UK - NATS Pay negotiations - latest rumours

[Bagheera]

T F C dont know who youre mini briefing was from but suggest you speak to somebody who knows the ins and out a lot more clearly.
This deal is for controllers to do met on a nightshift, EVERY nightshift, as well as acting as contingency cover during the day. Would hardly describe that as being limited circumstances.
Also SAMOS (Semi Automated Met Observation System ) has been in place at airfields for many years. It is almost constantly inaccurate in at least one of its observations hence the need for an observer ( ATCO or ATSA ) to correct the information before it is broadcast.
Management would undoubtedly wish to introduce FAMOS ( Full Automated etc ) but unless there is a major improvement in the standard of observations achieved by this equipment its implementation should be heavily resisted.

[10W]

I wouldn't imagine any bookie would take a bet but it's a racing certainty that NSL staff will get shafted and (overall) NERL staff will see a few £££'s dangled in front of them and take the deal.

Divided and conquered ...and we have been for years.

[BOBBLEHAT]

If NSL are getting to vote individually on this deal prior to the NERL votes, how can they be 'shafted' by anyone other than themselves?

[Me Me Me Me]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I understood the NTUS to be made up 3 of constituent groups: PCS, Prospect ATCO and Prospect ATSS... No NERL or NSL groups ballots.

Or have I missed something?

[ayrprox]

Am i right in thinking that the ballot closes a couple of weeks before the company announces its profits for the year? If this is the case, is it the union that sets this date, or the company, and have we not learnt from the last deal how bad an idea this is. I'd like to vote no just to see how badly (or not) the company is really doing , before judging if this deal is really a good one.

[Avoiding_Action]

Me Me Me Me you have missed the union communications stating that NERL employees will only get to vote if NSL vote to accept the pay deal.

[Data Dad]

My understanding is that all Prospect ATCOs get to vote - they then count NSL votes first - if its a majority 'yes' they then count the NERL votes to get a final score.

In view of the above speculation about an NSL 'NO' vote - I wonder what would happen if NSL vote 'YES' - say 51% - 49% BUT the overall vote is a 'NO'? NSL get the payrise and NERL don't? :E It works both ways remember.......

Just for clarity - I am firmly in the 'No' camp but I suspect that a lot of apathy will rule yet again and 'money now' seems to be important (understandably) with a lot of my colleagues.

DD

[anotherthing]

Also, the task is likely to disappear in a couple of years time anyway when SAMOS is introduced
Your 'someone in the know' is obviously not a qualified Met Observer then. SAMOS is Semi Automated. There still needs to be check of the information, and a proper obs done every couple of hours.

[Gonzo]

And apparently it was claiming it was CAVOK all last Saturday, while all the aircraft were weather avoiding all over the place.

Some might say it's not even SAMOS!

[thinkofdolphins]

In areas of inclement weather SAMOS needs constant intervention amending the vis, cloud base, whether it is fog or mist, rain or drizzle blah blah blah. Try doing that on a busy Monday morning running back and forth from an operational position, as the whole point of met is to give the aircraft the most accurate current weather. Distractions while plugged in are frowned upon by management yet they want their controllers to vote to make a distraction part of their job. Go figure.
The sole purpose of this vote is to further cut support staff numbers, no other reason.

[Mantovani]

The sole purpose is to increase profits.

[The Fat Controller]

Apologies for my error in post 2602.

The incoming system should have been FAMOS apparently :ugh:

SAMOS operation will be an additional task in the interim, to be undertaken by someone NOT in an operational position, according to a different Union voice, so no jumping around should be required ;)

[Mad As A Mad Thing]

SAMOS operation will be an additional task in the interim, to be undertaken by someone NOT in an operational position, according to a different Union voice, so no jumping around should be required


That'll be a clever trick then. Just how many ATCO's does anyone think we have sitting around in these non-operational positions? We don't even have enough ATCOs to properly man the operational positions at times.

FFS it makes me Madder than a Mad Thing to see crap like that being spouted.

[Purbeck10]

Rumour control suggests PCS have secured a slightly improved offer for the ATSA and support staff grades, 2012 pay offer is now 4.7% or RPI whichever is smaller, like the ATCO offer this is on Core Pay only and not UHP etc. Still a big fat no from me mind you with all the strings attached remaining unchanged

[The Fat Controller]

Mad, I guess you have not been to a Union briefing as yet :confused:

Someone at your workplace will soon be trying to work out the practicalities of doing the SAMOS task, so you can then have your input if you can be bothered to get involved :ok:

[eastern wiseguy]

FC

trying to work out the practicalities of doing the SAMOS task

Are you a NERL controller? The following will be a mystery to you in terms of how tightly things have to be run at a contract airport.

I am wondering how I do that with minimal staff manning all positions/facility time and breaks. We are a watch of FIVE. One in tower one in radar one on a break one on leave and a watch manager doing the stuff that comes his/her way.Explain to me WHO will have time to do MET during the day on contingency. Will it be the person on a break? Will that qualify as a breaking of a non responsibility break? What if we are in LVP's?

You have no idea how much I personally think this is a bad idea.....to say nothing of shafting the ATSA's.

[The Fat Controller]

E W

I have worked at a NATS airfield where staffing was as critical as it is where you are, albeit only when the weather was fine, but in those days everybody had to plug in, the watch manager was the most senior person on duty and did his/her share of the work.

I have no problems with NSL ATCOs having the deciding vote, if you guys all think it is not a good deal, then those of us at the centres do not get our votes counted.

The Union briefing and local assessment will answer the questions as to how the Met task can be accomplished.

As for PC ATSAs, we probably have the most understaffed and overworked team in NATS now, following the return to paper strips after the EFD debacle.

However, there have not been ANY compulsory redundancies amongst NATS ATSA staff to date, they have all taken the deals that have been offered and agreed by PCS.

[Hooligan Bill]

E W

I am wondering how I do that with minimal staff manning all positions/facility time and breaks. We are a watch of FIVE. One in tower one in radar one on a break one on leave and a watch manager doing the stuff that comes his/her way.Explain to me WHO will have time to do MET during the day on contingency. Will it be the person on a break? Will that qualify as a breaking of a non responsibility break? What if we are in LVP's?

You can't and therein lies the subtlety of the met agreement.

[eastern wiseguy]

You can't and therein lies the subtlety of the met agreement.

My point entirely. :)

[Hootin an a roarin]

Over the years I have been continually frustrated at the complete lack of balls Prospect has. If this hadn't had serious implications for NSL atco's and our PCS team mates it would be another comedy roadshow.

Apparantley there is a finite amount of money in the pot, yet PCS stand firm, issue a NO recommendation to it's members and immediately get a better offer.

For f*cks sake Prospect when are you going to finally wake up and understand how to negotiate with bullish managers?

Pathetic yet again.

[Scot Cabin]

Over the years I have been continually frustrated at the complete lack of balls Prospect has. If this hadn't had serious implications for NSL atco's and our PCS team mates it would be another comedy roadshow.

Apparantley there is a finite amount of money in the pot, yet PCS stand firm, issue a NO recommendation to it's members and immediately get a better offer.

For f*cks sake Prospect when are you going to finally wake up and understand how to negotiate with bullish managers?

Pathetic yet again.

Prospect ATSS branch have issued a no recommendation to its members.

[Hootin an a roarin]

Prospect ATSS branch have issued a no recommendation to its members.

Maybe the ATSS branch, unlike the ATCO branch, looks after the whole rather than just the big boys and has a spine running down it!

[Mantovani]

I understand that having already delivered cost savings the engineers in ATSS are miffed their offer is lower than the ATCO offer and comes with strings that would screw the NSL engineers.

[band2drone]

I understand that having already delivered cost savings the engineers in ATSS are miffed their offer is lower than the ATCO offer and comes with strings that would screw the NSL engineers.

The feeling from many ATCOs down here in the lower bands is that we too have delivered cost savings including reduced ORs and are now to take on the Met task but have been offered a lower percentage than the ATSAs (some will get a net 3.2% rise and some 4.2%), but that's life!

[band2drone]

It's not apathy, it's realism. The majority usually go with a recommendation from the union, not against. And since 30% never bothered to cast their vote in the last couple of ballots, then this time we'll be at the mercy of those who'll benefit from no change in their working practices but will still benefit from the pay rise.

[45 before POL]

Band 2 Drone...the vote based on the Met issue is down to the NSL vote.....if you vote No. its a no. Nerl vote is not included in the numbers until you have your say. If Nsl vote yes then the Nerl vote is included.

[band2drone]

I didn't mention NERL, I was only talking about NSL.

[Hootin an a roarin]

The problem being, conspiracy theories aside, there will be people voting from NSL who will not have to carry out these duties and so it is free money and stitches up the rest.

The Union think that they have been really clever as they think that the safety surveys will mean that we will not have to carry out Met whilst plugged in which is our main concern. Bulls*t

And herein lies the problem.
The pay negotiators are so far removed from a band 1/2/3 regional airport that they do not realise/understand how things work in the sticks.

I am sure EFD training for instance at PC was carried out with loads of money thrown at it in the way of 'super AAVA's' etc and is still not fit for purpose. EFPS however was not fit, is still not fit for purpose in approach, but we are stuck with it. The training was a joke, totally under resourced with no extra cash and more importantly no spare staff.
We had absoultely no Union backing and had to train whilst on standby for a position or do without FIN. Only Nats HF saved us by insisting we needed a break before going from electronic strips back to paper again. Safety survey?

Sorry to waffle but this is what it is like in the regions. Last time we had WP negotiations the union again sent someone to help us. He was from Swanwick and again was as much use as Fernando Torres and stated he didn't understand airport working's. Feckin' pointless

We all pay subs for representation but the Prospect atcos branch hierachy is made up of too many NERL controllers or if not guys from the higher band airports i.e. London.

What would be fairer is for a pay negotiating team made up of equal representations from all bands so no one has a majority. It always seems as corrupt as MP's voting for their own pay deal as management know they just have to please Swanwick, PC and possibly Heathrow.

To clarfiy, I have no ill feelings for my NERL colleagues, just Prospect for continually putting us in this situation by lining their own pockets and recommending deals that screw the minnows.

This is a totally unfair, divisive proposal that should not have been even negotiated never mind presented around units by Prospect in the forthcoming roadshows. If management will not budge then fine. Call the bluff, threaten industrial action and watch NSL cave in as we lose contracts and the proposed Spanish deal. Can you imagine LHR closed for even an hour?

[notatthecollege]

Not all of us who are at NSL units which 'aren't affected' will be voting yes. I'm firmly in the no camp, for 2 reasons...(1) It's not a fair deal and (2) Just because we aren't affected now we are still setting ourselves up to be affected whenever management snap their fingers.

If anyone at the 3 'unaffected' units thinks they are ok, think again. It's only a matter of time. We may not be affected this year, but we are voting yes for sometime in the future and my guess is it will be sometime soon....

