NATS Pay/WP
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't Tell Him Pike:
Thanks for your update.
The relevance of Shropshire was to cover the case where there might be people at Manch, like some at LACC, who choose to live further away from work and commute in the hope of getting more house for their money. Or because they like that area better.
Still seems to be a clear case that the South is more expensive, wherever you go.
As for abstaining from the vote: Major Cop Out. You have a simple choice: Do you or do you not think that the Pay Deal as it is presented is one you can support? There is no middle ground and by not voting you are adding to the mess.
Thanks for your update.
The relevance of Shropshire was to cover the case where there might be people at Manch, like some at LACC, who choose to live further away from work and commute in the hope of getting more house for their money. Or because they like that area better.
Still seems to be a clear case that the South is more expensive, wherever you go.
As for abstaining from the vote: Major Cop Out. You have a simple choice: Do you or do you not think that the Pay Deal as it is presented is one you can support? There is no middle ground and by not voting you are adding to the mess.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just got my ballot paper as well.
Every year it's the same thing from Prospect, If you vote NO you lose the money AND we know we've done a rubbish job but stick with us and next year it will be better
Well, I'm tired of waiting for the union to grow balls, represent ALL it's members, and negotiate the deal we deserve.
I think the pay deal is fine, but the WP sucks. We should have been asked to vote on these issues separately, but Prospect want me to vote on the whole package.
I didn't really want a pay rise anyway!!!!!!!!!
Every year it's the same thing from Prospect, If you vote NO you lose the money AND we know we've done a rubbish job but stick with us and next year it will be better
Well, I'm tired of waiting for the union to grow balls, represent ALL it's members, and negotiate the deal we deserve.
I think the pay deal is fine, but the WP sucks. We should have been asked to vote on these issues separately, but Prospect want me to vote on the whole package.
I didn't really want a pay rise anyway!!!!!!!!!
Last edited by Galaxy Defender; 14th Feb 2004 at 18:53.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smacks of desperation that they need to after all the briefings still send us further letters asking us to vote yes and a further circular on "how the union works"
I am advised that the combined union membership at the Band 5 units totals 41% of the vote.
The meeting at our unit only convinced me more that this is unfair, it is a shame as the union have negotiated some many fine aspects on top of the regrading and i congratulate them for that, and i am well aware of the amount of work that goes into such negotiations.
As for having a go at someone who declines to vote , well that is entirely their choice, we should not criticise it is up to the individual to decide how or what they do with it.
I have sent back my ballot paper in the post this morning now its down to wait and see.
I am advised that the combined union membership at the Band 5 units totals 41% of the vote.
The meeting at our unit only convinced me more that this is unfair, it is a shame as the union have negotiated some many fine aspects on top of the regrading and i congratulate them for that, and i am well aware of the amount of work that goes into such negotiations.
As for having a go at someone who declines to vote , well that is entirely their choice, we should not criticise it is up to the individual to decide how or what they do with it.
I have sent back my ballot paper in the post this morning now its down to wait and see.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Cellblock K
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This morning's wordy 'explanation' from the Union arrived and was read with deep interest.
Sadly I feel it is purely a wordy PR exercise and has paid lip service to the concerns of those about the grading system. This bothers me much much more than the issue of who gets what and where. It also appears that the Union has succumbed to the mathematics of appealing to those units that complain the most. You may call it democracy, I call it bullying.
The 'scores' are divisive - the Union at least acknowledges that a 3x score doesn't mean unit A works 3x harder, so why not sort it NOW ?
The most sensible contribution I have heard was from someone who suggested that Target Sector Flows would be a more accurate guide as to how busy a sector is. Why is this not used ?
The 'explanation' is even less transparent and throws up more questions than it answers.
And no indication of when any 'refinement' to the model will happen.
Sadly I feel it is purely a wordy PR exercise and has paid lip service to the concerns of those about the grading system. This bothers me much much more than the issue of who gets what and where. It also appears that the Union has succumbed to the mathematics of appealing to those units that complain the most. You may call it democracy, I call it bullying.
The 'scores' are divisive - the Union at least acknowledges that a 3x score doesn't mean unit A works 3x harder, so why not sort it NOW ?
The most sensible contribution I have heard was from someone who suggested that Target Sector Flows would be a more accurate guide as to how busy a sector is. Why is this not used ?
