NATS Pay/WP
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, maybe I misunderstood, but I thought PP seemed to be arguing that a unit with 100 000 movements and 100 ATCOs should be the same banding as 10 000 movements and 10 ATCOs, if the traffic complexity is the same.
I was saying that in reality that is a far too simpistic view of things, because measuring a/c movements against number of ATCOs doesn't mean anything. Using that measurement, one could probably come up with statistics to prove any unit in the country as the busiest.
I was saying that in reality that is a far too simpistic view of things, because measuring a/c movements against number of ATCOs doesn't mean anything. Using that measurement, one could probably come up with statistics to prove any unit in the country as the busiest.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pay is good but the underlining add ons and especially the model are not exceptable. The model proves nothing, why? because the data is wrong, no! its misused. Heathrow work hard moving lots of aircraft, are they busy? yes! is it complexed, no. It cant be to shift that amount of aircraft, it is standard procedures day in day out because it has to be. Other sectors again shift alot of traffic but are less complexed to allow that to happen. Please dont fool yourselves that you have a very complexed sector and can still shift large amounts of traffic. Dont get me wrong that does not mean you are not busy.
The model weighting on complexity is NOT CORRECT. Airspace type and the service provided play a major part in the complexity, it is not just about climbing and descending aircraft. Military activity effects some more than others. MDA's, fighter control, mix of traffic, mix of service RIS,RAS, RCS and procedural. Do you know a sector who has to provide all of those services and could do so all at the same time? covers 40 miles south of newcastle to Inverness. The TSF for the sector is 15 single man and 24 approx double manned. Is the sector complex hmmmmmm. Put it through the model answer no, laughable, well beyond a joke I would say.
Another Example Talla( not the sector above)sector at Scottish has one of the lowest TSF for a sector why? not enough airspace, cant be split, class A to start changing to class D. Have a read at what class D airspace means and see if you would like to operate a TMA operation in that class of airspace.( for TC boys class D includes VFR).
We all have are complexity issues, Heathrow is made complexed by traffic levels but the system is not complexed. Therefore in the model the complexity factor should be low but the traffic volume alone will put it up there with anywhere else in the country.
The traffic figures are out of date not a major issue for most but in the centres the traffic figures are showing Scottish levels rising at approx 4 times the rate of the rest.
Tit for Tat, we do this we do that?
If I was at LACC or TC and seen the scores I would be asking for twice the money. The scores are just crap and sooner you are told the truth the better.
We all work hard and we should all get the same pay rise. This is making us weak as a union. If 0530 starts were only for Manchester and they got the extra would you be voting yes?
ACTION required
The pay agreement is the least of our concerns. The NOTA is the problem. The impact maybe severe on NATS and its income. If you dont know what it is ask your union rep or a senior manager about it, if they dont know tell them should.
Some see this as a much greater threat to NATS future than the privatisation issue. There wont be a bank to help us out of this one.
The model weighting on complexity is NOT CORRECT. Airspace type and the service provided play a major part in the complexity, it is not just about climbing and descending aircraft. Military activity effects some more than others. MDA's, fighter control, mix of traffic, mix of service RIS,RAS, RCS and procedural. Do you know a sector who has to provide all of those services and could do so all at the same time? covers 40 miles south of newcastle to Inverness. The TSF for the sector is 15 single man and 24 approx double manned. Is the sector complex hmmmmmm. Put it through the model answer no, laughable, well beyond a joke I would say.
Another Example Talla( not the sector above)sector at Scottish has one of the lowest TSF for a sector why? not enough airspace, cant be split, class A to start changing to class D. Have a read at what class D airspace means and see if you would like to operate a TMA operation in that class of airspace.( for TC boys class D includes VFR).
We all have are complexity issues, Heathrow is made complexed by traffic levels but the system is not complexed. Therefore in the model the complexity factor should be low but the traffic volume alone will put it up there with anywhere else in the country.
The traffic figures are out of date not a major issue for most but in the centres the traffic figures are showing Scottish levels rising at approx 4 times the rate of the rest.
Tit for Tat, we do this we do that?
