MACC move worries

[Vote NO]

I heard a rumour today that if there are not enough Manch ATCOS/ATSAS to staff PC then some of the task/airspace will be given to LACC. Also a substantial new AAVA deal will be given to PC staff to train and subsequently validate on the remaining Manch sectors.
I beleive the guys at Scottish dont insist on a two man P and E team all the time like Manch and this is seen as another bonus for management
The above is "vital to ensure PC is fully operational"

[privatesandwiches]

BD.

I am of course happy to make your point as that you dont actualy have one. The MACC guys are given the same relocation as we were, there are no 'bungs' involved.. choose your wording carefully as you make out we got something that others have not.. when that is not the case.
The unfortunate fact for them is that we were lucky when we moved and got good GSP's, but for the guys now looking at moving north the property market is not what it was 18 months ago when we did it.
If it helps the blow though, many colleagues who moved down to swanwick got mortgaged up to the nuts and are now possibly in negative equity since the house they bought then is now worth a hell of a lot less than it is now. Any imaginary bung would have been welcomed.
Its all swings and roundabouts my friend.

[coolhandluke]

They can offer all the money they want to PC staff to validate on MACC sectors, but whoses going to train them. As it stands now OJTI's at MACC are getting fatigued.
With regards to the differences in ops, MACC is strongly opposed to adopting the single man method currently in use at Scottish. As it stands now MACC will go up north with its method of ops unaltered. Once there we and scottish can then work to adopt a common method. The arguements for singlemanning are more than outweighed by the cons.

[Arkady]

BD

You of all people should know by now that you need to use small words, type slowly and label sarcasm very clearly on here if you do not want to be misunderstood

[anotherthing]

Private

What BDiONU is trying to get across is that TC did not get any bungs for the move, whereas in one of the earliest posts in this thread, there have been references made to the possibility of bungs being made to MACC staff.

Vote NO - if your rumours about moving of some sectors to Swanwick are true, just how the hell do management expect to be able to man them??

Moreover, If

...Also a substantial new AAVA deal will be given to PC staff to train and subsequently validate on the remaining Manch sectors...

is true (this is a rumours network after all), then I think that it would be very short sighted for management to believe that Swanwick staff would be prepared to learn new airspace to help them (management) out, if they were not subject to any new super AAVA deal as well... bearing in mind that AC are already about 40-50 controllers short. Mind you, over the past few years TC have been lumbered with more and more airspace without any incentives...

[ZOOKER]

So have Manchester!!
Shedloads of it.
AND, they do it better than the people who did it before them.
NO INCENTIVES.

[anotherthing]

Zooker you just don't get the point of my post do you??

However, you are correct about the 'no incentives' however we are talking about the possibility of a bung in the future as alluded to by someone early on in this thread.

As for

Shedloads of it.
AND, they do it better than the people who did it before them

That's obviously open to interpretation... however the fact remains that TC does it with half the controllers - Both AC and MACC have their hands tied with the T&P requirement although some sectors, especially in AC when you are talking huge ranges are suited and need T&P, there are sectors at AC and MACC that could be run single controller. This lack of flexibility (in part because the Union insists on T&P) does not help out the manpower levels.

There are some tasks where a dedicated planner is needed - this was bourne out in the recent Central sim where one of the new TC Capital sectors prove unworkable without a dedicated co-ordinator, however there are other sectors around where insisting on T&P is a waste of resource.

[ZOOKER]

Anotherthing,
I believe the team who do the 118.77 sector were nominated for some award this year for reducing delays. Was this not the old Pole Hill sector that LATCC/Swanwick used to do?
Also, I seem to recall being told that Manchester have been commended for their safety performance overall.
My safety is what Air Traffic Control is all about is it not?
As for single-manning of ATC sectors, I seem to remember that missing 'human resources' played a part in the tragic events of both Ubelingen and Zagreb.

