UK - NATS Pay negotiations - latest rumours

[DC10RealMan]

Zooker refers to many younger nats managers having little or no atc experience and I would also add little or no knowledge of commercial aviation. The issuing of met actuals is not an ancillary task that can be postponed or ignored due to workload, it is a fundamental cornerstone of the safe operation of any aircraft, whether that be commercial, private, military, large or small.

Aircrew use the information supplied by metar to compile their approach minima and briefings and particularly in marginal conditions it is the most important factor. If I were faced with conducting an approach in minimal conditions with a met observation which was out of date I would refuse and enter the hold until one had been done and then go into print about it.

We all know that as far as the management are concerned it is about reducing staff costs, but if the atcos think that they can take on this task without it affecting their primary role then they really are as naive as members of their management.

[250 kts]

DC10

I think you would need to attend a briefing to see hear about the safeguards that would be put in place. I attended one in the last few days and have been pleasantly surprised at the proposed limitations on the controllers being able to do the Met task.

[DC10RealMan]

Fair enough.

[Occams Razor]

Originally Posted by 250 kts

I think you would need to attend a briefing to see hear about the safeguards that would be put in place. I attended one in the last few days and have been pleasantly surprised at the proposed limitations on the controllers being able to do the Met task.

Is that a Prospect or Management briefing? I have been to the latter and there were short and muted replies about questions regarding conditions for ATCOs doing the MET at night.

An example of last years snow was used, the reply was "we would roster an extra ATCO for the night shift to cover the extra duties"...lots of overtime this winter then, what with a 2-3 week period of potential snow if last year is anything to go by - would a unit really take the chance of being understaffed during dodgy weather?

[fisbangwollop]

we would roster an extra ATCO for the night shift to cover the extra duties".

NATS Management are full of bright idea's for saving money....yea, lets get rid of all the ATSA's that should save us a few bob, we could then employ more ATCO's to take on their tasks....

[Flybywyre]

Is that a Prospect or Management briefing?

Is there a difference ?

[250 kts]

It was most definitely a Prospect briefing.

Flybywyre,

You obviously haven't attended the Prospect one yet if you think they are the same.

[band2drone]

"we would roster an extra ATCO for the night shift to cover the extra duties"

Yeah, they'll go to the 'Spare ATCOs' cupboard and magic one up just for MET reports. Have they lost the plot? They've been introducing lower ORs for airports, now they think there are spare ATCOs knocking about. Give me strength!

[Ceannairceach]

I hear from an ATSA at my unit today that at their briefing they were told there was simply no money left in the pot for a larger pay rise than that already offered for the ATSAs.

Yet EFD seems to have a bottomless pit of money allocated to it, more than I suspect it will save in reduced ATSA numbers for some considerable time. No doubt our owners will get a decent chunk of spoils in the form of a dividend shortly. And perhaps someone could remind us how much Baron, Hoskins et al walked away with. Their pots were positively overflowing with money it would appear.

So I suspect there will be little sympathy amongst the ATSA community for management's sob story aimed in their direction. And, as an ATCO, I still care what happens to the ATSAs even if an awful lot of you don't seem to.

[LostThePicture]

I attended one in the last few days and have been pleasantly surprised at the proposed limitations on the controllers being able to do the Met task.

Well that'll be a comfort to NSL ATCOs and ATSAs everywhere, given that you work in a large grey box in Hampshire...

"we would roster an extra ATCO for the night shift to cover the extra duties"

This sounds like a suspiciously hollow promise to try and paper over the cracks in another poor piece of negotiation. Realistically, the risk of snow disruption (for example) covers three months of the year, so I suppose all airports affected by the MET clause will be rostering an extra night ATCO for three months, promulgated on the 20th of the preceding month? I doubt it.

As I understand it, the units affected by the MET clause will likely be swamped in the ballot by those that are largely unaffected. HTD payments went west because those that weren't eligible for HTD (the majority) still got a vote in the ballot. And now Prospect are allowing it to happen again, only there appears to be much more at stake here. Shame on them.

LTP

[On the beach]

Back in the days when I was an ATCO, we had people called Met men and Met women who were trained professionals and they used to do met. observations as part of their daily routine. I'd respectfully suggest to the flying community, ATC management and the regulators that if they want professional met. observations and those vitally important SPECIs that have to be done when the weather makes ATC just a tad more difficult, then they should ask the flying community and ATC management to approach the Met. Office to supply suitably trained personnel and leave ATCOs to do what they are paid to do, which is act on met. advice and provide a safe passage through/around adverse weather.

Asking ATCOs to go out and take weather observations is rather akin to asking met. people to come into the radar room and run a quick sequence.

If you want a professional service you need to pay for it otherwise you will end up with, what appears to be going to be a third rate service that the rest of the world will just sit back and laugh at and decide to fly to safer countries.

How anyone in ATC management could even contemplate ATCOs at busy airports carrying out hourly met. observations and SPECIs and SNOWTAMS beggars belief.

If SRG don't do something about this then they are equally as culpable if and when something happens as a result of an ATCO being outside doing a SPECI or an aircraft crashing as a result of an ATCO not doing a SPECI.

My advice would be to put that question to SRG and leave that safety decision to them. That is, after all what they, as professionals, are paid to do, isn't it?

Meanwhile, you have to question whether the ATC management that are making these blatantly dangerous decisions are fit for purpose. Another question which needs urgent answering by the regulators before any lasting damage is done.

