ATC privatisation (pros & cons)

[atc_ring]

In view of the EU directive on separating ATC provider from regulator, there is a big debate (and an eventual resolution) going on in Greece about the future status (civil service or private) of the provider side (ATS).
It is actually a once-in-a-lifetime decision to be made and our future will be altogether immensely different (..for better, or for ...worse!) from today....
If there is a ATC collegue out there who could give us a few tips on the pros and cons (especially if it is based on personal experience!) of privatisation it would be an enormous help.....
Tks.

[Point Seven]

atc-ring

I work for NATS so here goes...

PROS

Directors get loads of money and huge bonuses for meeting targets.

CONS

The rest of the staff get shafted, loads lose their jobs, essential publications necessary to do the job are no longer standard issue, a horrendous culture of penny pinching ensues.

P7

[1261]

...hmmmm, yes - that's about it!

If you thought that your organization couldn't possibly be any worse managed than it is now: get ready for privatization!

[Findo]

There is absolutely nothing to justify privatising en route area ATC services.

It can never be anything other than a monopoly. It does not have any basis for natural expansion or diversification. It only has one income source and when the customers are suffering and withdrawing services, the ATC service does so as well depriving the service of long term investment.

Separating the regulator from the major provider deprives the regulator of current experienced staff so in they end they regulate from memory and become increasingly detached from real time ATC problems. They also have to be separately funded.

For 30 years the UK worked with an integrated regulator and major service provider which covered it's costs and investment from charges. The present privatised system does nothing better and a lot of things much worse.

One major issue the privatisers never understood. In public service there are many staff who have worked with a public service ethos for decades. When you remove that and turn the "company" into a profit driven one then the staff reassess their priorities. Instead of giving more effort for the sake of the service thay adopt the company philosophy of looking at service in profit terms. If you don't pay me enough I'm not doing that job
and even if you do pay me I might go to another "company" or country where I can earn far more for doing less.

[granny smith]

"... go to another "company" or country where I can earn far more for doing less"

Yeah, right! Where for example.:=

[Scott Voigt]

ATC-Ring;

I could go on and on about the con's, and may find one or two pros about private ATC... However, for a good run down on what we have found, you can get in touch with the National Air Traffic Controllers Association in Washington DC. and I am sure that someone would talk with you about it. You can find phone numbers, e-mail addresses and regular mail addresses at www.natca.org

regards

Scott

PS. After a LOT of lobbying it appears that we won a very important vote in the Senate today which calls for ATC remaining in govt. control. The House has already passed similar legislation and now the two houses must get together and craft language that they both can agree on. It will then go to the president who may or may not sign it.

[Spitoon]

Findo may have a point that en-route is different to aerodrome services although the separation of service provision from regulation is not just about competition. I worked for private ATC providers for many years - some were good to work for, some less so. The difference was directly attributable to the attitude of the people at the top.

The difference was in the working environment and conditions (and I don't really mean the pay). Every unit I've worked at and every company I've worked for all gave safety a very high priority, as has every controller I've ever worked with. Don't believe the scaremongering that safety goes out of the window just because you work for a private company.

Here in the UK you might here that claim from many people who work for NATS but what I think you are really hearing is that the service is safe but it's not the gold-plated, Rolls-Royce service that it used to be when it was less commercially orientated. But it's safe.

If you've also been used to gold-plated, Rolls-Royce terms and conditions of employment and have now joined the real world you may feel that things generally are not as good. Indeed, from an individual perspective, it probably isn't as good but there is little justification for some of the working practices that grow up in civil service!

What really matters on the safety side of things is that a strong and effective regulator exists and is truly independent of the service provider. Separation of the two functions is, in my mind, undoubtedly a good thing.

We are seeing a lot of changes coming all at the same time in Europe. And we all know that change presents its own hazards. Separation of service provision and regulation is happening just as safety management systems are being introduced. Safety Management might be a good thing too - but service providers need to learn how best to apply them. Regulators need to learn how to regulate using them, whilst at the same time going through re-organisation and remaining strong and effective. This will present challenges.

