Spanish ATC

[LH2]

Originally Posted by 10W

It was what the contract said they should get. How can that make them thieves ?

Presumably because of how they managed to get it in the first place, by creating a strong and closed "monopoly" and abusing their position and AENA management's ignorance/incompetence/couldntbearsediness. It is basically what you say yourself in the last paragraph of your post. It may work in the short term, and good if you can get it, but you need to recognise when it's over.

you can't blame any union for trying to protect what it has gained for its members,

Yes you can if they end up doing such a terrible job.

regardless of what society thinks about any deal (and are intensely jealous of it seems).

I am in Spain at the moment, and talking to local friends and acquaintances they do not seem jealous, neither were they in the past. What pisses them off is that they come across as selfish gits (see previous para). Have you read the local press at all?

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

My point is we are all in the same boat. Spain is ( for the controllers ) the first shot of a long battle to come that will see our salaries and working conditions re-adjusted.

Not at all ATCW. Spanish controllers are not on the same boat as everyone else.

Assuming that you have enough elements to judge, are you not of the opinion that their situation is an aberration that needs to be adjusted?

Nobody's talking of putting Spain's ATC on minimum salary. From what has been said so far, I understand they'll still be getting a pretty good deal, even in comparison with European controllers.

The most important point seems to be lost on everyone though (AENA included), which is the desperate need to get them to provide a half-competent service.

[flameproof]

Replying to a few comments,

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

So for Any ATC service Provider : Overtime is cheaper than recruiting, plus if your traffic goes down you cut overtime . You cannot (in Europe at least ) dismiss controllers without pay when traffic goes down.( like it does currently in Spain )

That makes sense, so I can agree that AENA would take that route for a short while, however, the controllers themselves have complained about lack of staff. In fact, they claim that traffic increases mean they have to do more hours, and this is why the current situation has been reached - that they have ran out of hours as established in this year's decrees. If traffic had gone down this year, how can controllers run out of hours, doing less hours they have been doing since 1999? Remember that ATCOs could reach 1800 hours a year or more.

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

So forget your theories and claculations to the euro. Overtime is cheaper.

It depends on how much you pay the overtime. If it costs you 3x the normal hourly rate, maybe it isn't, and it is actually cheaper to have staff doing less hours during periods of low traffic rates. Again, I apply Occam's Razor to this, when you have ATCOs setting their own schedules, deciding when to open or close sectors, book overtime, etc. and you pay overtime at huge premiums, the natural course of action is for ATCOs to not want extra staff.

If every public sector in the country went by the same rules, the economy would suffer considerably.

Thanks for your post, it provides a new, useful angle to look at things!

Originally Posted by Spitoon

The answers might be somewhere in the thread but I would be interested to know how many new staff have been checked out in Spain over, say, the last five years....and where.

Originally Posted by BrATCO

It seems not too much in the last 9 years...

I have checked the 2009 consolidated report by AENA:

http://www.aena.es/csee/ccurl/412/55...%202009_EN.pdf

and on page 351 we can see, for 2008, AENA employed 2331 controllers, whereas in 2009, this number rose to 2404, an increase of 73 controllers. I don't know on what basis does USCA claim to have 1700 controllers, page 3 of IFATCA statement:

http://spain.atczone.com/wp-content/...nal_091210.pdf

Eurocontrol's PRR mentions 2005 controllers in Operations at AENA in 2008, and 1966 controllers in 2007:

http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/galle...s/PRR_2009.pdf

So by all accounts, it would appear that staff has been increasing over the years.

Originally Posted by studi

Or in other words: when a Spanish controller works the same amount of hours as his colleague without overtime in e.g. U.K., the Spanish thief will have collected 1/3 in overtime, at a 4-fold rate.

I wouldn't go as far as calling them thiefs, they have not stolen anything, just that they have enjoyed exceedingly good conditions and salary thanks to successive weak governments. The situation has snowballed until reaching what we have today - on one hand, a government decided to solve in a few months what has taken years to rot, and a group of people who have grown too accustomed to have the government roll over and flip backwards when threatened. It would be best for all to reach compromise, however I'm not sure this can happen, judging by what ATCOs are still declaring before the media.

Originally Posted by 10W

you can't blame any union for trying to protect what it has gained for its members, regardless of what society thinks about any deal (and are intensely jealous of it seems)

No, but you can blame them for paralyzing a country and leaving 600.000 people without their holiday, and causing an economic impact which is counted in multiples of their collective yearly salary. Also, you cannot defend what is so obviously out of control, if you read the 1999 agreement you will see that what was signed there could only have been done under duress, and indeed, during the months preceding the signature, there were threats of, and actual actions ('hidden' strikes of course).

I'm all for the union defending a position, but not the position they have enjoyed for so long. The salary levels and benefits are completely out of proportion for Spain as a country, and when compared to other EU ATC services. On the night of the 3rd, they gave AENA a draft agreement that in effect returned things to the 1999 agreement - is that a compromise, or trying to be rational, while you are paralyzing air traffic in the country?

Originally Posted by 10W

AENA management agreed to it in the first place, so they should take most of the blame for the mess that Spanish ATC is now in. Their lack of foresight and poor judgment are there for all to see, regardless of the political spin from the Government.

