Air Services escalating salaries and bonuses........

[Torres]

The Australian 15 June 2015:

Angus Houston pushed to clarify $4m salary blowout

Ean Higgins Reporter
Sydney

The salary pool of fewer than a dozen top executives at Airservices Australia rose by more than 40 per cent last financial year to nearly $4 million, applying pressure on the organisation’s chairman, Angus Houston, to explain the blowout.

The Australian can also reveal that the remuneration package of Airservices chief executive Margaret Staib, who came under pressure in Senate estimates hearings last year over her lack of detail concerning a $20,000 alleged creditcard fraud by one of her staff, is $600,000.

Sir Angus and Ms Staib have been the targets of a renewed campaign by businessman and aviator Dick Smith over the failure of Airservices to extend its air traffic control and radio officer service when it has the capacity to do so. Mr Smith claims that Airservices, which is government owned but financed by charges on the aviation industry, lacks the financial rigour of the private sector because, with careers purely in the air force as senior officers, neither Sir Angus nor Ms Staib have real-world business experience.
Bonuses for Airservices senior executives soared by nearly 60 per cent last financial year.

Mr Smith claims the bonus system encourages Airservices executives to maximise industry charges and minimise expenditure on safety measures, to improve the bottom line and boost their take-home pay, claims denied by the organisation, which insists safety is primary.

“How can you have bonuses in a monopoly?” Mr Smith said.

The Australian is not suggesting that Sir Angus or Ms Staib have acted inappropriately.

Airservices financial records show that in 2012-13 the organisation paid $2.2m in salaries to its senior executives and $495,000 in bonuses. In 2013-14, the executive remuneration pool skyrocketed to $3.1m in salaries, with $778,000 in performance bonuses.

The Australian put questions on the figures to Airservices which were handled by spokesman Graham Robinson, but the responses, according to corporate accountant John Leece from chartered accountants Boroughs Australia, did not add up.

In a statement to The Australian, Airservices said while there were 10 executives in the 2012-13 figures, including two who worked less than six months in that year, the 2013-14 figures covered 11 executives, only one of whom worked less than six months.

“Executive remuneration increase from 2012-13 to 2013-14 was an average of 2.25 per cent,” Airservices said. “Airservices implemented an executive pay freeze for the current year.”

But even taking into account the particular factors Airservices listed, the average total remuneration package rose by over 20 per cent, and Mr Leece said it was impossible to reconcile that with the 2.25 per cent claimed.

“It was a nonsense,” Mr Leece said. “I took out 1.5 people — I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. “On a per-head basis it is a major increase, and to say it’s not is just not right at all. You can look at the bonus increase alone, which is considerable, for only a few people.”

Mr Leece noted that Airservices refused to answer several questions from The Australian which could have sorted out the inconsistencies, such as how much the additional employee got paid, and the highest individual salary percentage increase.

Sir Angus was unavailable for comment.

"The salary pool of fewer than a dozen top executives at Airservices Australia rose by more than 40 per cent last financial year to nearly $4 million."

An average salary of $333,333 per annum (or $1,282 per day) - plus bonuses!

Who sets these salaries, the Board? Are they comparable to other Government authorities and the private sector? :confused: :confused:

[peterc005]

Lookup an old TV series called "Yes Minister" and watch a couple of episodes, then you'll understand how they get these level of salaries.

[zanzibar]

"An average salary of $333,333 per annum (or $1,282 per day)"


Your point is valid, but not so your arithmetic!




Peterc005, spot on.

[Torres]

$4,000,000 / 12 employees = average $333,333.33 per employee

$333,333 / 52 weeks = $6,410 per week

$6,410 per week / 5 days = $1,282 per day plus bonuses.

Be nice to have a snout in that trough?

[IFEZ]

Absolutely disgraceful :yuk: . What are these people doing, to justify these obscene amounts of money..?? They're public servants for goodness sake. As for receiving bonuses, well that is ludicrous. As has been stated previously, they have no competition..!! Who is setting their performance targets & KPI's (or whatever the latest performance measurement nonsense is being used these days)..? Fair dinkum, whoever has allowed this situation to develop over the last few years, should hang their head(s) in shame.
From what I saw of Ms Staib's performance at Senate Estimates a few months ago, which was possibly one of the most inept & embarrassing by a senior public servant in recent memory, a salary with one less zero on the end would better reflect her ability!! :ugh::ugh:

[alphacentauri]

First, I don't buy it.

