NATS Pay/WP

[Band1]

No, I'm not a journo, just someone I hope with enough commonsense to see the bigger picture.

Caniplay, as I don't share you view you feel I haven't got a clue as to what is going on in the big wide world of NATS. Do you apply that logic to everyone you know?

I say again, if the offer is rejected do you honestly feel there will just be a divi up of the whole amount across all the units? Not a chance.

Yes, that was my first post, this will probably be my last, just couldn't stand idly by any longer. Back to lurking.

[AREA52]

Thank you Arkady!

Mainecoon & niteflight

Perhaps it's not me that should be getting there facts straight or "talking rubbish"!

Maybe it's just the same scenario as all your colleagues who say they'll vote against the deal and actually vote yes as they know it is a good deal but never admit to it. Perhaps that may apply to you to mainecoon I don't know

I look forward to the evidence of a willingness to come to LACC from our GM

[DangerousD]

Area52.... mine, and others requests for transfers have been with personnel for over two years now. Being a humble atco doing a decent job day in day out I do not have the knowledge of what exactly happens to my request. Even if I contact the GM at lacc can he force my GM to release me if there is a decreasing number of ATCO's??.

With regard to 5.30 starts which seems to be the main reason for the big boys getting the extra money, at our roadshow the WP negotiator asked how many would be willing to do 5.30 starts and was a little surprised when everyones hand went up. If you think about it you will actually work 2 hours less per shift (guarenteed) for more money.....sounds like a brilliant deal. It was also pointed out that there were a scores of different shift patterns being worked all over the country for no monetary benefit what so ever.

It has been said that if it's a NO vote then the money dissapears, well IMHO I dont think that management would be too happy with no 5.30 starts with the added benifit of70 odd job savings, they wouldn't be happy with no aava agreemant in place after 31st March and I dont think they would be too unhappy if prospect asked for a few more months to get the whole pakage right if it was to benefit everyone.

In response to a couple of threads re house prices......if ave price in Cheshire is £247k and ave price in Hampshire is £313k (and dont foget the gap is closing!!) then the interest on the extra £65k is about £2500 per year (terms and conditions apply.etc,etc) am I not wrong in thinking that that is covered quite nicely by the two extra spine points already in place??

Also got my ballot paper and covering explanation and it seems my wife has been humouring me all these years as the union also beleives that size really does matter!!

[AREA52]

DD

I am not saying that nobody has applied from other units? I am saying that our DGM has said that he has not received any, that is all I can go on. I would suggest that in your case, you contact your GM, who I believe is our old DGM and find out what the f**k is going on and if it was me, I would not have waited 2 years with no response and assume it is still in "the process"

Maybe he lost your form and others at LACC before he left us

I just don't appreciate when someone uses words like "rubbish" and "misinformed garbage" when I have heard it straight from the horses mouth and have seen no new recruits appear in the ops room in at least the last 12 months!

Don't forget the 5.30 starts also mean less people on nights, which means a more tiring shift for those who are on the nights!

[caniplaywithmadness]

Band 1

As I said in my previous post, if you feel that this is a good deal then you go right ahead and vote Yes, you are probably one of a very tiny minority at a non band 5 unit who thinks this is a good deal.

The basic pay deal as you have suggested is under the current financial circumstances a good one and I have said this before.

However OUR Union has gone against members wishes and negotiated a 2 year deal, they have applied grading criteria for all the units which while supposedly transparent are anything but and seem to be weighted to favour the BAND 5 units and disregrad all the complications of working at a tower / approach unit with varying degrees of complexity (cross rwy operations, lack of CAS, Cat E CAS, services to other airfields in the TMA, working departures because they conflict with inbounds, RIS RAS FIS to traffic outside CAS etc etc etc)

I would gladly vote YES if for one minute I believed that this grading system was fair and transparent, as I couldn't argue with the figures.

If the Union is recomending and offer based on a grading system which they ADMIT IS FLAWED then I CANNOT condone this incompetence and vote YES

[opnot]

Why are the ballot papers going back to Prospect to be counted and not to the Electoral Reform Society where they normally go to be counted.

[StillDark&Hungry]

Band 1

Well said to all

caniplay.....

I would gladly vote YES if for one minute I believed that this grading system was fair and transparent, as I couldn't argue with the figures.