I fully agree, but only with the caveat that AENA faced a collective where 98% of members belong to one single union, and have a position of great power. It's not easy to take a stand in that situation, particularly if you're a politician who cares more about public image than making things work.

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

My point is we are all in the same boat. Spain is ( for the controllers ) the first shot of a long battle to come that will see our salaries and working conditions re-adjusted. Luthansa-Italia is your own starter in Germany..( or Vueling , Wizz air, whatever..if you're not from Germany.)

Are you sure about this? Not saying it could not be, but the case in Spain is very atypical, in terms of benefits, conditions and salary which are unheard of in the rest of the EU.

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

So let's stop fighting each other and perhaps realise that if the Spanish gov wins, this will spread. And low cost operations with low salaries and large hours , wether in the air or in the ground is not really what we are after, aren't we ?

If ATCO or an airline pilot gets to work long hours for low salaries - that would be unfair, and worth fighting for. But you cannot justify the situation of ATCOs in Spain and defend it on the basis that you will be next. Right is right, and the public (usually) sides with the weak side. If your rights are genuinely hurt, you go on strike, but you do so in an orderly fashion, you don't covertly disrupt operations, induce delays, or walk off the job without warning.

Originally Posted by supraspinatus

did anyone read IFATCA's bulletin published 9th December?

Yes. Cleared to take a large pinch of salt, proceed direct to bulletin.

Originally Posted by supraspinatus

It states that it was not a walk off or industrial action. Most of AENA's controllers had spent their available yearly work hours (1750hrs).

The 440 controllers that walked off on Friday 3rd had not consumed their hours. They claimed to be so upset so as to be unfit for duty - this proved false as they assembled in nearby hotels, insulting the press and the public in the process (the public insulted them back, so I guess that was a draw).

Here is a commentary on IFATCA's release, which can also be found here:

http://spain.atczone.com/wp-content/...nal_091210.pdf

"A 5‐year collective agreement made in 1999 ended on the 31 December 2004. Ever since, AENA and controller union USCA were in negotiations to create a new one."

It forgets to mention that the agreement automatically renews unless a new one is signed, thus, as long as ATCOs didn't sign a new agreement, they would continue to enjoy the excellent conditions they got in the original. Note that the rest of AENA's staff is already on their fifth collective agreement, while the controllers are still under the first one.

"Oddly, AENA and the government concluded that the controllers’ wages, inflated due to the overtime payments, were the source of all problems."

It is one problem of many. However, it is obvious that no private company will take up operations of say, Barajas or Barcelona, both profitable airports, when their entire operation can be disrupted by a few dozen people. It's not so much an issue of salary, but of control.

This is what IFATCA claims was written in the first decree,

"Make overtime compulsory, limiting it to a maximum of 80 hours per year."

but in fact, decree RD 1/2010 states:

"2. El número de horas extraordinarias no será superior a ochenta al año, de conformidad con lo establecido en el Estatuto de los Trabajadores."

Which translates to "The number of overtime hours will not exceed eighty a year, according to what is laid out in the Worker's Statute".

The "Estatuto de los Trabajadores" doesn't make overtime mandatory, as it states in Art. 35:

"4. La prestación de trabajo en horas extraordinarias será voluntaria..."

So what IFATCA says is misleading, not wanting to use stronger words.

"On average, a controllers’ net income dropped overnight by 30 to 50% depending on the amount of overtime he or she performed before."

They also conveniently forget to mention what AENA's director declared before the Senate of Spain,

http://www.senado.es/legis9/publicac...CS0357.html#10

"Además, con el fin de amortiguar el descenso retributivo, se ha abonado un complemento provisional resultante de la diferencia entre las retribuciones básicas que percibían los controladores antes de la publicación del real decreto ley y las nuevas. "

Translated, it means that ATCOs are paid a supplement to cover the loss of earnings caused by the new decree that came into effect early this year. What is true is that the average decrease of salary was 35%.

"At the same time, Royal Decree 1001/2010 was published. It refined the first one, defining maximum working time for controllers independent of the provider they work for.
Major points in this new decree included:
- 1670 hours working time per year plus 80 hours mandatory overtime at the complete
discretion of AENA."

Again, insisting on the "mandatory overtime". In fact, the 1001/2010 decree says nothing about whether overtime is mandatory or not, only maintaining that the maximum is 80 hours and in accordance with the 'Estatuto de los Trabajadores'. The decree is here:

http://boe.es/boe/dias/2010/08/06/pd...2010-12620.pdf

Now for the real contradiction. At the beginning of the statement, IFATCA says:

"After air traffic controllers pointed out to AENA management that they had reached the maximum number of working hours according to the Royal Decree, AENA management systematically shut down the airspace in Spain even against the advice of air traffic control supervisors."

and a few pages later,

"The air traffic controllers on duty on December 3rd received an advance copy of a new royal decree, which radically altered conditions again. Many of them were so upset, that continuing to work would have been irresponsible. As required by AENA procedure, they handed in a declaration of unfitness to the supervisors. In Madrid ACC, the local AENA Management, against the advice of the operational supervisors, took the decision to close the airspace, after having tried to manage the traffic themselves. The ATCOs remained in the facilities until the end of their shifts."

