And whilst we're on this subject maybe we should add into the 'pay equation' the TYPE of traffic as well as the levels.
Heathrow is
busy in so much as they move a
lot of people on
big aircraft, but at the end of the day, they are tower only. Heathrow, being close to London also has
high living costs.
Birmingham is
kinda busy , moving people on
big aircraft & they have to do there
own radar. The midlands has
reasonable living costs.
Now, stepping out of the NATS spectrum for a moment.
If I work at an airfield (of
comparable size) & we only regularly have
small aircraft, but we have
A LOT of them movements (certainly comparable to a large NATS unit), why are we paid considerably less than the lowest band in NATS???
And then, why are pilots (generally) paid even more than (generally) most of us?
How should we grade salary levels on a unit to unit basis?
By number of aircraft movements?
By number of passenger movements?
By ratings held and used by controller?
By proximity to large city's & cost of living?
By age and experience?
By size of aircraft using the airport?
By the percentage of delays (or lack of)?
I think this pay thing comes down to the old adage; "ask 3 ATCOs a question, and get 6+ answers".
It's only when all ATCOs (NATS & non-NATS) "band" (no pun intended) together and decide what our fee is and on what factor that fee is based, can we move forward and harmonise our salaries to be more inline with the world market. We are, after all, a very skilled & highly specialised band of professionals who should get what we deserve IF we strive to attain it.
Until then I fear, the powers that be (or at least the ones with the purse strings) will just sit back and watch as the ATCOs collectively debate amongst themselves.
Wow. Should I maybe have a career change to speech writer? I've just re-read my post and it sounds gooooooooooood.
