FABs, ACCs, future ATCO prerequisites/treatment

[mcstiofan]

Hi there,

I've had a look at the Eurocontrol's corner regarding this, and have searched this forum, but to no avail for the most part.

Assuming such info has been set in stone, can someone verify how exactly the whole FAB idea is meant to work, in terms of WHO controls what, and what new, if any, procedures take effect in terms of training future controllers.

There are one or two threads here that note that each ACC will still remain, but will only get whatever sectors within the FAB are assigned. That seems somewhat reasonable, but is it truly gonna happen this way? Also another thread notes that Vienna is gonna be one of the new 'centers', for SE Europe. In conjunction with this, and any actual info on who will control what, how are people gonna become controllers? Since Eurocontrol is 'taking over', it would be reasonable to assume that the actual countries would sign some agreements so that people are equally treated across. If the 'current' system remains, 'getting in', in some countries is not all that simple, especially at enroute level, due to politics/bureaucracy/etc.

Thanks.

[ZOOKER]

Cue 'wind' sound effects record and footage of tumbleweed blowing by.

Perhaps someone from CANSO might know the answer! :E

[Spitoon]

Maybe some misunderstanding or misinformation here.

Not much is set in stone. One or two fairly basic facts...FABs are a political initiative being pursued by the European Commission...and they will happen (by the end of next year. What it means and what might change is still being discussed.

The Commission sees FABs as a way to harmonise the ATM system and to reduce costs.

In theory all of the airspace in a FAB should be operated in the same way. Equally in theory it already is because of ICAO SARPs and so on - how much more same is wanted isn't clear.

In the short-term not much is likely to change, sector boundaries might change a bit and procedures might be aligned in some way but it seems, mainly, to be a paperwork exercise. In the medium-term things may get more interesting depending on a) how much political will there is to make big changes and b) whether any ANSPs, particularly the big players, see a way of making money from a FAB.

[mcstiofan]

Right, I see - BS on all fronts as with many other things in aviation :)

Thanks for the info.

[Blockla]

Recently noticed so words from Irelands fearless leader that FABs were dead as was SES... 30B to save how much? When?

Things being attributed to 'because of FABS' are just BS... The Night Time Fuel Saving Routes (NTFSRs) - (Transition from the Atlantic tracks to Central Europe) Basically a direct route of 800NM or so... Absolutely no more to do with FABs than a few 'experts' sitting in a meeting room; which didn't need FABs to bring in... etc. Arguments being made by airlines that they save nothing as they can't plan effectively for level changes thus have to waste (carry) fuel for non-optimum levels etc. even if the pilots actually achieve the optimum levels in reality the fuel is carried anyway...

Common transition altitudes are on the table as the next FAB win; please, again nothing more than a meeting of organisations and regulators... If it ever gets sorted etc...

The only true worth of FABs will be when a few regulators, individual state AIPs, and CEOs are gone as a result of only needing one for a FAB... not likely IMHO.

[GWYN]

Blockla has hit the nail on the head. Am I the only one (OK include Blockla!) who thinks the Emperor has no clothes on?

FABS are something in the mind of politicians and people in, and associated with Eurocontrol. I believe The SES to be of in the same category and both fall squarely in the 'Emperor's new clothes' category. Politicians as usual have been sold an idea in a subject of which they have no knowledge, interest or understanding and have jumped on the bandwagon.

Does anyone actually know what these concepts actually are or how they are supposed to function? Noone I know can explain to me what The Single European Sky means. Many people are full of 'what a great idea it is' but once one probes a little WHAT it actually is, there is nothing of substance forthcoming. The English-Irish FAB has been in place for, what two maybe three years? What has changed? As far as I know, absolutely nothing whatsoever. Cost savings to the airlines? Nil! There is no reason to think the SES will be any different. Where are the cost savings? The only ones possible are closure of some centres and even that would be limited as probably almost the same total number of controllers would be employed. Is anyone seriously suggesting that for example all French airspace could be controlled from Swanwick? Or German airspace controlled from Reims? I think that sort of thing is unlikely to put it mildly.

All these ideas are great for the 'Committee Men' and Brussels bureaucrats for whom we are paying but precious little practical value.

[ATC Watcher]

Am I the only one (OK include Blockla!) who thinks the Emperor has no clothes on?



