Privatized ATC, pros and cons
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Privatized ATC, pros and cons
Hello All,
I'm an ATCer in the USA. As some may know, on June 6, 2002, President Bush signed an Executive Order that reversed the Clinton administration position that had strongly affirmed the relationship of air traffic control to the government.
Many of us here feel this is the first step towards an attempt to privatize our ATC system.
I'd like to know how others around the globe feel about a privatized system.
I anticipate a great debate over this issue here in the States, any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you,
Paul Williams
I'm an ATCer in the USA. As some may know, on June 6, 2002, President Bush signed an Executive Order that reversed the Clinton administration position that had strongly affirmed the relationship of air traffic control to the government.
Many of us here feel this is the first step towards an attempt to privatize our ATC system.
I'd like to know how others around the globe feel about a privatized system.
I anticipate a great debate over this issue here in the States, any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you,
Paul Williams
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Scotland
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite simple, It sucks.
We here in the UK were part privatised by Blair and his fan club so that we could encourage £1 Billion investment.
So far we have seen Jack Sh!t. We have lost vital Assistants but have yet to see any Senior management go( senior management don't get sacked, they retire and become Consultants).
The other point is that, and i'm trying to be tactful here, even though our domestic traffic is blossoming, everything gets blamed on 9/11.Morale is at an all time low.
It may seem that I am just ranting here, but we voted against privatisation and they went ahead anyway, so If you get the opportunity I suggest a strong NO vote
We here in the UK were part privatised by Blair and his fan club so that we could encourage £1 Billion investment.
So far we have seen Jack Sh!t. We have lost vital Assistants but have yet to see any Senior management go( senior management don't get sacked, they retire and become Consultants).
The other point is that, and i'm trying to be tactful here, even though our domestic traffic is blossoming, everything gets blamed on 9/11.Morale is at an all time low.
It may seem that I am just ranting here, but we voted against privatisation and they went ahead anyway, so If you get the opportunity I suggest a strong NO vote
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Canada the ATC system went private in 1996, actually to a non-profit company called NavCanada. There were lots of claims that things would be better in the private sector like: better working conditions, improved morale, increased pay, impeccable safety record, new and better technology. On all these issues, I'd say that Nav Canada has failed, except for better technology. I guess being free from government budgets has allowed Nav Canada to get us better equipment/software. Employee morale must be at a all time low, they implemented new scheduling software that is a absolute nightmare to whatever social life you have left, we are now over a year without a contract, and Nav Canada likes cry poor and blame everything on "Due to the tragic events of September 11th..." If you are given the opportunity to decide your fate, I'd say stay in the government.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YWG ATC,
What kind of work schedule were you doing prior to privatization and what kind of schedule do you have now?
We hear a lot about the Canadian controllers working 6 day work weeks and 10 or 12 hour work days.
What did they do to retirement or any other benefits?
StuckMic
What kind of work schedule were you doing prior to privatization and what kind of schedule do you have now?
We hear a lot about the Canadian controllers working 6 day work weeks and 10 or 12 hour work days.
What did they do to retirement or any other benefits?
StuckMic
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ayrprox,
Your working conditions and your employment benefits ... how has the change hurt (or helped
). Like your work schedule, what kinds of hours are you doing? And your retirement, (how) did they mess with that?
