Macc Frustration
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Macc Frustration
A few quotes from NATSNEWS January 2005.
Tiny little column at the bottom of page 2, 'According to the November traffic figures, the biggest annual traffic increase took place at Manchester centre'
Page 9,'Bob Thomson will assume the role of head of ATC/deputy general manager-ScOACC and Prestwick Centre at that point. He will also continue his activities to ensure that Manchester Centre's interests and considerations are effectively represented in all Prestwick Centre activities'-'Director operations Ian Hall told NATS News; "One of Alan's main priorities(Alan Taylor-another new face at Macc), working with Alex Bristol when he takes up the general manager's post at Manchester, will be to establish strong and positive working relationships with staff and managers, and in particular the local trade unions", Admirable sentiment?-same article' he will fulfill this role for a period of ABOUT a year until his retirement'.
So...what's my point? I really can't put my finger on it, but it feels like the steamroller's gearing up again with new managers placed just to 'carry out corporate orders' like closing Macc with as little fuss as possible. How can you commit to staff, managers, unions and the like and address their real concerns and worries when you'll be retiring in 'about' a year. It takes half that time to get to grips with some of the issues raised about Macc on other postings here. New GM? Young ambitious, maybe a good thing...as most ATCO's however our scepticism will take some allaying.
One last thing for the 'If you want the big money (banding) then you have to work the big traffic' southern ATCO comment ( a real comment made) from our latest futile foray into the banding debacle; MACC traffic figures are now on a par with ScOACC, we have taken S29 from LACC, we have taken the East sector airspace from LACC, we are now asked to take more airspace in the S7/IOM proposals from LACC. We ARE taking your traffic, via airspace or capping, sectors that one day justified Band 5 the next day justify Band 4? WE THINK NOT!!
p.s. And we're doing all this with 85 ATCO's from an operational requirement of 105. Sorry for the rant but I believe as a unit...at last our pot is finally beginning to boil.
Tiny little column at the bottom of page 2, 'According to the November traffic figures, the biggest annual traffic increase took place at Manchester centre'
Page 9,'Bob Thomson will assume the role of head of ATC/deputy general manager-ScOACC and Prestwick Centre at that point. He will also continue his activities to ensure that Manchester Centre's interests and considerations are effectively represented in all Prestwick Centre activities'-'Director operations Ian Hall told NATS News; "One of Alan's main priorities(Alan Taylor-another new face at Macc), working with Alex Bristol when he takes up the general manager's post at Manchester, will be to establish strong and positive working relationships with staff and managers, and in particular the local trade unions", Admirable sentiment?-same article' he will fulfill this role for a period of ABOUT a year until his retirement'.
So...what's my point? I really can't put my finger on it, but it feels like the steamroller's gearing up again with new managers placed just to 'carry out corporate orders' like closing Macc with as little fuss as possible. How can you commit to staff, managers, unions and the like and address their real concerns and worries when you'll be retiring in 'about' a year. It takes half that time to get to grips with some of the issues raised about Macc on other postings here. New GM? Young ambitious, maybe a good thing...as most ATCO's however our scepticism will take some allaying.
One last thing for the 'If you want the big money (banding) then you have to work the big traffic' southern ATCO comment ( a real comment made) from our latest futile foray into the banding debacle; MACC traffic figures are now on a par with ScOACC, we have taken S29 from LACC, we have taken the East sector airspace from LACC, we are now asked to take more airspace in the S7/IOM proposals from LACC. We ARE taking your traffic, via airspace or capping, sectors that one day justified Band 5 the next day justify Band 4? WE THINK NOT!!
p.s. And we're doing all this with 85 ATCO's from an operational requirement of 105. Sorry for the rant but I believe as a unit...at last our pot is finally beginning to boil.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Banana Split;
I'm pleased it's so obvious to an outsider, it dispels the thought that we're maybe just making a fuss over nothing, which is how it sometimes feels. Question is, if it's so obvious to you (an outsider)...why is it so hard for the rest, including the head in the sand management, to see?
We are all very interested to see how they are going to resolve this very real crisis which is heading their way. Seems that, with this upcoming sim, we (MACC) have finally found our catalyst. Talk about slow burning!!