[band2drone]

notatthecollege - if rumour is to be believed, there will be an all singing all dancing son of SAMOS in place before long, if that's the case, then the "3 unaffected units" don't have anything to worry about, it'll be free money to them.

I would dearly love it to be a 'no' vote from NSL on this, but I fear it won't be. For the record, I'm a 'no'.

[BOBBLEHAT]

Imagine - a democratic voting system on a deal that generally may appeal to the majority.

It's an utter scandal. What are Prospect thinking?

[Hootin an a roarin]

The Union are supposed to be looking after all, not just the bigger units and preventing any divisive pay offers. If this offer suits NERL,the majority, at the expense of NSL then the Union have supposedly passed mandates to prevent this.
The scandal is that they do not seem to have done this and are now trailing around the airports to sell it.
And again the guys selling it will be either NERL controllers or London ATCO2's who will see little effect.

The percentage pay is a fair offer in my eyes, just drop the MET and I will sign up.

[ZOOKER]

I suspect the Prospect guys (and gals) selling it will be managers and management wannabes.

[anotherthing]

And again the guys selling it will be either NERL controllers or London ATCO2's who will see little effect.

And your point is?

If you don't want to 'buy' it, then don't. Doesn't matter who tries to 'sell' it.

If you are affected by the issue then do some of your own homework (if you don't already understand the implications of SAMOS, which I would suspect is highly unlikely).

Seems to me from a post by The Fat Controller (post 2062) that those giving the briefing aren't exactly au faix with SAMOS. If those giving the briefings don't understand the implications then that is a major failing by the Union, however it is not an excuse for those receiving the briefings not to get an understanding fr0m elsewhere.

We ae supposed to be ATCOs, people who are paid to think for themselves. People have been sucker punched by union briefings before and followed like sheep. Do your own homework, then vote the way you feel is right. It is a simple deal, why anyone needs a 'briefing' to explain it is beyond me... it is a selling exercise, nothing more, nothing less.

[eastern wiseguy]

It is a simple deal, why anyone needs a 'briefing' to explain it is beyond me... it is a selling exercise, nothing more, nothing less.

The cynic in me is curious as to why we need TWO briefings.One from management and one from management lite (union)..

We are ATCO's able to think for ourselves. We can make decisions. I have made MY decision.

That'll be a no then.

[Mad As A Mad Thing]

Well, having had a read through the draft agreement I have to say my gut feeling has been more than confirmed. There is nothing in there that gives me any confidence whatsoever that ATCO's will be protected by it.

In my experience the hazard analysis process is so blatantly skewed to give the (management) desired outcomes that it's a total farce. This is the only process in the proposal that is supposed to guarantee the safety of taking on all of the ATSA tasks.

In the past I've been repeatedly pressured (unsuccessfully) to agree to "mitigations" to allow a procedure which I've felt was fundamentally wrong, and I've seen management picking & choosing who to involve in the hazard analysis process so as to avoid those who might be likely to raise difficult issues.

Why should I have any reason to think that the hazard analysis for taking on the ATSA tasks will be any different?

The draft agreement has holes in it big enough to drive a bus through, and anyone who thinks management isn't planning to do exactly that needs to get a reality check.

It already includes a classic contradiction where in one part it says that

"Met observations are ancillary to the core operational task, and must not detract from that task."

followed by the very next paragraph that says

"A judgement will be made at the time whether to delay a met observation due to traffic, or to delay traffic in order to complete a met observation."

There's only one sensible way to vote on this deal & it's a big fat NO on the basis of the ATSA residual tasks issue alone. Never mind that there are so many other reasons why I don't think it's a good offer.

Anyone who thinks that piling extra administrative tasks onto tower controllers is a clever idea needs to read this:

Comair Flight 191 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comair_Flight_191)

This part in particular:

"In April 2007, the NTSB made four further recommendations, three measures to avoid fatigue affecting the performance of air traffic controllers, and one to prevent controllers from carrying out non-essential administrative tasks while aircraft are taxiing under their control"

[thinkofdolphins]

Wish there was a FB esque "like" for the previous post!:ok:

[Charlie23]

I couldn't agree more! Lets trim down some of the managerial 'Non-essentials', and leave the core workers to get on with the job safely, whilst still earning the company a heathy profit!

[Roffa]

I know there's a smiley there but comments like that still annoy me.

If there was no CTC with the back up staff there you, assuming you are a controller, would not be able to carry out your job.

We need to get away from this atcos are everything mind set which Prospect for its part with this pay deal is promoting.

Next time you have a technical problem with your VCCS or radar, don't call for the engineering back up, try fixing it yourself :rolleyes:

I get more and more pissed off every day with this divisive pay deal, some of my colleagues and my union.

[Standard Noise]

Next time you have a technical problem with your VCCS or radar, don't call for the engineering back up, try fixing it yourself :rolleyes:

To try get round some European employment legislation they recently asked us to do just that. Don't underestimate them.

[BDiONU]

If there is a technical problem with VCCS or radar, "engineering back up" comes from within Prestwick or Swanwick....not the CTC. :8
Front line fix yes but where does long term support come from? Who negotiates the contracts and spares replacements? Who engineered the replacement for RICE? Who is working on the replacement for VCS at LAC with VCCS?

BD

[10W]

Roffa and BDiONU are on the money.

One NATS, one deal.

[BAND4ALL]

Quote
Front line fix yes but where does long term support come from? Who negotiates the contracts and spares replacements? Who engineered the replacement for RICE? Who is working on the replacement for VCS at LAC with VCCS?

BD

Maybe BD this is where the costs are too high mate, ever thought about that :ok:

[BDiONU]

Maybe BD this is where the costs are too high mate, ever thought about that :ok:
OK so lets take your 'do nothing' suggestion to it's logical conclusion. Let's say we (NATS) never changed anything in ATC in the UK (if that were feasible). Unfortunately Johny Foreigner can (and does) have the right to make airspace changes every AIRAC cycle and we (NATS) must respond and comply. So there's change creeping in, could be airspace or it could be standing agreement or an update or change to the OLDI messaging or it's protocols. So someone must negotiate these changes for NATS and make the changes within the NATS infrastructure. Unless specific to a single NATS unit that'll be people working centrally for NATS and they'll be based at the CTC.

How about equipment, can we just keep going forever on existing equipment? Much as we might like to it doesn't last forever, things break. So we need spares but we can't buy a massive stockpile of spares 'just in case' (apart from the cost of purchasing and storing, we don't actually know what the attrition rate is until things have been in service for a while). So we set up a maintenance/support contract with the manufacturer for a period of time (because it costs money to have a maintenance/support contract and the longer it is the more it costs). The engineering team who look after systems centrally are based at the CTC and because it's a contract we also need some legal experts who can look after our interests, also based at the CTC. Sometimes we can buy stuff off the shelf for repairs but there is a team whose job it is to negotiate and get the best deal for us. They're based at the CTC.
Eventually the equipment will come to the end of it's life (in part because the manufacturer will no longer support it) so we need to replace it (preferably with something better with more bells and whistles). If you're replacing a big operational system, like voice comms, it's a really good idea to plan it. So you need people who are looking at new technologies as they come out and what's on the market as well as people who can plan the installation of your replacement system, they're based at the CTC.
You also need to pay for it which will involve going cap in hand to the banks for the loot. You need to pay for it (which you're not going to do in one big lump sum) and you need to have control of how and on what the money is being spent. This is another team of people plus various others with responsibilities and accountabilities. They're all based at the CTC.

Gosh that's quite a lot of people already surely they're not very busy? Well actually we're not just doing one thing in a linear fashion, NATS is doing lots of things all at the same time, like decommissioning the old Ops room at PC, running our area and airport operations and planning for the new things coming along like the olympics, VCCS change for LAC, LAMP (London Airspace Management Programme), iTEC, radar tracker replacement and a host of others. All of which need considerable planning in and of themselves and you don't want to be in the situation of planning a big engineering change to systems which will require operational Staff to be trained on it whilst someone else is planning an airspace change for delivery at the same time which also needs to be trained. The people doing the planning are based at the CTC.

I've only very briefly touched on some of the tasks performed by people based at the CTC to give a flavour of what the HQ staff are doing, there are plenty of other tasks being performed. I think it might be something of an eye opener for some operational staff who've never been there to go and have a look at the work being done to support them and understand that all of the changes which come along aren't done in an instant by magic pixies ;)

BD
Previously based at Swanwick, based at CTC for the past 4 years and moving back to Swanwick.

[fisbangwollop]

BDI.....maybe one day we could think of throwing our messy inky biro's away and develop some form of electronic strip system?? :cool::cool:

[BDiONU]

BDI.....maybe one day we could think of throwing our messy inky biro's away and develop some form of electronic strip system?? :cool::cool:
Nah it'll never catch on with the operational staff ;)

BD

[anotherthing]

Nah it'll never catch on with the operational staff ;)

BD
It would if it worked and didn't hinder the operation ;)

[BAND4ALL]

Thanks for reply BD, prob the best case put forward for never privatising us in the first place :ok:

[ZOOKER]

"being as the CTC is the biggest unit within NATS"
- But per head probably moves the lowest number of planes.....which says it all really. :ok:.

[Use the Force]

Is this not similar to your deal?

Bob Crow's union secures pay rise and lump sum for rail workers | News (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23948421-bob-crows-union-secures-pay-rise-and-lump-sum-for-rail-workers.do)

Take and spend the money, get the economy moving:E:E:E:E:E:E:E

[band2drone]

Maybe we should co-opt Bob onto our BEC!

[PeltonLevel]

But per head probably moves the lowest number of planes.
Per head, it moves the same number of planes as Heathrow House and the College (unless it has taken on ATSOCAS, in which case it moves rather more)!:ugh:

[Use the Force]

My point being,

If the left wing of lefties likes the deal, then what hope do you have???????:(

[eglnyt]

If the left wing of lefties likes the deal, then what hope do you have???????

I think we'd all probably like that deal if as reported it's RPI + 0.5 for giving up virtually nothing and not selling any of your colleagues down the river.

[Use the Force]

But won't only SOME of your colleagues have to deal with the increased demand over the olympics?

[eglnyt]

But won't only SOME of your colleagues have to deal with the increased demand over the olympics?

I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.

[Use the Force]

If MET is a stumbling block to some workers than why isn't the Olympics to others.

Work harder and get more pay.

Simples.
:ugh:

[Not Long Now]

So perhaps Thames could have a rise commensurate with increased workload over the olympics? Now that would be nice.....

[250 kts]

I really don't think we want any pay deals to be linked to movements-remeber they can go down as well as up!!

Anyway I see the briefings have now started and I've seen no comments on here-how are they going?

[anotherthing]

BBC News - Inflation report warns of impact from higher fuel bills (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13357282)

Inflation to rise, as welll as energy prices. RPI for year two could be well above 5%...

