NATS Airport Re-grading (for pay)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Warwickshire
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the trainees weren't of a high enough standard, they wouldn't make it out of the college full stop. The fact that some area failures are given the opportunity to do Approach is merely NATS trying to reduce the attrition rate and give promising trainees another shot.
How many Students have succesfully completed the college course, only to go on and fail at the units they have been posted to?
I can think of at least 2 that have been posted to PF in the last 2 yrs (given that we've only had about 4 from CATC), and countless others that have failed to validate at ALL units they were given a chance at.
The money is not the issue here, it's the unfairness of the criteria used to "band " different units.
NATS is basically shafting the regional airports.
Still noone has commented on Oceanic Controllers, because they are in the same building as ScACC Radar, why should they have the same "banding" as ScACC, they move less traffic than PF, PH, BB, and it's hardly complicated is it????
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gonzo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I take it you are not being down graded...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
I'm sorry, maybe I missed something.....who is getting a pay cut
I did not mention anything about a pay cut, but we are being down graded, whether you want to believe it or not that is a fact. The trouble is because there is a few quid at the end of it, the assumption is that it will be okay, it took years to get over the last one. I arrived at my unit a new ATCO 3 fresh from CATC one of the only ATCO 3's on the unit as it happens and I was treated worse than a bit of dog sh*t on a shoe. All because they were being downgraded to my grade, all be it at the top of the scale. I just don't want to see it again!!!!! But hey It's you that's going to vote to Yes...me I'm voting NO. I am happy being an ATCO 3 call that greedy, well then I,m greedy, but you probably need the money. Oh and before you say it, yes I could apply for EGSS but I don't want to give up my Radar validation...enough said.
PA7
One 1/4 Cherokee 3/4's animal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I take it you are not being down graded...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
I'm sorry, maybe I missed something.....who is getting a pay cut
I did not mention anything about a pay cut, but we are being down graded, whether you want to believe it or not that is a fact. The trouble is because there is a few quid at the end of it, the assumption is that it will be okay, it took years to get over the last one. I arrived at my unit a new ATCO 3 fresh from CATC one of the only ATCO 3's on the unit as it happens and I was treated worse than a bit of dog sh*t on a shoe. All because they were being downgraded to my grade, all be it at the top of the scale. I just don't want to see it again!!!!! But hey It's you that's going to vote to Yes...me I'm voting NO. I am happy being an ATCO 3 call that greedy, well then I,m greedy, but you probably need the money. Oh and before you say it, yes I could apply for EGSS but I don't want to give up my Radar validation...enough said.
PA7
One 1/4 Cherokee 3/4's animal
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed AyrTC 
Oceanic moved 339,524 in 2003 from NATS figures.
Edinburgh according to the CAA was 106,191, Glasgow was 88,082 and Birmingham was 116,042.
So in reality, Ocean handles almost 30,000 more per annum than all three put together ... and without radar
Errr, what WAS your point again radar707 ??
Oceanic moved 339,524 in 2003 from NATS figures.
Edinburgh according to the CAA was 106,191, Glasgow was 88,082 and Birmingham was 116,042.
So in reality, Ocean handles almost 30,000 more per annum than all three put together ... and without radar
Errr, what WAS your point again radar707 ??
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: England
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I may have started the Oceanic argument, for which I apologise. I believe it was in answer to HALOs statement that those that earn the company more revenue should get more , I merely asked why the Oceanic boys are not in a band of there own (namely band SIX ). It was a hint at sarcasm, but, seems to have been taken EXACTLY the opposite way to that intended.
The Greebs
The Greebs
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, does everyone see this re-grading thing as part of the pay rise?
I don't. The pay rise is a 2 year deal starting with 3.4% from Jan2004 and then RPI + 0.6% from Jan 2005.
That's it! - Oh, except for your extra £1 luncheon vouchers if you get them.
The new 5 band structure, in my opinion, should not be advertised as a 'pay rise'. It is a restructuring of the salary grading. As a sweetener/bribe/masking agent/compensation - we are being offered a one or two spine point move.
This isn't a pay rise - an pay rise would result in each spine point being worth more money - there is still a maximum spine point that ATCOs at each unit can reach - the value of which is not changing - so what happens to staff who are already at the top spine point for the unit they are at???
There are so many other issues being lumped in with pay negotiations which according to the Management/Prospect Joint statement (5) - -
"..will be published separately."
