the union's final offer provides $1.4 billion.

Spokesman Geoff Basye said that while FAA respects lawmakers' opinions, endeavors to reach a voluntary agreement have been exhausted and the agency is following the process set out by Congress.

NATCA and FAA have been stuck in combative negotiations over benefits and wages since July 2005. FAA is in an unusual position because its labor unions are able to negotiate pay and its controllers are among the highest-paid federal government workers.

The air traffic controllers union declared Tuesday that it accepted the agency's public offer to return to the contract bargaining table after FAA spokesman Greg Martin was quoted on an aviation trade publication's Web site Monday stating FAA would welcome the opportunity to return to the bargaining table.

"We want to continue bargaining with the agency in hopes that both sides can find that elusive common ground," said John Carr, NATCA's president. "FAA wants a voluntary agreement and so do we. The place to find that agreement is at the table, not in the Congress."

But Basye said the aviation publication's story failed to represent the official position of the agency, and added that Carr is "grasping at straws."

Basye said that after nine months at the negotiating table, at a cost of $2.3 million, the air traffic controllers union has not shown a willingness to meet FAA in the middle.

NATCA spokesman Doug Church said conflicting statements from FAA spokesmen on whether the agency is willing to negotiate are another example of its inability to "keep its story straight from one day to the next."

Church said the union is campaigning for citizens to call their senators in support of legislation (S. 2201) that would prohibit FAA from implementing its final contract offer without congressional authorization.

An identical bill has been proposed in the House (H.R. 4755). If the bill clears both law-making bodies and is signed by President Bush by June 5, negotiations would go to binding arbitration should Congress fail to authorize FAA's offer.

Last week, the union unveiled a multimillion-dollar television advertising campaign to build support for the legislation.

miker1369

April 21, 2006


ORIGINAL VIA COURIER - COPIES VIA FACSIMILE AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY

The Honorable Marion C. Blakey, Administrator

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Room 1010

Washington DC 20591

Subject: Formal Request To Resume Negotiations

Dear Administrator Blakey:

On behalf of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, I write today to express NATCA's strong belief that, despite the Federal Aviation Administration's actions on April 5, a voluntary labor agreement between NATCA and the Agency covering the air traffic controllers unit and two other units represented by NATCA remains desirable and achievable and, more importantly, in the best interests of the Agency, its represented workforce, and the flying public that they serve. This letter, therefore, constitutes NATCA's formal request that the FAA return to the bargaining table to resume negotiations with NATCA for a voluntary agreement.

Because NATCA believed that progress was being made in the mediated negotiations that took place in March 2006, it was with dismay and confusion that NATCA received the Agency's declaration of impasse on April 5. From the onset of negotiations and continuing through April 5, NATCA was committed to expending every effort possible in its attempt to reach a voluntary agreement with the Agency and therefore considered the Agency's declaration of impasse - after only nine months of substantive negotiations and considerable progress during mediation - to be both premature and unnecessary. NATCA remains committed to expending every possible effort to achieve a voluntary agreement and believes that such an agreement remains within the grasp of the parties. In order to make a voluntary agreement a reality (or at least to be able to say with all conviction and honesty that every possible effort was expended by all parties), NATCA invites the Agency to return to full and active participation in the collective bargaining process by returning to the table. NATCA stands ready to offer a revised economic proposal in an attempt to facilitate attainment of a voluntary agreement and would welcome the opportunity to explore terms and conditions that would meet the Agency's needs.

It is NATCA's sincere hope that the Agency will demonstrate the integrity to the process that the dedicated professionals who work for it deserve and rejoin NATCA in negotiations for a voluntary agreement. I look forward to your immediate response to the request expressed herein and to working with you and your representatives in pursuit of an agreement that will establish fair and equitable terms and conditions of employment for the Agency's employees, meet the Agency's needs for fiscal and professional accountability, and demonstrates to the flying public that employer and employees are united in their commitment to providing the highest level of service.