The 'explanation' is even less transparent and throws up more questions than it answers.
And no indication of when any 'refinement' to the model will happen.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BALLOT PAPER PROBLEM nothing received yet!
If you recall many members were disenfranchised at the last ballot by not receiving ballot papers - particularly those in Scotland. The problem is known to the BEC but they have failed to take remedial measures up to now , although Local Reps have been asking about this for some time.
If you've not got a ballot paper by Wednesday talk to your local rep or phone Prospect direct.
Will these papers will be counted by independent scrutineers?
If you recall many members were disenfranchised at the last ballot by not receiving ballot papers - particularly those in Scotland. The problem is known to the BEC but they have failed to take remedial measures up to now , although Local Reps have been asking about this for some time.
If you've not got a ballot paper by Wednesday talk to your local rep or phone Prospect direct.
Will these papers will be counted by independent scrutineers?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I got mine too and to be honest it seems a genuine attempt to allay some of the concerns expressed. As for the "how the union works"-it seems a pretty sensible idea to send this out to all members in conjunction with a ballot form as a means of communication and saves on postage as well. After all it is our subs which go to help pay for all this.
I attended my briefing recently and was impressed by the professional presentation and also the honesty and openness from the presenters. They were candid enough to admit that the model is not perfect but it can and will be refined as time goes by-mainly through input from the members. It does seem to be a sound platform from which to start the process.
The bit that concerns me in all this is what were the local reps doing over the last 2 years that this has all been going on? None of this should have been a surprise to anyone bearing in mind the information that the reps had access to and should have been sharing with their colleagues. Certainly at Swanwick there has been plenty of talk over the last few months of what was going on,but maybe we are lucky in that the unit reps are pretty good at canvassing opinion.
Target Sector Flows are not necessarily a guide to busyness as they have to be adapted to allow for complexity-it has however been an interesting debate about the MACC sectors somewhat laid to rest by flowmans' figures-I hope.
I suppose we now let the democratic process take its' course but am sure there will be other things over the next 3/4 weeks that we can find to fall out over.
I attended my briefing recently and was impressed by the professional presentation and also the honesty and openness from the presenters. They were candid enough to admit that the model is not perfect but it can and will be refined as time goes by-mainly through input from the members. It does seem to be a sound platform from which to start the process.
The bit that concerns me in all this is what were the local reps doing over the last 2 years that this has all been going on? None of this should have been a surprise to anyone bearing in mind the information that the reps had access to and should have been sharing with their colleagues. Certainly at Swanwick there has been plenty of talk over the last few months of what was going on,but maybe we are lucky in that the unit reps are pretty good at canvassing opinion.
Target Sector Flows are not necessarily a guide to busyness as they have to be adapted to allow for complexity-it has however been an interesting debate about the MACC sectors somewhat laid to rest by flowmans' figures-I hope.
I suppose we now let the democratic process take its' course but am sure there will be other things over the next 3/4 weeks that we can find to fall out over.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Cellblock K
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
250kts wrote ....
"Target Sector Flows are not necessarily a guide to busyness as they have to be adapted to allow for complexity."
Exactly my point. What is 'busyness'? TSFs take complexity into account. The formula would appear to be very selective in its interpretation of complexity - but then that hasn't exactly been explained clearly. 'Busyness' isn't just about numbers.
Some sectors can be working balls out with a TSF of 15, but because 'traffic volume' (the great god of the formula) is low, the sector scores low ........ but it's complexity, by definition, must be pretty high.
Actually shouldn't 'volume' be more than a 2-dimensional view of the number if aircraft passing through a sector ? Doesn't 'volume' imply a third dimension (or fourth) .... ie. time in the sector ?
Whatever, communication has been lacking - lessons MUST be learned.
"Target Sector Flows are not necessarily a guide to busyness as they have to be adapted to allow for complexity."
Exactly my point. What is 'busyness'? TSFs take complexity into account. The formula would appear to be very selective in its interpretation of complexity - but then that hasn't exactly been explained clearly. 'Busyness' isn't just about numbers.
Some sectors can be working balls out with a TSF of 15, but because 'traffic volume' (the great god of the formula) is low, the sector scores low ........ but it's complexity, by definition, must be pretty high.
Actually shouldn't 'volume' be more than a 2-dimensional view of the number if aircraft passing through a sector ? Doesn't 'volume' imply a third dimension (or fourth) .... ie. time in the sector ?
