PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - MACC move worries
View Single Post
Old 12th Nov 2008, 11:45
  #29 (permalink)  
anotherthing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Zooker

Uberlingen had nothing to do with single manning or T&P manning. It had lots to do with the fact that equipment was not available and the level of manning was not acceptable for the task (the controller was using two displays, not properly co-located). That does not mean that they needed a T&P FFS. That's like saying if TC had 50% of the controllers it has at the moment, it needs T&Ps. The fact is any unit needs to be properly manned staff number wise - whether that task needs single controller ops or T&P ops.

As for
I believe the team who do the 118.77 sector were nominated for some award this year for reducing delays. Was this not the old Pole Hill sector that LATCC/Swanwick used to do?
All very comendable - but NATS as a whole are reducing delays, not just MACC (whose traffic levels continue to fall at a higher rate than any other units as they have done for the past 10 months - maybe this helps make the delay reduction even better). More to the point - the fact that MACC can support the sectors more readily with regards to manpower availability means that there are less restrictions put on, which means less delays.


Less delays does not necessarily have anything to do with controller ability and usually has absolutley nothing to do with it, unless of course you are saying every MACC controller who does this sector is better than every LACC controller who used to do it? A totally stupid and untrue comment!!

As for safety, again, this will usually always improve with reducing traffic numbers, but again NATS as a whole have improved across all units.

Lets not get into a willy waving contest as is the usual crap on here. As an ANSP, NATS is reducing delays and being more safe - so well done to everyone involved.

The issue is the fact that MACC staff stand to lose out because of negative equity. This issue is true, even though the move is a legitimate move (arguments of banding, people having to move school etc do not wash I'm afraid - relocation is legitimate).

There is no other argument, mentioning other supposed 'issues' when other units have had to uproot in the recent past is not going to wash.
anotherthing is offline