[Avoiding_Action]

Just the other week I saw on the screens at work that there had been a 200% increase in aircraft moved compared to last year :}

[radarman]

Although the thread has moved on a bit from discussing AAVA's, I've just come across an interesting passage in Christopher Lee's history of Great Britain 'This Sceptred Isle'. Talking about the derisory pay offers being made in 1973 he states: "In response, coal miners banned overtime working - by the end of the year there was a 40% shortfall in coal supplies to power stations - leading to an energy crisis that caused the government to declare a state of emergency".
Admittedly that overtime ban came direct from the NUM leadership, not something Prospect would ever do, but it does show how much industry relies on overtime, and the effects of refusing to work extra hours. :E :E

[Not Long Now]

And planted the seeds of the decimation of the mining industry by the tories determined that the government would never again be held to ransom....

[radarman]

Not Long,

Thread creep :=

You may have a point, but I was merely trying to illustrate that refusal to work AAVA's could be a powerful, yet legal way of bringing down NATS management. (Not, of course, that any loyal employee would wish to do such a terrible thing).

[DC10RealMan]

All you are doing is working the hours that your employment contract stipulates for the agreed salary. If an employer does not have enough staff to cover their obligations then that is not the concern or responsibility of the employee.
It seems quite straightforward to me.

[eglnyt]

It seems quite straightforward to me.

It isn't that straightforward at all. Any form of organised industrial action requires a ballot first.

[expediteoff]

Where's the "organised industrial action" in -
"working the hours that your employment contract stipulates for the agreed salary" ??

[Cuddles]

Band 2, top of the scale, an AAVA is worth about £30 to me over a normal working day. This is why I don't do em. And that's at 2010 rates, 2011 / 2012 rates if passed, will make them even less attractive.

After all, what does the V stand for?

[Lookatthesky]

Band 2, top of the scale, an AAVA is worth about £30 to me over a normal working day. This is why I don't do em. And that's at 2010 rates, 2011 / 2012 rates if passed, will make them even less attractive.

After all, what does the V stand for?

Vexatious?? :eek:

[eglnyt]

Where's the "organised industrial action" in -
"working the hours that your employment contract stipulates for the agreed salary" ??

If you, as an individual, decide to work your contract hours there is no organised industrial action. If a group of you decide to do so with the aim of encouraging your employer to yield to your demands there is, especially as you need to be able to tell the employer that you are taking action and why for it to have any effect.

[The Fat Controller]

Has anyone from NSL had a briefing yet?

[expediteoff]

eglnyt:

I think you'll find that if all the "individuals" in NATS decided to just work their contractual hours only, NATS would soon find out that it has an effect!

[eastern wiseguy]

I find it hard to believe that one has to inform their employer that they will be working only that for which they are contracted and paid.

[terrain safe]

The Fat Controller

Yes we have and it's a good selling of how the company is stuffed and if you don't like it; tough!

Basically engineers should shut up and take the offer 'cos they have no job security and are lucky to still have employment.

ATSAs are getting paid for doing nothing and need to realise that they are holding the company back.

ATCOs have to do the met as the savings are needed for (dividend) (management bonuses) (cheap coffees) keeping the contracts. The person who did the presentation didn't understand that doing something full time, when we get paid 2% for doing it when required, didn't mean that it was a 3.2% pay rise and we should be grateful that we're getting any rise as the 'median' is 2.8% up to March.

Our contracts don't go up by RPI so the company can't afford it basically. When it was raised that Heathrow won't do met (ATM) but they will get 5.2 % and can vote and perhaps this wasn't fair, the answer was essentially TOUGH.

The union are happy with all this and this is what you get.

Personally I wouldn't bother going,I think an all body waxing would be more useful. Wait for the union briefing and then vote, which ends before the annual report is published incidentally, and then wait and see what happens. I suspect that it may be a no but some of the younger ATCOs only see the 5.2% and a spine increase and not think of the whole picture. Anyway what will be will be.

[terrain safe]

Oh, and following on from the above, I suspect that London City may be a start point for the contract 're-negotiation' with Gatwick next.....

[LostThePicture]

Whether you define it as industrial action or not, the practicalities of a successful AAVA boycott dictate that the workforce would have to have the union involved (if only to orchestrate the timings of any such action), and that's not going to happen while Prospect is riddled with management apologists. Anyone fancy putting their head above the parapet and emailing "All AC" with a suggestion to boycott AAVAs? No, didn't think so.

Much as I'd like us all to stick it to management throughout the entirety of July and August (for instance), when it will hurt them the most, there are more than enough recently valid ATCOs - who have been paid peanuts at the college - who will say that they 'need' the money and consider themselves exempt from anything which isn't entirely watertight.
And it wouldn't only be them - does anyone remember the ATCO a couple of years back who suggested people take a stand and refuse to do AAVAs, while all the time continuing to volunteer for as many shifts as he could get his grubby little paws on? :yuk::yuk::yuk:
Well, there'll be others like him, and only a TOTAL overtime boycott will really hurt management, so I don't see how it's workable.

No, it appears the only avenue left to register our discontent now is by firmly voting NO when the ballot comes round, and convince as many of our colleagues as possible to do the same.

LTP

[Rocket_Science]

ATSAs are getting paid for doing nothing and need to realise that they are holding the company back.

Thank you for that. And in many respects you are right in suggesting that the majority of the ATSA population do nothing to help themselves but if we allow this divisiveness to manifest itself then what is there to stop PCS going after prospect jobs. They have a lot to offer!

[terrain safe]

rocket science. That is not what i said. That is what management said at the briefing.

[Ceannairceach]

I look forward to that comment from management regarding the ATSAs doing nothing and holding the company back circulating amongst the ATSAs at PC......

[fisbangwollop]

ATSAs are getting paid for doing nothing and need to realise that they are holding the company back.

Well thanks to managements decisions to reduce ATSA manning to EFD levels even before EFD was proven to work we now find ourselves covering most shifts with Overtime just to keep our heads above water....if that's holding our Company back well maybe it will interesting to see how the Company moves forward when we decide to bin the O/T in the coming months!!

[10W]

That is what management said at the briefing.

I thought I was going to a briefing by the BEC, but you're right, after hearing their pitch it probably was management after all ;)

[expediteoff]

LTP

"Much as I'd like us all to stick it to management throughout the entirety of July and August (for instance)"

Now there's an idea - On a purely individual basis of course!

[Use the Force]

As stated before,

Welcome to the private sector.

Ask yourselves a few questions,

If you were still government run would you have a similar pay increase?

Do you think that that the airport side of the business has as much value as the monopoly of the centres?

Do you honestly think that if you vote no there will be an improved offer?

Why do you think Gibraltar has no say? Did they not take that contract off Serco? It would not surprise me if they are running at a loss just to get into the European market.

The Airports could be done by different cheaper contractors of which there are a few. If NATS can not keep its cost down then it will probably get rid.

The few airports I have seen change hands, controllers do not leave on mass because they have a life in the area and TUPE means the transition is not too harsh. The airport does not suffer.

When with another company you will get your bog standard 3% per year if you agree to take on all these extra tasks to keep cost down and keep the contract. These companies do not recognise unions. Like it or look for another job, because there will be someone there ready to take your job or be trained to take your job.

If airport controllers wish to continue to work for NATS then sadly bite the bullet. It could get a whole lot worse.:{:{:{:{:{:{

[Flybywyre]

Interesting post above

Unfortunately written by someone that clearly has very little (if any) experience of the real world, business and commerce.

If NATS really does want to keep airport contracts then it must bite the bullet and reverse the damaging and crass decision to split NATS into two and calling them NSL and NERL.

[eglnyt]

If NATS really does want to keep airport contracts then it must bite the bullet and reverse the damaging and crass decision to split NATS into two and calling them NSL and NERL.

It wasn't a NATS decision and it isn't in NATS power to reverse it. The regulated business is kept seperate from the unregulated business by the terms of the NERL Licence and the possibility of infringing European competition law if it isn't. NATS can't use NERL money to keep NSL contracts and even if it could the NERL money is also being continually squeezed by the regulator.

NSL has two choices compete on price or compete on quality of service. The first is a race to the lowest price which it probably can't win. The second may lead to the loss of some contracts.

[Use the Force]

Flybywyre

"Unfortunately written by someone that clearly has very little (if any) experience of the real world, business and commerce.

If NATS really does want to keep airport contracts then it must bite the bullet and reverse the damaging and crass decision to split NATS into two and calling them NSL and NERL."

And the chances of that? :uhoh: Do not be so naive and thank you for agreeing.

[Flybywyre]

Another interesting post............this time from EGLNYT

However it does look like a load of Bull:mad: based on semantics. Some of it would appear to be plainly wrong.

It wasn't a NATS decision and it isn't in NATS power to reverse it.

Yes it was (Paul Baron) and yes it is given the right amount of lobbying.

The regulated business is kept seperate from the unregulated business

Are not NSL and NERL both regulated ?

How about some tangible evidence to back up what would seem at first glance an informed post.

But please spare us any nebulous comments like "possibility of infringing European competition law"

Cheers :)

[Rocket_Science]

rocket science. That is not what i said. That is what management said at the briefing.

Apologies terrain. I misunderstood your post.

Still the bottom line is management are trying to divide our strength and now we have to endure briefings where unit management will try and sell all deals as the best available and we should all be grateful we are getting anything!

Sorry, i just want a cost of living rise for myself and family. Surely it is not too much to ask from a profit making company when i did my bit last time around with a pay freeze when RPI remained on the whole positive. Oh, and those exec pay rises we're just to" draw a line under." How come exec pay is not subject to the same monetary pressures? LEADERSHIP IS BEST DONE BY SETTING AN EXAMPLE FFS!!!

[eglnyt]

How about some tangible evidence to back up what would seem at first glance an informed post.

The CAA Air Traffic Services and Competition Law Policy Document published in April 2006 would be a good place to start. You can find it on their website if you care to look.

But please spare us any nebulous comments like "possibility of infringing European competition law"

Originally it wasn't a possibility it was considered fact. It's now become a "possibility" because of the CAA's latest legal advice that NATS may not be an "undertaking" and therefore the legislation might not apply. We'll only know for sure if the lawyers get to argue it out in court all the way to the top and that isn't in anybody's interest because the end game there might be a forced split of NSL and NERL.

Yes it was (Paul Baron)

Sorry it wasn't. NERL and NSL came into being in 2001, Paul Barron arrived in 2004. He did split the two Chief Executive roles but they were already two different companies.

[250 kts]

Whether you define it as industrial action or not, the practicalities of a successful AAVA boycott dictate that the workforce would have to have the union involved (if only to orchestrate the timings of any such action), and that's not going to happen while Prospect is riddled with management apologists. Anyone fancy putting their head above the parapet and emailing "All AC" with a suggestion to boycott AAVAs? No, didn't think so.

Much as I'd like us all to stick it to management throughout the entirety of July and August (for instance), when it will hurt them the most, there are more than enough recently valid ATCOs - who have been paid peanuts at the college - who will say that they 'need' the money and consider themselves exempt from anything which isn't entirely watertight.
And it wouldn't only be them - does anyone remember the ATCO a couple of years back who suggested people take a stand and refuse to do AAVAs, while all the time continuing to volunteer for as many shifts as he could get his grubby little paws on?
Well, there'll be others like him, and only a TOTAL overtime boycott will really hurt management, so I don't see how it's workable.