Sincerely,

John S. Carr

President

miker1369

Air traffic controllers must reject FAA contract proposal
Saturday, April 22, 2006 - Bangor Daily News

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Money. That is what the Federal Aviation Administration says it is about. Run it like a business is the new management mantra. Retirements, pay cuts, new hires and national security are really what it is about.

What is the cost of the air traffic controller work force to the flying public? If one were to purchase a ticket from Bangor to Los Angeles on flights that go through Boston, the cost would be less than one-quarter of one penny a mile. That is all. After flying 3,000 miles, one will have spent more for a latte and pastry in the airport cafeteria than for the services required for a safe and secure flight across the continental United States.

The responsibilities of air traffic controllers are considerable. When an oversight or mistake causes injury or death, the controller's actions will be scrutinized. Audio tapes will be retrieved, drug tests administered and interviews conducted.

A small oversight or misunderstanding between controllers and pilots can lead to disaster. In March 1977, two Boeing 747s collided in the Canary Islands at the Tenerife airport. Two jumbo jets were destroyed. The death toll was more than 560.

There is not any other job where a moment of indecision or miscommunication can have such tragic consequences. Even a heart surgeon, who may earn $1 million annually, can only lose one patient on the operating table at a time.

How efficient is the FAA at managing controllers? Remember, the goal is to run it like a business. In Anchorage, Alaska, there are 124 air traffic controllers. The local management team at this satellite facility numbers 31. The cost of this management team is over $6 million a year. I do not know what business plan the FAA is using, but one manager per four employees seems counterproductive.

Why will people retire? The FAA's proposal only allows pay raises for 4 percent of current work force. The other 96 percent will either: a) have pay frozen for five years or b) have a pay cut then have their salaries frozen for five years. The controllers at Bangor will fall under plan B. That is why the FAA's current proposal encourages controllers eligible to retire to do just that.

Nine of 19 controllers in Bangor will be eligible to retire by December 2007. Three controllers will be retiring before January 31, 2007 regardless of the contract decision. When the facility becomes understaffed, the FAA will attempt to close the tower from midnight to 5 a.m. This was attempted in March 2005. The facility was able to put together an argument to keep the facility open 24 hours. The argument will be tougher next time with inadequate staffing.

Two airlines transporting U.S. troops have told the airport management if the tower is not available 24/7, they will relocate all operations elsewhere. Since Gander, Newfoundland, and Halifax, Nova Scotia, are along the route of most transatlantic flights, it appears Canada would be the biggest beneficiary of the FAA's contract proposal, not the U.S. taxpayers. It seems unpatriotic to me that troops returning home from Iraq first set foot on North American soil in Canada. As past history has shown, once an air carrier leaves Bangor, they do not return.

What about new hires and replacements? Certainly the FAA has a hiring plan. You would think so.

The agency hired 13 air traffic controllers nationwide in 2004. The FAA has established a program called the Collegiate Training Initiative (CTI) with several private colleges. After four years of college, the FAA will hire some of the candidates to attend the FAA academy. Starting pay is $8.84 an hour.

Bangor has no controller trainees at this time.

What happens when the policy within the agency is set by people without operational experience? National security is put at risk. The National Air Traffic Controllers Association vigorously opposed the FAA's attempt to eliminate primary radar in the National Airspace System. Primary radar is what is sometimes referred to "painting a target." It is the actual reflection of the aircraft without electronic enhancements such as a transponder.

The administration tried numerous avenues to thwart the argument presented by the professional controller work force. Had the FAA succeeded in their argument, air traffic controllers would not have been able to track the hijacked aircraft on 9-11.

We need Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to support S. 2201, the FAA Fair Labor Management Dispute Resolution Act of 2006.

Wesley E. Leighton is an air traffic control specialist in Bangor.

fireman0174

Is Wes Leighton the son of a retired United pilot?

miker1369

I don't know, that is just an article written by him. He is at a different facility then me. But it more than likely could be, almost all of us have some sort of family in the avaition industry.

miker1369

Philadelphia Inquirer: Editorial | Air Traffic Controllers Contract; FAA causing turbulence

Five years past 9/11, fear of flying is no longer an American trait.