If I was at LACC or TC and seen the scores I would be asking for twice the money. The scores are just crap and sooner you are told the truth the better.
We all work hard and we should all get the same pay rise. This is making us weak as a union. If 0530 starts were only for Manchester and they got the extra would you be voting yes?
ACTION required
The pay agreement is the least of our concerns. The NOTA is the problem. The impact maybe severe on NATS and its income. If you dont know what it is ask your union rep or a senior manager about it, if they dont know tell them should.
Some see this as a much greater threat to NATS future than the privatisation issue. There wont be a bank to help us out of this one.
Last edited by dvdr; 5th Feb 2004 at 22:52.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I went to two of the meetings at our unit and have to say the basic pay offer is OK. The Working Practices deal is biased towards LACC and TC but the negotiators acted in good faith and have management assurances that the major change i.e. is only at those units and will give big savings and efficiencies. They can only act on what the managers assure them is true. The rest of the changes are voluntary and it is up to each member / unit to decide if they will play the game of part AVAs etc. The explanation of non pensionable pay and selling back leave was poor and in my view unsustainable.
The real flaw is the structure. It is NOT transparent and NOT clear to all. Some of the criteria from the original American model were removed because they were not applicable to the UK. One of them dealt with Oceanic interfaces... how complex and how many Oceanic boundaries. Hey LACC , TC and Heathrow don't have Oceanic boundaries..... tell the ScACC 10W interface sectors that these boundaries are not relevant. Where do you have a sector which is totally dependent for its exit time, level, speed and relationship to other aircraft in the chain all dictated by the clearances of your next Centre and applying totally different separations? By God it makes life complicated and probably exactly why the Americans had it included.
From what I see the airports all have a complexity model which takes lots of things into account like equipment suitability and even the position of the VCR. What account was taken of single source radars (no mosaic or multisource can be displayed) or the daft mini TV monitors use to view sectors 150nm and more across ? The fact we haven’t got cross coupled frequencies and on some sectors even have selectable RT sites across the country which can be worked singly, in combination or whatever .. all affecting whether you can speak to your aircraft.
What account of the fact that we already have a live model of sector complexity, capacity and loading ? Each UK sector has a defined capacity and Target Sector Flow and can be measured every day of the year as a percentage of that capacity. We don't set the maximum figures for fun. If you hit the max you are the safe maximum capacity of the airspace no matter how good an ATCO you are. If that figure is 26 or 66 an hour you are working at max capacity and complexity. The gross number of aircraft handled by a Centre is only one measure of how busy each ATCO is. There are more sophisticated ways of doing it.
One of our ex TC colleagues pointed out that his valid experience in TC and on some of the ScACC mixed airspace sectors made him believe that he was now working a more complex, if less busy, situation.
If the model is constructed taking all the above as well as the criteria already used and it is seen to be correct then I will accept it as a way of measuring ATCO workload. That is not the case as it stands and the BEC and NATS who jointly constructed this model need to acknowledge the facts and change it before we are asked to vote to accept it.
P.S. The Branch Chair is specifically not a MACC rep. Your reps are the same as ours and are elected locally and have input into this pay deal and lots of other issues troubling MACC. The Branch Chair runs the Branch Executive council and oversees every aspect of the policy you have asked them to implement through your input (or lack of it) at Annual Conference. Don't forget this is an offer form NATS management who wish to see the UK ATCOs organised and paid in this fashion. If you have a complaint make representations to your local reps and managers they got you where you are now !! Personal abuse of someone trying to do his best for the disparate ideas and wishes of the ATCOs across the UK is despicable. It drove me off the BEC after 17 years as a rep and giving thousands of hours of my own time to members problems across the UK. Don't take your anger out on the wrong people.
Rant done for today and looking forward to yet another night's work with no decent armchairs never mind the time to sleep in anything
The real flaw is the structure. It is NOT transparent and NOT clear to all. Some of the criteria from the original American model were removed because they were not applicable to the UK. One of them dealt with Oceanic interfaces... how complex and how many Oceanic boundaries. Hey LACC , TC and Heathrow don't have Oceanic boundaries..... tell the ScACC 10W interface sectors that these boundaries are not relevant. Where do you have a sector which is totally dependent for its exit time, level, speed and relationship to other aircraft in the chain all dictated by the clearances of your next Centre and applying totally different separations? By God it makes life complicated and probably exactly why the Americans had it included.