No, it appears the only avenue left to register our discontent now is by firmly voting NO when the ballot comes round, and convince as many of our colleagues as possible to do the same.

LTP

I think I must have missed something here or Lost The Picture.:confused:

A ballot will shortly be taking place on pay. I'm not sure what you are trying to do here by "hurting management".

Are you trying to do it to get more staff on the unit, to hurt the customer or get a better pay offer?:confused:

[25check]

> ATSAs are getting paid for doing nothing and need to realise that they are holding the company back.

What an outrageous way to refer to a dedicated group of workers, many of whom have spent a lifetime with the company. Even the statement could be interpreted as bullying, but when it suits their aims it is obviously not an issue.

They are 'doing nothing' because the company has excluded them from as many tasks as possible, refusing to allocate any new tasks that might actually help the system to run better and safer because they 'don't wan't to have a reason not to get rid of them' (managements words).

I hope the NSL controllers realise what they would be signing up to with the met, with very little reward for extra tasks.

[BOBBLEHAT]

There are some crazy posts here. Written by people who appear to have little knowledge of what they are talking about.

Why do some want to bring down the company? Why don't you burn down your own house - the results will be similar in the long run.

I agree with the need for unity and those that have concerns about the MET aspects have my sympathy.

All will need to listen carefully to the briefings and get the FACTS. As for those that rubbish the guys doing the briefings - you have know idea of the time and effort they put in to deliver this. You don't have to agree with them but do them decency of a fair hearing and appreciate the position they are in of trying to balance the needs of ALL members and find a way forward that ensures continued terms and conditions for all.

For the person who thinks NSL is a regulated business........ you need to do some more homework before posting

[LostThePicture]

@250 kts

Thanks for regurgitating my entire post word for word. I'd honestly completely forgotten what I wrote two days ago. Or maybe you just get a thrill from using bandwidth unnecessarily? :confused:

If you'd cared to look at what I wrote in the context of some of the posts preceding it, you might have worked out that for the most part I was merely giving my opinion on how difficult it would be to make a stand on AAVAs, especially now, when the union are all ready to sign an "in perpetuity" agreement with management.

This is what you wrote (http://www.pprune.org/6393996-post1890.html) last month. Now I'm confused. It would appear that one month ago you were ready to take a stand yourself. But now, after the union have stated their intention to accept an offer that sells smaller NSL units down the river and would commit volunteers to AAVAs at the current rate for the foreseeable future, my opinion seems unpalatable to you. :confused:
A touch hypocritical?

I think it's fair to say that there is a considerable amount of discontent being expressed both on here and on natsnet with regard to whether this is really the best that management can offer. The union arguably had the best possible bargaining position and have dropped the ball again. To close the ballot one week before company annual results are due makes them look like idiots (again).

I have no desire to "bring down the company" but it irritates me that management's complacency with regard to pay negotiations, LAS agreements and AAVAs is going to go basically unpunished.

It seems that with regard to pay negotiations, there are two types of people. Those that are happy to accept whatever Prospect put in front of them, and those that are capable of forming their own opinion. Unfortunately the former always seem to outnumber the latter.

LTP

[Flybywyre]

Bobblehat..............
If you are referring to my post about NSL and NERL being regulated then can I politely suggest you read my post again and note the question mark.
I was asking a question.
EGLYNT answered it, thank you.
In response to that answer I am sure that the new owners of NATS, whoever and whenever that will be, will either sell NSL to the highest bidder or bring it back into the NATS fold as a another section of NATS, just like the training section is.
Alternatively they could sell both NSL, the training section and any other section that they think they could flog off and just concentrate on the core business of ATC.
A bit like the airlines have done. They just concentrate on the core revenue side of the business, flying aeroplanes. Almost everything else has been farmed out, including training.
Just a thought :8

[vespasia]

Alternatively they could sell both NSL, the training section and any other section that they think they could flog off and just concentrate on the core business of ATC.

Nice to know you don't think NSL is ATC:ugh:

[Flybywyre]

I suppose I could have worded it better but that is not what I meant (or think).............

[250 kts]

LTP,

Thanks for the reminder of my post in mid April. I see the date on that was before the revised offer was made. At that time it looked certain that there was no more money on the table and that there was a distinct possibility that we would be going into a period of "handbook overtime" and that the actions of the staff by doing overtime could easily undermine Prospect.

Anyway here we are a month on with the start of the ballot only a couple of weeks away. I think it imperative that people attend the briefings and listen to what the negotiators have to say.

commit volunteers to AAVAs at the current rate for the foreseeable future

Not sure how a volunteer can be committed-you either choose to do them or you don't-simple.

[BDiONU]

Not sure how a volunteer can be committed-you either choose to do them or you don't-simple.
I think they're talking about the rate for enhanced (AKA golden) AAVAs where you are committing to doing 'x' many AAVAs over a certain period.

BD

[LostThePicture]

commit volunteers to AAVAs at the current rate for the foreseeable future...
...meaning that those who commit to do AAVAs will be doing them at the current rate (iFACTS excepted) for several years at the very least. Given that students are now paid peanuts, management will not be short of volunteers from among newly valid ATCOs. As a guide, an AAVA is now worth about 17% less than it was in 2003 and RPI is running at over 5%. You'll excuse me if I don't think this was the greatest piece of union negotiation, especially when Prospect had such a strong position after management tried to circumvent the rules regarding overtime.

As for attending a briefing, of course I will do so if Prospect deign to turn up on a day when I am at work. You have to understand though that the negotiators are NOT going to put a negative spin on something that they're recommending we accept. There comes a point where you have to draw your own conclusions. If you need to have yours spoon-fed to you, then you have my sympathy.

LTP

[The Fat Controller]

In view of the fact that the Prospect briefing team will be visiting every NATS unit twice, I think the onus is on US to get ourselves along to a session.

Please do not forget that your reps have been negotiating for almost a year to try and get us a decent deal.

I just hope that ALL NATS staff can, for once, be bothered to put a cross in a box and actually send in their vote :ok:

[Gonzo]

...meaning that those who commit to do AAVAs will be doing them at the current rate (iFACTS excepted) for several years at the very least. Given that students are now paid peanuts, management will not be short of volunteers from among newly valid ATCOs. As a guide, an AAVA is now worth about 17% less than it was in 2003 and RPI is running at over 5%. You'll excuse me if I don't think this was the greatest piece of union negotiation, especially when Prospect had such a strong position after management tried to circumvent the rules regarding overtime.....So don't do them then.......

I thought it was generally accepted that Prospect would rather negotiate a rise on basic, pensionable pay that applies to everyone rather than an increase for the AAVA rate that not everyone will benefit from.

As for attending a briefing, of course I will do so if Prospect deign to turn up on a day when I am at work.

Ah, so maybe you aren't so bothered after all?

[Flybywyre]

Given that students are now paid peanuts................

Yes they are unfortunately.

However I heard yesterday that students in TC that are now faced with at least 6 months on the wings while waiting for TVC etc are going to be paid ATSA 3 wages.
If that is correct then full marks to Prospect for negotiating a fair deal for them :D

[250 kts]

I will do so if Prospect deign to turn up on a day when I am at work

Funnily enough you may just have to put yourself out on occasions and go to a briefing on a day off if you think it important enough to get the facts.

If you need to have yours spoon-fed to you, then you have my sympathy.

But you want to be spoon fed the information without having to go out of your way?

The local reps on my watch are insisting that people attend a briefing as their knowledge of the negotiations and the finer points of the offer is somewhat limited.

[Rocket_Science]

However I heard yesterday that students in TC that are now faced with at least 6 months on the wings while waiting for TVC etc are going to be paid ATSA 3 wages.
If that is correct then full marks to Prospect for negotiating a fair deal for them

Excellent news! Sod demarcation, ATCOs can do ATSA tasks.That's absolutely fine by me! One condition though; ATSAs do flow control instead of highly paid ATCOs. How'd that be?

Lets face it, if you divide the unions by taking each others roles, then who are the executive going to listen to when it comes to cutting staff costs. If it can be done cheaper by another staff group then the executive will be very interested indeed. Prospect members need to think carefully before accepting deals that are divisive - they may end up with egg on their faces in the long run.

PCS also need to stop agreeing to short term solutions to 'keep the business viable.' I and many of my colleagues (those not nearing retirement it would seem) do not want little bonus bungs to accept poor deals in lieu of good job security. Whilst I understand that negotiators must have a tough time arguing the case for the ATSA population whilst most of their membership only seem interested in who gets the next break or EG, they must fight for the longer term goal of job security. ATSAs are not viewed as value for money; and there are only two ways for PCS, in negotiation with management, to solve that, either reduce pay (can't see anyone, other than management, wanting that) or increase staff value in terms of the tasks they undertake i.e. the company gets more from them for the money it pays them.

So next time, as a member of PCS, you find yourself saying,, "I'm not doing that, it's not not in my job description." Perhaps you should say, " I will do that if you put it in my job description."

Wake up and save yourselves!!!

[LostThePicture]

....So don't do them then.......
I'm sorry? This has absolutely nothing to do with whether I choose to do AAVAs or not. It has everything to do with whether the union has thought its actions out sensibly and whether it is creating a rod for its own back in terms of future negotiations.

As for
I thought it was generally accepted that Prospect would rather negotiate a rise on basic, pensionable pay
...well, that is what they should have done then. AAVAs should not have been on the negotiating table, full stop. I mean, how on earth did we get from the position of nearly pulling out of the agreement, to the union recommending we sign up to AAVAs at the current rate in perpetuity? Answer: Prospect sacrificed AAVAs to secure what should have been ours in the first place - a cost of living pay rise.

I will attend a briefing if one comes by, but I don't see it as an obligatory precursor to making an informed decision on whether this deal is right. The company's annual results - now that's the sort of information I would like to know before my ballot is cast. :ouch:

But you want to be spoon fed the information without having to go out of your way?
@250 kts: What are you talking about? No, you can put me in the "draw own conclusions" camp.

LTP

[Flybywyre]

PCS also need to stop agreeing to short term solutions to 'keep the business viable.

Did you accept the bung and sign the overtime agreement Rocket Science ?

[Rocket_Science]

Did you accept the bung and sign the overtime agreement Rocket Science ?

Yes I did and your point, I guess, is going to be along the lines of why don't you practice what you preach.

First and foremost, the OT agreement is agreed by PCS. But to PCS's credit, there is a condition in the agreement that effectively suspends the agreement should PCS enter into dispute. I wouldn't have signed the agreement without that condition.

Some years ago a group of ATCOs tried an unofficial AAVA ban and from what I recall it had little or no effect at all. So I doubt unofficial action by one person is hardly going to change any management minds. Cutting off ones nose and all that.

Any action must be OFFICIAL and UNION LED to ensure it has the desired impact.