We are all very interested to see how they are going to resolve this very real crisis which is heading their way. Seems that, with this upcoming sim, we (MACC) have finally found our catalyst. Talk about slow burning!!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sympathise with your issues. In paticular the move to NPC, there's nothing more demoralising to people than putting them somewhere they don't want to be. NATS management had better realise this sooner rather than later.
As for the banding debacle, I doubt that you'll be fond of my opinion but 73% of people (who bothered to vote) wanted this system, the union reps agreed in principle to it the year before so Prospect can only do what the majority want. I don't know anything about traffic volumes and complexity so won't comment on it but I will say that the difference in pay scales doesn't even make up for the higher cost of living in the south never mind the 'perceived' higher traffic levels or the fact that we start some mornings at 0530 etc. I'm sure someone is going to come along and shoot me down any minute now ........
With regard to the move, it would seem the most important thing is to get organised as a TU, get as many people involved as possible and influence NATS as much as possible in your favour. Don't just leave it to the existing reps. Remember how much it cost NATS to try and restore moral at LACC? They won't want to go through that again unless thay are even more inept than we think they are.
Good Luck guys and girls.
As for the banding debacle, I doubt that you'll be fond of my opinion but 73% of people (who bothered to vote) wanted this system, the union reps agreed in principle to it the year before so Prospect can only do what the majority want. I don't know anything about traffic volumes and complexity so won't comment on it but I will say that the difference in pay scales doesn't even make up for the higher cost of living in the south never mind the 'perceived' higher traffic levels or the fact that we start some mornings at 0530 etc. I'm sure someone is going to come along and shoot me down any minute now ........
With regard to the move, it would seem the most important thing is to get organised as a TU, get as many people involved as possible and influence NATS as much as possible in your favour. Don't just leave it to the existing reps. Remember how much it cost NATS to try and restore moral at LACC? They won't want to go through that again unless thay are even more inept than we think they are.
Good Luck guys and girls.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a dream, once said by someone with bigger oppression issues on his mind than macc staff ....perhaps, that all the en route staff could just get on with each other. we all went to college together and at the time were friends and the bickering is all so counter productive?
with that in mind i have no intention of shooting you down bobblehat, i simply wish to pose a slightly different point of view.
i have no beef with the fact that this was brought in by a majority vote, and the issue is not entirely money related, more that the work done at macc is not being fairly portrayed. macc is no longer the parochial outstation it was ten years ago. Nats figures show consistant increases in traffic over the last number of years coupled with a dramatic increase in airspace in the macc AOR. The figures, produced by nats show manchester sectors are among the busiest in terms of movements in the country. Added to that is the fact that macc was awarded a high complexity factor when the banding structure was considered.
If you devide the total number of movements by number of controllers and then multiply by the complexity factor, macc has a bigger score than lacc. it is not rocket science?! or are macc missing the point.
No one is disputing that living in the south is expensive but that was not an issue which was supposed to be addressed in that particular ballot. manipulating the figures and then hiding behind cost of living was doing a disservice to macc controllers and the job they do.
That is what people have the hump about, macc want recognition for the task they do. I am quite sure that all macc staff would not begrudge allowances for living in the most expensive areas of the country but please please dont belittle the task of others to achieve more money in the pot for living in the 'roseland'
i await a response......
with that in mind i have no intention of shooting you down bobblehat, i simply wish to pose a slightly different point of view.
i have no beef with the fact that this was brought in by a majority vote, and the issue is not entirely money related, more that the work done at macc is not being fairly portrayed. macc is no longer the parochial outstation it was ten years ago. Nats figures show consistant increases in traffic over the last number of years coupled with a dramatic increase in airspace in the macc AOR. The figures, produced by nats show manchester sectors are among the busiest in terms of movements in the country. Added to that is the fact that macc was awarded a high complexity factor when the banding structure was considered.
If you devide the total number of movements by number of controllers and then multiply by the complexity factor, macc has a bigger score than lacc. it is not rocket science?! or are macc missing the point.
No one is disputing that living in the south is expensive but that was not an issue which was supposed to be addressed in that particular ballot. manipulating the figures and then hiding behind cost of living was doing a disservice to macc controllers and the job they do.