From what I see the airports all have a complexity model which takes lots of things into account like equipment suitability and even the position of the VCR. What account was taken of single source radars (no mosaic or multisource can be displayed) or the daft mini TV monitors use to view sectors 150nm and more across ? The fact we haven’t got cross coupled frequencies and on some sectors even have selectable RT sites across the country which can be worked singly, in combination or whatever .. all affecting whether you can speak to your aircraft.
What account of the fact that we already have a live model of sector complexity, capacity and loading ? Each UK sector has a defined capacity and Target Sector Flow and can be measured every day of the year as a percentage of that capacity. We don't set the maximum figures for fun. If you hit the max you are the safe maximum capacity of the airspace no matter how good an ATCO you are. If that figure is 26 or 66 an hour you are working at max capacity and complexity. The gross number of aircraft handled by a Centre is only one measure of how busy each ATCO is. There are more sophisticated ways of doing it.
One of our ex TC colleagues pointed out that his valid experience in TC and on some of the ScACC mixed airspace sectors made him believe that he was now working a more complex, if less busy, situation.
If the model is constructed taking all the above as well as the criteria already used and it is seen to be correct then I will accept it as a way of measuring ATCO workload. That is not the case as it stands and the BEC and NATS who jointly constructed this model need to acknowledge the facts and change it before we are asked to vote to accept it.
P.S. The Branch Chair is specifically not a MACC rep. Your reps are the same as ours and are elected locally and have input into this pay deal and lots of other issues troubling MACC. The Branch Chair runs the Branch Executive council and oversees every aspect of the policy you have asked them to implement through your input (or lack of it) at Annual Conference. Don't forget this is an offer form NATS management who wish to see the UK ATCOs organised and paid in this fashion. If you have a complaint make representations to your local reps and managers they got you where you are now !! Personal abuse of someone trying to do his best for the disparate ideas and wishes of the ATCOs across the UK is despicable. It drove me off the BEC after 17 years as a rep and giving thousands of hours of my own time to members problems across the UK. Don't take your anger out on the wrong people.
Rant done for today and looking forward to yet another night's work with no decent armchairs never mind the time to sleep in anything
Last edited by Findo; 4th Feb 2004 at 22:32.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Warwickshire
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a little concerned as to why the BEC have recommended acceptance of this offer using a unit grading model which by their own admission tehy were only 85% satisfied with when it was first developped and are now about 65% sure that it was right
A typical example of the inadequacies of this system:
The US Model includes a weighting for different runway alignment, i.e cross rwy, parallel rwy etc etc.
The Cross rwy weighting was NOT applied to the UK system because to quote "Not Many UK airports have cross runways"
So what??? Those that do should be graded accordingly and the added complexity factored in!!!
A typical example of the inadequacies of this system:
The US Model includes a weighting for different runway alignment, i.e cross rwy, parallel rwy etc etc.
The Cross rwy weighting was NOT applied to the UK system because to quote "Not Many UK airports have cross runways"
So what??? Those that do should be graded accordingly and the added complexity factored in!!!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said 707,
Funny how the Scottish airports all have multiple and crossing runways (PD has 4) so of course that doesn't count.It also has 3 terminals but since 2 of these are for helicopters it probably isn't counted as real passengers either!
Don't forget that some so called backwaters have a vital role in this country,ours is supporting the entire North Sea oil industry,without which this country would be bankrupt.All we ask is fair play,but all we get is s
Funny how the Scottish airports all have multiple and crossing runways (PD has 4) so of course that doesn't count.It also has 3 terminals but since 2 of these are for helicopters it probably isn't counted as real passengers either!