But, second. It was posted on these forums not long ago, senior airline pilots wages. Some stated on here that figures upward of 300k was not unheard of. Some senior ATC positions are in the 200's.

I'm sorry I don't share the outrage. It seems about right.

BTW, these are not public service positions.

[framer]

I agree that the top execs running the show need to be earning more than their top AT controllers. So what do the top Ausi controllers get? The supervisors etc?

[IFEZ]

alpha - which figure 'seems about right'..? $600K/year or $333K/year..? As the head of Airservices, a figure in the $300's sounds about right, but not $600K + plus bonuses..! (If in fact this figure is accurate). That would mean she is earning more than the Prime Minister of the country. Its debatable whether he's worth that much either, but $600K?? You may be right about senior pilots and ATC earning $200-$300K but I can guarantee they are actually EARNING it. The daily pressure & responsibility they carry can't be compared to the lifestyle of this lot. Public servants, strictly speaking maybe not, but bureaucrats all the same. Busy lining their own pockets at the expense of the industry and the general public :yuk: .

[zanzibar]

Silly me, last time I looked, "per annum" had 365 days, not the 260 you've based your sums on.

[Tankengine]

Ahh Zanzibar, you are not thinking like a Monday to Friday (maybe) office worker!:=;)

[alphacentauri]

IFEZ,

300k sounds about right for an EGM. As for the CEO, do I think the current CEO is worth that? She is better than the previous CEO, but she could do better. Do I think the CEO position is worth that? Yes that figure seems reasonable.

Yes that means she is earning more than the prime minister. I would think so are nearly all other CEO's. Any comparison to government positions is null and void. Airservices stopped being public service the day it split from the CAA. It takes no money from the Gov't and makes alot of money for it. The Government dictates how much money it will take.

You may be right about senior pilots and ATC earning $200-$300K but I can guarantee they are actually EARNING it. The daily pressure & responsibility they carry can't be compared to the lifestyle of this lot.

I disagree....strongly.

Public servants, strictly speaking maybe not, but bureaucrats all the same

Is about the only thing we agree on. The bureaucracy and politics is extremely frustrating, but it also exists within the airline and private aviation sectors.

Alpha

[swh]

Torres,

Like the way you have explained it, of the 52 weeks, is it more like 46 weeks after holidays are taken into account ?

Not sure if I had the correct person, had the understanding there were very senior managers in ASA with no air traffic or ATC technology experience, former logistics officers in the RAAF. Shook my head, not only no real world business experience, no relevent industry experience.

Does ASA have a employ work place bully policy, where most companies seem to have an employee anti-bully policy ?

[Awol57]

Since when are salaries advertised as an annual amount minus holidays? Someone earning $1000pw with 4 weeks leave a year doesn't earn $48000pa, they earn $52000pa. Assuming of course that they are full time (or anything other than casual/contract).

The reality is that the pay is over 52 weeks regardless of whether you get 4 weeks leave or 12 weeks leave.

[The name is Porter]

The annual report would clear this up would it not? I'm no fan but the journalists figures are significantly wrong. You don't fight and win a battle by bull****ting & exaggeration.

Ms Staib is a significant improvement on the useless turd that occupied her position previously.

[Aviater]

Employees and employers in Australian Aviation struggle to turn a profit and these government mobsters make hundreds of thousands for maintaining the status quo?


Has anybody here ever worked for a company that has gone under? This of course, is a rhetorical question, because working in aviation in Australia means that more than likely you've worked for one or two.


CASA and Airservices are like the Financial Administrators. They cut out the people that won't play along, reduce outward costs and suck all the money they can out of the body until there's nothing left.


The worst part it seems, is that the people that are most passionate, carry the most heart break for the industry they want to live for. Whilst people in government positions simply keep their head down in order to watch their bank balance grow by zero after zero.


Caution: Spoken from the heart and not the head.

[alphacentauri]

Caution: Spoken from the heart and not the head.

Understood...

I would be interested in your answer to the following question.

Apart from Airways Charges (and landing fees which we collect on behalf of the aerodrome, that money does not go to Airservices), what other charges do you think Airservices are responsible for?

I think the answer may surprise you and also indicate to you that your anger may be misguided.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

From memory....(not reeel good)...

When 'we' in airservices were changed from 'Public Servants' to Government Business Enterprise (GBE) 'staff' in 'ancient' times, it was explained to us, that, as a 'Business Enterprise' owned by the Govt., under the 'User Pays' scheme, charges would be levied for our services to fund us, and any 'surplus' ....'profits'....would be split between the 3 'stakeholders'.