I will now retire into my hole and await NATS people telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about! :cool:

But just before I do, Point Seven says that one difference is that Directors get bonuses. They seem to get them even if they don't meet targets! There is NO justification for poor managers, whatever their heritage, to be paid ridiculous sums for doing a poor job. But unfortunately bosses doing a poor job is nothing unique to ATC and can happen in both private at nationalised organizations.

[055166k]

Separating the regulator from the service provider should not necessarily mean that the ATC service is going to be privatised. If the service operates at a loss who would want to buy it? If the service runs at a profit why would anyone want to sell it? What is it like working in Greece? I know that one of my family is in Greece, or at least the bits they could find about sixty years ago; his ship hit a mine just off Corfu. When you do separate, try to get rid of as much support staff as possible onto the regulator budget and make the ATC service lean and fit which should improve your chances of better pay in the future. Such staff are not willing to lose their powerbase and sense of importance and will seek to stick to you like a flea. In the UK we have this problem, the separation of regulator from ATC service provider never actually occured at the operational level and instead of just being an ATC service we end up with all the cost and overheads of most of the regulator function as well. GOOD LUCK

[2 six 4]

See what the home of capitalism and commercialism thinks -

USA (http://www.nj.com/newsflash/washington/index.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?a0797_BC_AirControllers)

[Bev Bevan]

I saw on BBC South news this morning that NATS are apparently to be set a stiff target for reducing delays to (I think) an average of 1.5 mins per flight, or be financially penalised. Great.
Now how are they going to achieve this... they cant cut corners on safety... can they??! Cos the impression I get is that it's the only way they're going to achieve that target in the short term.

Thoughts?

[Findo]

Granny Smith -
"... go to another "company" or country where I can earn far more for doing less Yeah, right! Where for example."

There is the obvious choice of somewhere like Spain where you can double your salary, have more time off and work less traffic. We have never had so many people accepted for Canada where people are being given the units of their chioce. The cost of living is so much less that you are better off immediately.

How many from Swanwick have / are going to New Zealand ? I heard about 3 from the same Watch.

These are just the start of ATCOs being far more mobile. The point I made was if you break the public service ethos then ATCOs will change mind set and go where they are valued highest. As more ATC service providers become only interested in the bottom line then buying in experienced ATCOs from another country becomes an easy way to solve recruitment problems.

[Jerricho]

Bev,

Really agree with you here. I cringe every time I hear this "reduction in delays" NATS is being set. I really would like to see on what basis the "average" delay will be calculated on.

Will it take into consideration things other than systems failures or controller shortages/sickness, like weather avoidance, a/c problems closing runways (burst tyre etc), CAT B flights in the TMA. Will there be a differentation between these delays?

And you're right. Controllers don't sit there and think "I'm gonna delay this a/c cause I've got nothing better to do". Excatly how NATS will attempt to reduce these delays will make some interesting reading indeed.

(Of course, you could always send P 7 on a LONG break, that'll get things flowing a little better! ;) )

[2 six 4]

We have never had so many people accepted for Canada where people are being given the units of their chioce.

That won't continue now we are in partnership with Nav Canada. NATS have put a stop on it .... not that you'll find it written anywhere just like you couldn't find NATS managers "agreement" with Maastricht not to take the LATCC ATCOs who had passed the interviews some years ago.

[Scott Voigt]

I think that NATS doesn't have control of two of the most important parts of the delay equation. More concrete at airports so that you can land and depart more aircraft, and then the weather in England <G>... If NATS had that sort of power, you would have the weather of Spain <G>...

Oh I see that you already have one post showing our Senate vote. Here is some text from another source.