Whatever, communication has been lacking - lessons MUST be learned.
Time merchant
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest version of TLPD incorporates complexity values based on the type of traffic i.e. climbing/ descending/ overflights/ low & slows etc.
Why don't some of you Swanwick guys run via the flow position on your way to the next sector and ask them to show you?
You never know you might learn something.
I was surprised that controllers did not seem to know or care what was the capacity of the sector they were working, you all seem to be getting interested now though!
Why don't some of you Swanwick guys run via the flow position on your way to the next sector and ask them to show you?
You never know you might learn something.
I was surprised that controllers did not seem to know or care what was the capacity of the sector they were working, you all seem to be getting interested now though!
Watchdog Delta Hotel
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: here but there in 6 years
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as mentioned earlier in this huge thread the members can invoke a special delegate conference to discuss matters of great concern in certain circumstances
the branch secretary explains in this rather long reply to a friend of mine next
Dear ********
As Branch Secretary, it is part of my responsibilities to call a properly constituted Special Delegates Conference (SDC) when the Branch Executive Council considers it necessary, or when I have received a written request from not less than 170 members. Furthermore, I have to seek and receive the approval of the National Executive Committee of Prospect.
Given the gravitas of such a situation, I would expect duly signed individual letters from each such member, including their membership number and personal contact details. I would also expect those members to indicate to me the business that they would like transacted at an SDC, if one should be called, in order to assist with the drawing up of the calling notice and agenda. No other business other than that on the notice to convene an SDC can be discussed.
As is appropriate in these matters, a letter of multiple signatories would not be verifiable, nor after much deliberation would an Email stating the request. It would not be, I believe, satisfactory for the Branch to accept a mass produced letter, as it is important that each member feels sufficiently motivated to put ink to paper.
On receipt of at least 170 letters, and subject NEC approval, I would endeavour to organise an SDC to be held no later than 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the qualifying letter.
It is of note that the delegates appointed to an SDC shall be those appointed to the preceding Annual Delegates Conference.
Any requests for a special delegates conference can be made to me at the following address;
ATCOs' Branch Secretary
c/o David Luxton
Prospect
Flaxman House,
Gogmore Lane,
Chertsey,
Surrey
KT16 9JS
Yours truly
Angus MacCormick
Prospect ATCOs' Branch Secretary
so there you have it
if you feel srongly against the way the wp has been worked out and/or lumped together with a two year pay deal put pen to paper
but as angus points out don't copy anyone elses cause that won't count
the branch secretary explains in this rather long reply to a friend of mine next
Dear ********
As Branch Secretary, it is part of my responsibilities to call a properly constituted Special Delegates Conference (SDC) when the Branch Executive Council considers it necessary, or when I have received a written request from not less than 170 members. Furthermore, I have to seek and receive the approval of the National Executive Committee of Prospect.
Given the gravitas of such a situation, I would expect duly signed individual letters from each such member, including their membership number and personal contact details. I would also expect those members to indicate to me the business that they would like transacted at an SDC, if one should be called, in order to assist with the drawing up of the calling notice and agenda. No other business other than that on the notice to convene an SDC can be discussed.
As is appropriate in these matters, a letter of multiple signatories would not be verifiable, nor after much deliberation would an Email stating the request. It would not be, I believe, satisfactory for the Branch to accept a mass produced letter, as it is important that each member feels sufficiently motivated to put ink to paper.
On receipt of at least 170 letters, and subject NEC approval, I would endeavour to organise an SDC to be held no later than 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the qualifying letter.
It is of note that the delegates appointed to an SDC shall be those appointed to the preceding Annual Delegates Conference.
Any requests for a special delegates conference can be made to me at the following address;
ATCOs' Branch Secretary
c/o David Luxton
Prospect
Flaxman House,
Gogmore Lane,
Chertsey,
Surrey
KT16 9JS
Yours truly
Angus MacCormick
Prospect ATCOs' Branch Secretary
so there you have it
if you feel srongly against the way the wp has been worked out and/or lumped together with a two year pay deal put pen to paper
but as angus points out don't copy anyone elses cause that won't count
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southampton
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I, like many, have been with this thread from its start 3 months ago - seems like longer doesn't it?!