The 'stakeholders' were defined as being Airservices, the Industry, and the Govt.

So, in theory, the profits generated from the Air Nav Charging system, is split by returning to;
- The Industry, their share, presumably through lower charges (?),
- Airservices Australia through better salaries / bonuses (?), and,
- The Govt.

With the various changes over the years, of which I have 'little' interest now,
I guess that CASA would be in there as well...

That 'may' be the source of these bonuses etc but, please. don't quote me now. Its been 'a while' and I've lost interest...trooly....

Cheers :(

[IFEZ]

Took Porters advice and had a look at the 2013/2014 Airservices Annual Report. The journalists figures are wrong but not significantly.
Highest paid (presumably CEO) including Salary + Super + Bonus = $537K
Next level down - 3 people including Salary + Super + Bonus = $507K each
And so it goes, down the list of 11 Senior Executives to the poor pleb at the bottom of the rung who's only pulling a measly $209K. Mind you, that included a bonus of $57K!!
In most cases the figures represent substantial increases from the previous year which are listed underneath (between 5-10%).


Alpha may be correct, in that most CEO's and senior executives are getting similar or even more, depending on the size of the company they are with, but does that make it right..? The question is, did changing to user pays GBE as per Griffos advice, make the service any better..? Are we getting value for money..? Its a genuine question, as I wasn't involved in the industry in the 'good old days'.

[Fieldmouse]

Sounds great in theory but when will they ever pay market rates for the land they occupy on airports. All these towers and navaids scattered around the country that generate the income and they're paying a buck a year for the leases. If true user pays is supposed to be in place, how about paying realistic rents for those VOR and NDB sites that sit around the country. Pretty quick to charge $33k to flight check an ILS though.

[darkroomsource]

top execs running the show need to be earning more than their top AT controllers

Why do people believe this?

Who is more important to "the company", the CEO or the janitor?

Well, if they both take 2 weeks holiday. No-one will even know the CEO is gone, but when the toilets don't get cleaned and all the bins fill up with rubbish, that's when you realise that the Janitor is worth as much, if not more, to the company than the CEO.

The first person you talk to when you call a company is the receptionist, he's / she's the one who gives everyone their first impression of the company, but she's / he's the one that is paid the least.

If a plane crashes into another in the cloud, was it the CEO or the controller who made the mistake? so who's more important to the passengers on those planes?

There is no person, in any company or organisation, who is actually more valuable than any other person. The organisation requires everyone to do their job well.

Top executives do NOT deserve more than the people doing the job.

[majorca]

IFEZ, you are absolutely correct.
Airservices is a disgrace.
The statement about limiting executive pay increases is a smoke and mirrors exercise. Airservices have created "new" positions, with substantial salary benefits, and appointing encumbent staff. This technically doesn't come under the definition of a pay increase as they are new positions incorporating new job specifications. This constant restructuring looks good on paper to please our useless politicians but does nothing to enhance service or cost savings to the industry, or, God forbid, safety!

[growahead]

Airservices was doing ok until the ALM concept. Basically, managers were put on relatively short term contracts, with bonus clauses. In the first round of this process, many dedicated, sharp operators were not willing to sell their souls to the company. In fact, the number of management positions pretty well outnumbered the applicants. The result was that sycophantic yes men/ladies got the slots. If they disagreed with senior (executive) management, they were terminated. So, we ended up with underachieving yes men/ladies, bullying etc to achieve their KPI's, and taking the bonus. Result, the company has lost the plot, yes men/ladies selling their souls, and the line controllers, seeing this, despairing, and becoming disengaged, line toers. I could name several brilliant management candidates that wouldn't sell their integrity. I could name several hopeless management stooges that have negative ability, still on the take, snouts in the trough. To give but one example of the insanity, there is now the situation of a manager who has only ever been an en route controller managing a tower, with basically no ratings, no experience of that position. Only a few short years ago, it was forbidden for controllers to cross streams, i.e, en route to transition to tower, vice versa, etc. The bulk of line controllers are dedicated, about 80% of management are there by default, hopeless in everything but self interest. The whole ALM/contract model is a flawed concept. There has been heaps written about the perils of performance bonuses, especially short term, so I won't bore the readers here.

[framer]

Who is more important to "the company", the CEO or the janitor?

Well, if they both take 2 weeks holiday. No-one will even know the CEO is gone, but when the toilets don't get cleaned and all the bins fill up with rubbish, that's when you realise that the Janitor is worth as much, if not more, to the company than the CEO.