So, what did really happen? That the controllers were not at all sick, but they informed supervisors they had run out of hours, and thus AENA shut down the airspace? Or that they controllers all got sick after reading the new decree passed in the afternoon?

IFATCA is, at best, misleading. Eurocontrol was informed at 18:00Z that controllers were walking out of their posts in Spain. Media filmed controllers as they gathered in nearby hotels. Maybe some remained in the facilities, but 'facilities' could mean their private bedrooms, or the cafeteria. In any event, they were not at their stations. Airspace was closed via NOTAM at 20:12Z, and it was done as controllers had abandoned their posts. The unions (including IFATCA) are now trying to sell the story that AENA shut down the airspace, and thus, the ATCOs left their posts, when the reverse happened. The NOTAM reads:

(B9283/10 NOTAMN Q)LEXX/QXXXX/IV/NBO/E /GEN/000/999/4220N00345W433 A)LECM LECB B)1012032012 C)1012040700 EST E)TRAFFIC IS NOT ACCEPTED IN FIRES LECM, LECB AND GCCC DUE TO LACK ATC SERVICE.)

At this time, I had been listening to Barcelona FIR, APP, GMC and TWR for a while, and there were two controllers active with the frequencies bandboxed, basically telling everyone to read the NOTAM. Maybe the rest of ATCOs were downstairs having a coffee, and so "in the facilities", but they were hardly doing their job.

Finally,

"USCA has made a proposal, which could resolve the current deadlock, which includes a freeze of the remuneration budget for the next 3 years."

It doesn't say at which level it is frozen, 1999, or post-cuts? Let's just hope it is something sensible, and this mess can be sorted out.

IMHO, it appears that IFATCA is at the service of USCA, repeating verbatim their story, without reading the decrees, laws and agreements themselves.

Footnote: for the record, ATCOs did, on average, 1.744 hours in 2006, 1.799 hours in 2007, 1.802 hours in 2008 and 1.750 hours in 2009.

[Del Prado]

today, flameproof said

If traffic had gone down this year, how can controllers run out of hours, doing less hours they have been doing since 1999?

and again

How could work have been done with 1670 hours in the past, and not this year? What has been different?

yet 2 days ago, in response to this,
"whe the final law was made, someone got overzealous and barred all atcos aged 57+ to work"

flameproof said

That's a critical piece of information that I didn't know, and would explain controllers running out of hours sooner than in past years - is that in the decree itself, or just something planners did on their own?

did he forget this 'critical piece of information?


When Spitoon said "... I would be interested to know how many new staff have been checked out in Spain over, say, the last five years....and where."

Flameproof's answer was...

On 27 March 1998, the government approved the hiring of 190 ATCOs. In 1999, 96 new ATCOs were hired. In 2000 it was 98. In 2001, it was 94. So, in total, 478 new ATCO places were offered, and I have not been able to find any further offers until today

Still that was yesterday. Today he says...
"I have checked the 2009 consolidated report by AENA: etc, etc."

Flameproof, you're spending a long time researching, why don't you take a bit of time off and spend it with your family? There are people contributing here with experience, listen to them and please don't dictate the debate with the stuff you're regurgitating from the internet.

I had hope to leave this thread alone as more mature posters were making a much better job of presenting the issues on both sides but you consistently quote half truths and made up statistics.
While your contributions are welcome you have little more to add than a layman's view and it's only fair to bring that to the attention to this forum.

[Blockla]

If traffic had gone down this year, how can controllers run out of hours, doing less hours they have been doing since 1999? Remember that ATCOs could reach 1800 hours a year or more.

Because they aren't more efficient by being rostered for more hours.

I'd suggest that they are running out of the 'decree' hours when they are not really needed; ie they publish a roster in advance, whether the traffic is there or not, before sickness or other anomalies that strike 'manpower' businesses like ATC. Rostering for all the gaps that come along is very inefficient and doesn't always work. Overtime is flexible, it's "usually" agreed between the employer and employee with little notice and great flexibility, unlike a rostered shift, which isn't flexible and that is done with more than a little notice.

It's hard to keep up, but there used to be no limits to overtime (excluding breaks and fatigue issues, and it was by agreement), for a while, before decree 3 there were limits imposed.... So they weren't/aren't getting the bodies in the right places at the right times.

This also is where the earlier 'stats' about raw costs go out the window; doubling the staff and increasing the hours isn't directly proportional to covering the roster for anomalies.

[flameproof]

Originally Posted by Del Prado

yet 2 days ago, in response to this,
"whe the final law was made, someone got overzealous and barred all atcos aged 57+ to work"

flameproof said
Quote:
That's a critical piece of information that I didn't know, and would explain controllers running out of hours sooner than in past years - is that in the decree itself, or just something planners did on their own?
did he forget this 'critical piece of information?

No, I did not, because what the IFATCA bulletin says, and I quote:

"...this Royal Decree 1/2010 created a framework for AENA to force the controllers to:
...
- Fixed retirement age at 57 years."


is inaccurate. There is nothing in the 1/2010 decree even mentioning the word "57" or "cincuenta y siete". What it does say is that it cancels the paid leave clause that allowed ATCOs to "retire" at 52 years old, and keep full pay until reaching the official age of retirement. The 57 years of age limit was imposed on April 14, via law 9/2010.