Oh no my friend, we are quite a lot to think that. It is just not politically correct . Everyone in the deep old ops business knows all this is another circus to keep EU politicians off the hook and tell voters : we have a plan, we're doing something "
I have been involved since 1980 in FEATS, FANS, ATLAS ATM2000, then 2000+ ( I always liked the + ):E and other free route airspace plans , they all never came to much (*) , just being replaced by new plans. Just like in the US . AERA 3 was replaced by Free Flight , which died and is now replaced by NextGen.

The beauties of FABs is to keep people talking .

(*) Ok, some tools have been devised and improvements made each time . But a complete new concept ? , never.

[mcstiofan]

Interesting responses. If you gents who are 'in the business' are used to it, then I guess to us mere mortal observers it should matter even less(at all).

Thanks for the replies everyone.

[obwan]

Gwyn you are absolutely correct that French airspace will never be controlled from Swanwick but I would not bet against Swanwick airspace being controlled from France. :{

[GWYN]

Fair point!

[BrATCO]

I would not bet against Swanwick airspace being controlled from France. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/boohoo.gif
This wouldn't be wise from the French.

Staffing:
We already feel a beginning of under staffing. Not sure we could deal with any more sector before 5 or 6 years, as every other controller leaving on retirement is not replaced and we don't see many newbies coming...
FAB:
Since France signed the FABEC agreements, UK is not in the same FAB. Agreements should be changed first (before they fade away).
Communications:
Safe data links are dealt with by numerous private telecommunication companies. These companies have no aviation culture at all.
Some failures I've witnessed in latest years, on so-called "safe" lines, spring to my mind.
We've got recurrent problems with our radio antennas in Spain (which should be solved soon), there has been a major disruption with Shanwick, some with UK...
As long as these incidents imply only a loss of time in co-ordinations, so be it...
It would be quite another problem if that means a total loss of radar informations, or frequency/CPDLC.

To save more money and avoid new investments, I've heard radar data will soon transit via the internet, instead of our own (really) safe intranet ! :ugh:

I hope I'll be far-far away before we control Swanwick from France !

PS : Anyway, who would train us on these sectors ? ;)

[Kiwitraveller]

Aero Politics

By asking this FAB question you have perhaps inadvertently wandered into the realm of Aero Politics!

To understand the rationale for FABs, its best to start at the beginning, with apologies for stating the obvious to those that know all this.

- Air Traffic Control exists in a political world. This starts at ICAO which sets for states the Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS) by which aviation operates on a global basis. ICAO comprises about 190 member states – governments, who usually have as their ICAO representation a member from the Department of Transport. This is the DfT in the UK. Each government is by ICAO convention obliged to provide a legal framework for the provision of Air Traffic Control in its airspace, which in turn is normally established by the aviation regulator in the specific country. This is the CAA in the UK. In the European environment there are 39 such national regulators. These set rules as to which organization can provide service where and on what basis for each country.

- Notice that NATS does not have a place at ICAO. This is also the case for DFS, ENAV and others. This is normal where the service provider is separate from the regulator – which according to ICAO it should be. The ATC providers are well down the political ladder. Mere service providers!

- In most countries responsibility for provision of en route service is delegated by government on a monopoly basis to a national ATC provider – NATS in the UK, and in most cases these providers are required to recover all their operating costs from their customers, no matter how much they spend. This has often led to a cost plus culture and from the user perspective is seen as inefficient, especially in Europe. But this is also true elsewhere. Here in Europe service costs are roughly twice the equivalent level in North America.

- Now step forward the European Union, political masters who set political objectives for ATC in Europe way back in about 2004. The EU, which is also an organization of Governments, said that ATC in Europe should by 2020 be able to: Provide three times the ATM capacity, at half the unit cost, while improving environmental performance by 10% and improving safety performance by a factor of ten.

- The EU recognized that this was a tough call and set about providing the frameworks and tools to allow this to happen. This included setting up SESAR for the ATM technical research and concept development (2.1bn Euro over 8 years). EASA was also established to be the one European regulator – not to replace the 39, but at least the 27 or so in the EU.

- Eurocontrol, also an organization of states – not ATC providers – and which has also had a regulatory role, is also being reformed into a network manager, a kind of Flow Management unit on steroids, which also (for now) manages the charging recovery. Eurocontrol will lose control of Maastricht Center, which is expected to be subsumed into the FABEC, which in turn comprises Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, France and Switzerland. This means that Eurocontrol as of next year is unlikely to be an ATC provider in the operating sense.