People dutifully stand in queues, shedding shoes and enduring body searches before filing past cockpit crews in whose hands they place their lives.

Besides pilots and copilots, there are other men and women who are just as responsible for passengers' safety - but are less often noticed.

These are the air-traffic controllers, who choreograph the constant takeoffs, flights and landings that occur each day without collision.

On 9/11, the controllers were the less-celebrated government heroes of a dark day, as they did a remarkable job of coaxing 5,000 planes out of the sky in the hours after the hijackings.

The safety of every air traveler and the timely arrival of cargo depend on their skill and calm under pressure.

Yet the Bush administration is treating them with about as much respect as Deputy Barney Fife would get if he suddenly decided to direct car traffic through Mayberry.

At issue is a labor agreement. Nine months ago the union representing 15,000 controllers began negotiating a new five-year contract with the Federal Aviation Administration. Even four weeks with a federal mediator did not produce an agreement.

Now, the FAA wants to exploit a 1996 law that essentially allows it to impose terms unilaterally. In the event of a contract impasse, the FAA can submit the matter to Congress, which then has 60 days to take unspecified "action." If Congress demurs, the FAA proposal automatically becomes the contract.

The FAA ended negotiations on April 5, just before Congress went on its Easter recess, effectively trimming two weeks from the 60 days. That exemplifies the level of respect it has been giving the controllers.

Pay is the big sticking point between the FAA and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. Both sides would reduce or eliminate some pay grades. The FAA says its contract offer would save taxpayers $1.9 billion over five years; NATCO says even its plan would cut costs by $1.4 billion.

The base salary of a veteran controller averages about $113,000, according to the FAA; the union says it's lower. That does not include health plans and other benefits. The changes would hit veterans at a big airport like Philadelphia particularly hard.

It's a mockery of collective bargaining to allow the employer to impose terms this way. A better approach would be binding arbitration, with the arbiter empowered to craft a solution.

Identical bills sponsored in Senate by Barack Obama (D., Ill.) and in the House by Sue W. Kelly (R., N.Y.) would require binding arbitration. The bills also would prohibit the FAA from imposing its contract proposal without a specific OK from Congress.

Those bills should pass, quickly. An arbitrated deal with elements of both the union and FAA proposals would be reasonable. NATCA president John Carr says his members can live with that. So should FAA Administrator Marion C. Blakey.

The money for the contract comes from airline ticket fees and tax dollars. Has anybody asked American air travelers whether air traffic control is an area where they're eager to see the feds pinch pennies and fill the ranks with new hires?

A less experienced controller corps is a likely result of this impasse. Many of the veteran controllers came in after President Reagan smashed the old union in 1981, so a big chunk of the corps is at or near the mandatory retirement age of 56.

A force-fed contract reducing their pay and expressing management's contempt for their value likely will spur many to start collecting their pensions.

It takes years to train new controllers. Imagine trying to fly the friendly skies with too few controllers clearing runways and checking flight patterns. Imagine the delayed takeoffs and arrivals. Imagine the havoc to just-in-time business inventory systems. Worst, imagine the possible mid-air collisions. Congress must grab the controls to stop that.

miker1369

Aviation Daily: Blakey Rejects NATCA's Request To Resume Contract Talks
FAA Administrator Marion Blakey yesterday told the controllers' union that the agency will not return to the bargaining table but will let the contract impasse process run its course in Congress.

"At this late date, resuming collective bargaining makes little sense," Blakey said in a letter to National Air Traffic Controllers Association head John Carr. Congress "is the appropriate forum" for the contract debate since that is the process outlined by statute in the event of an impasse, Blakey said.

The letter was sent in an official response to a request by NATCA to return to negotiations (DAILY, April 24).

Blakey described the two sides' positions as "two ships that pass in the night," stressing that they "never came close to agreement" on the main issues during negotiations. "Absent an about-face by NATCA on these core issues," further negotiations would only delay the process, Blakey said. -AS