In fact, the original 1999 agreement states:

"Artículo 163.

Límite de edad operativa.
Se establece el límite de edad operativa en los cincuenta y cinco años. No obstante, todo CCA que quiera seguir desempeñando puestos operativos, podrá hacerlo a petición propia y previa superación de la oportuna revisión psicofísica."

Translated, it states that the maximum operational age is 55 years old, not even 57. If an ATCO wants, he can request to keep working past 55, after passing a series of tests. So, if the unions and bulletins were right, the decree would have raised the maximum age to 57 years old. Again, I find nothing in the 1/2010 decree that says that 57 is the maximum operational age of an ATCO in Spain, it's done on Law 9/2010 on April 14th.

Originally Posted by Del Prado

Still that was yesterday. Today he says...
"I have checked the 2009 consolidated report by AENA: etc, etc."

You keep twisting my words. I would appreciate it if you stopped doing that. The offers I found up to 2001 were in the official BOE, which is where offers for public workers are made. The AENA report merely states the number of employees, for 2008 and 2009, but I have not found the corresponding offers in the BOE that would make the increases in ATCOs match. The BOE offers end in 2001 - again, if you can find where the others went, or where they were posted, please provide a link.

Originally Posted by Del Prado

Flameproof, you're spending a long time researching, why don't you take a bit of time off and spend it with your family?

This is getting a bit ridiculous. In your next post, don't forget to add "We know where you live" to that phrase, it will make it sound more mafia-like.

Originally Posted by Del Prado

There are people contributing here with experience, listen to them and please don't dictate the debate with the stuff you're regurgitating from the internet.

Oh, so I'm regurgitating stuff from the internet? You call the official diary of the Spanish Government "the internet"? Or the IFATCA bulletin? Or the 1999 agreement signed between AENA and USCA? Or the Eurocontrol PRR report? Give me a break...

Some contributions by experience have been great. I contribute factual information, with my own opinion on it, but I don't tell you to "go with your family". You have so far not refuted any of my arguments or information extracted from official documents.

Originally Posted by Del Prado

I had hope to leave this thread alone as more mature posters were making a much better job of presenting the issues on both sides but you consistently quote half truths and made up statistics.

Please provide non-made up statistics, or whole truths. Or even the other half of the truths. Or, feel free to ignore this thread.

Originally Posted by Del Prado

While your contributions are welcome

...you just told me to go with my family...

Originally Posted by Del Prado

you have little more to add than a layman's view and it's only fair to bring that to the attention to this forum.

You have little more to add than a bitter old man with no arguments other than "I don't like what you write so go home with your family". Your "experience" or "maturity" have not come into play into any of your posts yet.

['I' in the sky]

del prado,
I folloWed your link and couldn't find any "true figures" of spanish ATC salaries. I didn't ask about training costs, I don't see why they should be that much more in Spain than anywhere else.

You said the salaries quoted were lies.I'm just asking if you can give a more honest stetement about how many spanish ATCs earned how much last year and perhaps provide us with a reference ?

[ATC Watcher]

Studi , LH 2 :
when I said we are all on the same boat I meant the "workers" of the system, (that include Pilots and Controllers but not limited to them ) If you think this is only a purely ATC domestic issue and is going to affect Spain and stop there ,you're gonna wake up with a big hang over. This is whisful thinking.
For me it is all about cost reduction and imposing a new economical model .
.
You can believe otherwise, and maybe you will be right. I am no crystal ball reader, But I've be around , and when I smell a dead rat there is generally one not too far away. Let's come back and discuss this again in 2 -3 years and we see who pays a beer ( or a red wine for me ) to the other.

Now Flamefroof :
A few comments on your last posts :
IFATCA Press release and bulettins :NO, they were not written by USCA but mostly based on Spanish controllers information passed to IFATCA, by people Known to IFATCA. No only USCA /Union leaders, but normal , generally senior people working the system.
But USCA is a member of IFATCA, defending them is normal, that is what IFATCA is for, even if USCA is not free of all blame in this situation.
Same as in a familly. if your brother screws up, it is still your brother and you'll help, regardless.

But USCA is mainly a Union. IFATCA is a professional body. ATCEUC should be taking care of the Union part. IFATCA is more concerned about Professional and Safety issues, and about picking up the pieces when this is over and if ( as I believe ) it spreads out .
Interestingly enough, the Spanish Government, AENA and CANSO never mention safety erosion. But Spain is an odd Country in the EU since Ministry, Service provider (AENA) and Regulator are all the same and Safety management is at the orders .So any erosion of Safety margins will be kept indoors .

Overtime ,57, hours, Royal decree(s) :
The Royal decrees mention one thing, AENA rules interpreted the decrees to fit their needs. Just an example among many : Since August Overtime and extra duties became mandatory for AENA ( asked any Spanish controller the meaning of " turno express " which is one of the root of the "explosion" .) failure to comply with an imposed extra duty was reason for dismissal.

A last example :The age 57 : AENA "removed from operational duties " every controller above 57 from one day to another without warning. In MAD Apprach this was 15% of the staff . Not in the decrees but a fact.Consequences adding pressure to remaining staff and distress to the "dismissed" ones. Benefit for AENA ? More upset Controllers.