So, if any SRG members or regulators are reading this, now would be a good time to step up to the plate. This isn't about money, this is about the safety of the flying public, of which I am one. And I shall be referring this thread to my MP. I suggest others may like to follow.

On the beach

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by On the beach

My advice would be to put that question to SRG and leave that safety decision to them. That is, after all what they, as professionals, are paid to do, isn't it?

Their job is to act as the safety regulator. NATS will put a fully prepared safety case to them and they'll decide whether it meets their requirements as the regulator.

BD

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by Ceannairceach

I hear from an ATSA at my unit today that at their briefing they were told there was simply no money left in the pot for a larger pay rise than that already offered for the ATSAs.

I went to the Swanwick briefing yesterday and we were told the same thing. In fact the analogy drawn by management was that they're selling a car, we're buying it, they've made their lowest offer but it doesn't meet the unions highest offer. So who do you believe, can they really not reduce the price of the car a bit more?

Yet EFD seems to have a bottomless pit of money allocated to it,

I think you're thinking of iFACTS which has cost 5 times as much as EFD Projects have to bid for cash which is allocated from the monies budgeted for projected spend for projects. But that's a one off spend, pay is year on year and increases now are carried forward every year.

No doubt our owners will get a decent chunk of spoils in the form of a dividend shortly.

That includes us (if you kept your shares) because we also own part of the business. As stated on NATSNET the dividend pot is a separate one which the government regulator allows NATS. In poor years there has been no bonus.

And perhaps someone could remind us how much Baron, Hoskins et al walked away with. Their pots were positively overflowing with money it would appear.

One off payments, agreed as part of their contract and budgeted for accordingly.

So I suspect there will be little sympathy amongst the ATSA community for management's sob story aimed in their direction.

Depends whether you believe them or not. The most interesting point for me was over why not core deal for the very first time as this was seen as the most divisive thing about the whole pay deal. The finger was very firmly pointed at the unions as being the ones who rejected a core deal and each went their separate way for divisional deals.

BD

[Me Me Me Me]

BD... Come on.

Dividends to 'owners'

That includes us (if you kept your shares) because we also own part of the business. As stated on NATSNET the dividend pot is a separate one which the government regulator allows NATS. In poor years there has been no bonus.

Yes, we get about 1/4000th of 5% each. While dividends were not paid in the tough years, the tough years were largely caused by the leveraged purchase of the company by those 'owners'. If they had come in with cash then I wouldn't grudge them a penny of dividend... They didn't. They've probably already had way more out in terms of dividends than they ever put in to take control in the first place.

Barron & Hoskins

One off payments, agreed as part of their contract and budgeted for accordingly.

Not entirely true. As much as I agree with you that it has to be made clear to people the difference between the financial impact of one-off payments as compared to compounded increases, it fails to take account of the context in which these payments were made and the hypocrisy of the individuals receiving them.

Depends whether you believe them or not. The most interesting point for me was over why not core deal for the very first time as this was seen as the most divisive thing about the whole pay deal. The finger was very firmly pointed at the unions as being the ones who rejected a core deal and each went their separate way for divisional deals.

Why would the unions do that? Look at pay negotiations over the past 10 years. Virtually every time there have been sectional side-deals where management have asked for some section-specific changes in return for a deal. Working practices etc etc. Despite this, NATS and NTUS always negotiated the core increase across all groups. ATCOs always got more than the other groups, but it was through add-ons, so there was at least an appearance of equality.
Nothing that is in this year's deal would prevent that same arrangement this time. Prospect ATCOs could still have achieved a higher return for their memeber than the other groups through agreeing Met or AAVA deal as a sectional claim, while still appearing to keep the unions united by negotiating an across-the-board basic percentage increase.
The only party gaining from splitting up negotiations is NATS management, who can now look forward to all future pay deals being based on a 2 tier workforce of ATCOs and all the other lot who just drain money from the ATCO pot.

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by Me Me Me Me

Why would the unions do that? <snip> Nothing that is in this year's deal would prevent that same arrangement this time.

I'm simply passing on what we were told, the NTUS rejected the core deal and broke out into sectional deals. Will be interesting to know what the PCS briefing says on this subject.

BD

[Me Me Me Me]

Having had a PCS briefing, I can tell you.

PCS do not want seperate bargaining. The question was asked very quickly and the answer in a nutshell was, there's little we can do about it... NATS hold the purse strings and so - to an extent - hold the power to decide who they talk to about what.

There's only one of the 3 TU branches that benefits from splitting - and I don't believe they engineered it either. From day one this has looked to me like a new management team attempting to lay a new set of rules for future years.

[Ceannairceach]

As far as I understand it the core deal to NTUS was frankly derisory - 2%.

The company would only offer more and negotiate further if each of the union branches agreed to negotiate separately.

[250 kts]

The finger was very firmly pointed at the unions as being the ones who rejected a core deal and each went their separate way for divisional deals.

I'm don't believe that for one minute. In fact I seem to remember the Prospect briefing has a slide where they state that NATS refused point blank to do a NTUS deal.

Porkies from management I think and probably not the first or last time on the matter. Time they had the guts to stand in front of the staff and admit it.

[Minesthechevy]

Hmm, <<Management, guts, admit a mistake>>

Not a selection of words that I ever saw in my 36 years of ATC. The one-eyed golfer was one of the biggest non-admitters of errors I ever met, whilst being a major error generator.

[MosquitoAce]

from annual report 2010

Managers’ rewards are related not only to what they achieve but to how they achieve it through their people (informed by an Employee Opinion Survey).