NATS Pay/WP
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: South England
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not disagreeing dvdr, but as you suggest that was in the past. Do you think a unit which is around 40 ATCOs short would still be looking to chop trainees ? I hold my hands up and admit that this may have been the case a few years ago, but today in my experience trainees are being given a lot of support, plenty of hours and more than a fair chance of validating.
Flowman, I would refer Fidgell to previous comments on TSF and making statistics say what you want them to say. Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Flowman, I would refer Fidgell to previous comments on TSF and making statistics say what you want them to say. Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Middle earth, this was all flagged up years ago and nothing was done by management or ATCOs at LACC. Hence you are now in a position were it is perceived that the job would seem to be more difficult than others but your new training figures are showing up even more the units shortcomings in the past.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: South England
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didnt realise this was a retrograde pay reward. If you wish to live in the past well that is fine by me, but I'm just telling you how things are right now. There is never going to be a total agreement over this deal, someone is always going to have his/her nose put out of joint. The only real way to solve this issue would be to have ATCO's from all units do a lovely tour of the UK in the magic Nats bus, then we could all see what eachother was doing and come to our own conclusions.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The comments here are getting bitchier by the day and really reflect badly on everyone of us.
The regrading proposals have set back unit cooperation decades.
I work closely with my LACC colleagues and have a very good professional working relationship with them, I hope they can equally say the same about my unit.
The differential pay difference between ATCO 2 and 3 is an acceptable difference, it reflects the difference between the units, the new structure doesn't and is too extreme. If an additional payment then was made on top to reflect a cost of living supplement i would be more than happy with that as well, but one would hope units such as Farnborough which are slap bang in the middle of the expensive SE are not forgotten.
Those advocating we should accept because it can be changed at a later date are surely looking at NATS through rose coloured spectacles that is simply not going to happen. This has been an ill judged and ill conceived regrading process.
The whole issue needs to go back to the drawing board and take into account all aspects of a units work.
Those looking to score points of other units should be ashamed, we as i have said before all work hard, we all have the same responsibilities , some may have a sustained traffic flow and then there are those of us who have the problems associated with Class G airspace etc. Unless we have all of us worked at every single NATS unit how can we actually say that we have a tougher job , work harder, its all a nonsense.
Please to my colleagues at LACC LTCC EGLL and the College realise we are not making waves because we like to make waves but we genuinely know we have been " shafted " by this regrading.
The regrading proposals have set back unit cooperation decades.
I work closely with my LACC colleagues and have a very good professional working relationship with them, I hope they can equally say the same about my unit.
The differential pay difference between ATCO 2 and 3 is an acceptable difference, it reflects the difference between the units, the new structure doesn't and is too extreme. If an additional payment then was made on top to reflect a cost of living supplement i would be more than happy with that as well, but one would hope units such as Farnborough which are slap bang in the middle of the expensive SE are not forgotten.
Those advocating we should accept because it can be changed at a later date are surely looking at NATS through rose coloured spectacles that is simply not going to happen. This has been an ill judged and ill conceived regrading process.
The whole issue needs to go back to the drawing board and take into account all aspects of a units work.
Those looking to score points of other units should be ashamed, we as i have said before all work hard, we all have the same responsibilities , some may have a sustained traffic flow and then there are those of us who have the problems associated with Class G airspace etc. Unless we have all of us worked at every single NATS unit how can we actually say that we have a tougher job , work harder, its all a nonsense.
Please to my colleagues at LACC LTCC EGLL and the College realise we are not making waves because we like to make waves but we genuinely know we have been " shafted " by this regrading.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the biggest ATC topic ever generated on Prune with over 500 posts and about 30,000 viewings. Shame we didn't get the same sort of response over privatisation .... however
As I see it the basic pay offer is OK
The WPP changes seem to have been accepted and as they are to generate the cash then the money from NATS should be secure.
The division of the money is sort of an issue but lots of postings are linking it to the structure which is the future way of dividing further money in years to come.
The structure concept is acceptable but there are genuine concerns about the way it has been put together with the gap between units completely unrealistic and nobody seems to know what will close or re-order those gaps.
I bet management are not exactly proud that they are going to p**s off a very large number of ATCOs whos loyalty and flexibility has been taken quietly for granted.
I bet the BEC are unsure of the effect of either stopping the ballot / not recognising the result / accepting the majority result whichever way it goes.
From what I know the ballot will go out next week with a closing date around 10 or 11 March.
