NATS Pay/WP
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Jockland
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
055166k
Just a quick question or two.
Do you properly understand the model for the unit gradings as it stands at the moment?
Given your considerable experience of other units, do you think the relative scores given by the model are a true and fair reflection of the differences in workload and complexity between your unit and MACC/ScATCC?
Just a quick question or two.
Do you properly understand the model for the unit gradings as it stands at the moment?
Given your considerable experience of other units, do you think the relative scores given by the model are a true and fair reflection of the differences in workload and complexity between your unit and MACC/ScATCC?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: England
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I agree that the band 5 units are worth extra pay, I can truthfully say that none of you really think that you really deserve £400 per week more than a brother ATCO at a band 1/2 unit JUST for being busier. We have exactly the same responsibilites to the acft we work and we receive exactly the same punishment if it all goes wrong.
I was wondering what the banding for LACC would have been if overflights had been scored as 0.1 as they have in the airports model?!
I was wondering what the banding for LACC would have been if overflights had been scored as 0.1 as they have in the airports model?!
Last edited by Greebson; 11th Feb 2004 at 06:16.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not Long Now We already have a comparison of complexity and workload in Area units. Each sector has a sector capacity which has been refined over years. That figure is not plucked out of thin air but is the one which is a very strong guide to just how much traffic the sector can take safely. More than 80% (the TSF figure) means we seriously consider regulation which is exactly what NATS and the customers want to avoid and the Regulator wants to penalise. Those figures take into account everything which contributes to "being busy" i.e. short or long time on frequency, the equipment you use, the traffic climb and descent profiles, the conflictions in traffic patterns, the types of service you give etc. They may not be mentioned in any set up manual but all those factors combine to give you an actual sector capacity.
No matter how good an ATCO you may be I defy you to handle much more than the TSF safely. That is the practical measure of how much each valid ATCO can work on all the sectors.
Each and every day those sectors have a reasonably accurate traffic demand and load figure for every hour of the day.
It doesn't take a genius to extract those figures from the archive and average them per hour over a year and give a percentage of actual traffic load against TSF.
That average will balance out the weekday / weekend / summer / winter / Oceanic track position etc and give you an each sector an average occupancy based on the same rationale.
You can average out the occupancy against the WPP sector opening times and take the realistic bandbox configuartion because no ATCO sits at night with a sector which is not forecast to have any traffic.
That is a fair way of measuring workload because it is how we man our sectors. When I suggested that to the BEC "expert" on the model construction he said they had not thought to use such practical data.
It might not solve all the problems but it will go a long way to giving us all some confidence the comparisons are valid.
No matter how good an ATCO you may be I defy you to handle much more than the TSF safely. That is the practical measure of how much each valid ATCO can work on all the sectors.
Each and every day those sectors have a reasonably accurate traffic demand and load figure for every hour of the day.
It doesn't take a genius to extract those figures from the archive and average them per hour over a year and give a percentage of actual traffic load against TSF.
That average will balance out the weekday / weekend / summer / winter / Oceanic track position etc and give you an each sector an average occupancy based on the same rationale.
You can average out the occupancy against the WPP sector opening times and take the realistic bandbox configuartion because no ATCO sits at night with a sector which is not forecast to have any traffic.
That is a fair way of measuring workload because it is how we man our sectors. When I suggested that to the BEC "expert" on the model construction he said they had not thought to use such practical data.
It might not solve all the problems but it will go a long way to giving us all some confidence the comparisons are valid.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not long now read findo's comments. The anwser to the order is in TSF. It is about reality not figures made to look a certain way. If it shows that your order is correct so be it but I doubt it. The scores may come out differently especially as LACC dont open all their sectors. Also the time capture should be disregrded it should be for 24hrs because that what we work 24 7 .
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: solent-on-sea
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK findo and dvdr, what should the order be?
If we're going on tsf's, is it how long you operate at the tsf, how often you exceed it, how often you are more than x% under it, the actual value of the tsf itself, and how do tsf's relate to airfields and approach units?