There is no person, in any company or organisation, who is actually more valuable than any other person. The organisation requires everyone to do their job well.

Top executives do NOT deserve more than the people doing the job.
I leaned towards your way of thinking twenty years ago when I was studying so I can empathise with your mindset. My thinking has changed over the years with the creeping realisation that human nature prevents workable systems being introduced to an organisation or country when the systems main premise is the idea that people are equal or that life should be fair. The main reason for this is that people are not equal, and life is not fair :)

[Jabawocky]

framer

That is so true. Trouble is most folk don't ever have that realisation.

To continue on from where you left off, the determination of salary or hourly rate is known as "leverage at the point of sale".

In society we have neurosurgeons and we have garbage truck drivers. One is a luxury service and the other prevents the many problems and diseases that poor sanitation of cities presents without it.

Who is more important? The Garbo obviously. But when it comes to you needing spinal or brain surgery, the leverage at the point of sale becomes the driving force because almost anyone can be a garbo truck driver. You don't want them swapping roles.

[QSK?]

Response to The Australian (http://newsroom.airservicesaustralia.com/releases/response-to-the-australian)

Seems like Mr Higgins isn't interested in providing a balanced report? Even though Airservices formally advises him that his facts are not correct he doesn't see the need to clearly mention this fact in his article?

Objective and fair journalism is the mark of a good democratic society, Mr Higgins.

[Slippery_Pete]

They've all sat around previously and decided shutting down navaids will save a bunch of money.

Now once again, they're sitting around, Joe Hockey style, smoking cigars and congratulating themselves on their bonuses and saved costs - while we fly around with over stated reliance on GNSS to get the job done.

They should be building more radars and installing more ILS's, rather than paying exorbitant management salaries and ripping out every second navaid.

[fujii]

It is the airport owners who install the ILS.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Re" It is the airport owners who install the ILS. "

Is It..????

So who 'calibrates it'..???

No Cheers:eek:

[Plazbot]

Aero Pearl. .......

[The name is Porter]

On contract to whom?

[alphacentauri]

I think you'll find it goes like this;

Airport installs navaid (generally paid for by airport)
Navaid is calibrated by Aeropearl (under contract to Airservices, but paid for by the airport....at least initially. Recalibration paid by Airservices....I think)
Navaid operated/maintained by Airservices (cause they are only organisation that can operate navaids (excluding RAAF).

[Robbovic]

Not quite but nearly.
Airservices does new navaid installation apart from civil works which are contracted out. Install comes under Part 171 certification which only airservices has.
Flight testing done by Aeropearl and charged as part of contract with airport owner. Subsequent periodic testing ( every three months for ILS ) is also charged to the navaid owner ie airport. This is why a nu,ber of private navaid owners want to get rid of them - the ongoing maintenance charges.
The aid is then owned by the airport but has to be maintained by airservices under Part 171.

[majorca]

You guys are off the beam. Controllers only earn their big income from ad's, i.e. Overtime or emergency duty. Their salaries are capped around $180,000 (many don't earn that) but with "extras", which means working a lot of extra hours, that can balloon out to $250,000+. Don't criticise them! They earn their bloody money!
So called managers, upholding the corporate BS, bully and threaten committed workers. Pilot's love to criticise those controllers at the coal face but WAKE UP and have a look at the wankers behind the business who are committed to changing the CULTURE!?. They're the one's who are ripping the system off with their over inflated salaries.

[Torres]

......................................................
Senate speeds Airservices inquiry

• by: EAN HIGGINS
• From: The Australian
• June 20, 2015 12:00AM

The Senate is fast-tracking an ¬inquiry into Airservices Australia following revelations of a blowout in executive pay, alleged credit-card rorting and its failure to gain approval for major capital works.

The move follows The Australian’s revelations recently of a 40 per cent-plus rise in senior executive salaries, including a 60 per cent increase in performance bonuses to nearly $800,000 for fewer than a dozen managers.

The inquiry will also look into aviation issues facing Airservices, which runs the nation’s air traffic control system and airport firefighting services, including whether controlled airspace should be extended where radar is available.

It will canvass whether firefighters at regional airports without control towers should be trained to use the Unicom radio service to give basic air-traffic and weather information to pilots.

The inquiry will subpoena Airservices’ financial records to hold an audit and call witnesses, including chairman Angus Houston.

The Senate’s rural, regional affairs and transport legislation committee plans to meet the week after next to map out the investi¬gation, with a view to holding public hearings in one or two months.

