UK - NATS Pay negotiations - latest rumours

[9th Dan Vectors]

Banding - an emotive issue

Too right it is. It is not a fair judgement, or a transparent one.

If you take the time to dig into the NATSAG57 document on the intranet, coupled with a spreadsheet the union issued at the time and try to work out how the final numbers were arrived at; you'd be pretty emotional for 7 years at the nature of the unfairness. I'll try to explain this using the NERL model.

Please bear with me on this and don't be too quick to dismiss me as a banding whinger - I am certain I have a valid point.

All data from the union powerpoint "ATCO Unit Grading"

The Total Scores were as follows:

LACC 1202
LTCC 1255
MACC 421
OACC 271
ScACC 355

Total Score was calculated by multiplying Traffic Score by a combined complexity and OR (operational requirement or plainly number of controllers) factor.

Traffic score was calculated by multiplying the average day busy hour total (actual traffic element in the busiest hour of the average day) by a volume profile score (sustained traffic element). Actual values below of average day busy hour total, then volume profile and then the Traffic Score:

LACC 302 x 2.93 = 886
LTCC 272 x 2.93 = 798
MACC 98 x 2.93 = 289
OACC 80 x 2.13 = 170
ScACC 111 x 2.80 = 309

The second part of the calculation involves adding together OR factor, traffic mix (weighted 0.5) and complexity factor (taken from eurocontrol, then taken as a logarithm and then divided by 3- scaling to allow proportionate affect [sic], although the manner of this scaling is only 'explained' in NATSAG57)

The values for OR, complexity factor and (non jet % divided by 2 for weighting) traffic mix are as follows:

LACC 330 0.401 (8.3%/2) 0.0415
LTCC 281 0.554 (10.1%/2) 0.0505
MACC 110 0.456 (21.4%/2) 0.107
OACC 50 0.000! (0.7%/2) 0.0035
ScACC 145 0.280 (20.8%/2) 0.104
As Oceanic complexity was not calculated by Eurocontrol the people 'constructing this' deemed the value to be a nominal 1 (hence log 1=0).

It can be seen by adding these numbers together OR would be a big factor. However what is done to OR to arrive at the OR factor is the key to the real flaw in this dreadful calculation.

OR factor is: average busy hour total divided by OR

There is a flow chart showing the 'calculation' in NATS AG57 with the detail of average day busy hour only appearing in the Traffic Score side (it is a traffic term). The important usage of it appearing in the OR Factor (the non-traffic side) is conspicuous (is this the right word to use in model that seems deliberately opaque?) by its absence and it is not adequately explained why in the NATSAG57 document.

What does this mean then?

Total Score actually is:

Average day busy hour total squared divided by OR

plus

Average day busy hour total multiplied by Complexity factor

plus

Average day busy hour total multiplied by Weighted Traffic mix

all multiplied by Voulume Profile Score

Whats more there has been no mechanism for for the unit bandings to changed depending on a change in unit circumstances. Unsuprising when the exponential effect of average day busy hour total being used in both sides of the multiplication.

MACC Total Score was 421, LACC Total Score was 1202

Lets assume MACC had to get 1202 for Band 5

OR would have to reduce from 110 down to around 28 with the same traffic
Traffic would have to increase by 82% for the same staff numbers

Or lets assume LACC had to get 421 for Band 4

OR would have to increase from 330 to around 8000 with the same traffic
Traffic would have to decrease by 48% for the same staff numbers

As an aside if LTCC had an infinite number of ATCOs their total score would only come down to around 482.

I suspect the airports model has the similar flaw in it although I am ashamed to say I have never took the time to check. With airport ORs being closer together the basis of traffic being the driver in the calculations would mean it is more proportinate (yet clearly wrong).

I've made motions to conference, spoken to BEC members, spoken to the Red Barron and every GM I've had about this to no avail.

I don't expect to be paid more or the same as Swanwick. Cost of living on the South coast is probably more than at Prestwick. What I object to is the gap increasing year on year after every pay round and the justification for that gap is based on this disgrace of a flawed model (by accident or design - either way appalling but I suspect the latter).

Whatever the deal is I'll be voting no (as always) because in my mind I'm voting for a continuation of a flawed model which incorrectly states I'm a second rate controller.