That is what people have the hump about, macc want recognition for the task they do. I am quite sure that all macc staff would not begrudge allowances for living in the most expensive areas of the country but please please dont belittle the task of others to achieve more money in the pot for living in the 'roseland'
i await a response......
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hants
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Up a bit down a bit, who is it who has belittled your task in order to gain more money? I have re-read Bobblehat's post and nothing in it is of that nature. Maybe I have missed some hidden meaning?
As for the increased movements, more airspace, complex traffic and high volumes of movements I sympathise with you as we have had the same happen to us for the last few years at TC (Capital, New East, more Midlands airspace) without any more ATCOs. By your rationale that means that TC should get an improved banding, don't you agree?
I also think Bobblehat has hit the nail on the head with regards to the move to the NPC. The only way you will be able to do anything is by organising yourselves and getting involved with the TU. Complaining about it on here will highlight what is happening to you, but will sadly have little effect on our current management.
I really hope that all you guys and gals (especially Shermanator
) can find some satisfactory outcome to this unpleasant situation. I can understand you not wanting to move to Scotland as I'm not overly keen on our move to LACC and that's only an hour or so down the road from where I am now.
Good luck everyone.
As for the increased movements, more airspace, complex traffic and high volumes of movements I sympathise with you as we have had the same happen to us for the last few years at TC (Capital, New East, more Midlands airspace) without any more ATCOs. By your rationale that means that TC should get an improved banding, don't you agree?
I also think Bobblehat has hit the nail on the head with regards to the move to the NPC. The only way you will be able to do anything is by organising yourselves and getting involved with the TU. Complaining about it on here will highlight what is happening to you, but will sadly have little effect on our current management.
I really hope that all you guys and gals (especially Shermanator
) can find some satisfactory outcome to this unpleasant situation. I can understand you not wanting to move to Scotland as I'm not overly keen on our move to LACC and that's only an hour or so down the road from where I am now.Good luck everyone.
Last edited by JuniorX; 20th Jan 2005 at 17:23.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: A pretty sh*tty city
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would love it...
...if the banding system had a league aspect to it, which would be a little fairer. There's no point in griping about it, what's done is done.
Correct me if I'm wrong (it has been known to happen), but I'm quite sure that TC, MC, and ScC have all taken airspace off LACC in the last few years with more planned. I'm unsure as to who exactly LACC have taken airspace off of late. Anyone....anyone??
So if TC were promoted to Band 6 due to extra traffic and complexity, I'd be more than happy with that, meanwhile give Scotland and Manchester the Band 5 wonga, I'd take band 4.5 if we're haggling.
Junior's right though, moaning on here will achieve nothing, but unfortunately the Union system seems to be gridlocked as well, so we'll have to just hope that a fairer system is developed.
I propose a motion to (anything that's slightly in favour of northern units) gets kicked out due to the sheer weight of number of southern votes.
To be honest, the way things are at the moment, most of us at MACC would be happy if we were to get a carpark that was less than 20 minute walk from work. JuniorX and co all get to handbrake turn past the coppers into the TC carpark at minute 58 and run in (doing the EBS machine later of course!) if you park up in our place later than minute 33 it's gonna be tight, but for that we get aircrew on their way to/from their 206 cabriolets scraping their bags down our doors for no extra cost..every cloud etc!!
On a lighter note, our famil trip to ScC this week was cancelled due to blizzardous conditions along with torrential wind and rain!! Boy, I can't wait to get up there for real!!
Have it!
Correct me if I'm wrong (it has been known to happen), but I'm quite sure that TC, MC, and ScC have all taken airspace off LACC in the last few years with more planned. I'm unsure as to who exactly LACC have taken airspace off of late. Anyone....anyone??
So if TC were promoted to Band 6 due to extra traffic and complexity, I'd be more than happy with that, meanwhile give Scotland and Manchester the Band 5 wonga, I'd take band 4.5 if we're haggling.
Junior's right though, moaning on here will achieve nothing, but unfortunately the Union system seems to be gridlocked as well, so we'll have to just hope that a fairer system is developed.
I propose a motion to (anything that's slightly in favour of northern units) gets kicked out due to the sheer weight of number of southern votes.