StuckMic
Your working conditions and your employment benefits ... how has the change hurt (or helped
). Like your work schedule, what kinds of hours are you doing? And your retirement, (how) did they mess with that?StuckMic
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
StuckMic:
Our schedules used to be 5-4 (5 on, 4 off) and 8 hour shifts with a minimum of 8 hours between shifts. When everything was standard for everyone it added a lot of flexibility, in that it was very easy to make shift changes, etc. Now a typical work cycle is 6-3, 6-3, 5-5. There are some slight variations of this but you always end up working 17-11 and you have to have a minimum of 10 hours between shifts. There's also a lot of assigned over-time because of staffing shortages. By law, the most we can work is 9 on and 1 off. Believe me this does happen, a lot! Shift lengths now vary between 7 hours and 9 hours. You do get assigned some 10-12 hour shifts, or if we're short staffed you can be forced to stay beyond your regular shift, but cannot work longer than 12 hours. Making a shift change now is nearly impossible, it usually requires 3 or 4 guys willing to move around, and you can imagine how that plays out! The shift scheduling program is designed to have the exact number of controllers required for that time of day, but if one person calls in sick, you're now running short, if 2 or more are sick (and this does happen) you're f#@ked! The program doesn't account for this, and then on days when you have bad rides and bad weather, who wants to run at bare bones staff?
Nav Canada didn't make changes to the retirement or benefits packages, touch wood!
Our schedules used to be 5-4 (5 on, 4 off) and 8 hour shifts with a minimum of 8 hours between shifts. When everything was standard for everyone it added a lot of flexibility, in that it was very easy to make shift changes, etc. Now a typical work cycle is 6-3, 6-3, 5-5. There are some slight variations of this but you always end up working 17-11 and you have to have a minimum of 10 hours between shifts. There's also a lot of assigned over-time because of staffing shortages. By law, the most we can work is 9 on and 1 off. Believe me this does happen, a lot! Shift lengths now vary between 7 hours and 9 hours. You do get assigned some 10-12 hour shifts, or if we're short staffed you can be forced to stay beyond your regular shift, but cannot work longer than 12 hours. Making a shift change now is nearly impossible, it usually requires 3 or 4 guys willing to move around, and you can imagine how that plays out! The shift scheduling program is designed to have the exact number of controllers required for that time of day, but if one person calls in sick, you're now running short, if 2 or more are sick (and this does happen) you're f#@ked! The program doesn't account for this, and then on days when you have bad rides and bad weather, who wants to run at bare bones staff?
Nav Canada didn't make changes to the retirement or benefits packages, touch wood!
YWG ATC
That system wouldn't be Shift Logic would it ? Our lot investigated that , bought it . discovered it didn't work and are now trying to introduce it !!! managers !!!
That system wouldn't be Shift Logic would it ? Our lot investigated that , bought it . discovered it didn't work and are now trying to introduce it !!! managers !!!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stuck_Mic
Privatisation (or at least Public Private Parnership) in UK is a farce. It was implemented to allow for investment for the future - even though investment was happening under the old system. The Governement would give NATS a low rate loan to implement changes, such as the building of a new en-route centre. As it was essentially a loan, the loss of money to the governement was negligible, if not nil.
This was from a governement that villified the opposition when they were in power and privatised public sector services.
The staff were against the sell off, but hey, what do we know?
Admittedly, out of three intitial bidders, the airline group - the best (in safety sake) won the race. However, low cost outfits apart, airlines are struggling at the moment, with BA making a spectacular loss so how can they afford to invest the money in NATS?
The management is in dissaray, the coal face workers - controllers, engineers assistants are under pressure - Assistants jobs are being slashed, meaning overworked assistants and controllers. The head of the Human Resource Dept left after one year in the job - to a lower profile job... good luck to him, he obviously knows when to get out.
Long term plannng is non existent - at the college for instance there are in excess of 100 students at different stages of training who are unsure where they are going next - either on to the next part of course or to hold over and wait - they finish their courses in less than two weeks! This is due to there being too many people for subsequent courses. Not due to a dramatic increase in pass rate, but due to poor forward planning.
Students on Area courses bound for the new en-route centre are now expecting to have to wait for up to 18 months before commencing training proper - and they wonder why the failure rate at units is increasing!!
As for hours - the basic shift pattern for NATS remains the same as it is strictly regulated, ouside of NATS though some of the independant employers run different patterns, but I believe (do not quote me) that they all have to comply with the same pattern as NATS come September (having been given dispensation originally).