Does that mean if there wasn't a band 5, for example, and you being band 4 were at the top you would vote yes

ayrprox

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

I never have, nor ever will, say anything like you suggest I have. Kindly find my previous posts to check if you so wish.

dvdr

There is more good than bad in the pay deal but some of it should not be there

Surely if that's the case you should vote yes

[caniplaywithmadness]

StillDark, I couldn't care less how many bands there are, all I care about is a fair deal for ALL ATCO's whether they be in Band 5 or Band 1.

The union have asked us to vote on a sytem of grading which is FLAWED and by their own admission they are only about 65% confident with.

If you were only 65% confident of ensuring separation between 2 aircraft would you think well that's ok it will probably work or would you do something about it???

I have no problem with being banded below LACC, LL, CC, BB, SS what i seek is fairness in the system which is being used to determine these grades.

It may well be the case that when the system is refined so that it takes into account all the RELEVANT parameters that the grades will not change, however they may, but at least they system being used will be fair and transparant, a far cry from the system currently being used.

Until this system is revised to truly reflect the workload of ALL ATCO's then I cannot in all conscience vote YES and I hope that all the other ATCO's (including the Band 5) who see this for the complete FARCE that it is also vote to reject this shambolic offer.

[ayrprox]

SD&H

apologies, that particular comment was meant to band 5 units in general not a pop at you specifically no offense mate

[MancBoy]

I heard that apparantly Manc SE refused to start crossing over outbounds so that they were on the correct sides for exiting the UK. When queried by DTY the response was, " you're a band 5 unit, do it yourself!!!". I know that Manch don't have to do this but If you're gonna start playing silly ******s then the same will start happening with MTMA, nm, nh, no inbounds aswell !!!

[Asda]

Passions are running high for some, but I'm sure that Manc would never drop their standards of professionalism and certainly not indulge in childish sulking. Throughout this debate, whenever I've worked with them, I've found them as courteous and as helpful as ever.

Regardless of whether the incident happened or not, this isn't the place to start threatening each other.

[dvdr]

Lads , some of you clearly need to calm down. MancBoy even if it did happen two wrongs dont make a right. Someone will end up sacked. If it is true why werent the tapes pulled??? We have already had MORs pointed at Scottish because of poor procedures at LACC. Take responsiblity and do your own job right.
Maybe we should just wait for the result. Ok maybe not .

ding ding round 204

[mainecoon]

area52
voted no by return of post

but move even further south , no way mate never wanted to be here in the first place (screwed a long time ago)

but as dd says , he and many others have applied and got no response

i will go north mate and am happy to do so

sorry for the "talking rubbish" thing but as you can see , not as bad as the thread seems to going towards

respect your opinion but hope you can see where my side are coming from

regrds

[AREA52]

I assume the LACC procedures to which you refer are the ones which require a simple level by clearance and timely co-ordination if this cannot be achieved with the appropriate sector.

If we were receiving these aircraft in such a way, then there would be no need to file 1261's! Also, most of the Lakes controllers are not particularly happy with the new sectorisation anyway which was driven by a few face saving individuals who cocked the 3/7 bandbox scheme up the first time.

Oh and lets not forget all the airbus a/c who we were promised by Scatcc and the operators would make the standing agreement level at kelly. Again an unnecessary requirement.

Mainecoon,

Thanks for the apology, as you say, everyone is entitled to their opinion and vote, otherwise there would be no need for a ballot

As I said earlier, if your workmates have applied and still want to come down then I would enquire with Mr Lewis, seems strange that he was down here when they probably applied and was no doubt well aware at that time that he was to be manager of the unit from which the people wanted to move, call me a cynic.

Anyway I'm off to inspect the inside of my eyelids as it's getting too late to be on here

Regards

AREA 52

P.S enjoy Scotland, it's a wonderful place!

[mainecoon]

thanks area52

i know , i am an arctic circle warrior (so one of the guys told me) north of the belt

thanks anyway
your views have helped the debate

regrds maine

[10W]

The problem with any unit going down that path though Area52 is that they better be sure that their own house is in order 100% of the time.

Imagine if every unit filed EVERY time that an aircraft was not 100% compliant with a condition or co-ordination ??

We'd ALL drown in paperwork.

Why not let the Supervisors do their job at the time of the occurrence and chat to each other ? Let them get both sides of the story and then let them decide what action is required to either nip things in the bud or pass things on to a higher authority for resolution. They will always in my experience pass feedback to those involved who of course still have the option of escalating it if they are not satisfied. But at least they have attempted to keep things sensible.