[The Many Tentacles]

Personally, I think the offer is good. I've got friends outside of aviation who are being told to take a pay cut or lose their jobs, a number of councils are being forced into pay cuts of up to 5.5% and we're complaining about a pay rise.

Wake up and look at the real world, yes we've had two below average rises but so has the rest of the world. At least you've got a job to moan about.

I'll be voting yes when my ballot paper turns up

[Standard Noise]

I'm getting a little tired of the 'look what the poor people outside NATS aren't getting' argument. If I want to compare sh1te with gold then I can do it with the best of them. My Mrs has got 5%, 5% and 4% in the last three years, and she works for a company which has the sort of debts that would make Deakin and Reid cry their lamps out. But it makes a profit (as do NATS) and rewards staff when they deserve it.

That said, as a rep, I officially endorse the Branch line on this...............when they're in earshot.:E

Oh, and another bloody thing, it's OK for those of you who have a holiday home on the Hamble, but what concerns me more is that at non-NATS units, they are catching up with Band 2 rates of pay now. Anyone for £71.5k and a low tax rate on Fraggle Rock?

[anotherthing]

...I've got friends outside of aviation who are being told to take a pay cut or lose their jobs...I know of professional footballers who are getting huge rises this year - in excess of 20 per cent. Maybe we should hold out for that sort of rise based on your argument?

Comparing company A with company B when they are in totally different lines of business is pointless and as Standard Noise says, very tiring.

What matters is NATS. The profit they are making, the dividends they are dishing out (even though it is from a seperate pot it still indicates prosperity) and the forecast for the future.

Voting 'yes' to a particular pay offer because some unskilled factory worker in Solihull is getting a pay freeze is completely ridiculous. By all means vote yes, but make sure it's for the correct reasons.

[Flybywyre]

PHEW !!.............Good job you explained that Rocket Science.

For one minute I thought that you were just another money grabber displaying double standards and grasping at any bung that comes you way regardless of the consequences.
I also note your high moral standards!
I am sure lots of others would have followed your example and refused the bung if PCS had not put in a clause that would suspend the agreement should they enter into a dispute over..........say pay or something like that.

You are clearly somewhat of a role model for the ATSA community.

[Bagheera]

QUOTE]Whilst I understand that negotiators must have a tough time arguing the case for the ATSA population whilst most of their membership only seem interested in who gets the next break or EG[/QUOTE]

And

So next time, as a member of PCS, you find yourself saying,, "I'm not doing that, it's not not in my job description." Perhaps you should say, " I will do that if you put it in my job description."

Wake up and save yourselves!!!

Im sorry but what World do you live in? I work at an H24 Airport with colocated Approach and Tower. When me and my colleagues are on duty, we are the only ATSA on shift, thats one person to run both upstairs and down. We work permanent nights for no extra UHP, we dont get any EG's because there is no-one to relieve us until the next shift comes in and we get two, half hour breaks per shift, in between Metars. If the weather is poor we are expected to forego our breaks in order to keep reporting the weather. If the weather is fine and I can get a break then I have to take a cordless phone with me so I can continue answering the outside line (the agreement is to hand it to a controller who is spare but of course we have no spare controllers just hanging around.)This usually means I spend about 15 minutes of my break fielding phone calls.
I am a unit investigator, completing CA4118's and CA4119's. I do APSA's. I do day 2 day observations. I am the units stats guru, providing movement and safety data to the BAA, CTC and to my GM to include in his monthly report. I audit the TOI/USI log to make sure all relevant data is correctly displayed and SRG compliant. I am the TRM focal point and later this month I will finally be getting some official training on the Simulator so I can run TRUCE exercises (I've actually been doing this for a while without the official training I asked for . ) All this whilst plugged in trying to do my job as an assistant.
Everything I have mentioned there I do voluntarily. Recently when rumours were circulating that Management were looking to re-grade the ATSA position I went to my GM and asked to have these duties added to my job description. My GM passed on the request to HQ and the reply was a flat out refusal.
Wake up and smell the coffee. Its not about additional duties it is a numbers game pure and simple.

I continue to do these tasks for my own interest and because I actually believe there is a lot of good can come out of them. I still care deeply about the industry we work in. Which brings me back towards the central focus of this forum.

This managements attachment of the string regarding Met duties to the core pay deal and in particular Prospects complicity with this is an absolute disgrace.
Both management and Prospect, via their framework agreement, only mention Metar provision. What about Speci's, you know, when there has been an operationally significant change in the weather that requires a special report? What about Snowtams? Not a mention.
If I can take people back to the 19th December 2010. The night when every major airfield South of Manchester, Glasgow, Prestwick and I believe Aberdeen were shut due to snow. I was the ATSA that night. It was me who received the call putting us on Standby to receive multiple wide body diversions. As heavy snow showers passed through the airfield ( requiring countless Speci's ) Airfield Ops worked their fingers to the bone to keep the airfield open for our own traffic and an anticipated onslaught in the morning. Whilst the controller dealt with the air traffic and a multitude of vehicles all over the airfield, I filled out 7 seperate snowtams, to make sure everyone was kept informed of the latest situation. Each one requiring getting the info from ops, filling out the Snowtam form, disseminating the snowtam by AFTN, working out the MOTNE code, working out the percentage contamination for each runway third, recording the Message for ATIS broadcast and keeping in touch with units and companies with a vested interest. Fortunately by this stage of the winter I was well practised and so managed each Snowtam in about 20-25 minutes. What chance a controller who is trying to deal with Aircraft and vehicles as well. Oh dont worry Prospect have thought about that too. The framework states that a controller can decide whether to give priority to traffic or Met reporting. Talk about Damned if you do, Damned if you dont.
Im not suggesting every nightshift will be that complex but the fact of the matter is when the weather is bad the controller needs to be concentrating on the traffic leaving others to make sure the pilots are getting the most up to date information in a quickly changing picture.
According to the NTSB approximately 22% of accidents have Met as a causal or contributory factor. That is why every accident or incident report has a met report included. God help any controller who finds themselves in the unfortunate position of a major incident where the Met being broadcast is incorrect. You can be sure that, contributory or not, there will be highly paid lawyers searching for any blame they can pass. Will the management pushing this agenda be in the dock? Yeah right.
For 20 years in this Industry my paramount thought has always been the safety of Air traffic. We've had fights over privitisation and pensions that I was disappointed to lose but what really make my blood boil is that I never could have believed that the Union could actually negotiate and recommend acceptance of a procedure that will make Air traffic service provision potentially more dangerous for the providers and users of the service.

One final point to those of you in NERL that think this is not your fight, think again. This agreement is not just for Met it is for Met and residual tasks. It was always considered that no controller should be performing any task that should distract them from the primary task of controlling. That consideration has just been negotiated away by your Union. How long until management find some residual tasks for you to perform?

[pikman]

Excellent post Bagheera. Couldn't of put it all in a nutshell any better.:ok:

[Roffa]

Well said Bagheera, I just wish it could have a wider audience.

[eastern wiseguy]

Bagheera...excellent post. :D

[No Speed]

Bagheera......thank you for an excellent post :D

[ZOOKER]

Great post.
Many years ago I worked as an assistant at an ATC unit where ATCOs did the half-hourly met reports.
Just before I left the forward-thinking SATCO realized the situation was getting impossible, (due to missed reports as a result of handling A/C), and sent the ATSAs on MET courses, which added to the variety of their work.
Many of the current NATS 'managers' have little or no ATC experience. Also there are many arrogant, 20/30-something, children of the Thatcher generation in the system who were raised on the culture of greed. They know the cost of everything, but the value of nothing. Sad, yes, but it's the way the country is. Hardly surprising that many people simply 'can't be @rsed' anymore.
We hear a lot from management about 'Ops-Room distraction' in safety notices.
Surely having to 'do MET' is another distraction ATCOs can do without.
P.S.
Stats should be the responsibility of the aerodrome management, not ATC assistants.

[ZOOKER]

Flybywyre,
as regards congratulating Prospect for securing ATSA 3 wages for trainees working 'on the wings', don't forget that years ago they were actually paid an ATCO 4 salary for this.
I can't seem to recall howls of protest from the ATCOs union, (whatever it was called then), when this was changed.

[LEGAL TENDER]

April RPI 5.2%

"A GOOD DEAL BETTER" ;)

[Rocket_Science]

Im sorry but what World do you live in?

NERL's...Can't you tell?

[DC10RealMan]

Zooker refers to many younger nats managers having little or no atc experience and I would also add little or no knowledge of commercial aviation. The issuing of met actuals is not an ancillary task that can be postponed or ignored due to workload, it is a fundamental cornerstone of the safe operation of any aircraft, whether that be commercial, private, military, large or small.

Aircrew use the information supplied by metar to compile their approach minima and briefings and particularly in marginal conditions it is the most important factor. If I were faced with conducting an approach in minimal conditions with a met observation which was out of date I would refuse and enter the hold until one had been done and then go into print about it.

We all know that as far as the management are concerned it is about reducing staff costs, but if the atcos think that they can take on this task without it affecting their primary role then they really are as naive as members of their management.

[250 kts]

DC10

I think you would need to attend a briefing to see hear about the safeguards that would be put in place. I attended one in the last few days and have been pleasantly surprised at the proposed limitations on the controllers being able to do the Met task.

[DC10RealMan]

Fair enough.

[Occams Razor]

I think you would need to attend a briefing to see hear about the safeguards that would be put in place. I attended one in the last few days and have been pleasantly surprised at the proposed limitations on the controllers being able to do the Met task.
Is that a Prospect or Management briefing? I have been to the latter and there were short and muted replies about questions regarding conditions for ATCOs doing the MET at night.

An example of last years snow was used, the reply was "we would roster an extra ATCO for the night shift to cover the extra duties"...lots of overtime this winter then, what with a 2-3 week period of potential snow if last year is anything to go by - would a unit really take the chance of being understaffed during dodgy weather?

[fisbangwollop]

we would roster an extra ATCO for the night shift to cover the extra duties".

NATS Management are full of bright idea's for saving money....yea, lets get rid of all the ATSA's that should save us a few bob, we could then employ more ATCO's to take on their tasks....:D:D:D

[Flybywyre]

Is that a Prospect or Management briefing?

Is there a difference ?

[250 kts]

It was most definitely a Prospect briefing.

Flybywyre,

You obviously haven't attended the Prospect one yet if you think they are the same.:ugh:

[band2drone]

"we would roster an extra ATCO for the night shift to cover the extra duties"

Yeah, they'll go to the 'Spare ATCOs' cupboard and magic one up just for MET reports. Have they lost the plot? They've been introducing lower ORs for airports, now they think there are spare ATCOs knocking about. Give me strength! :ugh:

[Ceannairceach]

I hear from an ATSA at my unit today that at their briefing they were told there was simply no money left in the pot for a larger pay rise than that already offered for the ATSAs.

Yet EFD seems to have a bottomless pit of money allocated to it, more than I suspect it will save in reduced ATSA numbers for some considerable time. No doubt our owners will get a decent chunk of spoils in the form of a dividend shortly. And perhaps someone could remind us how much Baron, Hoskins et al walked away with. Their pots were positively overflowing with money it would appear.