- The EU has also set up a performance scheme for ATC services, which comes into effect at the end of this year and which requires that ATC providers progressively reduce their unit costs, while delivering capacity and safety and so on per the political objectives. This performance scheme disconnects costs and charges. This is very important.

- What does this mean? In a cost recovery system, if it costs 100 units to provide an ATC service and there are 100 flights, each flight pays one unit. If traffic goes down as per 2008/9 to say 90 flights, but cost of service provision stays at 100, then each flight pays 1.11 units. An 11% increase. Result angry customers! This is what happened during the recession. The performance scheme very simplistically means that ATC providers will have to be able to reduce cost even faster if traffic declines. This is EU Law.

- As you might expect ATC providers were not happy, so the EU defined another “tool” to help to deliver cost efficiency… the Functional Airspace Block - FAB. There are 9 FABs in Europe including FABEC, the biggest. Unfortunately these are politically designed and do not generally reflect operational considerations. They are likely to fail for this and other reasons – hence the emperor having no clothes view so often heard.

- Now what does all this mean for the operating ATCO? Probably not much in the near term. Those at Maastricht will find themselves with a new employer before long. The most likely impact elsewhere is a greater political interest and a greater public visibility in their cost (pay and benefits). Many ATC providers will be unable to deliver the charging reductions that are required and are expected to get “help” from politicians, which will inevitably include customer transparency. Expect a more liberal labour market with much better possibility to move around Europe, and a more balanced set of salaries and benefits, rather than the vast variations that exist across Europe today. Also expect much more outsourcing of things like training.

Hope that helps!!

Katie

[ATC Watcher]

Woow ! good post and good resume Katie. I will just disagree with very minor points. For instance , most FABs and FABEC in particular will not be a juridical entity that can become a service provider replacing the States. Will a group of States create a ANSP to control airspace, a bit like " The Tower Company" does for small airports ? In that case who will lead ? In FABEC Germany and France have totally oposite management visons are are unlikely to change in the next year, Germany because it is a ideological matter,(privatisation ) and France because it is the Unions that decide.(remaining inside the public service) The "smaller" states may also loose control of their destiny , and some egos ( read Dutch for instance ) will not allow that to happen. Same for deciding the future institutional arrangements for Maastricht .

I would not be surprised if Maastricht remains under Eurocontrol for some more years.... :E

[Not Long Now]

ATCWatcher,
and there in a nutshell, is Europe. A great ideal, but vested financial, ideological and nationalistic interests seem to keep the whole from ever actually merging. Good or bad, up to you.

[Kiwitraveller]

Precisely, this is all a moving feast and subject to the vagaries and egos of the political landscape.

We will see some kind of political fudge with bigger stakes in play for sure.

Maastricht is but a pawn in the game, but it will leave Eurocontrol - the question is who will own and control the new entity.

Now thats where the fun starts!

rien ne vas plus!

Katie

[ATC Watcher]

Katie :
Maastricht is but a pawn in the game, but it will leave Eurocontrol - the question is who will own and control the new entity.



Oh I do not disagree with that, what I was after is the "when ". You said next year. This means that Eurocontrol as of next year is unlikely to be an ATC provider in the operating sense.


I believe , for the reasons that I said, that it will take far longer than that. But who am I ?

[aldegar]

Katie, thanks, it was very interesting. Keep writing :ok:

[Kiwitraveller]

ATC Watcher

I can only guess at timing for Maaastricht changes. My view though is that you will certainly see a new organisation - a holding company - set up to own and manage Maastricht next year. I think the wheels are already in motion.

This will include (I believe) changing the employer for the staff at Maastricht to the holding company. Key is getting them out of Eurocontrol, which will continue to shrink for the forseeable future. Thats the easy part and should be a good thing for the Maastricht staff. Then the question is how to transfer ownership and governance of the new holding company to the new owners... DFS, LVNL or some other kind of FABEC Joint venture or operating entity. This is far from decided.

As to the point of all these posts, the FABs. FABEC has an ops meeting in Brussells next week to try and work out how to optimize the airspace and operating structures. If previous FABEC meetings are a guide, don't expect much outcome.

But the EU will be looking for progress that it can shout from the rooftops at the end of this year, so the pressure is on.