Don't forget that some so called backwaters have a vital role in this country,ours is supporting the entire North Sea oil industry,without which this country would be bankrupt.All we ask is fair play,but all we get is s
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Warwickshire
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gonzo,
I don't think that throw was inferring that no of pax should be an issue in the grading.
The fact that complex cross runway operations are not measure in the calculations is ludicrous, just because "Not many UK Airports have Cross Runways"
Another factor that wasn't considered because "Not many UK airoprts do that" was Approach radar working departures before handing over to the centres because of complexity of airspace issues. I reckon that PF works around 10 - 15% of it's departures, PH roughly the same PD work about 98% of their departures against inbound and overflying traffic within the TMA.
Prospect are supposed to have visited each unit and looked at the various idiosyncracies (sp?) of each unit and worked out a score, just because "Not many UK airports do that" doesn't mean that it should not be counted and calculated to give a TRUE reflection of the complexity and therefore a true grading.
Another bizarre fact that came out was the fact that using the current grading structure an airport without an approach radar function is more complicated than one with?
All those tower only units out there that have been banded below their former colleagues who moved to TC need to ask some serious questions of Prospect!!!
I don't think that throw was inferring that no of pax should be an issue in the grading.
The fact that complex cross runway operations are not measure in the calculations is ludicrous, just because "Not many UK Airports have Cross Runways"
Another factor that wasn't considered because "Not many UK airoprts do that" was Approach radar working departures before handing over to the centres because of complexity of airspace issues. I reckon that PF works around 10 - 15% of it's departures, PH roughly the same PD work about 98% of their departures against inbound and overflying traffic within the TMA.
Prospect are supposed to have visited each unit and looked at the various idiosyncracies (sp?) of each unit and worked out a score, just because "Not many UK airports do that" doesn't mean that it should not be counted and calculated to give a TRUE reflection of the complexity and therefore a true grading.
Another bizarre fact that came out was the fact that using the current grading structure an airport without an approach radar function is more complicated than one with?
All those tower only units out there that have been banded below their former colleagues who moved to TC need to ask some serious questions of Prospect!!!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gonzo
With regard to your post replying to Pheasant Plucker, if Heathrow did have the approach function co located then their movements would not be 460,000 but 690,000 as they would count the approach movements as well. The traffic weighting would only be 575,000 as approach movements only count half that of a tower movement.
It would be nice if you took the time to look at the airports model!!
This "halving" of the approach movements seems to be the only way that Prospect can keep the Tower and Approach units below Stanstead. If Approach movements were counted the same as tower movements then BB, PF, PH and PD wouls all be in band 4!!!
Where's the Justice
With regard to your post replying to Pheasant Plucker, if Heathrow did have the approach function co located then their movements would not be 460,000 but 690,000 as they would count the approach movements as well. The traffic weighting would only be 575,000 as approach movements only count half that of a tower movement.
It would be nice if you took the time to look at the airports model!!
This "halving" of the approach movements seems to be the only way that Prospect can keep the Tower and Approach units below Stanstead. If Approach movements were counted the same as tower movements then BB, PF, PH and PD wouls all be in band 4!!!
Where's the Justice
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't had my union briefing yet, its next week.
So is it correct then that approach movements are only worth half of a runway movement ?
Is it also true that the type of aircraft you control ie Turboprops over Jets also makes a difference to how they are counted ?
We know already that Class G movements are not counted.
Stitch up just rings immediately to mind.
Don't our band 5 colleagues now realise why we are so disgruntled with this. Count all our movements be they in CAS or not, approach radar is definitely equal to anything a tower controller does , if not IMHO more.
Take account that at regional airports by the very nature of our task we will never have sustained traffic but we get peaks and troughs.
A report published by IFATCA last year about the handling of sustained traffic and an ATCO who had to go from quiet to busy in moments showed that the stresses were much greater for the ATCO working peaks and troughs.
We all work hard , we all have a job to do , we all should be working as a team, this has divided us more than I could ever have believed.
Its an absolute crying shame
So is it correct then that approach movements are only worth half of a runway movement ?
Is it also true that the type of aircraft you control ie Turboprops over Jets also makes a difference to how they are counted ?
We know already that Class G movements are not counted.