To be honest, the way things are at the moment, most of us at MACC would be happy if we were to get a carpark that was less than 20 minute walk from work. JuniorX and co all get to handbrake turn past the coppers into the TC carpark at minute 58 and run in (doing the EBS machine later of course!) if you park up in our place later than minute 33 it's gonna be tight, but for that we get aircrew on their way to/from their 206 cabriolets scraping their bags down our doors for no extra cost..every cloud etc!!
On a lighter note, our famil trip to ScC this week was cancelled due to blizzardous conditions along with torrential wind and rain!! Boy, I can't wait to get up there for real!!
Have it!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hants
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a serious note, can any of the MACC people tell me what the gut feeling up there is with regard to the move to NPC? Do people feel that management are so commited to making you all move that your efforts against them will be in vain, or do you think that there is still time to change their minds? I only ask because many of my colleagues at TC seem to think that this is all done and dusted, but are making this judgement with only a few facts picked up from the Nats News.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Southampton
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Correct me if I'm wrong (it has been known to happen), but I'm quite sure that TC, MC, and ScC have all taken airspace off LACC in the last few years with more planned. I'm unsure as to who exactly LACC have taken airspace off of late. Anyone....anyone??"
Midlands, TC East and Capital were all developed to improve flow into and out of the LTMA. These were resectorisations that were needed to increase capacity. At the time AC at LATCC had no extra suites to put them on. In fact, some tubes were being shared by ATCOs working different sectors when fully split. If the capacity increases were to be achieved there was no where else for the new sectors to go.
Sectors that moved to MACC and Scottish were intended to improve traffic flow between the units by giving (MACC particually) more airspace to play in but were really farmed out as part of Managments desperate ploy improve the staffing situation at LACC.
None of this is down to LACC ATCOs. We do our jobs and we do them well - all the TSFs continue to rise and delays are falling despite staff levels that have not improved since "O" date. We are the biggest unit in the country, we handle the most traffic and are at the forefront of En-route airspace development in the UK.
Stamp scream and yell as loud as you like for more money, recognition or respect but base your claim on your own merits. Start sniping at other units, particually the biggest one in the country, and you will never get the support you feel you deserve.
Midlands, TC East and Capital were all developed to improve flow into and out of the LTMA. These were resectorisations that were needed to increase capacity. At the time AC at LATCC had no extra suites to put them on. In fact, some tubes were being shared by ATCOs working different sectors when fully split. If the capacity increases were to be achieved there was no where else for the new sectors to go.
Sectors that moved to MACC and Scottish were intended to improve traffic flow between the units by giving (MACC particually) more airspace to play in but were really farmed out as part of Managments desperate ploy improve the staffing situation at LACC.
None of this is down to LACC ATCOs. We do our jobs and we do them well - all the TSFs continue to rise and delays are falling despite staff levels that have not improved since "O" date. We are the biggest unit in the country, we handle the most traffic and are at the forefront of En-route airspace development in the UK.
Stamp scream and yell as loud as you like for more money, recognition or respect but base your claim on your own merits. Start sniping at other units, particually the biggest one in the country, and you will never get the support you feel you deserve.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: A pretty sh*tty city
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Done and dusted
The move is gonna happen, we're all pretty much sure of that, all though the older fellas tell me that it went this far once before being told that MACC was off to NERC, so who knows. Its NATS-tastic. I'm holding out for the plan where we all get moved to a new centre in Las Vegas, and live in harmony.
As regards airspace, I didnt say anybody at NERC didnt do their job well, no-one else did, so I don't know why you feel the need to jump up and down telling us how well you do it.
I asked whether LACC had taken any airspace off anyone else, and from your reply it seems a simple NO would have sufficed.
While your at the forefront of En-route airspace development in the UK , you will be able to tell us if there are any future plans for you to take any airspace from ScC, MC or TC then won't you? And put them in the sci-fi wonderland that is NERC.
I applaud you for being the biggest unit in the country, that's nice. We have 98 controllers at MACC, our aircraft per controller ratio is marginally higher than the LACC ratio, and according the the formula that no-one understands, our complexity ratio is higher. I'm not doing anyone down, but no-one here is screaming or yelling for more money, its pointless, the statistics are there, and when they get waved at the front of union meetings, they are accused of being doctored. This does happen. So despite our current union lads doing their admirable best, it's a brick wall.