Topic: More on Lautenberg amend., from govexec.com (1 of 4), Read 172 times
Conf: General Messages
From: Doug Church [email protected]
Date: Friday, June 13, 2003 10:00 AM

June 12, 2003

Senate passes amendment that would stop FAA job competition

By Jason Peckenpaugh
[email protected]

Defying a veto threat from the White House, the Senate passed legislation Thursday that would stop the Federal Aviation Administration from holding a public-private job competition on 2,700 agency employees.

By a 56 to 41 vote, the Senate approved an amendment by Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., to the FAA reauthorization bill, S. 824, which would protect nearly all air traffic control jobs at the agency from possible outsourcing. The full bill passed by a vote of 94-0 late Thursday.

Lautenberg’s provision requires that all air traffic controllers, air traffic technicians, and flight service specialists be federal employees. It would prevent the FAA from competing the jobs of 2,700 flight service specialists at 58 stations across the country, the biggest job competition in government. Flight service specialists provide weather briefings to pilots and assist with search and rescue activities, but they do not separate air traffic.

Lautenberg said his provision would protect the integrity of the air traffic control system and the safety of the flying public.

“Your luggage is important enough to be screened by trained federal workers, but once you’re up in the sky, the administration seems to believe that your safety should be in the hands of the lowest bidder,” he said in a statement following the vote.

Administration officials, including FAA Administrator Marion Blakey, have repeatedly said they have no plans to outsource air traffic controllers. The competition involving flight service specialists is the only such study under way at the FAA.

Earlier Thursday, the White House threatened to veto the FAA bill if the Lautenberg language was added. “Such restrictions are unnecessary and would hinder the FAA’s ability to manage the air traffic control system,” said a statement issued by the Office of Management and Budget. The House passed version of the FAA bill does not include Lautenberg’s language—it only protects air traffic controllers from possible outsourcing—creating differences that must be resolved when the bills move to conference committee.

The White House also has threatened to veto the House version of the bill.

Wally Pike, president of the National Association of Air Traffic Specialists (NAATS), a union that represents 2,200 flight service specialists, said the Senate provision should be adopted when the bills go to conference. “This one protects our controllers and the technicians,” he said. Pike expressed skepticism that President Bush would veto the FAA reauthorization bill over Lautenberg’s language. “It’s hard to imagine that the president would veto that bill over these provisions,” he said.

If enacted, Lautenberg’s measure would halt a job competition that OMB regards as one of the most innovative and complex in government. The competition includes every flight service station in the continental U.S.—three stations in Alaska are exempt. FAA officials have said it will modernize the FAA’s entire flight service system, which costs more than $400 million a year to maintain.

Planning for the competition is already underway. The FAA has begun preliminary planning for the performance work statement (PWS), the list of requirements that all bidders must fulfill, according to an FAA newsletter. Grant Thornton, a Chicago-based consulting firm, is providing consultant support for the study.


regards

Scott H. Voigt
NATCA Southwest Region
Safety and Technology Chairman

[atc_ring]

...well thank you very much, Scott, 2six4, Jerico, Findo, Bev, 055166k, Spitoon, granny, point 7.....for taking the time to reply to this post!
...I really wish things were as clearcut as night and day and make decision taking a simple add-subtract thing, but I'm afraid real life is an exquisitely complicated animal and each and every case to solve has its own intricacies and nuances! (although we know that history tends to repeat....)
Thanks for bringing your side's version of this privatisation "saga".
:D

[reynoldsno1]

are going to New Zealand

It should be pointed out that ATS in New Zealand has NOT been privatised - the term commercialised is probably more appropriate. The NZ government is still the shareholder, and Airways is a "state-owned enterprise". The organisation can, however, raise capital on the open market independently.

[atc_ring]

....how permanent (secure) or precarious are ATC jobs under the privatised (or "commercialised", as reynoldsno1 points out for N.Zealand) scheme of things??
...are the "old timers" given a generous (..or meagre) lump-sum bonus and politely shown the exit?

...just a couple of questions that pop to greeek ATCers minds since there are plenty (more than 50%) of "baby boomers" still handling a/c in our shifts!
:{