This looks like a perfect opportunity for management and Prospect to show some practical effect of their recent "working together" accord. Not to stitch up the ATCOs but to listen to them and maybe pacify them that they are all being heard even if it doesn't actually change the amount of money offered to each one in this pay deal.
Before the ballot result is known there must be time for a Special Delegate Conference. From my distant memory of the Branch rules you need about 25 members and 3 weeks notice to debate a single issue. No single issue like structure has generated so much noise for years. I'd even invite the senior management negotiator to address the conference to give their rationale.
I think I'll ask for a copy of the current Rules to see if this is possible.
Anyone else fancy a constructive way of debating and influencing your union policy and possibly seeing some old friends at Bredbury Hall to boot ?
As I see it the basic pay offer is OK
The WPP changes seem to have been accepted and as they are to generate the cash then the money from NATS should be secure.
The division of the money is sort of an issue but lots of postings are linking it to the structure which is the future way of dividing further money in years to come.
The structure concept is acceptable but there are genuine concerns about the way it has been put together with the gap between units completely unrealistic and nobody seems to know what will close or re-order those gaps.
I bet management are not exactly proud that they are going to p**s off a very large number of ATCOs whos loyalty and flexibility has been taken quietly for granted.
I bet the BEC are unsure of the effect of either stopping the ballot / not recognising the result / accepting the majority result whichever way it goes.
From what I know the ballot will go out next week with a closing date around 10 or 11 March.
This looks like a perfect opportunity for management and Prospect to show some practical effect of their recent "working together" accord. Not to stitch up the ATCOs but to listen to them and maybe pacify them that they are all being heard even if it doesn't actually change the amount of money offered to each one in this pay deal.
Before the ballot result is known there must be time for a Special Delegate Conference. From my distant memory of the Branch rules you need about 25 members and 3 weeks notice to debate a single issue. No single issue like structure has generated so much noise for years. I'd even invite the senior management negotiator to address the conference to give their rationale.
I think I'll ask for a copy of the current Rules to see if this is possible.
Anyone else fancy a constructive way of debating and influencing your union policy and possibly seeing some old friends at Bredbury Hall to boot ?
Manchesters Most Wanted PPRuNer
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flowman
MACC SE has been Europe's busiest sector for some time now. And lest we not forget - we're talking about a TMA sector here too.
The clear and concise figures are readily available on our very own intranet.
Some colleagues at work have also bandied around a very informative sheet - and perhaps a more revealing one - on which movements are broken down per controller head.
LTCC is up there as you'd expect (fair play fellas
) and MACC fares well though, perhaps oddly enough to some people here, LACC clearly and definitely moves less aircraft per controller than MACC. There's a clear gap between to two if I remember correctly.
Surely that's a more accurate representation of workrate in terms of traffic shifted?
Let's not turn this into some horrid unit vs unit row though and I have to say I'm truly saddened by the lack of support and solidarity shown by mostly LACC based colleagues who seem to begrudge any other unit a fair and proper pay increase as if they money were from their own pockets.
The clear and concise figures are readily available on our very own intranet.
Some colleagues at work have also bandied around a very informative sheet - and perhaps a more revealing one - on which movements are broken down per controller head.
LTCC is up there as you'd expect (fair play fellas
) and MACC fares well though, perhaps oddly enough to some people here, LACC clearly and definitely moves less aircraft per controller than MACC. There's a clear gap between to two if I remember correctly.Surely that's a more accurate representation of workrate in terms of traffic shifted?
Let's not turn this into some horrid unit vs unit row though and I have to say I'm truly saddened by the lack of support and solidarity shown by mostly LACC based colleagues who seem to begrudge any other unit a fair and proper pay increase as if they money were from their own pockets.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: NAV Canada
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flowman, Middle Arse...
If you can read, then the figures clearly show MACC SE as the busiest sector on ACTUAL FIGURES (non union formula rubbish), so combined with the lowest number of ATCOs for the units this makes a substantially busier and more efficient sector than ANY at LACC..... think you like to do that on a lower band pay??? Could you???
Get your head out of the clouds and embrace reality son!
If you can read, then the figures clearly show MACC SE as the busiest sector on ACTUAL FIGURES (non union formula rubbish), so combined with the lowest number of ATCOs for the units this makes a substantially busier and more efficient sector than ANY at LACC..... think you like to do that on a lower band pay??? Could you???
Get your head out of the clouds and embrace reality son!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 six 4 I think the number required for a Special Delegate Conference is a percentage of the total so I doubt if it will be as low as 25. (maybe was in the days of 264s being active ??) Whatever number is required then I don't have any doubt that we could raise the numbers.