NATS have been told that they cannot increase charges this year to cover the loss of revenue - the excuse being that when traffic levels are high, the income is high, therefore NATS should take the bad with the good and accept a loss of revenue in the aftermath of the tragedy... So how are we supposed to invest??!!
As for pay - again we have been told that due to Sept 11th we cannot expect a good rise - (we are still waiting for the rise that was due in January!). This is understandable to a degree, but when traffic levels were increasing by up to ten precent per year, did we receive a comparitive pay rise? Of course not.
Vote against privatisation is the best advice I and the majority of NATS employees would give you. Good luck!
Privatisation (or at least Public Private Parnership) in UK is a farce. It was implemented to allow for investment for the future - even though investment was happening under the old system. The Governement would give NATS a low rate loan to implement changes, such as the building of a new en-route centre. As it was essentially a loan, the loss of money to the governement was negligible, if not nil.
This was from a governement that villified the opposition when they were in power and privatised public sector services.
The staff were against the sell off, but hey, what do we know?
Admittedly, out of three intitial bidders, the airline group - the best (in safety sake) won the race. However, low cost outfits apart, airlines are struggling at the moment, with BA making a spectacular loss so how can they afford to invest the money in NATS?
The management is in dissaray, the coal face workers - controllers, engineers assistants are under pressure - Assistants jobs are being slashed, meaning overworked assistants and controllers. The head of the Human Resource Dept left after one year in the job - to a lower profile job... good luck to him, he obviously knows when to get out.
Long term plannng is non existent - at the college for instance there are in excess of 100 students at different stages of training who are unsure where they are going next - either on to the next part of course or to hold over and wait - they finish their courses in less than two weeks! This is due to there being too many people for subsequent courses. Not due to a dramatic increase in pass rate, but due to poor forward planning.
Students on Area courses bound for the new en-route centre are now expecting to have to wait for up to 18 months before commencing training proper - and they wonder why the failure rate at units is increasing!!
As for hours - the basic shift pattern for NATS remains the same as it is strictly regulated, ouside of NATS though some of the independant employers run different patterns, but I believe (do not quote me) that they all have to comply with the same pattern as NATS come September (having been given dispensation originally).
NATS have been told that they cannot increase charges this year to cover the loss of revenue - the excuse being that when traffic levels are high, the income is high, therefore NATS should take the bad with the good and accept a loss of revenue in the aftermath of the tragedy... So how are we supposed to invest??!!
As for pay - again we have been told that due to Sept 11th we cannot expect a good rise - (we are still waiting for the rise that was due in January!). This is understandable to a degree, but when traffic levels were increasing by up to ten precent per year, did we receive a comparitive pay rise? Of course not.
Vote against privatisation is the best advice I and the majority of NATS employees would give you. Good luck!
Last edited by Go for 5, Get 3; 12th Jun 2002 at 09:02.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YWG,
<<... you always end up working 17-11 ...>>
I'm not sure i understand, "17-11"?
<<By law, the most we can work is 9 on and 1 off.>>
What was the ratio prior to privatization? For us, presently, they must allow one day off per week.
9 days seems like a lot of consecutive days to me. Can they schedule you 7 days in a row without scheduling overtime? What i'm getting at is, can they work you 7 days straight and still remain within a 40 hour work week? (IE: 6 days at 6 hours a day then 4 hours on your 7th day?) It sounds to me like they have free reign to work you into the ground (so to speak).
How far in advance do they set your basic schedule (minus overtime)? Right now we know one year in advance we'll be working, say, Wednesday thru Sunday with Mon and Tue as our RDOs. Overtime is injected as needed.
Sounds like they run things bare bones ... essentially profits in lieu of safety. Has the number of applicants for the job decreased since privatization because, truthfully, i wouldn't want to join up with an ATC system that pounds my a** to keep profits minimally in the red. Safety should be a prime concern, working controllers 12 hours a day is a recipe for disaster. How many hours can they legally work you at the position before they're obligated to get you a break?