[anotherthing]

Zooker

Uberlingen had nothing to do with single manning or T&P manning. It had lots to do with the fact that equipment was not available and the level of manning was not acceptable for the task (the controller was using two displays, not properly co-located). That does not mean that they needed a T&P FFS. That's like saying if TC had 50% of the controllers it has at the moment, it needs T&Ps. The fact is any unit needs to be properly manned staff number wise - whether that task needs single controller ops or T&P ops.

As for

I believe the team who do the 118.77 sector were nominated for some award this year for reducing delays. Was this not the old Pole Hill sector that LATCC/Swanwick used to do?

All very comendable - but NATS as a whole are reducing delays, not just MACC (whose traffic levels continue to fall at a higher rate than any other units as they have done for the past 10 months - maybe this helps make the delay reduction even better). More to the point - the fact that MACC can support the sectors more readily with regards to manpower availability means that there are less restrictions put on, which means less delays.

Less delays does not necessarily have anything to do with controller ability and usually has absolutley nothing to do with it, unless of course you are saying every MACC controller who does this sector is better than every LACC controller who used to do it? A totally stupid and untrue comment!!

As for safety, again, this will usually always improve with reducing traffic numbers, but again NATS as a whole have improved across all units.

Lets not get into a willy waving contest as is the usual crap on here. As an ANSP, NATS is reducing delays and being more safe - so well done to everyone involved.

The issue is the fact that MACC staff stand to lose out because of negative equity. This issue is true, even though the move is a legitimate move (arguments of banding, people having to move school etc do not wash I'm afraid - relocation is legitimate).

There is no other argument, mentioning other supposed 'issues' when other units have had to uproot in the recent past is not going to wash.

[Ppdude]

Uberlingen had nothing to do with single manning or T&P manning

so if the poor controller had someone sat next to him watching, they still would of hit?

[Krait]

The Point

The Point seems to be being missed a little, This thread started with a very sensible and important point and has slowly fallen into the pit of 'have a whine at each other'.

The controllers at Manchester are upset and quite rightly so. The move is not a 70 mile trip within the same country. It will be a huge upheavel for a vast majority of the people who actually go. I am not Scotland bashing here, just pointing out the facts as I see them and hear of them.

Apart from the distance and the family and friends that are left behind there are many other issues. It is obviously a really bad time to move house. Now this isnt NATS doing (I dont think). But the equity which has vanished or the negative equity WILL prevent moving house. Finding a mortgage at 90% is lucky. That deposit for many people doesnt exist.

There are many other-halfs who are worried about moving their careers. Legal/Teaching/Medical qualifications/training arent 100% transferable.

To make these things a little earlier you would think that NATS could have actually handed out some posting notices. A move date - no chance. A move month - maybe Jan. A move year - surley some point in 2010. How are families/couples/singles supposed to plan for the future and all the difficulties when we have no idea when we are going. NATS 'o-date' history is at best poor.

Those of you who moved to Swanwick must know this better than most. But your move (although I am sure had many difficulties) was a better option than those Mancunians who are being asked to move to a totally different environment that is not commutable and not keeping friends/family within sensible (M3) range.

So it is no wonder that so many people are looking for the exit. They arent leaving in their droves right now but why should they. Who knows when we are leaving and why leave the job/salary they enjoy before they really have to. However, there will be considerable numbers not going North. This will make life for those going potentially more hard work. Short numbered, short of morale and trying to settle families into entirely new surroundings.

I am still hoping things will get better but....

[rodan]

I read these MACC move threads with interest and sympathy. I would ask though, what is it that you want to happen? What could NATS do to make it better that they aren't doing?

[Manchester ATC]

To old to move. Sod working Christmas and newyear, will retire gracefully. Best of luck to all those moving, hope you get what you need from Nats?
Remember, the lads and lassies up north drink proper drinks. not those cocktails you drink here.

[ZOOKER]

anotherthing,
The reason the displays were not "properly co-located" is because they were designed to be monitored by 2 controllers, - one of whom wasn't there!
(Ubelingen Final Report, Systemic causes 2 and 3).
That about wraps it up for single-manning of ATC sectors designed for 2 people.
Krait, Splendid 1st post.