I could go on and on about this but, of course it is just my opinion. Im not complaining about the extra money - any increase is good. But I don't think that the 2 issues of annual pay rise and pay scale restructuring should be tackled at the same time - it gives a very false and exaggerated view of the pay rise
I don't. The pay rise is a 2 year deal starting with 3.4% from Jan2004 and then RPI + 0.6% from Jan 2005.
That's it! - Oh, except for your extra £1 luncheon vouchers if you get them.
The new 5 band structure, in my opinion, should not be advertised as a 'pay rise'. It is a restructuring of the salary grading. As a sweetener/bribe/masking agent/compensation - we are being offered a one or two spine point move.
This isn't a pay rise - an pay rise would result in each spine point being worth more money - there is still a maximum spine point that ATCOs at each unit can reach - the value of which is not changing - so what happens to staff who are already at the top spine point for the unit they are at???
There are so many other issues being lumped in with pay negotiations which according to the Management/Prospect Joint statement (5) - -
"..will be published separately."
I could go on and on about this but, of course it is just my opinion. Im not complaining about the extra money - any increase is good. But I don't think that the 2 issues of annual pay rise and pay scale restructuring should be tackled at the same time - it gives a very false and exaggerated view of the pay rise
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Southampton
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VL
Also from the Joint Statement:
"A new ATCO 5 Band pay structure producing a 4.5% increase on the ATCO wage bill. The new structure is based on jointly agreed criteria for Unit grading and complexity that will increase all ATCO main scale salaries by at least ½ a spine point with foundation payment from 1st January 2004"
It is an increase in the spine points, not accelerated progression up the scale. You are still just as far away from the top of the scale as you were but it will be at least 1/2 a spine point more when you get there.
That aside I agree that the issue of banding salaries should be treated seperately from the main pay case.
I imagine the Union prefered to negotiate the banding in with the salaries because of managments urgent need for an AVAA agreement. Otherwise the negotiations could have gone on for years.
Also from the Joint Statement:
"A new ATCO 5 Band pay structure producing a 4.5% increase on the ATCO wage bill. The new structure is based on jointly agreed criteria for Unit grading and complexity that will increase all ATCO main scale salaries by at least ½ a spine point with foundation payment from 1st January 2004"
It is an increase in the spine points, not accelerated progression up the scale. You are still just as far away from the top of the scale as you were but it will be at least 1/2 a spine point more when you get there.
That aside I agree that the issue of banding salaries should be treated seperately from the main pay case.
I imagine the Union prefered to negotiate the banding in with the salaries because of managments urgent need for an AVAA agreement. Otherwise the negotiations could have gone on for years.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Southampton
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VectorLine
I stand corrected.
The banding WILL be achieved by accelerated progression up the spine points. Those at the top of the scale will not miss out as they will move onto the (currently unused) spines above the existing ATCO 2 scale. Don't know how it will work for ATCO 1s. So you are moving up the spine points but you are no closer to the top of the scale than you were.
The people who may miss out are the T&Ds who are not yet on the ATCO 2 pay scale. I don't know what arrangements have been made for them.
I stand corrected.
The banding WILL be achieved by accelerated progression up the spine points. Those at the top of the scale will not miss out as they will move onto the (currently unused) spines above the existing ATCO 2 scale. Don't know how it will work for ATCO 1s. So you are moving up the spine points but you are no closer to the top of the scale than you were.
The people who may miss out are the T&Ds who are not yet on the ATCO 2 pay scale. I don't know what arrangements have been made for them.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: hampshire
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the subject of those at lower band units who wish to move, would it not be sensible for NATS to post all new trainees to lower band units in order to obtain they're initial validation. Once valid, they would then allow the more experience staff at these units to move on if they so wished. These experienced staff would also have a higher chance of validating at the "busier units" than an ab initio. There would be a generally happier workforce over all as everybody would have a chance to move if they wanted to and it would lead to a higher percentage of trainees validating at their initial posting and thereby securing their long term job prospects.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Nats ATCO 1/5 Radar Unit
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arkady,
the banding will NOT be achieved by accelerated progression up the spine points - it is simply that the spine points in your band will be increased by the associated amount. So someone at the top of the scale gets the increase, but doesn't go up a point, and someone at the bottom gets the increase, but stays on the bottom point.
As for students and trainee pay, I believe that the student pay IS being reduced, and the T+D controller can expect 55% of the lowest point in their airports band until they're valid, when they will then get 70 or 75% of the lowest band.