The committee chairman, Liberal senator Bill Heffernan, said the inquiry would examine “recent revelations” and other matters, but declined to comment further.

The revelations have given Labor and Coalition committee members the impetus to delve into a government-owned organisation that they believe has ¬serious ¬issues of administration, transparency and accountability.
The committee’s senior Labor senator, Glenn Sterle, noted the revelation in 2012 that then Airservices chief executive Greg Russell had run up a corporate credit-card bill of $243,702 between January 2007 and August 2010.

He resigned soon after the exposure but Airservices defended the credit-card use as acceptable for an executive whose job required him to travel internationally and to host senior aviation officials.

Senator Sterle said the organisation had to be held accountable, saying this applied to replacement chief executive Margaret Staib, the board and Sir Angus.

A Coalition senator said: “It seems to me it has been a seriously uninspected operation.”

At a Senate estimates hearing in October, committee members of all parties castigated Ms Staib, criticising Airservices’ failure to meet its statutory obligation to advise the Senate of major capital works proposals.

They were also incredulous that alleged credit- card fraud by a middle manager had not been reported to police.

Although she promised senators she would consider the matter, Ms Staib never reported the alleged fraud, informing Senator Heffernan by letter that the established loss amounted to less than $3000 and she had used her statutory discretion to not refer it.

Yesterday, Airservices said the bigger salary pool for senior executives reflected changes in the composition of top management and an adjustment after a dip.

It said the average rise in base salary last financial year was 2.25 per cent and, according to its calculations, 5.2 per cent including bonuses.

[tyler_durden_80]

With the upcoming ATC EBA rapidly approaching, how long before AsA start crying poor when it comes to raises for the staff who actually do the job? Or has that started already?

[CaptainMidnight]

I suspect the ASA firies would have a case for more $$$$ with their EBA if they are required to provide UNICOM services (more work value, additional duties etc. = more $$$$).

[sunnySA]

With the upcoming ATC EBA rapidly approaching, how long before AsA start crying poor when it comes to raises for the staff who actually do the job? Or has that started already?

From what I hear its already started - new pricing regime, Industry wanting more for less, CFO gone, government framework, cost savings etc, etc.

[darkroomsource]

@framer

Quote:

Who is more important to "the company", the CEO or the janitor?

Well, if they both take 2 weeks holiday. No-one will even know the CEO is gone, but when the toilets don't get cleaned and all the bins fill up with rubbish, that's when you realise that the Janitor is worth as much, if not more, to the company than the CEO.

There is no person, in any company or organisation, who is actually more valuable than any other person. The organisation requires everyone to do their job well.

Top executives do NOT deserve more than the people doing the job.
I leaned towards your way of thinking twenty years ago when I was studying so I can empathise with your mindset. My thinking has changed over the years with the creeping realisation that human nature prevents workable systems being introduced to an organisation or country when the systems main premise is the idea that people are equal or that life should be fair. The main reason for this is that people are not equal, and life is not fair

I leaned towards your way of thinking twenty years ago when I was finished studying and working in the "rat-race" trying to get ahead.

My thinking has changed since then, to reflect that joy does not come from money nor power.

It's not that "people are equal or life should be fair" but that joy comes from not caring about money and power.

Learn that, and people start to become equal, and life starts to become fair.

If everyone learned that, then people would be "equal" and life would be "fair".

[Slugfest]

CEO Direct - 15 June 2015

You may have seen an article in today’s The Australian newspaper falsely claiming that salaries for Airservices senior executives rose by more than 40 per cent in the last two years.

Let me assure you that this statement is completely incorrect and the correct information was provided to the journalist last week.

Airservices has today written to both the journalist and the Editor of The Australian requesting that they print a correction to this inaccurate and misleading article—view letter to the editor.

As you are aware, there are tough market conditions being faced by our customers and a range of efforts have been underway for some time to reduce our operating costs across the business.

These efforts have extended to the Executive group and senior leadership team and will continue. This included the implementation of an Executive pay freeze for the 2014–15 financial year and for the upcoming 2015–16 financial year.

Prior to the pay freeze, the average Executive remuneration for our senior executive rose on average 2.25 per cent for the 2013–14 financial year.

The Executive pay freeze is just one way we continue to demonstrate our financial restraint to our customers, industry and government.

Cost saving is all of our responsibility and this extends to the Executive and senior leadership team. I know that across our business we all continue to look for ways to work smarter and more efficiently and thank you for your ongoing efforts in this area.

Mark Rodwell
Acting Chief Executive Officer