Not sniping at anyone, please find merits above. Now can someone sort me out a new carpark?
Dink dank dooo.
As regards airspace, I didnt say anybody at NERC didnt do their job well, no-one else did, so I don't know why you feel the need to jump up and down telling us how well you do it.
I asked whether LACC had taken any airspace off anyone else, and from your reply it seems a simple NO would have sufficed.
While your at the forefront of En-route airspace development in the UK , you will be able to tell us if there are any future plans for you to take any airspace from ScC, MC or TC then won't you? And put them in the sci-fi wonderland that is NERC.
I applaud you for being the biggest unit in the country, that's nice. We have 98 controllers at MACC, our aircraft per controller ratio is marginally higher than the LACC ratio, and according the the formula that no-one understands, our complexity ratio is higher. I'm not doing anyone down, but no-one here is screaming or yelling for more money, its pointless, the statistics are there, and when they get waved at the front of union meetings, they are accused of being doctored. This does happen. So despite our current union lads doing their admirable best, it's a brick wall.
Not sniping at anyone, please find merits above. Now can someone sort me out a new carpark?
Dink dank dooo.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So much for my dream of harmony! My comments were not a snipe at a particular unit or sector or individual. Getting involved with the tu as was suggested will get us nowhere at all. The union came to manchester and stood in front of a room full of people and said "that the figures had been manipulated" (their words not mine) to achieve a pay deal that the masses would vote for. Manchester had been identified as the path of least pain. Again their words. They admitted that the formula was flawed but there wasn't enough time before the deadline to ammend it. So come conference this year a number of motions were tabled regarding the formula, and trigger points for moving up, and manchester traffic loading and all, yes ALL were voted down.
How are we at macc supposed to trust them, they told us to our face that they were stiffing us and then made no effort at all to make a mends. Management wash their hands of all matters relating to pay, and relying on the union is like asking the wolf to guard the chicken house!
we have little choice but to try and voice our concerns, in as friendly manner as poss, without indictment, on this network in a vain attempt to rally a little support out in the ranks from people who are all supposed to be pulling in the same direction?
ps. i and a lot of others at manchester believe that tc should be in band 6. most planes per controller and highest complexity factor. again i draw attention to the fact that the maths is quite simple!!!
How are we at macc supposed to trust them, they told us to our face that they were stiffing us and then made no effort at all to make a mends. Management wash their hands of all matters relating to pay, and relying on the union is like asking the wolf to guard the chicken house!
we have little choice but to try and voice our concerns, in as friendly manner as poss, without indictment, on this network in a vain attempt to rally a little support out in the ranks from people who are all supposed to be pulling in the same direction?
ps. i and a lot of others at manchester believe that tc should be in band 6. most planes per controller and highest complexity factor. again i draw attention to the fact that the maths is quite simple!!!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sherman,
I think you are probably right in that LACC has not taken on extra airspace-but is that really an issue? What has happened is that airpspace has been transferred to units where there is still capacity in terms of suites available and staff to obtain the validations. The remaining airspace is then managed and re-designed in such a way that there is a significant increase in the traffic that can be put through the airspace.
Sector 29 was transferred to MACC simply because we didn't have enough staff to open all of the Lakes airspace without putting on major flow restrictions every day. In those days it was certainly quieter than it is now but was used even then to cap traffic that couldn't get into 3/4 without delay-as it is now. What has happened though is that the need to staff it has gone and so the capacity on 3 and 4 has gone up by around 50%-a gain to the customer I'm sure you'll agree. It is not the way i would have done it with the interface problems that now exist. In view of the old LATCC staffing at that time I would have asked for volunteers to get a "greenfield" validation on S29 and also a posting to LATCC and then onto LACC. That way we would have had people valid immediately on one sector and hopefully quickly on at least 2 more. I reckon there wouldn't have been too many volunteering to come south at that time,do you?
The same applies to the north sea. A portion of airpace was transferred to make the whole task easier for all in that area-it has worked and once again the TSF for 10 and 11 has increased by around 50% and delays in the area are almost non-existent.