Problem might be a motion to debate ? Here it seems to range from we love or hate the pay deal
And in silly reaction to the last two posts.
Can someone define busiest sector ?
Biggest number of aircraft ?
Longest time on frequency ?
More r/t transmissions ?
More telephone co-ordinations ?
More often hits target sector flow or capacity ?
Exceeds both of the previous ?
Do we go down the road of most efficient ?
Most profitable ?
Employs most ATCOs ?
Uses less ATSAs ?
Provides more fuel efficient routes / climbs / descents ?
and in future has most ATCOs willing to come in for time in lieu ?overtime ? part AVAs ? low paid AVAs ? band 5 AVAs ?
and is it relevant ?
Problem might be a motion to debate ? Here it seems to range from we love or hate the pay deal
And in silly reaction to the last two posts.
Can someone define busiest sector ?
Biggest number of aircraft ?
Longest time on frequency ?
More r/t transmissions ?
More telephone co-ordinations ?
More often hits target sector flow or capacity ?
Exceeds both of the previous ?
Do we go down the road of most efficient ?
Most profitable ?
Employs most ATCOs ?
Uses less ATSAs ?
Provides more fuel efficient routes / climbs / descents ?
and in future has most ATCOs willing to come in for time in lieu ?overtime ? part AVAs ? low paid AVAs ? band 5 AVAs ?
and is it relevant ?
Last edited by Findo; 12th Feb 2004 at 06:42.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: somewhere out there
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all those who say vote it in now and we'll close the gap at a later date, it's never going to happen. As the reps said at the Union meeting the other day - they could never see the day where a pay rise that would be bigger for everyone else bar LACC et al would be put to the members as they would never get it accepted by LACC et al. Fine for them to ask us to vote this one through though
Any idea how yesterdays meeting with the mathematician and statistician went? Again it doesn't matter as again was said at the meeting even if Manchester goes up a band with Oceanic the bands as now will not change. "So what is the criteria at the moment or how much busier do we have to be to go up a band?" was asked ...."you can't and won't"... It gets better by the moment this ...
The only thing I heard of any use at the meeting was according to one of the reps that if all the band 5 units stick together and vote in favour of the deal it is NOT enough to carry it through.
Any idea how yesterdays meeting with the mathematician and statistician went? Again it doesn't matter as again was said at the meeting even if Manchester goes up a band with Oceanic the bands as now will not change. "So what is the criteria at the moment or how much busier do we have to be to go up a band?" was asked ...."you can't and won't"...
It gets better by the moment this ...The only thing I heard of any use at the meeting was according to one of the reps that if all the band 5 units stick together and vote in favour of the deal it is NOT enough to carry it through.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have an idea.
Why don't we ballot it. If the result is in favour we implement it, if it is not, then we don't.
It's called democracy and is generally regarded around the world as a fair way of settling on what the majority desire.
Surely there can be no complaints about that? ...........
Why don't we ballot it. If the result is in favour we implement it, if it is not, then we don't.
It's called democracy and is generally regarded around the world as a fair way of settling on what the majority desire.
Surely there can be no complaints about that? ...........
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: NAV Canada
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surley Middleearth Im not the unintellegent one here? I can air my feelings aloud for others to pass comment... chumps like yourself only send people private messages.... what did you call me???? I assure you my names not even short for Richard!!!
Back in yer box sonny. Sure glad you dont work with us!
Back in yer box sonny. Sure glad you dont work with us!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Costa del CYYZ
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't tell you how amusing I find all this.........
Having had the good fortune to escape NATS sinking ship in December for a better life in Canada.
In all seriousness I find it terribly sad that this pay offer has turned units against each other, and as a former TC controller I am glad to see my old friends have finally got some recognition for the marvellous job they do, but equally I find it sad that it appears to be at the detriment of other units.
I feel truly sorry for my ex-collegues at MACC who seem to have been royally screwed (on top of the SCACC move I guess morale is not great there at the moment !).
How refreshing it is in Canada, where all the controllers get the same base salary and then get a top up based on how busy the unit is. I believe it is based purely on traffic numbers so no need for complex formulas, and everyone knows the score before they join............don't like it, take a hike !
It just doesn't seem to be an issue here, the busiest units get paid more.
It seems funny being in an ACC where people are happy, more relaxed and enjoying their job after so many years in NATS.