And just to clear things up, there is no one at ScACC (without the T for at least 8 years, although we still do Terminal Ops ) qualified to fly an Airbus so it is unlikely that the promises on KELLY would have come from us. We would have gone on the word of the operators and passed this on. If they say they can do it, then what comeback do we have to question them ?? Much the same as when the pilot tells us he can make FL350 by LAKEY, looks good on radar to achieve it, gets transferred early to allow a constant climb, fails to do what he says and then the transferring unit gets MOR'd even although the aircraft has been working LACC for 3 or 4 minutes before the restriction point

I'll be telling my chaps to watch out for all those direct routeing aircraft passing through Humber sector without co-ordination towards NEW ... and to look out for all the ones which don't come at the level we get on the ACT. And the occasional non TMA arrival at an ODL without co-ordination. And ..... and ....... and ....... I'd better order a new rain forest of 1261s and get my opposite number at your end to do the same for all our indiscretions !!

Luckily, back in the real world and with the Watches we tend to come up against, I and the rest of the Watch will continue to work cordially with our colleagues at LACC (and MACC, the airfields, and other ATSUs). If we have problems on the day, then we should, and I believe will, continue to deal with them in a professional and pragmatic manner on the day. We won't sling in a form and not mention a thing so that the poor sod at the other end is confronted with a request for his story some time after the event. Unless of course that is the new policy as part of the 'Divide and Conquer' that we can sense in this pay deal. Maybe we deserve another spine point for the increased paperwork all round ??

Cheers

[AREA52]

10w

Your points are taken, a lot of which I agree with, and I should point out that I cannot remember ever filing a 1261 myself for an occurence like this. I tend to do things the way you described and either speak to the other person myself and if necessary then get the supervisor involved.
However, with regard to the standing agreements via DCS this seemed to be happening time and time again and we're not just talking missing the level by a few hundred feet! With the vertical sectorisation, this can be very dangerous as S3 have no strips on the a/c and therefore assume they will not enter their airspace, also the track is a dull grey background track as opposed to a bright green foreground track which if you have seen the Swanwick system you will know does not jump out at you when busy. From S4 point of view, not as much of a problem but if they are very low they can collect the odd 340 track on it's way to REMSI. A/C still have to be monitored to some degree!

With having tried to deal with this through the usual channels without success, one watch had a particularly bad hour whilst very busy and this resulted in the 1261's and I would say the problem has now improved by some degree. I guess sometimes you have no option but to file!

Anyway, thank god the high level standing agreement is being withdrawn, and hopefully the re-sectorisation that came with it

With regard to the KELLY agreement, S7 have no reason to need the standing agreement level any higher than FL250. When our representatives approached presumably your OP's section to try to lower the agreement to a more achievable 250 or even 270 they were told that your OP's guys had approached BMA who had said achieving the agreement level would not be a problem!
Perhaps somebody from ScACC should also make representations to their OP's regarding this? After all an SA is supposed to reduce co-ordination!

Anyway, hope that gives you more background.

Nobody is perfect and we don't want to get into a blame culture here so lets just try to work together a bit more on improving flawed procedures and how we apply them!

Not quite sure what this has to do with PAY/WP though

[10W]

Thanks Area 52 your points also taken on board.

I think the connection with the Pay/WP issue is that this whole agreement has the ability to divide the staff, to set other units on what is perceived as a higher plane (and be rewarded exponentially for it as well), and create a sense of injustice and a feeling of lack of worth at many units throughout the land.

This could lead to some of the less professional and pragmatic staff making it difficult for those at the 'golden units'. For example, as mentioned previously, by not going the extra mile and leaving the work to the higher paid unit (You're Band 5, you sort it !!), or by picking up on every little flaw and reporting it (They're Band 5, they get paid more to get it right, I'm gonna file a 1261 cos they didn't.).

None of this stuff is in NATS' or our own professional interests. However, the blind dogma of pushing through a flawed banding model (admitted as such) will illicit different reactions in different people and some will take things to the extreme

Split the pay and WP issues and take the time to get it right. It's been worked on for a year so far so another month or two won't bother the membership that much if they get a robust product and not some half baked thing which even those who came up with it can't seem to explain when pushed for answers or have the flaws pointed out to them in detail !!

[dvdr]

I dont think putting in 1261's against colleagues without telling them and because you are not happy with your own precedures is a very professional attitude NOT!. If you get the traffic 30 miles before it gets to the point of issue after the aircraft says it can make the level, think about who you should be putting a 1261 in against.
Do you not have a tech committee? It is this sort of attitude that is coming to the fore and needs to be stamped out.
All I ever hear is excuse after excuse, not my fault maybe people shouldnt throw stones in glass houses.

[1261]

I'm not against anybody.....