Airspace design has to continue if we are to match demand and there are at least 2 major re-designs going on at LACC which will involve serious amount of re-training for all of those staff involved as well as things like IFACTS on the horizon. "Losing" airspace doesn't mean that LACC development stands still just that the rates go upin the remaining airspace. And if we are going to be a truly commercial company then that is the way it will be for the forseeable future.
I wish all at MACC the very best over what will be a very difficult 3 years and hope that management really do do their best to mitigate the change but continuously looking over your shoulders to see what happens at other units will lead to more dis-harmony than there is even now.
I think you are probably right in that LACC has not taken on extra airspace-but is that really an issue? What has happened is that airpspace has been transferred to units where there is still capacity in terms of suites available and staff to obtain the validations. The remaining airspace is then managed and re-designed in such a way that there is a significant increase in the traffic that can be put through the airspace.
Sector 29 was transferred to MACC simply because we didn't have enough staff to open all of the Lakes airspace without putting on major flow restrictions every day. In those days it was certainly quieter than it is now but was used even then to cap traffic that couldn't get into 3/4 without delay-as it is now. What has happened though is that the need to staff it has gone and so the capacity on 3 and 4 has gone up by around 50%-a gain to the customer I'm sure you'll agree. It is not the way i would have done it with the interface problems that now exist. In view of the old LATCC staffing at that time I would have asked for volunteers to get a "greenfield" validation on S29 and also a posting to LATCC and then onto LACC. That way we would have had people valid immediately on one sector and hopefully quickly on at least 2 more. I reckon there wouldn't have been too many volunteering to come south at that time,do you?
The same applies to the north sea. A portion of airpace was transferred to make the whole task easier for all in that area-it has worked and once again the TSF for 10 and 11 has increased by around 50% and delays in the area are almost non-existent.
Airspace design has to continue if we are to match demand and there are at least 2 major re-designs going on at LACC which will involve serious amount of re-training for all of those staff involved as well as things like IFACTS on the horizon. "Losing" airspace doesn't mean that LACC development stands still just that the rates go upin the remaining airspace. And if we are going to be a truly commercial company then that is the way it will be for the forseeable future.
I wish all at MACC the very best over what will be a very difficult 3 years and hope that management really do do their best to mitigate the change but continuously looking over your shoulders to see what happens at other units will lead to more dis-harmony than there is even now.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought I may get a few responses to that one and everyone has valid points. If I may just add 2 points:
1. Cost of Living WAS factored into the banding of units - hence my comments that regardless of ALL other factors the difference in pay still doesn't make up for the differential.
2. The band 5 units had working practice changes that affected them - this effectively payed for the band 4/5 differential. For example : LACC in particular making a change to start earlier than the rest of us on morning duties. LTCC getting an a.m spinning duty starting at 0530 etc. There are more and I'm sure people will probably add them - but I don't think it's really the big issue.
I think we need to remember that we all did pretty well in that pay round, much better than we may ever do again. Not many people have had 10 - 15% pay awards in the last couple of years. Some units even achieved it without giving anything away.
The point is get behind Prospect don't bad mouth and lose hope. Every single one is a volunteer (except Luxton) - come along, make a difference and influence from the correct forums. Stir up the guys and get them involved in the move to NPC - management will not be giving anything away - so it's going to ba a fight.
1. Cost of Living WAS factored into the banding of units - hence my comments that regardless of ALL other factors the difference in pay still doesn't make up for the differential.
2. The band 5 units had working practice changes that affected them - this effectively payed for the band 4/5 differential. For example : LACC in particular making a change to start earlier than the rest of us on morning duties. LTCC getting an a.m spinning duty starting at 0530 etc. There are more and I'm sure people will probably add them - but I don't think it's really the big issue.
I think we need to remember that we all did pretty well in that pay round, much better than we may ever do again. Not many people have had 10 - 15% pay awards in the last couple of years. Some units even achieved it without giving anything away.
The point is get behind Prospect don't bad mouth and lose hope. Every single one is a volunteer (except Luxton) - come along, make a difference and influence from the correct forums. Stir up the guys and get them involved in the move to NPC - management will not be giving anything away - so it's going to ba a fight.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hants
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
250, at TC we may have had the radar suites to take on extra airspace, but extra staff to train on them..don't make me laugh!!