Lastly, how do you expect to do 20 or 30 years in those conditions (I don't know when you can retire)?
StuckMic
<<... you always end up working 17-11 ...>>
I'm not sure i understand, "17-11"?
<<By law, the most we can work is 9 on and 1 off.>>
What was the ratio prior to privatization? For us, presently, they must allow one day off per week.
9 days seems like a lot of consecutive days to me. Can they schedule you 7 days in a row without scheduling overtime? What i'm getting at is, can they work you 7 days straight and still remain within a 40 hour work week? (IE: 6 days at 6 hours a day then 4 hours on your 7th day?) It sounds to me like they have free reign to work you into the ground (so to speak).
How far in advance do they set your basic schedule (minus overtime)? Right now we know one year in advance we'll be working, say, Wednesday thru Sunday with Mon and Tue as our RDOs. Overtime is injected as needed.
Sounds like they run things bare bones ... essentially profits in lieu of safety. Has the number of applicants for the job decreased since privatization because, truthfully, i wouldn't want to join up with an ATC system that pounds my a** to keep profits minimally in the red. Safety should be a prime concern, working controllers 12 hours a day is a recipe for disaster. How many hours can they legally work you at the position before they're obligated to get you a break?
Lastly, how do you expect to do 20 or 30 years in those conditions (I don't know when you can retire)?
StuckMic
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
zed3
Yes, the scheduling program is called Shift Logic. I guess you can't blame all the scheduling problems on SL, as it is just software, you have to blame those (managers) that set the parameters as well.
stuckmic
What I meant by 17-11 was:
Shift cycle pattern (this is mine): 6 on 3 off, 6 on 3 off, 5 on 5 off = 17 on and 11 off. There are other variations of shift cycle patterns, but all acheive 17-11.
The 9 on and 1 off max ratio was the same before privatization, but it seems to be used more now. And you're right, 9 in a row is a lot of days! You can be assigned up to 9 days in a row and have none of those shifts as overtime, I know of 2 people this has happened to in the past couple of months, but this is rare. I'm not totally sure how this works out, but our hours worked is based on hours/month (not per week). There is a required number of straight time hours that have to be worked in a month and a maximum number of overtime hours that can be worked in a month (embarassingly I forget what exactly those numbers are now, but I will find out when I go in tonight). If your straight time hours don't equal the magic required number, Shift Logic will either give you long shifts (but no more than 12 hours in length) or add extra days to achieve its goal. With hours worked being based monthly, it does give Shift "Logic" (yeah right!) quite a free reign with your life. If you would like to see an example of a typical schedule, e-mail me and I'll send you a copy of mine.
Schedules are 56 days in length, and you get the new schedule no later than 2 weeks before the current schedule runs out. IE, my schedule expired on June 9th, so on May 26th I got my schedule for the period from June 10th to August 4th. If I want to make any concrete plans in August, I'll have to wait until July 24th to make them. Sweet, eh? Based on my shift pattern, I do know what days I'll be working and what days I'll be off, but with mandatory overtime, I can't guarantee that I'll actually have my days off, I have to wait to get the schedule to find out what overtime I'll be working. There is no ratio for hours worked per break.
Training is a whole issue unto itself, and I won't get into all of that right now. I don't know how they get anyone to apply anymore, but they do. I don't know the exact numbers of applicants pre-privitization and post-privitization, but I'd have to say it's probably close to the same.
Yes, the scheduling program is called Shift Logic. I guess you can't blame all the scheduling problems on SL, as it is just software, you have to blame those (managers) that set the parameters as well.
stuckmic
What I meant by 17-11 was:
Shift cycle pattern (this is mine): 6 on 3 off, 6 on 3 off, 5 on 5 off = 17 on and 11 off. There are other variations of shift cycle patterns, but all acheive 17-11.