Stitch up just rings immediately to mind.
Don't our band 5 colleagues now realise why we are so disgruntled with this. Count all our movements be they in CAS or not, approach radar is definitely equal to anything a tower controller does , if not IMHO more.
Take account that at regional airports by the very nature of our task we will never have sustained traffic but we get peaks and troughs.
A report published by IFATCA last year about the handling of sustained traffic and an ATCO who had to go from quiet to busy in moments showed that the stresses were much greater for the ATCO working peaks and troughs.
We all work hard , we all have a job to do , we all should be working as a team, this has divided us more than I could ever have believed.
Its an absolute crying shame
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HarryBucket,
Ok, maybe my example wasn't great. I was trying to show that dividing movements by ATCO numbers means nothing, and with a bit of massaging can be used to prove anything. Therefore I don't think that should be used to show this model/formula is wrong/unfair.
Believe me, there is nodoby more keen to see the model/formula, but we've not had a briefing yet, I've asked at work and nobody else has seen one, and I'm off work at the moment. If you have one then let me know and maybe you could email it to me? Anyone else? GT3, have you seen it?
Flower,
Ok, I realise I'm going to sound like some arrogant, big shot and "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?", but......
I would have thought that the increased stress is due to one getting used to the troughs? This is exactly the thing we see in many ATCOs we get from other units, they're used to having periods of lesser traffic, and consequently many of them find it more tough going, especially when it goes from busy to absolute carnage (or is that only when I'm doing it?) than someone straight out of the college. Should that increased stress be taken account of? I don't know. But then some ATCOs don't get quiet troughs, so maybe that should be taken account of too? We could go round and round like this for years.... 
Ok, maybe my example wasn't great. I was trying to show that dividing movements by ATCO numbers means nothing, and with a bit of massaging can be used to prove anything. Therefore I don't think that should be used to show this model/formula is wrong/unfair.
Believe me, there is nodoby more keen to see the model/formula, but we've not had a briefing yet, I've asked at work and nobody else has seen one, and I'm off work at the moment. If you have one then let me know and maybe you could email it to me? Anyone else? GT3, have you seen it?
Flower,
Ok, I realise I'm going to sound like some arrogant, big shot and "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?", but......
an ATCO who had to go from quiet to busy in moments showed that the stresses were much greater for the ATCO working peaks and troughs.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gonzo,
Its not myself stating that it is hard and thus an additional stress on the body to go from quiet to exceptionally busy in seconds it is a medical report commissioned and produced by IFATCA.
It wasn't to denigrate anyone, it was to show that sustained traffic isn't necessarily again a realistic factor to be used in the model.
The more I look at the model the more flaws that leap out and scream unfair.
I wonder how at a hybrid unit as mine where the majority of the movements are radar, some approach, ie two airfields and the majority intermediate approach to other airfields , they counted our movements. All approach or was an area component sneaked in. I do know we were assessed as a complex radar environment, but as our own runway movements are low the radar means little. LARS which on a good weather day is busy didn't even get taken into account, and of course all our military traffic is in Class G so i wonder how that was counted , if it was, and they sure take up an unequal amount of time in comparison to other movements.
I understand the BEC maybe not have more than one representative from the regional airports on it, that if it is the case needs to be addressed urgently, however with the potential for mass resignations from the union perhaps there will be very few members left in the regional airports.
Its not myself stating that it is hard and thus an additional stress on the body to go from quiet to exceptionally busy in seconds it is a medical report commissioned and produced by IFATCA.
It wasn't to denigrate anyone, it was to show that sustained traffic isn't necessarily again a realistic factor to be used in the model.
The more I look at the model the more flaws that leap out and scream unfair.
I wonder how at a hybrid unit as mine where the majority of the movements are radar, some approach, ie two airfields and the majority intermediate approach to other airfields , they counted our movements. All approach or was an area component sneaked in. I do know we were assessed as a complex radar environment, but as our own runway movements are low the radar means little. LARS which on a good weather day is busy didn't even get taken into account, and of course all our military traffic is in Class G so i wonder how that was counted , if it was, and they sure take up an unequal amount of time in comparison to other movements.