By the way BlueMed is quite an intersting FAB too, brings in some Mid East ATC providers. Take a look: Blue Med - Home Page (http://www.bluemed.aero/)

Katie

[055166k]

South western corner of UK airspace [South west of Lands End] already delegated to the French for several years....but UK still gets Nav Charges. Similarly a portion of UK airspace South west of Strumble delegated to Shannon. Sometimes elastic/variable boundaries are an expedient method of applying the best control techniques for the overall benefit of traffic handling.

[kontrolor]

from Aero-news.com

ATCO Regulation Takes Effect In EU
Sets Standards, Offers Mobility For Controllers In Europe

EASA, the European Aviation Safety Agency, is noting the entry into force Wednesday of new rules for the licensing and medical certification of Air Traffic Controllers, or ATCO for short. The comprehensive agreement, which includes criteria for determining everything from the competence of regulating authorities and training providers to medical and training standards for controllers, was adopted by member states August 10, but did not take effect until 20 days after publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Building on a European Directive from 2006, the regulation replaces potentially differing national rules and offers greater professional mobility for air traffic controllers. Controllers holding a license issued in accordance with the regulation will be able to work in all member states.

EASA says the legislative process has ensured continuity with previous rules, as demanded by stakeholders. Changes are limited to the most necessary, and adaptation periods are granted to concerned parties. The grandfathering of privileges of already acquired licenses is ensured via transitional arrangements.

"With the entry into force of the ATCO regulation today, EASA has contributed the first implementing rule of the extension of the agency’s competence to air traffic management," said EASA Executive Director, Patrick Goudou. "The harmonization of air traffic controller licensing will make an important contribution to the achievement of a high and uniform level of safety across Europe."

EASA calls itself the centerpiece of the European Union's strategy for aviation safety. Its expressed mission is to promote and achieve the highest common standards of safety and environmental protection in civil aviation. Based in Cologne, the agency currently employs more than 500 experts and administrators from all over Europe.

and the original document (http://easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc/opinions/Translations/2010/03/Draft%20Regulation%20to%20Opinion%2003-2010%20%28ATCO%29.pdf)

[ZOOKER]

All very interesting stuff this.
When I joined CAA/NATS, my ATC Licence contained a medical certificate.
It stated that the licence-holder, (me), met the standards for a Class 1 medical. A proud moment, honestly.
My most recent sustificate informs me that I meet the standards for a Class 3 medical.
Next year the Olympic Games are being held in a small town a mere 200 miles from Mt. Belzoni. (The logo was allegedly designed by Wolff-Olins).
Is it therefore appropriate that our athletes set the equivalent standard and simply 'go for bronze'?

[Kiwitraveller]

The EU ATC Licensing is another important development for European ATC, FABS and all that.

The new licensing rules will remain an ineffective step until each state enacts the legislation/policy that requires that the new European Commission regulation is adopted by the local ATC providers.

Once enacted controllers will be able to follow the money and go and work in the higher paid locations if they want to - until all the vacancies are filled anyway.

Losing trained staff is what will drive the lower paying employers to up their pay rates, to retain people. This has happend in South Africa, where too many ATCO's have upped sticks to take jobs in the Gulf from what I hear. Basic rules of supply and demand can always be relied on to drive human behaviour..

From AeroPolitics to Economics!

Whoever said ATC was about managing aircraft!?

Katie

[BrATCO]

Kiwitraveller,
from now on, the overall controllers' pay will decrease.
Slightly, but surely.

Half the unit cost in 2020 will mean less controllers paid less. It will also mean less investment to improve and keep the systems working.

There's no miracle.
Less money means less money, whatever the way you turn it around.

Companies prefer spending billions in on-board systems...
This is their choice, they'll get the result they've paid for.
And probably call us back to the rescue afterwards. This is just the continuation of the hysteresis which began with Reagan.

I've already told my daughter not to become a controller. Too many risks for not enough support from the management (to say the least).
I'm not talking about pay.
I would happily give 10 or 15% of my pay, just to see the politicians listen to real control specialists (qualified on job controllers) and refrain from making further mistakes, before it's too late.
But I'm afraid it wouldn't help much anyway... :{

[Blockla]

The new licensing rules will remain an ineffective step until each state enacts the legislation/policy that requires that the new European Commission regulation is adopted by the local ATC providers. Which nations have enabled the legislation? I believe Ireland has???