The 9 on and 1 off max ratio was the same before privatization, but it seems to be used more now. And you're right, 9 in a row is a lot of days! You can be assigned up to 9 days in a row and have none of those shifts as overtime, I know of 2 people this has happened to in the past couple of months, but this is rare. I'm not totally sure how this works out, but our hours worked is based on hours/month (not per week). There is a required number of straight time hours that have to be worked in a month and a maximum number of overtime hours that can be worked in a month (embarassingly I forget what exactly those numbers are now, but I will find out when I go in tonight). If your straight time hours don't equal the magic required number, Shift Logic will either give you long shifts (but no more than 12 hours in length) or add extra days to achieve its goal. With hours worked being based monthly, it does give Shift "Logic" (yeah right!) quite a free reign with your life. If you would like to see an example of a typical schedule, e-mail me and I'll send you a copy of mine.
Schedules are 56 days in length, and you get the new schedule no later than 2 weeks before the current schedule runs out. IE, my schedule expired on June 9th, so on May 26th I got my schedule for the period from June 10th to August 4th. If I want to make any concrete plans in August, I'll have to wait until July 24th to make them. Sweet, eh? Based on my shift pattern, I do know what days I'll be working and what days I'll be off, but with mandatory overtime, I can't guarantee that I'll actually have my days off, I have to wait to get the schedule to find out what overtime I'll be working. There is no ratio for hours worked per break.
Training is a whole issue unto itself, and I won't get into all of that right now. I don't know how they get anyone to apply anymore, but they do. I don't know the exact numbers of applicants pre-privitization and post-privitization, but I'd have to say it's probably close to the same.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go for 5, Get 3,
<<The Governement would give NATS a low rate loan to implement changes, such as the building of a new en-route centre. As it was essentially a loan, the loss of money to the governement was negligible, if not nil.>>
Amazing, to essentially reduce government debt they sell off the ATC system? I'm sure this wasn't the initial reason given for privatizing, but somebody, somewhere in gov't must be appreciating this little side benefit. Maybe it's just my American controller mentality, but what other function (besides piloting) deals with, and could consequently endanger, so many lives in any given day? And this function should be subject to an accountants calculations? It's tough for me to see the rationale.
<<The staff were against the sell off, but hey, what do we know? >>
I assume the company contempating the takeover here in the US would promise a certain amount of stock options and a high paid job in the company, essentially "buying off" the people who's names and quotes will be used to promote the privatization idea. A curious appearance of conflict of interest.
<<... airlines are struggling at the moment, with BA making a spectacular loss so how can they afford to invest the money in NATS?>>
In my humble opinion, an ENTIRE ATC system cannot be wholey privatized (zero government subsidies) and make a profit. No offense to any airline, but it's tough enough keeping an airline in the profit margin without the added burden of maintaining the ATC system. The system stays afloat because the government subsidizes the ATC system and tells the airlines "We built and will maintain the system, feel free to create a business that utilizes our system." Government subsidies save the airlines the money they need to stay in business, which in turn allows the airlines to serve the general good of society. Seems simple to me.
It's like roadways. Would auto makers ever see owning the roadways as a profit maker? It's tough enough to sell an auto, but to sell an auto with added taxes to fund privatized roads? My analogy may be off, but you get the idea ... underlying infrastructures, designed to benefit society as a whole, should be an inherently governmental function, paid for through taxes, relieving entrepeneurs of the financial burden, thus promoting growth in many industries beneficial to all.
<<NATS have been told that they cannot increase charges this year to cover the loss of revenue - the excuse being that when traffic levels are high, the income is high, therefore NATS should take the bad with the good and accept a loss of revenue in the aftermath of the tragedy... So how are we supposed to invest??!! >>
We had/have similar problems here in the US with our electric companies. The gov't kept a tight leash on what they can charge using the same mentality you describe. The companies weren't allowed to make any kind of siginifcant profit, therefore investments in projected future growth were non-existent. Now 10 years later we're suffering power shortages (and HIGH prices) because the electric companies can't keep up with current demands using the same setup they had 10 years ago.