What has happened is that people have had to cross train, or in the case of the new east get the new validation. The trouble is, certainly on my watch, that many members of staff who do Mids/East and also one of the TMA sectors are finding it hard to get time on North/South. All that has happened is that staffing is now stretched very tight at TC. The plan soon is for trainees is to only train on one of the TMAs, which means we will lots of TMA only valid ATCOs (who will not be required to extend if they don't want to, as they will have a core validation) meaning that several sector valid people like me will find it even harder to get time on the core sectors.
As for the pay band issue I think that the example used in the first post of this thread remains valid. If the airspace was band 5 at LACC should it not be band 5 at MACC? If management decided that to improve service to our customers LACC (or TC) had to take some MACC airspace would you be happy if they said you would only get band 4 pay when rostered on that sector?
I know I wouldn't!!
What has happened is that people have had to cross train, or in the case of the new east get the new validation. The trouble is, certainly on my watch, that many members of staff who do Mids/East and also one of the TMA sectors are finding it hard to get time on North/South. All that has happened is that staffing is now stretched very tight at TC. The plan soon is for trainees is to only train on one of the TMAs, which means we will lots of TMA only valid ATCOs (who will not be required to extend if they don't want to, as they will have a core validation) meaning that several sector valid people like me will find it even harder to get time on the core sectors.As for the pay band issue I think that the example used in the first post of this thread remains valid. If the airspace was band 5 at LACC should it not be band 5 at MACC? If management decided that to improve service to our customers LACC (or TC) had to take some MACC airspace would you be happy if they said you would only get band 4 pay when rostered on that sector?
I know I wouldn't!!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
have given up on the dream, now have a feeling that this thread could go on and on.
several points that have been raised over the last few posts....
1st. i am one of the few people who have made their peace with the fact that my career will continue in Scotia. I try to encourage others that this may not be as tragic as some think.
2nd i have checked with the union and cost of living was/is a right hand issue, to be negotiated in the next round of pay talks. I do understand that the union have endeavoured to get cost of living built in to salary so that it rises with subsequent pay increases and that was a good idea BUT it was not supposed to be addressed until pay talks end of this year.
I think i speak for everyone who lives in an area where the cost of living is perceived to be low when i say i will be mad as hell if cost of living is looked at again in the next round of talks!
3rd The 0530 start thing is not restricted to band 5 /london units. it applies to all en route controllers. Our General manager promised us that they would not be required at macc.....and within 6 months no longer works for the company!! go figure. so what happens when the new gm decides they are a good idea?
4th. i say again it is not all about the money, number of flights divided by number of controllers multiplied by the complexity figure (independently calculated) and the macc score is higher than the lacc score.
5th After the union shambles/roadshow last year why should we put our faith in them, several motions were taken to conference and were all voted down. it was their chance to undo what they had done the year before.
6th undoubtedly the one that will cause the most controversy, people work in mcdonalds in Southampton, where do they live? are they band 5 mcdonalds?
flack jacket on, ready for reply...
several points that have been raised over the last few posts....
1st. i am one of the few people who have made their peace with the fact that my career will continue in Scotia. I try to encourage others that this may not be as tragic as some think.
2nd i have checked with the union and cost of living was/is a right hand issue, to be negotiated in the next round of pay talks. I do understand that the union have endeavoured to get cost of living built in to salary so that it rises with subsequent pay increases and that was a good idea BUT it was not supposed to be addressed until pay talks end of this year.
I think i speak for everyone who lives in an area where the cost of living is perceived to be low when i say i will be mad as hell if cost of living is looked at again in the next round of talks!
3rd The 0530 start thing is not restricted to band 5 /london units. it applies to all en route controllers. Our General manager promised us that they would not be required at macc.....and within 6 months no longer works for the company!! go figure. so what happens when the new gm decides they are a good idea?
4th. i say again it is not all about the money, number of flights divided by number of controllers multiplied by the complexity figure (independently calculated) and the macc score is higher than the lacc score.
5th After the union shambles/roadshow last year why should we put our faith in them, several motions were taken to conference and were all voted down. it was their chance to undo what they had done the year before.
6th undoubtedly the one that will cause the most controversy, people work in mcdonalds in Southampton, where do they live? are they band 5 mcdonalds?
flack jacket on, ready for reply...