So I suspect there will be little sympathy amongst the ATSA community for management's sob story aimed in their direction. And, as an ATCO, I still care what happens to the ATSAs even if an awful lot of you don't seem to.

[LostThePicture]

I attended one in the last few days and have been pleasantly surprised at the proposed limitations on the controllers being able to do the Met task.
Well that'll be a comfort to NSL ATCOs and ATSAs everywhere, given that you work in a large grey box in Hampshire...

"we would roster an extra ATCO for the night shift to cover the extra duties"
This sounds like a suspiciously hollow promise to try and paper over the cracks in another poor piece of negotiation. Realistically, the risk of snow disruption (for example) covers three months of the year, so I suppose all airports affected by the MET clause will be rostering an extra night ATCO for three months, promulgated on the 20th of the preceding month? I doubt it.

As I understand it, the units affected by the MET clause will likely be swamped in the ballot by those that are largely unaffected. HTD payments went west because those that weren't eligible for HTD (the majority) still got a vote in the ballot. And now Prospect are allowing it to happen again, only there appears to be much more at stake here. Shame on them.

LTP

[On the beach]

Back in the days when I was an ATCO, we had people called Met men and Met women who were trained professionals and they used to do met. observations as part of their daily routine. I'd respectfully suggest to the flying community, ATC management and the regulators that if they want professional met. observations and those vitally important SPECIs that have to be done when the weather makes ATC just a tad more difficult, then they should ask the flying community and ATC management to approach the Met. Office to supply suitably trained personnel and leave ATCOs to do what they are paid to do, which is act on met. advice and provide a safe passage through/around adverse weather.

Asking ATCOs to go out and take weather observations is rather akin to asking met. people to come into the radar room and run a quick sequence.

If you want a professional service you need to pay for it otherwise you will end up with, what appears to be going to be a third rate service that the rest of the world will just sit back and laugh at and decide to fly to safer countries.

How anyone in ATC management could even contemplate ATCOs at busy airports carrying out hourly met. observations and SPECIs and SNOWTAMS beggars belief.

If SRG don't do something about this then they are equally as culpable if and when something happens as a result of an ATCO being outside doing a SPECI or an aircraft crashing as a result of an ATCO not doing a SPECI.

My advice would be to put that question to SRG and leave that safety decision to them. That is, after all what they, as professionals, are paid to do, isn't it?

Meanwhile, you have to question whether the ATC management that are making these blatantly dangerous decisions are fit for purpose. Another question which needs urgent answering by the regulators before any lasting damage is done.

So, if any SRG members or regulators are reading this, now would be a good time to step up to the plate. This isn't about money, this is about the safety of the flying public, of which I am one. And I shall be referring this thread to my MP. I suggest others may like to follow.

On the beach

[BDiONU]

My advice would be to put that question to SRG and leave that safety decision to them. That is, after all what they, as professionals, are paid to do, isn't it?
Their job is to act as the safety regulator. NATS will put a fully prepared safety case to them and they'll decide whether it meets their requirements as the regulator.

BD

[BDiONU]

I hear from an ATSA at my unit today that at their briefing they were told there was simply no money left in the pot for a larger pay rise than that already offered for the ATSAs.
I went to the Swanwick briefing yesterday and we were told the same thing. In fact the analogy drawn by management was that they're selling a car, we're buying it, they've made their lowest offer but it doesn't meet the unions highest offer. So who do you believe, can they really not reduce the price of the car a bit more?
Yet EFD seems to have a bottomless pit of money allocated to it,
I think you're thinking of iFACTS which has cost 5 times as much as EFD :} Projects have to bid for cash which is allocated from the monies budgeted for projected spend for projects. But that's a one off spend, pay is year on year and increases now are carried forward every year.
No doubt our owners will get a decent chunk of spoils in the form of a dividend shortly.
That includes us (if you kept your shares) because we also own part of the business. As stated on NATSNET the dividend pot is a separate one which the government regulator allows NATS. In poor years there has been no bonus.
And perhaps someone could remind us how much Baron, Hoskins et al walked away with. Their pots were positively overflowing with money it would appear.
One off payments, agreed as part of their contract and budgeted for accordingly.
So I suspect there will be little sympathy amongst the ATSA community for management's sob story aimed in their direction.
Depends whether you believe them or not. The most interesting point for me was over why not core deal for the very first time as this was seen as the most divisive thing about the whole pay deal. The finger was very firmly pointed at the unions as being the ones who rejected a core deal and each went their separate way for divisional deals.

BD

[Me Me Me Me]

BD... Come on.

Dividends to 'owners'
That includes us (if you kept your shares) because we also own part of the business. As stated on NATSNET the dividend pot is a separate one which the government regulator allows NATS. In poor years there has been no bonus.

Yes, we get about 1/4000th of 5% each. While dividends were not paid in the tough years, the tough years were largely caused by the leveraged purchase of the company by those 'owners'. If they had come in with cash then I wouldn't grudge them a penny of dividend... They didn't. They've probably already had way more out in terms of dividends than they ever put in to take control in the first place.

Barron & Hoskins
One off payments, agreed as part of their contract and budgeted for accordingly.

Not entirely true. As much as I agree with you that it has to be made clear to people the difference between the financial impact of one-off payments as compared to compounded increases, it fails to take account of the context in which these payments were made and the hypocrisy of the individuals receiving them.

Depends whether you believe them or not. The most interesting point for me was over why not core deal for the very first time as this was seen as the most divisive thing about the whole pay deal. The finger was very firmly pointed at the unions as being the ones who rejected a core deal and each went their separate way for divisional deals.

Why would the unions do that? Look at pay negotiations over the past 10 years. Virtually every time there have been sectional side-deals where management have asked for some section-specific changes in return for a deal. Working practices etc etc. Despite this, NATS and NTUS always negotiated the core increase across all groups. ATCOs always got more than the other groups, but it was through add-ons, so there was at least an appearance of equality.
Nothing that is in this year's deal would prevent that same arrangement this time. Prospect ATCOs could still have achieved a higher return for their memeber than the other groups through agreeing Met or AAVA deal as a sectional claim, while still appearing to keep the unions united by negotiating an across-the-board basic percentage increase.
The only party gaining from splitting up negotiations is NATS management, who can now look forward to all future pay deals being based on a 2 tier workforce of ATCOs and all the other lot who just drain money from the ATCO pot.

[BDiONU]

Why would the unions do that? <snip> Nothing that is in this year's deal would prevent that same arrangement this time.
I'm simply passing on what we were told, the NTUS rejected the core deal and broke out into sectional deals. Will be interesting to know what the PCS briefing says on this subject.

BD

[Me Me Me Me]

Having had a PCS briefing, I can tell you.

PCS do not want seperate bargaining. The question was asked very quickly and the answer in a nutshell was, there's little we can do about it... NATS hold the purse strings and so - to an extent - hold the power to decide who they talk to about what.

There's only one of the 3 TU branches that benefits from splitting - and I don't believe they engineered it either. From day one this has looked to me like a new management team attempting to lay a new set of rules for future years.

[Ceannairceach]

As far as I understand it the core deal to NTUS was frankly derisory - 2%.

The company would only offer more and negotiate further if each of the union branches agreed to negotiate separately.

[250 kts]

The finger was very firmly pointed at the unions as being the ones who rejected a core deal and each went their separate way for divisional deals.

I'm don't believe that for one minute. In fact I seem to remember the Prospect briefing has a slide where they state that NATS refused point blank to do a NTUS deal.

Porkies from management I think and probably not the first or last time on the matter.:= Time they had the guts to stand in front of the staff and admit it.

[Minesthechevy]

Hmm, <<Management, guts, admit a mistake>>

Not a selection of words that I ever saw in my 36 years of ATC. The one-eyed golfer was one of the biggest non-admitters of errors I ever met, whilst being a major error generator.

[MosquitoAce]

Managers’ rewards are related not only to what they achieve but to how they achieve it through their people (informed by an Employee Opinion Survey).

[LostThePicture]

Another dividend payment... (http://www.nats.co.uk/news/nats-to-pay-42-5m-interim-dividend-to-shareholders/)

[121decimal375]

No suprise there :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Conspiracy Theories]

thanks for the link above, just read it and it is very hard to believe that there is no money for a staff pay rise. almost comical to some extent.

We get told, "there is no money, there is no money...." and then this. i know that we have finally been told that we are no longer a non profit organisation but surely between last year and march 2012, how much has been paid in interim dividends? and the company is allowed to charge the airlines a little extra for the bonus pot for the managers yet the employees are told there is no money......

how else are the employees supposed to take this? i would like to see the companies accounts including exactly were all the money has been spent. i think it would be an interesting read.

just curious really, but does anyone know what the ratio of ops room staff compared to managers is? how many projects is the company currently undertaking at the current time?

[intherealworld]

The unions had the figures in the briefings.

In a nutshell, every grade was down approx 15-20% since Oct 07 and PCG grades were up!

[Minesthechevy]

MosquitoAce -

You can tell that to the Army...

You can tell it to the Navy...

And you can certainly tell it to the Marines...;)

[Occams Razor]

I'm still torn. I've had both the management and union briefings and still can't quite make my mind up.

On one hand the conditions set out by the union are sound, combined with the promises that as ATCOs we will not be taking on the met or residual tasks without several safety cases, and a list of such tasks being agreed between ATCOs and management. In effect the union "sold" me the deal.....

....on the other hand, the management "presentation" was awful, crowing about how the company has no money and how most of the NSL contracts are so tight that they couldn't afford more than the 5.2% offered. Then, just as the ballot papers drop through the door, the £42.5mil divident payment news is released. Wow, what a way to make your workforce feel valued.

Suspect it'll be a "no" vote from me out of principle, might be shooting myself in the foot as the extra money would certianly come in handy, plus if the met goes totally auto in the next few years it may be payment for no extra work - however I'm not sure how much I trust the promises made by the union regarding the residual tasks. I'm still quite new to the ATCO world and the stories people have told about the pension saga are making me think carefully about anything the union says.

[BigDaddyBoxMeal]

however I'm not sure how much I trust the promises made by the union regarding the residual tasks

Thats what it came down to for me aswell.

Sadly my trust in union and management "safety case" promises is nil.

[anotherthing]

plus if the met goes totally auto in the next few years
I've not done met for a few years, but over my 2 main careers I have done 5 Met courses, including forecasters course.

Met will not become fully automatic in a safety critical environment for a long time, if ever. At the very least it will need qualified observers to check output with a Mark 1 eyeball...

You should base your vote, either way, on the assumption you will have to do some Met... you alone will know whether the safety case satisfies you

[Mantovani]

residual tasks

In effect doesn't this mean everything else that needs doing - you're on your own.

[BAND4ALL]

Mantovani has got it in One :ok:

[Cuddles]

Anyone reckon that management have released the dividend info in order to prompt a NO vote, as NSL can't / don't want to afford the payrises?