<<As for pay - again we have been told that due to Sept 11th we cannot expect a good rise - (we are still waiting for the rise that was due in January!). This is understandable to a degree, but when traffic levels were increasing by up to ten precent per year, did we receive a comparitive pay rise? Of course not. >>
Profits versus safety. This can come back to haunt an ATC system when the lack of proper working conditions and inadequate pay serves as a disincentive to those "best qualified" persons contemplating a job as an ATCer but choose to find a job elsewhere. This job requires the "cream of the crop" ... the best working conditions, equipment and benefits ... to attract the best available talent to keep the system as safe as humanly possible. Seems you/we are no more important than the equipment you/we use ... the quality of both will deteriorate as the years pass without qualified replacements waiting in the wings to take over.
Safety has a price the private sector cannot afford.
StuckMic
<<The Governement would give NATS a low rate loan to implement changes, such as the building of a new en-route centre. As it was essentially a loan, the loss of money to the governement was negligible, if not nil.>>
Amazing, to essentially reduce government debt they sell off the ATC system? I'm sure this wasn't the initial reason given for privatizing, but somebody, somewhere in gov't must be appreciating this little side benefit. Maybe it's just my American controller mentality, but what other function (besides piloting) deals with, and could consequently endanger, so many lives in any given day? And this function should be subject to an accountants calculations? It's tough for me to see the rationale.
<<The staff were against the sell off, but hey, what do we know? >>
I assume the company contempating the takeover here in the US would promise a certain amount of stock options and a high paid job in the company, essentially "buying off" the people who's names and quotes will be used to promote the privatization idea. A curious appearance of conflict of interest.
<<... airlines are struggling at the moment, with BA making a spectacular loss so how can they afford to invest the money in NATS?>>
In my humble opinion, an ENTIRE ATC system cannot be wholey privatized (zero government subsidies) and make a profit. No offense to any airline, but it's tough enough keeping an airline in the profit margin without the added burden of maintaining the ATC system. The system stays afloat because the government subsidizes the ATC system and tells the airlines "We built and will maintain the system, feel free to create a business that utilizes our system." Government subsidies save the airlines the money they need to stay in business, which in turn allows the airlines to serve the general good of society. Seems simple to me.
It's like roadways. Would auto makers ever see owning the roadways as a profit maker? It's tough enough to sell an auto, but to sell an auto with added taxes to fund privatized roads? My analogy may be off, but you get the idea ... underlying infrastructures, designed to benefit society as a whole, should be an inherently governmental function, paid for through taxes, relieving entrepeneurs of the financial burden, thus promoting growth in many industries beneficial to all.
<<NATS have been told that they cannot increase charges this year to cover the loss of revenue - the excuse being that when traffic levels are high, the income is high, therefore NATS should take the bad with the good and accept a loss of revenue in the aftermath of the tragedy... So how are we supposed to invest??!! >>
We had/have similar problems here in the US with our electric companies. The gov't kept a tight leash on what they can charge using the same mentality you describe. The companies weren't allowed to make any kind of siginifcant profit, therefore investments in projected future growth were non-existent. Now 10 years later we're suffering power shortages (and HIGH prices) because the electric companies can't keep up with current demands using the same setup they had 10 years ago.
<<As for pay - again we have been told that due to Sept 11th we cannot expect a good rise - (we are still waiting for the rise that was due in January!). This is understandable to a degree, but when traffic levels were increasing by up to ten precent per year, did we receive a comparitive pay rise? Of course not. >>
Profits versus safety. This can come back to haunt an ATC system when the lack of proper working conditions and inadequate pay serves as a disincentive to those "best qualified" persons contemplating a job as an ATCer but choose to find a job elsewhere. This job requires the "cream of the crop" ... the best working conditions, equipment and benefits ... to attract the best available talent to keep the system as safe as humanly possible. Seems you/we are no more important than the equipment you/we use ... the quality of both will deteriorate as the years pass without qualified replacements waiting in the wings to take over.