I'm sure this points already been made, but I again would like to ask (and I know I'm writing this from a Band 5 seat), but;
If the vote on this issue is counted and the "No's" win it, what are we expecting next? having attended one of my unit's briefings it was made clear to us that any monies offered in conjunction with WP changes would have to be withdrawn.
IMHO the only option then available to management would be to impose the 6.4% pay rise to all, and leave WP alone for the time being?
Do my colleagues at MACC & SCoACC and others, really believe that by voting "No" now will magically make management offer them 15%
I fear my friends it won't.
I'm sure this points already been made, but I again would like to ask (and I know I'm writing this from a Band 5 seat), but;
If the vote on this issue is counted and the "No's" win it, what are we expecting next? having attended one of my unit's briefings it was made clear to us that any monies offered in conjunction with WP changes would have to be withdrawn.
IMHO the only option then available to management would be to impose the 6.4% pay rise to all, and leave WP alone for the time being?
Do my colleagues at MACC & SCoACC and others, really believe that by voting "No" now will magically make management offer them 15%
I fear my friends it won't.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok a few points
The members directed that it should be a one year pay deal.
The members directed that basic pay should not be linked to wpp.
The model is flawed and it says in the paperwork with the ballot paper it is not for banding, so why is it being used to do so.
Why are we using it for anything?
Based on what is the gap between TC and AC growing between the rest.
Half five starts keeps coming up as the only reason. It is a national agreement so any unit can therefore be given half five starts.
There is more good than bad in the pay deal but some of it should not be there. We are being made to vote on the whole package which for many means they have to vote no to show they disagree with elements of the package.
Apparently this is not the place to air our views and to do it through the proper union channels eg Vote NO.
Many people have not been listened too. Our national officer, anyone see him at any of the briefings. How can they ask us to vote using the model?
Action if no vote
If management take the money off the table we have to decide on industrial action eg eveyone out. If you are not prepared to do so vote YES.
StillDark&Hungry if you read further back it is not really about money its worse than that it is pride and the treatment of other units. It is so bais towards TC and AC it is embarrassing. Most of it has been thought out by people who dont know enough about NATS ATC as a whole to come up with anything realistic.
Yes it has become clear over the months it comes down to a lack of knowledge. No one seems to say who was consulted just that we were. Not good enough.
The members directed that it should be a one year pay deal.
The members directed that basic pay should not be linked to wpp.
The model is flawed and it says in the paperwork with the ballot paper it is not for banding, so why is it being used to do so.
Why are we using it for anything?
Based on what is the gap between TC and AC growing between the rest.
Half five starts keeps coming up as the only reason. It is a national agreement so any unit can therefore be given half five starts.
There is more good than bad in the pay deal but some of it should not be there. We are being made to vote on the whole package which for many means they have to vote no to show they disagree with elements of the package.
Apparently this is not the place to air our views and to do it through the proper union channels eg Vote NO.
Many people have not been listened too. Our national officer, anyone see him at any of the briefings. How can they ask us to vote using the model?
Action if no vote
If management take the money off the table we have to decide on industrial action eg eveyone out. If you are not prepared to do so vote YES.
StillDark&Hungry if you read further back it is not really about money its worse than that it is pride and the treatment of other units. It is so bais towards TC and AC it is embarrassing. Most of it has been thought out by people who dont know enough about NATS ATC as a whole to come up with anything realistic.
Yes it has become clear over the months it comes down to a lack of knowledge. No one seems to say who was consulted just that we were. Not good enough.
Last edited by dvdr; 16th Feb 2004 at 00:04.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Scotland
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SD&H
your point has been made, but you seem to have missed our point completely. Those of us unhappy with this deal would rather there was a similar pay rise for everyone and the wp looked at again, than a flawed agreement brought in with a "promise" that it will be looked at at a later date. Yes 15% would be nice, but in the event of a no vote it would be likely that not only that figure decrease, but the possibility of no rise at all is not out of the question. Now does the fact that your colleagues not in the "happy" band 5 units would even concieve of going down that route show you that they strongly believe they are being unfairly treated in a deal that the union agrees is not perfect. I may be wrong but I think that a lot of those who disagree with this deal only do so about certain aspects of it, but as the union have tied the agreement in to the wp and grading changes, which they do not agree have been calculated fairly, that they will vote against
Now I am not having a go at you for being happy with the deal.If I was in your shoes I would probably be the same ( nature of the beast and all that) but try to see past the bitching and tit for tat comments,to the heart of the agreement and look past the bits that affect you and look at the bits that concern us.