Once enacted controllers will be able to follow the money and go and work in the higher paid locations if they want to - until all the vacancies are filled anyway. Yes true but who will be following the money, Eastern Europeans moving West, following the money, undercutting those ensconced?

Losing trained staff is what will drive the lower paying employers to up their pay rates, to retain people. This has happend in South Africa, where too many ATCO's have upped sticks to take jobs in the Gulf from what I hear. Basic rules of supply and demand can always be relied on to drive human behaviour.. I'm not sure it always works that way, look at our pilot brethren, the race to the bottom maybe about to commence?

CANSO was established with one key goal in mind, collaboration to reduce terms and conditions of ATCs to 'improve productivity'. The "no poaching deal" struck between members in the early 2000's was a classic example of restricting trade.

[mcstiofan]

Yes true but who will be following the money, Eastern Europeans moving West, following the money, undercutting those ensconced?
You'd be just as free to move if you find something better, methinks. I'm not an Eastern European, but I know what you are saying about the economical differences in east/west. However if the conditions are better somewhere, isn't that the whole point of the overall program/deal?;) If things are 'standardized', yet if nothing still changes, then you just get the what everyone else has said(Thanks again for the info all!) about single EU sky never working out.

@BrATCO - Is that solid news or just rumor/opinion/yet-to-be-disclosed-fact? If latter then ->>:mad:

[ATC Watcher]

Mobility is nice to have but it is another red herring for ATCOs.
Moving from small Tower to small Tower is OK. But Good money is made in the large Centres , not in small towers.
And in ACCs, 3/4 of the licence is local OJT.
To convert an ACC controller to another ACC is a very lengthy process ( up to a year OJT) and you better do it before you're 35 to have good chances of requalifying . To convert a controller from a small TWR to a large ACC makes hardly no difference from Ab initio recruitment.
It will work for a few, sure , but you will find 95% will stay with their current employer. Even if they want to move en masse ( e.g Spain) all those above 40 will probably never be taken by anyone else.

Controllers are not like Pilots in that respect .

[BrATCO]

Mcstiofan,
opinions based on analyses of facts and project/laws.
Even though a bit long, I'll try to explain :

- "from now on, the overall controllers' pay will decrease.
Slightly, but surely." : opinion, even though facts show that many ANSPs don't raise the pays anymore, which compared to inflation, means a loss.
Fact : pay improvement for me was around 0.5% in the last 3 or 4 years.

- "Half the unit cost in 2020 will mean less controllers paid less." : that's a matter of facts. Eurocontrol wants unit cost to be halved, as Kiwitraveller said in her post #12. Same goal for CANSO.
- Now step forward the European Union, political masters who set political objectives for ATC in Europe way back in about 2004. The EU, which is also an organization of Governments, said that ATC in Europe should by 2020 be able to: Provide three times the ATM capacity, at half the unit cost, while improving environmental performance by 10% and improving safety performance by a factor of ten.

"It will also mean less investment to improve and keep the systems working." : once again, matter of facts. No arms, no chocolate... (reference to a horrible French joke I could translate on demand)

- "There's no miracle." : fact.

- "Less money means less money, whatever the way you turn it around." : opinion which, I come to think, might also be a matter of facts.

- "Companies prefer spending billions in on-board systems...": read somewhere in this CANSO publication :
http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/gallery/content/public/Docs/PRR_2010.pdf
It is time that we put the huge amounts of money spent to work, to deliver change and efficiency where it is needed, not just on the ground, but in the cockpit. Perhaps it is time to refocus.
When CANSO says "we will spend", that means ANSPs will spend money they took from the companies who let do. Not to mention aircraft builders who participate this projects and will also spend money that companies will reimbourse when they'll buy the planes...

- "This is their choice, they'll get the result they've paid for. " : matter of facts... Even though they could pay more than they will get (opinion).

- "And probably call us back to the rescue afterwards. This is just the continuation of the hysteresis which began with Reagan." : just a guess, based on what happened in the last 40 years.
In France since 1960-70, in the USA since the 80', in Spain since the 90' : terms and conditions going up and down, and back when politicians understand controllers were well treated for good reasons, before they forget again...

- "I've already told my daughter not to become a controller." : Fact. She's 17, searching her way.