Of course it's not perfect but my overall impressions are it's a lot better than being stuck in NATS graveyard, and this whole pay deal has re-affirmed my belief even more that I did the right thing by getting out.
I hope this mess all gets sorted out, I hate to see my former friends and collegues getting messed about (again), and I hope intra-unit relations can recover.
Surely someone in the Union needs to take a look at how this all happened, and ensure it never happens again..........are we not all supposed to be part of the same team?
My, how management must be loving this !
Having had the good fortune to escape NATS sinking ship in December for a better life in Canada.
In all seriousness I find it terribly sad that this pay offer has turned units against each other, and as a former TC controller I am glad to see my old friends have finally got some recognition for the marvellous job they do, but equally I find it sad that it appears to be at the detriment of other units.
I feel truly sorry for my ex-collegues at MACC who seem to have been royally screwed (on top of the SCACC move I guess morale is not great there at the moment !).
How refreshing it is in Canada, where all the controllers get the same base salary and then get a top up based on how busy the unit is. I believe it is based purely on traffic numbers so no need for complex formulas, and everyone knows the score before they join............don't like it, take a hike !
It just doesn't seem to be an issue here, the busiest units get paid more.
It seems funny being in an ACC where people are happy, more relaxed and enjoying their job after so many years in NATS.
Of course it's not perfect but my overall impressions are it's a lot better than being stuck in NATS graveyard, and this whole pay deal has re-affirmed my belief even more that I did the right thing by getting out.
I hope this mess all gets sorted out, I hate to see my former friends and collegues getting messed about (again), and I hope intra-unit relations can recover.
Surely someone in the Union needs to take a look at how this all happened, and ensure it never happens again..........are we not all supposed to be part of the same team?
My, how management must be loving this !
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having read and occasionally posted on this thread from the start I have come to deduce that those collegues at MACC, ScATCC and all airfields bar LL, BB, and SS are 'slightly' p d off at the deal on the table. So much so that the inane childish playground bickering and backstabbing/namecalling has gone on now for 35 PPRuNe pages. I'm glad that you all feel it fine to take your dirty laundry into the public domain so that all others can have a laugh at us, and that highly skilled proffessionals as we are can resort to cunning and dirty tactics. I'm ashamed that you can STILL keep this thread going in the same boring manner, that you feel fine to drag NATS further down, and dent the pride of many of your collegues along the way.
The bit you'll like from me is that now I do feel compassion for those that I now do think are really getting screwed by the deal. OUR union has told us all that you aren't going to like it much, but its the facts that point down this road and that the gradings are fair. You obviously aren't happy with them from all the consistent angry reactions displayed here, and as the real facts start being discovered I do agree you do have just course to be angry. But why did this have to be aired in public??? We have a whole part of PPRuNe JUST FOR US, its not hard to get into, and NO-ONE ELSE CAN.
I can happily say that I will join you and vote 'no', and I hope that there are enough others that also agree its not a fair deal and that 'no' vote is carried. If it is, please listen to us in the future and realise that a structure is needed to compensate those that deserve more JUST DUE TO THIER LOCATION, its the reason that many down here aren't giving a toss about those further north. However, paydeals in the past HAVE screwed the units further south before, so don't expect many to back you up.
Good Luck.
d off at the deal on the table. So much so that the inane childish playground bickering and backstabbing/namecalling has gone on now for 35 PPRuNe pages. I'm glad that you all feel it fine to take your dirty laundry into the public domain so that all others can have a laugh at us, and that highly skilled proffessionals as we are can resort to cunning and dirty tactics. I'm ashamed that you can STILL keep this thread going in the same boring manner, that you feel fine to drag NATS further down, and dent the pride of many of your collegues along the way.The bit you'll like from me is that now I do feel compassion for those that I now do think are really getting screwed by the deal. OUR union has told us all that you aren't going to like it much, but its the facts that point down this road and that the gradings are fair. You obviously aren't happy with them from all the consistent angry reactions displayed here, and as the real facts start being discovered I do agree you do have just course to be angry. But why did this have to be aired in public??? We have a whole part of PPRuNe JUST FOR US, its not hard to get into, and NO-ONE ELSE CAN.
I can happily say that I will join you and vote 'no', and I hope that there are enough others that also agree its not a fair deal and that 'no' vote is carried. If it is, please listen to us in the future and realise that a structure is needed to compensate those that deserve more JUST DUE TO THIER LOCATION, its the reason that many down here aren't giving a toss about those further north. However, paydeals in the past HAVE screwed the units further south before, so don't expect many to back you up.
Good Luck.