I know that you are busy, its a point that has been done to death but try to see that these other units are not quiet backwaters with tumble weed blowing through their ops rooms
they are working hard for this company to ensure that delays are reduced and the traffic flows,and what do they get in return for all of this work?, A perceived slap in the face .
As has been mentioned we will have to see the result published and then whatever the outcome round twelve of the argument will probably begin.
Ramble over!
your point has been made, but you seem to have missed our point completely. Those of us unhappy with this deal would rather there was a similar pay rise for everyone and the wp looked at again, than a flawed agreement brought in with a "promise" that it will be looked at at a later date. Yes 15% would be nice, but in the event of a no vote it would be likely that not only that figure decrease, but the possibility of no rise at all is not out of the question. Now does the fact that your colleagues not in the "happy" band 5 units would even concieve of going down that route show you that they strongly believe they are being unfairly treated in a deal that the union agrees is not perfect. I may be wrong but I think that a lot of those who disagree with this deal only do so about certain aspects of it, but as the union have tied the agreement in to the wp and grading changes, which they do not agree have been calculated fairly, that they will vote against
Now I am not having a go at you for being happy with the deal.If I was in your shoes I would probably be the same ( nature of the beast and all that) but try to see past the bitching and tit for tat comments,to the heart of the agreement and look past the bits that affect you and look at the bits that concern us.
I know that you are busy, its a point that has been done to death
but try to see that these other units are not quiet backwaters with tumble weed blowing through their ops rooms they are working hard for this company to ensure that delays are reduced and the traffic flows,and what do they get in return for all of this work?, A perceived slap in the face . As has been mentioned we will have to see the result published and then whatever the outcome round twelve of the argument will probably begin.
Ramble over!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Southampton
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The WP, Pay Award and regrading could not have been dealt with separately. NATS would have had no reason to agree to additional increases in the salary of all its ATCOs if the WP had been negotiated and agreed.
However each of us feels about the way the money is to be divided up we cannot criticise the negotiating team for the deal they drove.
In monetary terms this is the best pay deal we have had in years, better for some but not bad for anyone. The money was on the table because NATS desperately needs the AVAA agreement at LACC and LTCC to keep down the delays (so it is no surprise that NATS agreed to a deal that favoured those two units). Without that stick to beat them with, there would have been little or no extra money for ATCO salaries.
We would not be arguing about the "unfairness" of 10.7% rise against a 14.7% rise if the Union had negotiated it in any other way. We would be moaning that 6.4% was not enough.
However each of us feels about the way the money is to be divided up we cannot criticise the negotiating team for the deal they drove.
In monetary terms this is the best pay deal we have had in years, better for some but not bad for anyone. The money was on the table because NATS desperately needs the AVAA agreement at LACC and LTCC to keep down the delays (so it is no surprise that NATS agreed to a deal that favoured those two units). Without that stick to beat them with, there would have been little or no extra money for ATCO salaries.
We would not be arguing about the "unfairness" of 10.7% rise against a 14.7% rise if the Union had negotiated it in any other way. We would be moaning that 6.4% was not enough.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I'm in band 1 and I'm voting yes. Why? Well, the basic pay rise is good, many others would love to have it. Do I worry that people at other units will earn more than me? No. There is room to move on.
Do you all feel that if the deal is rejected NATS will divi up the whole amount between everyone? No, of course not, get real.
This thread is one of the saddest things I have read about our fine profession.
Do you all feel that if the deal is rejected NATS will divi up the whole amount between everyone? No, of course not, get real.
This thread is one of the saddest things I have read about our fine profession.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Just North of France
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said band 1 at last someone from the lower end of the potential structure who has common sense and can see possible potential for moving up the scale and not just looking through green specs because someone is receiving slightly more than them (for changes to their WP's).
I think this is a very good deal for all concerned, particularly for the units that have no real changes to make and I'm sure in the real world the people making all the fuss know that this is the case.
Band 1, if you are at Southampton, come and have a look around Swanwick some day and I'm sure you will be made most welcome and be encouraged to apply if you feel that way inclined, because we certainly aren't receiving a wave of applications from the northern units, in fact none at all in the last year! Funny that?