If we're going on tsf's, is it how long you operate at the tsf, how often you exceed it, how often you are more than x% under it, the actual value of the tsf itself, and how do tsf's relate to airfields and approach units?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: PIK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oceanboy I guess it is too late for 2 votes. However it's not beyond NATS management and Prospect to agree that the structure is a big issue. Pay the basic pay agreement and take into account all the very valid comments submited by units about structure over the next couple of months while re-jigging it.
If the result is closer in structure different scores but the same pay awards go ahead then OK. At least then we know our jobs are fairly assessed and we will move up or down fairly ... not because of one year when big units exerted undue influence.
If the result is closer in structure different scores but the same pay awards go ahead then OK. At least then we know our jobs are fairly assessed and we will move up or down fairly ... not because of one year when big units exerted undue influence.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: NAV Canada
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I make a plea to ALL ATCOs EVERYWHERE.... We at MACC, GW and other non band 5 units ask the assistance of the rest to PLEASE VOTE NO to this unfair deal. Surely as proffessional, qualified COLLEAGUES we can help each other when able? Why do folk at LTCC and LACC agree with this? I hope its not elitism?! Who would say no to a standard across the board ATCO2 or 1 basic pay... wait now... with a regional supplement paid to units in expensive housing areas??? That IS fair to ALL. I appreciate its dearer down south but I have the same licence as you, and if given the chance would be at LACC proving my worth and being a team player as I am at MACC.... No unit is "better" than another and VERY few of us have seen let alone controlled a sector at another unit.... Maybe if we did we'd be a tad more understanding to each others plight. Shout me down if you like but Im sure Im not alone here... Fight the union, fight NATS but do it TOGETHER!!! Thanks to those further south who help.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not long now, the order is likely to be in area LTCC, MACC, LACC and then SCACC. But alot closer than in the present model. Though i expect the biggest gap to be between LTCC and MACC.
Then the airfields get a bit more complicated due to the fact some are tower only and some are not. Some have a crossed runway operation etc.
Then the airfields get a bit more complicated due to the fact some are tower only and some are not. Some have a crossed runway operation etc.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Southampton
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the vote were to be split NATS would insist on acceptance of the AVAA scheme with the first vote. Once the AVAAs had been voted in there would be no reason for NATS to offer any extra money to any unit for restructuring purposes.
Posters in this Forum bang on about how the union should use it's industrial muscle and the first time it really does there are cries of "stitch up!"
I accept that that many ATCOs feel devalued by the band their unit has fallen into but I expect that the majority do not and the deal will go through. In the final analysis no restructuring deal is going to satisfy everyone. A deal that offers the best to the majority of members without taking money out of the pockets of any other member is the democratic inevitability.
There is talk of uniting to fight the Union and NATS on this deal. I doubt that this is a realistic possibility particularly when you consider what paltry deals have been accepted in the past. Time and energy would be better spent uniting to improve the lot of those felt hard done by within the structure proposed. Once the principle of banded pay is accepted then if we can prove your worth you will get the extra money.
As an aside, can the Band 1/2 airports actually afford to pay more than that within their contracts?
Posters in this Forum bang on about how the union should use it's industrial muscle and the first time it really does there are cries of "stitch up!"
I accept that that many ATCOs feel devalued by the band their unit has fallen into but I expect that the majority do not and the deal will go through. In the final analysis no restructuring deal is going to satisfy everyone. A deal that offers the best to the majority of members without taking money out of the pockets of any other member is the democratic inevitability.
There is talk of uniting to fight the Union and NATS on this deal. I doubt that this is a realistic possibility particularly when you consider what paltry deals have been accepted in the past. Time and energy would be better spent uniting to improve the lot of those felt hard done by within the structure proposed. Once the principle of banded pay is accepted then if we can prove your worth you will get the extra money.
As an aside, can the Band 1/2 airports actually afford to pay more than that within their contracts?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: South of Iceland
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2nd class citizens
Arkady wrote "Once the principle of banded pay is accepted then if we can prove your worth you will get the extra money."
