Macc Frustration
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hants
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5miles, I completely agree with your sentiments, the reason I posed the question was to highlight the flaws of the banding pay system. I, like you, see the effect that the flaws in the banding system has on the relationships between the north and south units. For everyone like you at LACC (or me at TC) who has sympathy for the MACC folk there is probably three or four who don't give a monkeys. Don't you think?
And Sherman, there's been no need for a speed camera on porters way since you took your expensive motors up north!!(maybe the fashion police should look at bright blue convertible golfs tho')
And Sherman, there's been no need for a speed camera on porters way since you took your expensive motors up north!!(maybe the fashion police should look at bright blue convertible golfs tho')
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Cloud Nine
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft movements ...
Scuse my simple maths folks, but just because a unit has more movements, doesn't mean that it is necessarily busier.
That was one of the glaring unresolved problems with the model. Traffic 'volume' was hugely weighted to numbers of aircraft, but it didn't actually take 'volume' into account.
If all the sectors are small 60 mile sectors then each aircraft may only be on freq for 10 minutes.
However, it is worth remembering that some units have 200 mile sectors where ac can be on sector for 30-40 minutes.
So, the Q is .. if I have 15 ac on freq for 30 minutes each, am I working more or less than a short sharp shock sector with 45 per hr TSF at 10 minutes each?
The model would tell you that I am working at a third of the other sector ... which is pish ! And the stains on my trousers prove it !!
The model and grading were crap and divisive and it is a pity that more people did not bother to try and grasp the flawed maths behind it.
That was one of the glaring unresolved problems with the model. Traffic 'volume' was hugely weighted to numbers of aircraft, but it didn't actually take 'volume' into account.
If all the sectors are small 60 mile sectors then each aircraft may only be on freq for 10 minutes.
However, it is worth remembering that some units have 200 mile sectors where ac can be on sector for 30-40 minutes.
So, the Q is .. if I have 15 ac on freq for 30 minutes each, am I working more or less than a short sharp shock sector with 45 per hr TSF at 10 minutes each?
The model would tell you that I am working at a third of the other sector ... which is pish ! And the stains on my trousers prove it !!
The model and grading were crap and divisive and it is a pity that more people did not bother to try and grasp the flawed maths behind it.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well here we are a year on and people still have nothing to complain about except what their counterparts 300 miles away are working and earning and how far the car park is away from work.
Over 70% voted in favour of the banding-like it or not it is here for the foreseeable future.Many got substantial rises and had to do absolutely nothig to get it. Other units made major WP changes and got something-big deal. You MACC guys need to stop beating yourselves up about the banding and ask "Is what I get for the job I do a reasonable salary" Yes or No? If it really is "no" then there is a major problem because I haven't read anything that suggests that people are unhappy with what they get-just with what others get. You'll be telling me next that PF aren't happy with what PH get!
As for the car parking. Is this a Manchester Airport issue or a NATS one? I suspect the former. And I see from Shermanator that his only interest is AAVAs-not a problem walking long distances with the prospect of an AAVA at the end of it. Also we don't hear too much moaning from the junior folks at Heathrow who often have to live more than an hour's drive from work just to be able to afford a property and then have to park on the Northside when they get to Heathrow.
As I said before I have every sympathy for the MACC guys but the world doesn't owe you a living and it isn't always fair the way things turn out. There are many major hurdles which face all of us in NATS over the next few years-let's pull together to ensure we get the best for all of us and if that means that certain parts of the organisation benefit earlier then so be it. What is really important is that we all got substantial rises and it is on these that any further rises will be built upon.
Over 70% voted in favour of the banding-like it or not it is here for the foreseeable future.Many got substantial rises and had to do absolutely nothig to get it. Other units made major WP changes and got something-big deal. You MACC guys need to stop beating yourselves up about the banding and ask "Is what I get for the job I do a reasonable salary" Yes or No? If it really is "no" then there is a major problem because I haven't read anything that suggests that people are unhappy with what they get-just with what others get. You'll be telling me next that PF aren't happy with what PH get!
As for the car parking. Is this a Manchester Airport issue or a NATS one? I suspect the former. And I see from Shermanator that his only interest is AAVAs-not a problem walking long distances with the prospect of an AAVA at the end of it. Also we don't hear too much moaning from the junior folks at Heathrow who often have to live more than an hour's drive from work just to be able to afford a property and then have to park on the Northside when they get to Heathrow.
As I said before I have every sympathy for the MACC guys but the world doesn't owe you a living and it isn't always fair the way things turn out. There are many major hurdles which face all of us in NATS over the next few years-let's pull together to ensure we get the best for all of us and if that means that certain parts of the organisation benefit earlier then so be it. What is really important is that we all got substantial rises and it is on these that any further rises will be built upon.
Last edited by 250 kts; 23rd Jan 2005 at 20:36.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
250kts, you just back up exactly what I have been saying that many down at Swanwick don't give a toss what happens elsewhere now we have been given the Band 5 rating. Why do we deserve the best pay when most of Manch didn't have much choice being where they are, just like we didn't have much choice being where we are? We all control aircraft with the same rules and goals and we all work busy periods when we think our lives are about to end, so why should someone else doing the same job get more retrospectively? You mention that MACC staff should ask themselves if they feel their salary is unjustified or not. I personally feel that my Band 5 salary is unjustified if you compare it to those working in the city for finance/computing companies and some of our European counterparts. However I also take the view that I get what I get and its a damn sight better than not being in NATS for my skills that I have. Pi$$ed off but happy in the same sentance.
As for the Manch car parking issue, then the guys and gals up there work for NATS and are being told they have to park over 30 mins away from work, THATS A NATS ISSUE if they care for their staff as who would want someone to have to do that journey before sitting in front of a hectic radar?
If it was you, you'd be ranting Mary Hell in here, and elsewhere, so take some consideration for your collegues, we are all the same after all. If you want to get people to pull together to ensure we get the best for all of us, then start thinking that what you have is slightly unjust to what they have, and then maybe we'll start being a little more unified.
As for the Manch car parking issue, then the guys and gals up there work for NATS and are being told they have to park over 30 mins away from work, THATS A NATS ISSUE if they care for their staff as who would want someone to have to do that journey before sitting in front of a hectic radar?
If it was you, you'd be ranting Mary Hell in here, and elsewhere, so take some consideration for your collegues, we are all the same after all. If you want to get people to pull together to ensure we get the best for all of us, then start thinking that what you have is slightly unjust to what they have, and then maybe we'll start being a little more unified.
Last edited by 5milesbaby; 23rd Jan 2005 at 23:50.