[hangten]

Anyone reckon that management have released the dividend info in order to prompt a NO vote, as NSL can't / don't want to afford the payrises?

Ooooo, conspiracy theorist... Interesting thought though.

I do reckon that if a no vote is the result the only offers on the table will be split by banding, if not NERL/NSL, leaving us with the option of taking that or finding ourselves in dispute.

[LEGAL TENDER]

Wouldn't be surprised if they were double bluffing. No trust nor credibility whatsoever.

[Scot Cabin]

Prospect ATSS ballot paper received today...."no" vote back in the post.

[Comms Boy]

So what does the "discrete" mark mean on the pre-paid envelope from Prospect?
Florescent yellow on the corner of the envelope……….

[The Fat Controller]

The marks are for NSL and NERL I believe, to show which ones to count first.

[opnot]

Its no that discrete if you have seen it ,NSL has blue

[Avoiding_Action]

Is NPC pink then?

[Mantovani]

I can not believe the vote hinges on identifying then opening and counting all the envelopes with a blue dot first.

Surely they are using a more certain method of ensuring all the NSL votes are counted first.

Who ensured all the NSL envelopes had a blue dot?

[Tigersaw]

My NSL has a yellow dot..

[ZOOKER]

Sounds to me like a rock-solid case for 'independent scrutineers' to oversee the ballot. Just like they used to, using the anonymous '2 envelope method'.

[expediteoff]

Ah well ....... better dig my -"Ladybird Book of Clouds"- out of the loft.

[Disillusioned]

And the result of the pay ballot is........

ATCOs’ BRANCH PAY BALLOT RESULT


OVERALL RESULT


YES 76%


NO 24%


TURNOUT 79%


NSL RESULT NERL RESULT

YES 68% YES 79%


NO 32% NO 21%


TURNOUT 83% .TURNOUT 78%

[Vortex Issues]

When are PCS results due?

[ADIS5000]

Lassie, that's a bit harsh? We were told by the union that the only way that we would have to do Met was if both PCS and our local Prospect Reps agreed that we would do it. ie We won't be doing Met until PCS wish to give it up and then only until FAMOS is up and running.

Regards, ADIS

[AlanM]

....and one spoilt paper.

Prob the mad Ulsterman at Brizzle.... ;-) :ok:

[Roffa]

Disappointing, the end of 'One NATS'.

As usual the controllers can't see further than grabbing the next £, management win again.

[Standard Noise]

Weren't we using the AV system then?:confused::E

[Ceannairceach]

Greed and selfishness prevail.

[5milesbaby]

PCS results in by Friday and the result announced on Monday, however early rumours are that they are being counted as they come in and it is looking like a "NO" vote.

[Rocket_Science]

They get a payrise...

No. It's a real terms pay cut.

...to sit and read a book..,

Correct. A large no. of staff do the ATSA community absolutely no favours with their apathetic approach to work. People need to wake up and stop wondering when their next EG or hour long tea break is; otherwise they'll end up with the longest tea break they've ever had.

...and they reject it wanting more.

No. It's the unequal treatment and erosion of T&C's that's unpalatable.

[Passepartoute]

idiots.

They get a payrise to sit and read a book* and they reject it wanting more http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif


Or just maybe Yahoo there are people out there who still care more about the safety of the travelling public than the almighty Dollar.

Id offer you some of my backbone but there appears to be a bloody great knife sticking out of it.

[Mantovani]

Every year T&C will be whittled away and that vote was so easy for the company I wouldn't be at all surprised if they came back for a very early renegotiation of the Pension MOU.

After all - what have they got to lose, throw a few thou down on the table, job done. Bonuses all around. :ok:

[25check]

So are these ATSAs who are reading books or taking breaks failing to perform their allotted duties? Is it their fault that their duties are being whittled down bit by bit until only very core tasks remain which do not take up all of their time?

Most controllers I know get bored very quickly with low traffic levels. How do you think these ATSAs feel with so little to do? They read a book to alleviate mind numbing boredom. How can they be criticised for that?

There are ATSAs now working up to 3.5 hours without a break. When did you last do that.....:ugh:

[250 kts]

Every year T&C will be whittled away

Sorry but you'll have to remind me what exactly was whittled away in this deal?

[Me Me Me Me]

250kts
Sorry but you'll have to remind me what exactly was whittled away in this deal?

May be a reference to the loss of pensionable overtime. Incidentally, it's only a 'loss' for those in the last few years before retirement. For the rest it's actually a financial gain.


As the the ATSA book-readers, mind numbing boredom and the cheek of PCS members to reject a lesser deal than their Prospect colleagues: I'm a PCS member; I'm not an ATSA; I've had to take on a load more work due to huge staff cutbacks in my area; I dont work 3.5 hours without a break, I work 7, 8, or 9 without a break at times and I've yet to get an early-go in 13 years with the company. I earn a very modest salary in comparison to most of the Swanwick boys and girls but I feel no less deserving of a proper cost-of-living rise in my pay.

[BDiONU]

I've had to take on a load more work due to huge staff cutbacks in my area; I dont work 3.5 hours without a break, I work 7, 8, or 9 without a break at times and I've yet to get an early-go in 13 years with the company. I earn a very modest salary in comparison to most of the Swanwick boys and girls but I feel no less deserving of a proper cost-of-living rise in my pay.
Do you work in my department? ;)

BD

[25check]

Without wishing to revisit old arguments there are considerable differences between working H24 shift operational positions and working in offices on a regular weekday 9-5 pattern.

That is why I personally object to non operational staff voting on operational/shift issues, especially as most seem to have your attitude and will vote for the company line every time with no understanding or caring as to how this will affect others. Being operational, I would not expect to vote on issues concerning the great administrative empire down south.

[Rocket_Science]

Sorry but you'll have to remind me what exactly was whittled away in this deal?

Well for ATCO's - nothing.

For everyone else (should their deal be accepted) - pensionable overtime, lower pay for some grades and the demarcation of traditional PCS tasks now being done "cheaper" by ATCOs. The cynic in me can't help thinking that all of managements so-called efficiencies (aka degradation of T&Cs)are drawn from PCS grades and yet the ATCOs get the RPI+ pay deal.

[anotherthing]

Rocket Science

I think you have inadvertently hit the nail on the head; as soon as all 3 sections of union agreed to go down the route of individual negotiation (and all 3 did agree to do so), then equal pay offers were off the cards.

As soon as it came to negotiate anything other than core pay, then of course the company is going to put different values on different aspects of duty.

Asking ATCOs to vote 'NO' to their individual pay offer to support ATSAs or ATCEs is actually tantamount to secondary action.

[ATCbabe]

I am completely disgusted with the result. How, after all the talk and contraverse about this deal, can 21% of the company not even bother to send a prepaid envelope back to vote?

I was strongly against this from day one due to the met tie in. At least I know that whatever happens now I didn't sell myself or any of my ATSA collegues down the proverbial swanney!

Shame on those that couldn't be bothered.

As for those that voted yes.... well I guess its probably not you that will be effected by the results. It will be the smucks like me that are left to deal with the fallout:{:{

[radar707]

There are ATSAs now working up to 3.5 hours without a break. When did you last do that.....:ugh:

Most shifts with all of the extraneous tasks I now have to do!!

[Standard Noise]

How is life on Mars these days?
ATCO ballot results released two days ago.

At my unit, our ATSAs get their breaks when they are due and often before they are due. Oh, and on nights, the ATCOs do 4 hr stints....while doing the ATSA tasks at the same time (because they don't do nights). Some of you lot don't know you're born ffs!

[Radarspod]

Breaking news!!!

NATS ATSS Branch vote result was to reject the pay offer.:D


88% NO
12% YES


RS

[250 kts]

Atco result being a yes doesn't necessarily mean we'll get the met buy out or even the real terms pay cut as all parties would need to vote yes wouldn't they?

Er, no. Did you not go to a briefing?

[SR71BlackBird]

:D:D:D:D:D

[Rocket_Science]

Figures are approximate

To Reject the offer: 80%
To Accept the offer: 20%

Turnout: 75%

By my reckoning that's 60% of the membership voted to reject the offer and only 16% voting to accept.

[DC10RealMan]

I have spent today in Cambridge and this afternoon I heard a distant rumble which mystified me. I now realize that it was the sound of thousands of "gonads" dropping into place.

[Scot Cabin]

ATSS
:D:D:D:D:D


+1

Seems like the ATSS branch still have a moral compass.

[Radarspod]

It would appear so - I was expecting it to be much closer be honest rather than a resounding no.

I assume as these are sectional claims, NATS ATCOs will be enjoying their back dated pay rises while the ATSAs, MSGs and Engineers continue the fight :E

RS

[eglnyt]

I assume as these are sectional claims, NATS ATCOs will be enjoying their back dated pay rises while the ATSAs, MSGs and Engineers continue the fight

That might depend upon a PCS member making the required changes to the payroll

[Radarspod]

That might depend upon a PCS member making the required changes to the payroll

Would that be someone in the costa drinking, pointless meeting, administration block that we apparently work in at CTC? :}

[BDiONU]

Would that be someone in the costa drinking, pointless meeting, administration block that we apparently work in at CTC? :}
Hey there are real controllers there moving traffic (West radar & SLAM) and with their own car parking spaces, more coming with the college of knowledge so it's now a real unit instead of just a money drain. Dunno how high up the league table it'll get though with Swanwick number 1 bringing in half the companies money and costing a third of it to run.

BD

[TCAS FAN]

Yahoo!@

"Isn't that supposed to be classified BD? "

Nobody ever told us that in NSL.

Get a life!

[Frank Disclosure]

The Engineers were never going to vote yes to a deal that gave them a lower percentage increase than the Controllers were offered.

After all the extra work so many of us have taken on and all the real savings we've delivered for the company we surely deserve more than the RPI and we shouldn't be scared to say so.

The company needs engineers and NATS engineers work hard. That needs to be recognised in the pay settlement.

Now we are in dispute with the company RPI has to be the very minimum we settle for.

[EGLL19791986]

"The company needs engineers and NATS engineers work hard. That needs to be recognised in the pay settlement." Well said! I'm not an engineer but couldn't agree more! At least the engineers have had the guts to stand up and say 'No'!

[45 before POL]

I aplaud PCS and ATSS for voting no.....They both worked hard and with the cuts, deserve cost of living at least. Both unions are aware management have taken the P, making profits in a recession ,they have made excuses and used the uk situation as leverage on pay terms. .....when it suits them. This is not the civil service the company makes a very healthy profit and about time their employees shared in that......Atco out!!

[SR71BlackBird]

Well the annual results will be out in a week, cards on the table time. The 8% shareholder dividend suggests a tidy set of profits, a scenario where mgt are in an inarguable situation about money available for pay. This has been all about mgt showing they have control of costs, to prospective new shareholders in the sale of the government stake.