I understand the BEC maybe not have more than one representative from the regional airports on it, that if it is the case needs to be addressed urgently, however with the potential for mass resignations from the union perhaps there will be very few members left in the regional airports.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Individual Unit Negotiation?
I'm sure this pay deal chit-chat is a heathy exercise and serves to clear the air. If all elements of grading or banding were removed from the equation we are still left with a very good pay rise. I shall certainly vote "yes". If the volume of resentment is genuine and is realised in an overall "no" vote then it can only hasten the move to individual unit negotiations......and there may be many who would ultimately regret such isolation. As for those who may consider leaving the Union in protest I doubt anything I say will change your mind.....but your actions would thereby dilute any input on matters of the future. You would in fact be playing into management's hands! The complexity banding model is not set in stone and the changing nature of the industry will inevitably lead to adjustments.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
166K that comes over as trust me I'm a band 5 ATCO and we will see you right in the future when we get the model right. Jam tomorrow is never attractive.
There is no need to split the union all there is is a need for open and transparent system which everyone understands. We don't have that yet.
It is quite possible to delay the ballot until the grading issue has been clarified. I'd be happy to accept the basic rise and await clarification. After all this is a joint union / management proposed grading and complexity model.
There is no need to split the union all there is is a need for open and transparent system which everyone understands. We don't have that yet.
It is quite possible to delay the ballot until the grading issue has been clarified. I'd be happy to accept the basic rise and await clarification. After all this is a joint union / management proposed grading and complexity model.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: England
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had a meeting the other day with MY/OUR union and am really sorry that I was made to feel as if they were the opposition or maybe even another layer of management that we have to work with/fight against. I know I'll probably be slagged to pieces for that comment, but, I'm sorry that is how I was made to feel.
We've had 2 pay deals since we were privatised and in the first deal management quite easily caused a big rift between ATCOs/ATSAs and engineers and now with even more ease have caused a massive rift between the ATCOs. How, I wonder, is OUR union going to fix this?
We've had 2 pay deals since we were privatised and in the first deal management quite easily caused a big rift between ATCOs/ATSAs and engineers and now with even more ease have caused a massive rift between the ATCOs. How, I wonder, is OUR union going to fix this?
Last edited by Greebson; 5th Feb 2004 at 20:57.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reality
Well let's get down to the nitty-gritty. My opinion of some of my ATCO brothers and sisters is one of rampant apathy. I've been on strike for what I believed in and it turned my stomach to see so many of my so-called colleagues crossing the line [or using the rear entrance]....then there was the mad scramble to see which watches would be affected....and then the mad scramble to try and get Annual Leave or even go sick. There's a lot of moaning going on....but where are you all when the union asks for some help.....lost track of the number of sparcely-attended meetings I've been to when the bulk of "members" just went home. However MONEY has now entered the equation......big change!!!!!...Plenty vacancies down here.....you want the money...come and work for it; but if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen, as they say.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We do all work hard for a living 055166K.
We work damned hard at what we do, we do a first class job, working with half of the resources available to those working at the centres. We do not have big Ops teams , or training teams to support us, we have to do it all ourselves.
We enjoy what we do , NATS also needs approach controllers not just AREA guys.
Your attitude towards us when all we are asking for is a fair representation of the work we do is unreal.
We want the regrading to be readdressed, include all movements, count approach control movements as full not half.
We are part of NATS , we are part of PROSPECT but we have been well and truly shafted. I think we have every right to turn around and shout UNFAIR.
We work damned hard at what we do, we do a first class job, working with half of the resources available to those working at the centres. We do not have big Ops teams , or training teams to support us, we have to do it all ourselves.
We enjoy what we do , NATS also needs approach controllers not just AREA guys.
Your attitude towards us when all we are asking for is a fair representation of the work we do is unreal.
We want the regrading to be readdressed, include all movements, count approach control movements as full not half.
We are part of NATS , we are part of PROSPECT but we have been well and truly shafted. I think we have every right to turn around and shout UNFAIR.