Now the big question : was it ,as AENA states an illegal "walk out " organised by USCA or a "fed up action " of a few frustrated guys that spread out to become 400. ?
AENA affirms it was an organised illegal walkout and they had to react. . USCA says it was not them ( plenty of lawyers in Usca, expensive ones too, so they would have most probably known the consequences ) but wildcat individuals. In Madrid ACC , Controllers say AENA shut down the airspace,against the advice of the Supervisors as there was still enough controllers to run the airpace with reduced capacities ( say 50 or 60% of the traffic ) But AENA managers came to the OPS room and shut down the airspace, indications are they knew what they were doing , so it appeared to be the execution of a well rehersed "B' plan.

That is the information IFATCA got. Based on my experience with such things, when In doubt I always asks who benefit the actions : Certainly not the controllers. Union Busting ? probably. Getting rid of a few individuals leading the revolt to send a message to the 1500 others : most certainly .

Preparing AENA for privatisation with a docile reduced de-unionized workforce, at half the costs as before ? you bet.
Using teh Statee of Alarm to introduce single man operations (the so called " monosectores" ) and test it in live traffic : Probably.
If this works in Spain the next ones will be the French, then Belgium and Ireland. (I do not guarantee the order but you get the idea )

Finally , Contrary to what many beleive, the French and the Portugues for instance (still) have far better working conditions that the Spanish had before 2009. The Spanish salaries were the highest in the EU due to Overtime, takes the overtime off and you get them in the top average. (with Maastricht , for instance much higher). So abnormal was the overtime payments , not the basic salaries.
Cutting Overtime and mass recruitment would have solved the problem.
Having a small group affecting the entire economy of a country when having a strike ? A law imposing a minimum service ( like in other EU countries ) would have solved the problem. But confrontation was looked for. because for the goal for me was not reducing salaries or preventing strikes. USCA fell into the trap .

My analysis, not neccessarily the correct one, but for me the most likely one. So read this post again in a few years and we'll see . Bottle of Ribera del Duero ?

[PeltonLevel]

As I have intimated earlier, you don't get into a mess like this without seriously CRP management!
Controllers who were motivated by some very generous T's and C's are likely to be much more capable of making flexible use of the working hours available than an arbitrary management. Even with a very good understanding of the needs and constraints of a working air traffic control centre, it is very difficult to put together a roster. I can see that it is quite possible that AENA's management (a job title, not necessarily a skill) have had to use up all of the available mandated controller hours before the year is up in order to get the necessary sector staff coverage.
By the way, I would be interested to know what the average time spent actually controlling is across the various ANSPs. I may have made some incorrect assumptions, but, allowing for SRATCOH breaks, I suspect for staff in NATS' centres it is not too different from the '1200 hours' that was the AENA baseline (and I know that I am not comparing like with like here).

[megustalavida]

HI ATC Watcher,

thanks for your sensible writeup; it sheds up some some light with valuable insight information from an actual ATC Controller ; unlike some other contributors, somebody mentioned "lawyers", and that it exactly what there are doing.

Well, even on court everybody deserve a lawyers, whatever he did/does And it seems AENA management messed the situation up and can deal with it anymore.

I hope that the ATC controllers find a sensible solution for them soon and they can return to work in a safe working environment, where they can be actually able to concentrate back on their work.

[flameproof]

First, I have to say that I finally found the law, 9/2010 (not a Royal Decree) that limits operational status to 57 years of age on April 14th:

http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2010/04/1...-2010-5983.pdf

It states that controllers above this age are to be given other, non-operational roles, until they retire. This requirement was later revoked in law 36/2010 on October 22nd:

http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2010/10/2...2010-16131.pdf

whereby controllers over 57 years of age can continue operational duties, while they must undergo examinations every six months. I'll edit my previous post to lighten up the wording on IFATCA's bulletin, their info was not false on this particular point, but the timeline was wrong, and references not provided correctly.

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

IFATCA Press release and bulettins :NO, they were not written by USCA but mostly based on Spanish controllers information passed to IFATCA, by people Known to IFATCA. No only USCA /Union leaders, but normal , generally senior people working the system.
But USCA is a member of IFATCA, defending them is normal, that is what IFATCA is for, even if USCA is not free of all blame in this situation.
Same as in a familly. if your brother screws up, it is still your brother and you'll help, regardless.

Agreed, it would be abnormal for unions or trade bodies to not defend each other, they just need to make sure what it is they are defending. If your brother kills someone, maybe you won't be so forthcoming in his defense (figuratively speaking, I'm sensing Del Prado starting to type "you say controllers kill people, liar!").

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

But USCA is mainly a Union. IFATCA is a professional body. ATCEUC should be taking care of the Union part. IFATCA is more concerned about Professional and Safety issues, and about picking up the pieces when this is over and if ( as I believe ) it spreads out .
Interestingly enough, the Spanish Government, AENA and CANSO never mention safety erosion. But Spain is an odd Country in the EU since Ministry, Service provider (AENA) and Regulator are all the same and Safety management is at the orders .So any erosion of Safety margins will be kept indoors .

Thanks so much for those clarifications on unions. As for safety erosion, it has been a problem for ages. Absenteeism in some control centers has reached 50%, which is very high compared to any other professional sector. In any case, recent events cannot contribute towards improved safety, I agree.