Slippers,
And as for only sending trainees to the lower band airports - the experienced staff wouldn't be able to get posted out because they would have to stay and train all the new controllers. After that, it would be more likely that the newly validated controller would find it easier to move on, as they would be less valuable to the unit, not being an OJTI, LCE, or watch manager etc.
Farny
the banding will NOT be achieved by accelerated progression up the spine points - it is simply that the spine points in your band will be increased by the associated amount. So someone at the top of the scale gets the increase, but doesn't go up a point, and someone at the bottom gets the increase, but stays on the bottom point.
As for students and trainee pay, I believe that the student pay IS being reduced, and the T+D controller can expect 55% of the lowest point in their airports band until they're valid, when they will then get 70 or 75% of the lowest band.
Slippers,
And as for only sending trainees to the lower band airports - the experienced staff wouldn't be able to get posted out because they would have to stay and train all the new controllers. After that, it would be more likely that the newly validated controller would find it easier to move on, as they would be less valuable to the unit, not being an OJTI, LCE, or watch manager etc.
Farny
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Heathrow
Age: 45
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slippers
Believe it or not, the statistics at Heathrow show that ab initio trainees have a higher chance of validating than those who are already valid from another unit.
Previously-valid controllers from less busy units sometimes find it difficult, as they have been conditioned to operate in a totally different environment. Trainees who arrive direct from the college have no prior experience of how busy the outside world of ATC actually is, and are therefore slightly less unnerved by the sheer carnage that is going on around them.
Believe it or not, the statistics at Heathrow show that ab initio trainees have a higher chance of validating than those who are already valid from another unit.
Previously-valid controllers from less busy units sometimes find it difficult, as they have been conditioned to operate in a totally different environment. Trainees who arrive direct from the college have no prior experience of how busy the outside world of ATC actually is, and are therefore slightly less unnerved by the sheer carnage that is going on around them.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers Farny for the explanation
It's quite confusing when they use the term 1/2 spine point as an indication of the salary increase. I thought we were to go 1/2 or 1 point up the existing scale.
Maybe they should have said it was an increase in salary equivalent to 1/2 a spine point. That would make more sense.
Anyway. It's really serving to increase animosity among the units. I am lucky[?] to be at a band 5 unit, so will benefit (if the vote is yes) from the largest percentage increase - but I don't feel that the deal is fair.
I understand that there are also going to be WP changes. We at Swanwick will have some changes to our night staffing and a 0530 spin shift. Are there similar changes being rumoured at other units? It would be hard to see how the whole NATS ATCO population could be voting on a deal which involved local WP agreements.
I'm confused - I look forward to official communication from Prospect (whom I refuse to refer to as a union)
It's quite confusing when they use the term 1/2 spine point as an indication of the salary increase. I thought we were to go 1/2 or 1 point up the existing scale.
Maybe they should have said it was an increase in salary equivalent to 1/2 a spine point. That would make more sense.
Anyway. It's really serving to increase animosity among the units. I am lucky[?] to be at a band 5 unit, so will benefit (if the vote is yes) from the largest percentage increase - but I don't feel that the deal is fair.
I understand that there are also going to be WP changes. We at Swanwick will have some changes to our night staffing and a 0530 spin shift. Are there similar changes being rumoured at other units? It would be hard to see how the whole NATS ATCO population could be voting on a deal which involved local WP agreements.
I'm confused - I look forward to official communication from Prospect (whom I refuse to refer to as a union)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Southampton
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Farny
This issue of whether or not the rebanding is increasing the existing spine points or is accelerated progression up a longer scale has been the subject of some conjecture at LACC. I was originally of the same opinion as yourself, a percentage rise of the existing spine points. I have since heard convincing arguments that it will be accelerated progression up the scale, not least being that it will not increase the anticipated wage bill for T&Ds moving onto the ATCO pay scale.
The joint statement does not make it clear which method is being used and should make no practical difference to those already on the ATCO payscale.
I await my brief from the union with unbridled anticipation.
This issue of whether or not the rebanding is increasing the existing spine points or is accelerated progression up a longer scale has been the subject of some conjecture at LACC. I was originally of the same opinion as yourself, a percentage rise of the existing spine points. I have since heard convincing arguments that it will be accelerated progression up the scale, not least being that it will not increase the anticipated wage bill for T&Ds moving onto the ATCO pay scale.
The joint statement does not make it clear which method is being used and should make no practical difference to those already on the ATCO payscale.
I await my brief from the union with unbridled anticipation.