- "Too many risks for not enough support from the management (to say the least)." : opinion (obviously), based on facts.
In it's PRR 2010, Eurocontrol says :
The five largest States plan to decrease en-route unit costs between 2009 and 2014. The initiatives taken in France and in Spain to address performance issues show that cost-effectiveness improvements could be achievable when there is a strong political and managerial commitment.
Link here : http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/gallery/content/public/Docs/PRR_2010.pdf

- "I'm not talking about pay.
I would happily give 10 or 15% of my pay, just to see the politicians listen to real control specialists (qualified on job controllers)" : Fact

- "and refrain from making further mistakes, before it's too late.
But I'm afraid it wouldn't help much anyway... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/boohoo.gif " : opinion based on contemplation and amazement in front of the things going on.

NO way I could be :mad: !

:)

[Spitoon]

The new licensing rules will remain an ineffective step until each state enacts the legislation/policy that requires that the new European Commission regulation is adopted by the local ATC providers.
I'm not sure I understand this. The new 'rules' are actually an EC Regulation (no 805/2011). For EU Member States at least, the regulation does not need to be enacted at State level - it's just law. And, broadly speaking, it overrides any national legislation that may be in place.

If you are saying that everyone in the EU has to start following the rules before it has any effect, well, I guess that is true. But it shouldn't be a problem because the regulation effectively says the same as the ATCO Directive did (and which EU Member States had to transpose into their national law). The provisions in the Directive related to licensing and approval of training providers had to be put into national law by May 2008 - the bit about language endorsements had to be in place a couple of years later. With just a couple of exceptions, all EU Member States had transposed the Directive by May 2008 or very soon after.

So, in fact, very little has changed because of these new EASA rules....although you could be forgiven for thinking that EASA had re-invented sliced bread if you read their Press Release.

Has it made it easier for ATCOs to move around? The answer is, probably, a little, maybe. Certainly there are a few ATCOs working in countries that they didn't get their licence from, but whether this was made possible by the Directive is probably debatable. Whilst the European Commission may have managed to achieve 'increased mobility of the ATCO workforce' through the Directive - and now the new regulation - it has effectively blocked entry to the European region for controllers whose licenses were issued outside the EU. Anyone in this position, no matter how many years of experience or whatever that they may have, now seems to have to go back and start from ab-initio training in order to work in the EU.

As to controllers' pay, there's always been downward pressure on pay, as there is for most other occupations, but ultimately market forces will surely win out. The demand for controllers forecast by ANSPs - which is based on the eternally optimistic expectations of the benefits of automation and, now, SESAR, which bears an increasing similarity to a great white elephant as each day passes - and for which they (the ANSPs) are training is substantially lower than that predicted by controllers and their unions and associations. The reality is likely to be somewhere in the middle; if I had to guess, it will be somewhere far closer to the controllers' estimates. If that is the case in just a few years a controller with a bit of experience and the necessary skills, including, importantly, useful language proficiencies will be able to name his/her price.

Indeed, this seems almost to bring us full circle. One of the Commission's principal reasons for creating FABs is to increase efficiency and to contribute to reducing costs. Strangely, in my view anyway, the Commission has not done all this to reduce controllers salaries. It's the ANSPs that want to do that. Plus ça change plus c'est la même chose......the being a European thread and all that.

[Kiwitraveller]

Spitoon

Good post and spot on perspective.

When it comes to politics and politicians - in which I tend to include the Commission - they are not interested in ATC, unless there is an incident, nor do they care about controllers pay. Remember that the gravy train makes regular stops at Brussels! Pots and Kettles come to mind!

What the Commission do seem to care about is making sure that Europe compares reasonably favourably with the US. Which goes back to the political objectives of Single Sky and the desire to halve unit costs for each flight. These are real concerns and real objectives. And yes of course the system needs to continue to be safe or safer.

At the end of the day, costs will come down and controller pay will find a market level, with some going countries up and some reducing.

As to the FABs, as I said before they are most likely to fail because they don't adequately reflect the operating environment. But the EU will want to see some success, what is not yet clear is how that will be achieved.

Katie

[mcstiofan]

Hmmm interesting two sides to the matter of.....matters :)

I guess overall it is giving me pretty much the picture I was getting anyhow, but wanted to be sure that it wasn't just misconceptions due to not actually being in the industry.

@BrATCO: I came across ATC by pure accident at the same age as your daughter is now. Some years into "should I"/"shouldn't I", while dodging other life commitments, I'm fast approaching some of those age deadlines for ATC, both official and logical, so I know what you are saying about being worried. I'm with ya there!