As an outsider looking in (ATCO, but not IAA), I have looked at the posts on this subject and the links provided on both this thread and the one running on R&N.
Some pertinent points - gleaned from what I have read, not verified because I don't have the access.
1. The new technology that has already been implemented has, according to Eurocontrol (a separate yet very authoritative body), resulted in a
decrease in airspace capacity.
For the non ATCOs out there what that means is (assuming that airspace sectorisation remains the same or very similar to what it was pre new equipment) that rather than simplify things for the ATCO, the new technology has made some tasks more time consuming. Put simply, this means an increased workload per aircraft. To safely handle this, capacity has to be reduced to a manageable flow figure.
Non ATCOs may wonder why new technology would be introduced if it did not increase capacity or, at the very least maintain it - the answer is sometimes very simple... economics. The new technology may have been introduced as a way to reduce support staff numbers, thus cost.
2. New working practices being introduced that reduce the number of controllers on per sector from 2 to 1... despite increased workload due new technology.
Again, the question of safety arises.
3. IAA are reneging on a pay deal they had previously agreed to.
Now the Irish ATCOs are claiming that the IA is in support of their suspended colleagues and not pay. No doubt pay will be in the back of their mindes - only natural if you've been promised soemthing and it has been taken away from you.
However if points one and two are indeed correct, it seems to me that the ATCOs are actually concerned about the impact on safety and may well be the very reason their colleagues refused to support the projects.
For the non ATCOs out there, don't be fooled into thinking that new technology is always good technology (unless you are an accountant trying to cut costs).
It's very easy in the current financial climate for any employer to play the 'pay' card, sometimes you have to look beyond headlines to get to the meat of the matter.
Jumping to conclusions or dismissing statements from ATCOs invovled, in the manner that Mr
737-500 does isn't really what one would expect from a professional who is employed to engage brain and to work things out for themselves. I'll bet a months salary that 737-500 has never visited an ATC centre and as such, doesn't understand fully the task of the ATCO there, or how that task is achieved.
Now I'll state again, as I did at the top, that the 3 points I have mentioned are not verified by me, but gleaned from the posts and articles I have read, therefore I cannot vouch their veracity. However I am more than happy with my assertation in the final paragraph re 737-500s understanding or exposure to ATC