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

The Royal decrees mention one thing, AENA rules interpreted the decrees to fit their needs. Just an example among many : Since August Overtime and extra duties became mandatory for AENA ( asked any Spanish controller the meaning of " turno express " which is one of the root of the "explosion" .) failure to comply with an imposed extra duty was reason for dismissal.

The "turno express" is a secondary measure in case the controller on call also fails. It was implemented, according to Lema, after on many occasions, a supervisor would call a controller who was on call (in case the on-duty controller became sick etc.) and nobody would answer the phone. Thus, a second safety was added with the "turno express". If controllers don't have a high absenteeism, the "turno express" is never triggered, and they still get to credit a % of the time on call as having worked (part of those 1670 hours) even if they don't get called in.

Again, the average absenteeism in the whole of AENA's workforce is around 4,2%, whereas in Madrid TWR it reaches 30%, as an example. I doubt Mr. Lema would lie in front of the Senate when providing these figures, but you can understand why they came up with the "turno express".

Do you have any references to laws or decrees that made overtime compulsory? I have not found any, if it was an internal company rule, it had to be agreed with the workers/union, per the "Worker's Statute" provisions. If a controller were to be dismissed because he refused to do overtime, he could prosecute and be re-instated with a compensation.

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

A last example :The age 57 : AENA "removed from operational duties " every controller above 57 from one day to another without warning. In MAD Apprach this was 15% of the staff . Not in the decrees but a fact.Consequences adding pressure to remaining staff and distress to the "dismissed" ones. Benefit for AENA ? More upset Controllers.

Agreed, this was ruled so on April 14th, and revoked on October 22nd. In today's deposition, Minister Blanco has explained that they tried to re-instate two controllers over 57 years of age to fix the lack of ATC service in Santiago, which had forced temporary closures of the airport and airspace. One of the controllers didn't join the service, under pressures by the controllers at Santiago and the local USCA branch. It appears that AENA even offered overtime hours, but the controllers didn't accept (all this happened between 27-29 of November).

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

Now the big question : was it ,as AENA states an illegal "walk out " organised by USCA or a "fed up action " of a few frustrated guys that spread out to become 400. ?
AENA affirms it was an organised illegal walkout and they had to react. . USCA says it was not them ( plenty of lawyers in Usca, expensive ones too, so they would have most probably known the consequences ) but wildcat individuals. In Madrid ACC , Controllers say AENA shut down the airspace,against the advice of the Supervisors as there was still enough controllers to run the airpace with reduced capacities ( say 50 or 60% of the traffic ) But AENA managers came to the OPS room and shut down the airspace, indications are they knew what they were doing , so it appeared to be the execution of a well rehersed "B' plan.

I go back to the contradiction in IFATCA's bulletin. In any case, it seems that on the afternoon shift, which begins at 15:00, out of 270 ATCOs scheduled to work, 154 failed to turn up. In the evening shift, which begins at 22:00, out of 162 scheduled ATCOs, 108 refused to work - in this case it wasn't a walk-out, but a failure to walk-in.

Going back to your questions about safety, would you say the Spanish airspace could be operated safely with so much staff missing? Did AENA have any guarantee that the remaining ATCOs would not walk out too, in which case having left the airspace open would have been reckless? IMHO the safest bet was to shut down the airspace, and wait for a resolution to re-open it.

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

That is the information IFATCA got. Based on my experience with such things, when In doubt I always asks who benefit the actions : Certainly not the controllers. Union Busting ? probably. Getting rid of a few individuals leading the revolt to send a message to the 1500 others : most certainly .

IMHO the issue was that ATCOs thought they wielded too much power, much more power than they thought. They miss-calculated the reaction. Did the government take advantage to display a show of force, and appear to be defending the common good of the public? Indeed. But it was the ATCOs who chose to act, nobody forced them to.

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

Preparing AENA for privatisation with a docile reduced de-unionized workforce, at half the costs as before ? you bet.

I agree, I have already said that no company in their right mind would purchase a stake in any business where a minority holds the power to effectively stop the company from operating. I have been reading about the Canadian model of privatization of ATC, and it makes a lot of sense - anyone with more info care to comment?

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

Using teh Statee of Alarm to introduce single man operations (the so called " monosectores" ) and test it in live traffic : Probably.

Negative. When the state of alarm came into effect, the airspace had been closed for hours, and the only thing flying were flocks of birds. The mono-sector could not be tested on live traffic, as there was no live traffic.

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

Finally , Contrary to what many beleive, the French and the Portugues for instance (still) have far better working conditions that the Spanish had before 2009. The Spanish salaries were the highest in the EU due to Overtime, takes the overtime off and you get them in the top average. (with Maastricht , for instance much higher). So abnormal was the overtime payments , not the basic salaries.

Agreed - the issue here is overtime. USCA has repeatedly tried to go back to the 1200 hours + overtime model, as this is where they got the huge salaries from. They put such a proposal in front of AENA at around 19:00 on December 3rd, saying "sign this and it's all over".

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

Cutting Overtime and mass recruitment would have solved the problem.

That's exactly what I have been saying all this time, with the caveat that USCA could force AENA into not recruiting, to keep the excellent overtime payments flowing. Just like unions defending other unions, does this not make sense? Prevent anything that will make your own salary go down considerably, if you have the power to do so?