Well, there was an 'open staff meeting' at ScOACC yesterday, where, not surprisingly, the issue of unit grading came up.
Several of the perceived omissions (as regards types of airspace, operations and services) were highlighted to management.
Perhaps the most telling statement was from the GM when he was quizzed about how management at SCOACC perceive the units worth - given the extra tasks, flexibility, extra validations, goodwill etc.... He was considered in his praise but said basically that he was up against higher management who didn't recognise it at all.
His words basically ..............
"You are second class citizens, you will always be second class citizens, get used to it."
Nice to see that NATS values ALL its staff.
Well, there was an 'open staff meeting' at ScOACC yesterday, where, not surprisingly, the issue of unit grading came up.
Several of the perceived omissions (as regards types of airspace, operations and services) were highlighted to management.
Perhaps the most telling statement was from the GM when he was quizzed about how management at SCOACC perceive the units worth - given the extra tasks, flexibility, extra validations, goodwill etc.... He was considered in his praise but said basically that he was up against higher management who didn't recognise it at all.
His words basically ..............
"You are second class citizens, you will always be second class citizens, get used to it."
Nice to see that NATS values ALL its staff.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: South England
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the yard stick of how complex/difficult a sector/unit is could be taken from the statistics on ab initio validation/failure rates. All trainees should leave the college having attained roughly the same standard and therefore should have the same chances to validate, unless of course, some units are more complex/difficult than others.
Throws a log on the fire and stands well back
Throws a log on the fire and stands well back
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: NAV Canada
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One comment then....
MACC SE SECTOR --- OFFICIALLY EUROPES BUSIEST.
Log and fire indeed!
MACC then is band 6 but then doubt many of the LACC staff have ever tried a busy TMA sector
MACC SE SECTOR --- OFFICIALLY EUROPES BUSIEST.
Log and fire indeed!
MACC then is band 6 but then doubt many of the LACC staff have ever tried a busy TMA sector
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: NAV Canada
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely Flowman, you arent suggesting LACCs poor validation record is due to traing system and OJTI performance????
My God, Flowman youre a genius....glad I hadnt thought of that or Id be embarrassed at validating so many abinitios on "Europes Busiest Sector" 1st time around!!!
I need to go to LACC for a rest!
My God, Flowman youre a genius....glad I hadnt thought of that or Id be embarrassed at validating so many abinitios on "Europes Busiest Sector" 1st time around!!!
I need to go to LACC for a rest!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: South England
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree entirely Flowman, I'm just trying to encourage some healthy debate. It seems everyone seems to know everything about everyone else's units so lets see what old chestnuts this one throws up. I see a fish is already biting at Manchester. And maybe we should be having a discussion on how you can make statistics say whatever you want too, and appoint Lord Hutton the Chair.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Middle earth, the old chestnut is simply until recently AC training was . Queens University came and done a paper on NATS training, findings = culture problem at AC. You cant have a heathly debate when one unit has not pulled their weight for years in the training department. Again harsh but fair. And also look at the model you have been given it is clear without question that the figures have been played with to put LACC above MACC. I am only use MACC as it is almost a third the size of LACC and most people can divide etc by three.
. Queens University came and done a paper on NATS training, findings = culture problem at AC. You cant have a heathly debate when one unit has not pulled their weight for years in the training department. Again harsh but fair. And also look at the model you have been given it is clear without question that the figures have been played with to put LACC above MACC. I am only use MACC as it is almost a third the size of LACC and most people can divide etc by three.
Last edited by dvdr; 11th Feb 2004 at 17:49.
Time merchant
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fidgell
Where do you get the "MACC SE sector- officially Europe's busiest" title from?
An honest question. Is it straight sector flow figures, or movements per controller, or daily/annual totals?
I'm not at work so I can't look up some numbers. But I will!
Where do you get the "MACC SE sector- officially Europe's busiest" title from?
An honest question. Is it straight sector flow figures, or movements per controller, or daily/annual totals?
I'm not at work so I can't look up some numbers. But I will!