My yes vote is also on the way to prospect HQ!
AREA 52
I think this is a very good deal for all concerned, particularly for the units that have no real changes to make and I'm sure in the real world the people making all the fuss know that this is the case.
Band 1, if you are at Southampton, come and have a look around Swanwick some day and I'm sure you will be made most welcome and be encouraged to apply if you feel that way inclined, because we certainly aren't receiving a wave of applications from the northern units, in fact none at all in the last year! Funny that?
My yes vote is also on the way to prospect HQ!
AREA 52
Band 1, Band 5, TSFs, TLPDs, dubious models, sector counts.
Inter unit hostility. Wonder how much time / money spent by countless Managers & Union bods working on a plan that will never please everyone.
Just an idea, but what was wrong with a NATIONAL pay scale?
An ATCO in the same company being paid the same, no matter where their location is. Now that's pretty fair & simple.
Maybe you should join PCS?
Inter unit hostility. Wonder how much time / money spent by countless Managers & Union bods working on a plan that will never please everyone.
Just an idea, but what was wrong with a NATIONAL pay scale?
An ATCO in the same company being paid the same, no matter where their location is. Now that's pretty fair & simple.
Maybe you should join PCS?
Manchesters Most Wanted PPRuNer
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AREA52
Band 1, if you are at Southampton, come and have a look around Swanwick some day and I'm sure you will be made most welcome and be encouraged to apply if you feel that way inclined, because we certainly aren't receiving a wave of applications from the northern units, in fact none at all in the last year! Funny that?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: somewhere out there
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Band 1
you are either a journo or someone who hasn't a clue about what is going on around you in the big wide world of NATS.
It is your right to vote YES and if you truly believe that this is a GOOD and FAIR deal then you should do so.
I will be voting NO.
And I'm also thinking about cancelling my union membership with immediate effect.
you are either a journo or someone who hasn't a clue about what is going on around you in the big wide world of NATS.
It is your right to vote YES and if you truly believe that this is a GOOD and FAIR deal then you should do so.
I will be voting NO.
And I'm also thinking about cancelling my union membership with immediate effect.
Watchdog Delta Hotel
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: here but there in 6 years
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AREA 52
as my friend nite says(in short form)
you are talking rubbish , many of my friends from here have gone for it rather than go to the new one up north
so get your facts straight before making an fool of yourself with such misinformed garbage
as my friend nite says(in short form)
you are talking rubbish , many of my friends from here have gone for it rather than go to the new one up north
so get your facts straight before making an fool of yourself with such misinformed garbage
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Southampton
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Area 52 is justified in what he is saying.
According to our GM, LACC recieved no applications from any other area unit last year. But it should be remembered that because we didn't recieve any doesn't mean none were made. If you or anyone you know applied to come to LACC last year you should contact our GM direct and ask him why your application failed to reach him, he's a decent bloke and you will get a sympathetic hearing. If the new structure goes through he will be expecting transfer enquiries, get yourselves to the front of the queue.
Caniplaywithmadness wrote
“Band 1
you are either a journo or someone who hasn't a clue about what is going on around you in the big wide world of NATS.”
Although Band 1 loses some credibility because this is his/her first post, the opinion expressed should not be denigrated as misinformed. The Band 1 rise IS a good one in isolation and more importantly will not price NATS out of the market when it comes time to renew contracts. Unlike those of us at the centres, the airports have much bigger problems when considering pay than who is busier than who.
According to our GM, LACC recieved no applications from any other area unit last year. But it should be remembered that because we didn't recieve any doesn't mean none were made. If you or anyone you know applied to come to LACC last year you should contact our GM direct and ask him why your application failed to reach him, he's a decent bloke and you will get a sympathetic hearing. If the new structure goes through he will be expecting transfer enquiries, get yourselves to the front of the queue.
Caniplaywithmadness wrote
“Band 1
you are either a journo or someone who hasn't a clue about what is going on around you in the big wide world of NATS.”
Although Band 1 loses some credibility because this is his/her first post, the opinion expressed should not be denigrated as misinformed. The Band 1 rise IS a good one in isolation and more importantly will not price NATS out of the market when it comes time to renew contracts. Unlike those of us at the centres, the airports have much bigger problems when considering pay than who is busier than who.
Last edited by Arkady; 16th Feb 2004 at 16:02.