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

Having a small group affecting the entire economy of a country when having a strike ? A law imposing a minimum service ( like in other EU countries ) would have solved the problem. But confrontation was looked for. because for the goal for me was not reducing salaries or preventing strikes. USCA fell into the trap .

I agree they fell into a trap - but mostly due to a miss-calculation of power, or willingness of the government to make a case. In Spain minimum services are imposed when a strike is formally called for. USCA claims they wanted to strike in early August, but that the government imposed minimum services above 100%. It seems odd but I wouldn't put it past this government.

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

My analysis, not neccessarily the correct one, but for me the most likely one. So read this post again in a few years and we'll see . Bottle of Ribera del Duero ?

My analysis too could be not correct, or even totally flawed, but I want someone to prove so with positive arguments, facts, and discussion, as you have done in this post - not by telling me to shut up and go with my family as others have done.

Ribera del Duero it is!

[LH2]

ATCW,

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

when I said we are all on the same boat I meant the "workers" of the system, (that include Pilots and Controllers but not limited to them ) If you think this is only a purely ATC domestic issue and is going to affect Spain and stop there ,you're gonna wake up with a big hang over. This is whisful thinking.
For me it is all about cost reduction and imposing a new economical model .

I believe the issue you point out does exist indeed, and there would be a degree of overlap with the current fracas in Spain, so from that point of view it is understandable that other parties should take an interest. However, on top of that, there exists a separate issue in Spain where years of mismanagement and lack of interest led to an unsustainable situation--and I do not mean just in financial terms.

But USCA is mainly a Union. IFATCA is a professional body. ATCEUC should be taking care of the Union part. IFATCA is more concerned about Professional and Safety issues,

Since you mention... so what if anything is being done from IFATCA (or elsewhere) as regards the levels of training, safety, and efficiency in Spanish airspace? Are the international actors satisfied with those aspects of Spain's air traffic services? If so, on the basis of which metrics? (but see below regarding this).

Interestingly enough, the Spanish Government, AENA and CANSO never mention safety erosion. But Spain is an odd Country in the EU since Ministry, Service provider (AENA) and Regulator are all the same and Safety management is at the orders .So any erosion of Safety margins will be kept indoors .

This is so true. I have been talked out twice, by sensible old fellows who knew the system, from filing incident reports following gross negligence by the tower. I was basically told not to waste my time since nothing would ever happen. The unfortunate thing about this is, with reports not being filed (or being ignored), the only problems that ever come to light are the ones involving smoking holes in the ground.

AENA affirms it was an organised illegal walkout and they had to react. . USCA says it was not them ( plenty of lawyers in Usca, expensive ones too, so they would have most probably known the consequences ) but wildcat individuals.

Are the union really saying that? I don't know, but I think I would expect my union to back me up rather than look the other way while I'm being dragged through the ****--especially since they did nothing to prevent their members from taking (allegedly) individual action not even after it was all over the news.

Preparing AENA for privatisation with a docile reduced de-unionized workforce, at half the costs as before ? you bet.

Given that the current union are failing to protect anyone's interests, that seems like a win-win situation.

Using teh Statee of Alarm to introduce single man operations

Could you please give a brief description of that single-man operation stuff for non-ATC types like me? Perhaps on a separate thread to avoid cluttering this one up even more.

Finally , Contrary to what many beleive, the French and the Portugues for instance (still) have far better working conditions that the Spanish had before 2009. The Spanish salaries were the highest in the EU due to Overtime, takes the overtime off and you get them in the top average.

But we keep hearing that this is not about money, and clearly it is not about training or safety since that point hasn't been raised once if not as a rather pathetic straw man (the "we're doing so many hours" hypocritical sniff)... so what is is about then? And why isn't it about money anyway? Aren't they worth it?

[SINGAPURCANAC]

Essential maths and economics,

Let's do alittle math and essential economics to this topic.
Someone wrote:

- 2400 controllers at 450.000€/year/controller = 1080 Million € / year.

But we know that it is more likely:
2100 ATCOs x 300 000 Eurs= 630 M EUR

simplicity is neccessary for further example ,otherwise we will need a lot of space.

If we accept that ATCOs represents some 50% of total work force in the most effective ATC providers in the World, we find that there at least 2000 more workers in that particular ANSP. There is the first problem,AENA is not only ATC provider,if I undesrstand correctly there is more function of this comapny,such as airports duties and so on. AENA also is not among those the most effective ATC providers, but it is another story.

If those 2000 additional workers(tehnicians, met officers,aro officers, trainning units, managers all the levels, drivers and so....) have only "standard aviation" salary ,which is by the way is less likely, and that standard aviation salary is around 3 times average,we may just for the purpose of example take 4000 eurs average month salary for rest of employees.
It is 2000 x 4000x 12= 96 M Eurs

Than we have
ATCOs salary plus others salries = 630 + 96= 726 M EURs

If we accept that in any aviation organization, workforce costs reprent only 30 to 35% , and if we take the best case of 35%,than we have
ALL COSTS= WORKFORCE COSTS x 3
ALL COSTS= 726 MEurs x 3

ALL COSTS= 2178 M EURs

So i will have now e few questions:
- what is the average salary ,for ATC managers,technicians, administrative workers, met officers,others
- what is the total number of workers in ANSP part of AENA
-what is source of your incomes? i suppose airliners,i.e passengers
- how big are your incomes?