[055166k]

Western Radar is an interesting case. Operational Controllers are paid as ATCO 3 on the "Unbanded" scale[NATSAG95]......and in addition to normal LCE requirements there is an extra task which requires three-monthly competency pass/fail assessments...whereas non-operational controllers in the same building attract Band 5.....and presumably the [soon arriving] non-operational college controllers will also attract Band 5. Western Radar have chosen a new union rep!!!!!!!!!
Rgds Command Tactical Control partner....ComTaC..."The Buck Stops with Us"

[General_Kirby]

Well done to PCS for rejecting the deal, RPI at least hopefully. However, in this day and age, and current climate, can anyone think of any similar jobs with similar pay? I am struggling. And this is not so great should the media get involved in any possible strike action etc...

[25check]

Has the PCS vote been officially revealed?

[PayPal]

May I just point out that the payroll is dealt with at Osborne House, Edinburgh- with not a Costa branch in sight! :)

[45 before POL]

25 check...yes the PCS figures have been published 79% no vote.
Engineers ATSS 88% no vote.
Meeting tomorow morning should be interesting.
As for pay deals in similar percentages...today......Virgin (Balpa) have voted overwhelmingly 94% no to a 4% pay rise this year +profit share scheme, 3% for 2012/13

[Roffa]

In an ideal world the atsas and engineers would now be offered a bigger/better deal than the atcos.

[Gingerbread Man]

I think in an ideal world there wouldn't have been the opportunity to offer different branches different terms.

[Frank Disclosure]

In an ideal world the atsas and engineers would now be offered a bigger/better deal than the atcos.

The ATCOs settled for less than RPI and that was entirely their decision.

NATS engineers work very hard and we have delivered real cost savings to the company. Plus there is a lot of overtime being worked by engineers so clearly there is a shortage of Engineers.

Having rejected the pay offer and gone into dispute with the company I believe we shouldn't do anything more than listen to the company until the Annual Report is published and we have had a good chance to look at the figures.

That I believe is the only sensible way forward.

[Ceannairceach]

Does anyone know exactly when the company report is published?

I'm expecting the company to chuck one last roll of the dice at the ATSAs and engineers. I hope neither camp accepts until the company results are out.

[11K-AVML]

I assume as these are sectional claims, NATS ATCOs will be enjoying their back dated pay rises while the ATSAs, MSGs and Engineers continue the fight http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gifI believe there is one further pay grouping you are neglecting to mention. I really don't understand why people scratch their heads with this one...

[SR71BlackBird]

There is the STAR group (Prospect ATSS), and PCG (who negotiate separately).

[rumouroid]

I'm looking forward to the public support that will come in abundance (NOT) for ATSA's if they choose to go down the route of industrial action.
When the public find out what they earn and what rise they have rejected, 8.5% over 2 years, they will look like greedy stupid idiots.
:ugh::ugh::ugh:

I just hope the press don't get the facts wrong as usual and lump in the ATCO's with the ATSA's.

[landedoutagain]

they will look like greedy stupid idiots.



And you don't, with posts like that?

Suggest you visit the secondary centre (although you probably won't be welcome) and see that you shouldnt tarnish the whole atsa group with the same brush, as the operation elsewhere would not work without them.

[Ceannairceach]

rumouroid - are we to presume that, in order not to offend the public sympathies about which you appear to care so much, you've turned your, even bigger, pay rise down?

I expect the engineers and ATSAs couldn't give a toss what the public think to be honest. In the same way you don't.

[blueskythinking]

rumouroid- as an atco with twenty five years service I find your attitude towards the plight of the ATSA s amazing. Do you really not see that you will be in exactly the same position in ten to fifteen years! The job has already become simplified beyond belief and with the introduction of IFACts even more so. I dont know when you validated but I find the job so much easier now than when I was at west Drayton! I am sure I am not bucking the trend and becoming better as I get older so the only explanation can be that the job is becoming simplified! The days of the 100,000 a year ATCO are surely numbered . I will be gone by the time it happens but semi automation will be a fact and you young bucks who berate the atsa grade will be spending many years as computer monitors with no decision making required. Be careful what you wish for the atsas as it will surely be coming your way.

[DC10RealMan]

I have just read Rumouroids post and I immediately thought of the old Arabic saying "Arrogance diminishes Wisdom"

[rumouroid]

I have heard dozens of LACC ATCO's talk about the PCS pay offer over the last few weeks and only one thought that PCS should receive the same pay offer as Prospect ATCO's. However most, including me, thought that ATSS should receive the same as the ATCO's.
I think the issue is that we at LACC only see our ATSA's role and don't maybe appreciate how busy ATSA's at other units might be. I have heard dozens of ATCO's and even some ATSA's say that they believe that ATSA's at LACC are already overpaid.

[Purbeck10]

Rumouroid, perhaps even a walk down the corridor to the other Ops Room would enlighten you, those that have ATSA wise at least regularly comment on how much harder the ATSA's work in that room than the one they are in !

[Ceannairceach]

rumouroid - LACC clearly isn't "The Premier Centre" at all then is it?

[fisbangwollop]

Rumeroid ...When the public find out what they earn and what rise they have rejected, 8.5% over 2 years, they will look like greedy stupid idiots.

Thats the attitude that I used to see towards the ATSA community from some of the old school ATCO's when I started this job nearly 40 years ago...gladly the majority of ATCO's now enjoy working as a team despite NATS best efforts to divide and conquer.

Dont forget you have got YOUR nice rise with little strings at the expense of the ATSA's...by that I mean cost savings in ATSA job losses.

I find it very hard to believe how you can do your job whilst your head is up your arse where it obviouslly is!!! Good luck for your future!:=

[SR71BlackBird]

Annual results are out.

http://www.nats.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/NATS_ARA11.pdf

[Vortex Issues]

NATS Holdings Limited (“NHL”) and its subsidiaries (“the NATS group” or “NATS”) reported a turnover of £777.3m (2009/10: £754.9m), and a pre-tax profit of £106.1m (2009/10: £78.3m). The Company paid dividends of £40m (2009/10: nil).An increase in pre-tax profit of £27.8m. Tough times for the company then. Well done to PCS and ATSS branches for voting no. Lets hope they come back and give you a better deal that you deserve!

[Ceannairceach]

Profits of £106.1m, up from £78m last year - yet the company are scrimping and saving on staff costs and using the economic climate as a thinly veiled excuse.

The lies and spin emitting from the company at the moment are nothing short of an insult.

[DC10RealMan]

President George W Bush said "You can fool some of the people all of the time and thats the people you want to concentrate on" perhaps that is the mantra of the management negotiators.

[Scot Cabin]

President George W Bush said "You can fool some of the people all of the time and thats the people you want to concentrate on" perhaps that is the mantra of the management negotiators.

They certainly fooled some of the ATCOs.....well, the majority of them actually.

[ZOOKER]

Mr. Mills has done very nicely for himself there. Is that for bringing in EFD on time?

[Ceannairceach]

It's for taking on "extra responsibilities" apparently, Zooker.

[SR71BlackBird]

If the dividend payout was 6% instead of 8% (which is still a very good %). that would free up £10m for pay rises.

[Scot Cabin]

Does that choice of username make you feel cool?

SR71Blackbird, I wouldn't reply to that if I was you, he might "take a screenshot" and "report you" to Lockheed's security division, or the CIA or something like that.

[Gonzo]

SR71, The thing about pay rises is that it's not just £10m this year, it's every year in perpetuity.

[SR71BlackBird]

That's why they are so important.

[hangten]

And that's why £10m won't pay for them... :ugh:

[Ceannairceach]

You say that like there's no money for them anyway?

[Fargo Boyle]

So we should never have a pay rise in case the company makes a smaller profit next year?

[Me Me Me Me]

So we should never have a pay rise in case the company makes a smaller profit next year?

This is exactly the issue.

The company continues to drive efficiencies to save costs - not to survive, but in order to increase profits and pay larger dividends.
Employees should not be fooled into thinking they should accept less in order to help keep the company afloat, protect difficult airport contracts etc... There is clearly significant enough profit margin being made to allow a deal to be driven on those contracts without it coming out of the employees' pockets.

don't believe the hype, believe the facts shown in black & white in the accounts.

[DC10RealMan]

I had the great good fortune to be speaking to some of the lazy and greedy ATSAs who man the London FIS yesterday. Their frequencies were extraordinarily busy and they appeared to be working for hours on end like one armed paper hangers and yet all done with great professionalism and courtesy.

[Scot Cabin]

Any news on what's happening with ATSS's negotiations. It's all gone very quiet....?

[Roffa]

The Chief Executive's blog has said there is no more money available...

[Ceannairceach]

It must be true then.

[DC10RealMan]

"Well, he would say that wouldn't he"

Mandy Rice-Davies
Profumo Scandal 1963

[ZOOKER]

Ah, but who will be the modern-day 'Christine Keeler'? :E
And which ATC unit will provide the chair? :}

[Frank Disclosure]

The Chief Executive's blog has said there is no more money available

No idea what the ATSAs are planning but rumour is unless we get parity with the flip-flop brigade the engineers will be looking at an overtime boycott and a work to rule.

Maybe a few weeks of flow will persuade Richard to look down the back of the sofa.

[Roffa]

"flip-flop brigade"

Charming.

I voted no.

[eastern wiseguy]

As did I . I believed it divisive....I was always of the opinion we should be ONE NATS.

Nice to see we are all tarred with same brush.:hmm:

[Ceannairceach]

No point in having at go at we ATCOs. Ultimately, it's not our fault. Don't play in to the company's divide and rule tactics.

I'm saddened by my colleagues who voted yes but ultimately, would PCS/ATSS have recommended a no vote if the situation were reversed?

I believe the ATSAs are planning an overtime ban (which will cripple PC for one) and then a tactical withdrawal of labour, as a last resort.

[Baltasound]

Well, Comrade Bob Crow managed a 5.2% increase for those of us who signal trains. With RPI+0.5% as the 2nd year deal. Perhaps it is time to join the RMT? ;)

Mind you, many of us are raking it whilst we can before we are all replaced by a large computer in Basingstoke...:E

[ZOOKER]

What, Basingstoke in Westphalia?

[DC10RealMan]

If the ATSAs choose not to come to work on their days off duty and delays occur due to staff shortages then that is their right.

There is a Chinese curse which says "May you live in interesting times" and I think that might apply to many ATCOs and students. There will be massive pressure from the management on all atcos to work understaffed and threats applied to students and ATCOs to do ATSA tasks.

I would like to think that Prospect will brief its members on their rights and responsibilities given such a scenario.

[Avoiding_Action]

I was under the impression that holding trainee ATCO's at Swanwick already do ATSA tasks?

[phantomlurker]

Indeed they do - and recieve an ATSA based wage

[Standard Noise]

the engineers will be looking at an overtime boycott and a work to rule.
And we'll notice how?

There will be massive pressure from the management on all atcos to work understaffed and threats applied to students and ATCOs to do ATSA tasks.
That would require some serious kissing of hairy Ulster arse.

[Minesapint]

You may notice when the systems stop working and there is nobody to fix them :suspect: