Firstly, some excellent posts here from people, namely Dick N Cider, DirtyPierre, thorisgod, hangten, bankrupttick, red barchetta, hardcrud... well pretty much everyone except snr. lark!
Mr. lark, if you fired us all as you would so love to do, it would prove an even bigger hinderance to the economic recovery of this country. Who would replace us? The army's 6 controllers in Baldonnel?
This isn't Reagan-era America with a surplus of military personnel. As already stated here, there is a global shortage of controllers, so like it or not we are a valuable commodity and firing all 300 of us would get you and this banana republic nowhere.
Anyway, to reiterate what was posted in
The second effort is pure spin… 2010 Irish ATC dispute – get the facts , this mysterious 'new sytem tool' in the heart of the dispute consists of the following not-yet-fully-tested technology ,
which I think you will agree hardly constitutes so-called 'normal ongoing change':
1) COOPANS (Cooperation in the Procurement of Air Navigation Systems)
http://www.icao.int/inexses/Presenta...lm_COOPANS.pdf
Irish Aviation Authority - Austro Control joins COOPANS
2) Dual (Crossing) Runway Operations at Dublin airport. (16/34 & 10/28)
3) Point Merge
EUROCONTROL - Point Merge: Improving and Harmonising Arrival Operations with Existing Technology
All three projects have a common goal: increased airspace capacity. Thus allowing controllers to handle more aircraft but
potentially with more stress, as these systems have yet to be fully tested, specifically in their planned environments.
The theory is wonderful and the vast majority of us are all in favour of better systems allowing us to control more traffic and reap more profit for our ANSP and ultimately, in an ideal world, ourselves. But the practice may prove to be altogether different and may pose many new unforeseen problems.
Look at our current beloved Thales system, its like a child! It needs to be constantly spoon-fed with information updates in order for it to perform properly. More mouse-clicking, more windows to manage, more 'distractions' to prevent us from carrying out our core function - separating aircraft.
So our workload may well increase in the future, despite these 'better' technologies. And even more so if our 'cockpit' loses 50% of its workforce, with planned Single Person Sectors. 4 eyes and hands will always be better than 2... So, does all this not qualify as a good reason for our level of remuneration? I'll let you decide...