Since i believe that your answer will just push costs above those stated and incomes will be less than my prediction, i will have final question:

WHO IS GOING TO PAY YOUR SALARIES?

Nothing than just pure logic.
If I want to travel somewhere in Europe by plane, at first glimpse anything between 200 and 250 eur per european destination is acceptable for me.
if we took that 250 eurs is average ticket sold in Europe ,and ATC costs represent only 2-3% of all costs acceptable for any airliner,than you may count that ATC will take something 6 eurs per passengers, for return flight. Lets say, Timisora- Barcelona - Timisora

If we ,for example simplicity, represents all incomes as incomes of paasengers ticket from BCN-MAD tha we need ,
2178 M Eur : 6 EUR= 363 000 000 passengers

and if we take that all those passengers, fly on B737 ,RYR type ,187 available seats per a/c ,with some 85% that is very high load factor, we may expect at each flight will have 159 passengers.
363 000 000 passengers : 159= 2 283 019 flights x 2 thus,
4 566 037 flights per year,or


4566 037: 365= 12 509 flights dayli

so the question is:
Do you have12 509 flights,dayli?

as you could see it is impossible to have such level of salaries. Especially when bed times comes.

P.S. I took all numbers quite conservativly and in some cases ideal numbers, accept any correction but I think it may even be worse numbers,from atcos salary point of view.
unfortunatelly,

[ATC Watcher]

Flameproof, LH2, Thanks for yourtime and your interesting replies . We're not going to convince each other overnight, but if we were life would be boring.


No real time this morning to go into each point , but to reply tho the question of LH 2 :

Could you please give a brief description of that single-man operation stuff for non-ATC types like me? Perhaps on a separate thread to avoid cluttering this one up even more.

Good subject item . And a crucial one for the future in fact. and one that will affect all of us. Another thread indeed .

[PeltonLevel]

Re: Essential maths and economics

Sorry about my earlier statement that LE was the most expensive airspace in Europe - I hadn't allowed for the recent appreciation of the CHF against the EUR.
From the CRCO website:
2009:
LE CSUs 8,358,173; LE Unit Charge €84.14
GC CSUs 1,492,498; LE Unit Charge €68.30
2010 projected:
LE CSUs 8,358,173; LE Unit Charge €84.11
GC CSUs 1,538,423; LE Unit Charge €68.27
According to my calculations, that comes well short of €1bn.
(But it should be noted that, for Spain, CRCO only collects money for en-route air navigation services, not for airfield or terminal services, so AENA will have other income related to air traffic control)

[SINGAPURCANAC]

that comes well short of €1bn.

Than salary budget could anything between 300 and 350 M EURs.
Maximum 60%,that I am very doubtfull, for ATCOs,
180 -200 M EURs : 2100 ATCOs= 85 700 EURs average brut salary for qualified ATCOs.
reduce taxes,and you will find exact your month salary,including all payments .
And that bring us into conclusion that 6/7 k eurs for ATCO in Europe is quite OK,regardless traffic complexity ,location and other factors. and you will find such payment at best and most complex units,plus/minus a few percents.

and it is very logic ,because Middle east offers starts at that amount.
And there is no better offers in the whole World,in terms of money .

[Jimmy Hoffa Rocks]

AENA directors

What about the salaries of all the AENA Fat Cat directors who dont do much.

Dont see their salaries being cut ?

[kontrolor]

I just wonder, how many pilots would accept something like this:

IFATCA BULLETIN

[Sunnyjohn]

What about the salaries of all the AENA Fat Cat directors who dont do much.

Dont see their salaries being cut ?

This will shortly be academic since there was an announcement in Las Provincias today to say that the government are bringing forward the privatisation of Spanish airports, including the controllers. This is an interesting ploy that was used widely in the UK to break up the union monopoly of the railways, dockers and miners among others. However, in those cases it was a right wing government that did this, whereas here we have a left-wing government using the ploy. I cannot see the controllers taking this lying down since, behind their recent actions was also the fact that they did not want privatisation. I fear a winter of discontent is ahead for travellers using Spanish airspace.

[SINGAPURCANAC]

IFATCA BULLETIN

I think that local water and sawage company will have more impact on Royal decree than Ifatca.


Spanish ATCOs have problems with numbers,

[ATC Watcher]

Singapurcanac : IFATCA bulletins aim is not really to change the Decrees or reverse the Governement decisions ,they are more about giving "the other side" views and correcting some "spinned" facts .
. In any dispute there are 2 points of view.
The view of the governement , including desinformation and news spinning, is well known, now you have the other side view, You make your own opinion.
IFATCA also say Safety today is eroded by the current State of alarm , and nobody so far questionned that point.


The Spanish parlement today willd debate if the State of alarm is prolonged for another 2 weeks period . The final decision is not that assured, as now the question is moves to a political level.

As to the mumbers, as I said here a few posts before, the final aim of all this is not about salaries or number of hours or right to strike , it is about changing an economical model to prepare the privatisation (selling) of a Air navigation service Provider.