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by Krait

A move date - no chance. A move month - maybe Jan. A move year - surley some point in 2010. How are families/couples/singles supposed to plan for the future and all the difficulties when we have no idea when we are going. NATS 'o-date' history is at best poor.

January 2010 was the date which the NATS board communicated over a year ago and are sticking to it precisely because of the soft issues you touch on.

BD

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by Ppdude

so if the poor controller had someone sat next to him watching, they still would of hit?

There was a whole chain of events, this was one of the links. Are you suggesting that every sector at every centre should be manned T&P at all times, even at night?

BD

[anotherthing]

PpDude and Zooker

This is digressing, so this will be my last comment on this particular topic (Uberlingen)

so if the poor controller had someone sat next to him watching, they still would of hit?

Ifs and buts - who knows? If he had someone sat next to him, he may have been more engrossed in having a conversation with that person (and therefore still had the incident), as it was very quiet... all conjecture. TC and some of Scottish manage just fine single manned, and believe it or not, TC is quite complex and can be busy at times...

The reason the displays were not "properly co-located" is because they were designed to be monitored by 2 controllers, - one of whom wasn't there!

Which is different from T&P , unless of course you are saying there should have been 4 controllers on duty?? Zooker, you were talking about T&P operation which is 2 controllers per task, using seperate radar screens, but set up in a simialr way for one task in hand. The controller at Uberlingen was using 2 displays because he was executing effectively 2 different tasks/sectors.
It's like asking someone to bandbox 2 sectors at night, but making them use the normal workstations for each position, not putting them onto one workstation. The issue was not about T&P but was about not having the correct amount of manpower for the task in hand, which in my first post I stated was the problem.
If you're going to put forward an argument, make it relevant, otherwise people will switch off when you do talk about relevant things, such as the situation that MACC staff may find themselves in due to the economic situation.

[055166k]

BD

Interesting point! The original recommendation to the CAA was contained in AIB report 1/89 para 4.13 [page 53 or thereabouts] and followed the horrific airmiss between the Tristar and the Tu154. It said there should be two controllers listening to the R/T [among other things]; however there seemed to be an inference in the wording that might preclude quiet sectors with little or no traffic.

[Me Me Me Me]

Those of you who moved to Swanwick must know this better than most. But your move (although I am sure had many difficulties) was a better option than those Mancunians who are being asked to move to a totally different environment.

What is totally different about the environment? Did I fall through some dimensional wormhole to a place where Manchester had traded places with Athens, Sydney or Las Vegas??

Last I saw, both Manchester and Ayr/Glasgow were areas in the west of the UK where it rains a lot, people grumble about the same government, use the same currency and the public transport is never on time.

I do sympathise with the families of those who are moving, who will have to find new jobs and new schools etc... but it can't really have come as a surprise that it would be required.

[anotherthing]

Cat - Pigeons... GO!!

Here's a quick question, in no way meant to be offensive...

How many people at MACC are at that unit because they failed to validate at 'busier' or 'more complex' units?

How many of those people who were given a second chance to salvage a career with good pay through the goodwill of NATS are complaining about having to uproot to Scotland?

(And whilst I'm at it, how many of those same people complain about only being band 4)??

Genuine questions, because I know how short or how selective peoples memories can be, especially ATCOs'!!

I fully sympathise with the situation regarding negative equity that those who have bought in the last 3 or 4 years will find themselves in; however all other issues regarding this relocation, which has been known about for years, are no more valid than any other relocation programme this company has undertaken.

You're talking a distance of 250 miles, not the end of the earth. Correct it's not commutable, but then realistically, if talking about quality of life, neither really is the WD to Swanwick commute. Partners of people who moved to Swanwick have all had to up roots and find jobs as well, it's not a unique situation you are finding yourselves in.

If this relocation couple with the pension, on top of all your other gripes, such as being Band 4 etc are so bad, then why not look abroad for work? Or is NATS in reality not as bad a company as some people like to whinge about (typically people who have never worked for another company)??