Safety has a price the private sector cannot afford.
StuckMic
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's probably time to give a bit of balance. In the UK we have NATS who were put into this strange Public Private Partnership - i.e. partly privatised - a year or two back. NATS runs the en-route ATC and have contracts to provide ATC at the major TMAs and airports.
Many regional airports have always arranged their own ATC, either by employing controllers directly or by contracting companies like SERCO to provide the services (just as the major airports do with NATS).
So we've had private ATC in the UK for years.
I've worked both for NATS and directly for an airport. Working in the two environments is very different but ATC is no less or more safe because of the contractual arrangements for providing the service. Some of the regional airports have equipment that is better than is provided by NATS - but it's true that some do not! Working hours are tightly regulated - and, as far as I know, they are the same whether you work for NATS or not.
On pensions and retirement, I think it's probably fair to say that NATS staff win hands down.
So, they're different working environments. The thing that makes working at a particular unit either fun (and I really enjoy doing ATC) or not is the management and, to a lesser extent the ops room conditions (if I'm spending my working hours there it has to come into the equation). I've come across good managers and bad managers both in NATS when directly employed.
The bottom line is that private ATC is not inherently unsafe, nor is it necessarily a less satisfying working environment.
I don't work for NATS at the moment but I'm often surprised of the view that NATS controllers seem to have of the world 'outside' - the run up to PPP looks like it was accompanied by scare stories little short of propaganda. Talk to NATS controllers and you'll sometimes hear stories - that are simply untrue - to make your hair stand on end, ask for substantiation and there's nothing to support them. That's not meant as a criticism, it's just what happens when a rumour factory is working overtime.
There's no doubt that morale is low within NATS and at some regional airports but I doubt that it's anything to do with privatisation, it's probably down to lousy management and communication.
Don't confuse the privatisation arguments with all the other problems.
[Edited to get rid of the odd characters]
Many regional airports have always arranged their own ATC, either by employing controllers directly or by contracting companies like SERCO to provide the services (just as the major airports do with NATS).
So we've had private ATC in the UK for years.
I've worked both for NATS and directly for an airport. Working in the two environments is very different but ATC is no less or more safe because of the contractual arrangements for providing the service. Some of the regional airports have equipment that is better than is provided by NATS - but it's true that some do not! Working hours are tightly regulated - and, as far as I know, they are the same whether you work for NATS or not.
On pensions and retirement, I think it's probably fair to say that NATS staff win hands down.
So, they're different working environments. The thing that makes working at a particular unit either fun (and I really enjoy doing ATC) or not is the management and, to a lesser extent the ops room conditions (if I'm spending my working hours there it has to come into the equation). I've come across good managers and bad managers both in NATS when directly employed.
The bottom line is that private ATC is not inherently unsafe, nor is it necessarily a less satisfying working environment.
I don't work for NATS at the moment but I'm often surprised of the view that NATS controllers seem to have of the world 'outside' - the run up to PPP looks like it was accompanied by scare stories little short of propaganda. Talk to NATS controllers and you'll sometimes hear stories - that are simply untrue - to make your hair stand on end, ask for substantiation and there's nothing to support them. That's not meant as a criticism, it's just what happens when a rumour factory is working overtime.
There's no doubt that morale is low within NATS and at some regional airports but I doubt that it's anything to do with privatisation, it's probably down to lousy management and communication.
Don't confuse the privatisation arguments with all the other problems.
[Edited to get rid of the odd characters]
Last edited by Spitoon; 13th Jun 2002 at 18:55.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spitoon,
<<On pensions and retirement, I think it's probably fair to say that NATS staff win hands down.>>
First i've heard this. I'm not doubting your word, just seems contrary to public perception here in the US.
<<... scare stories little short of propaganda.>>
<<... you'll sometimes hear stories that are simply untrue...>>
<<... ask for substantiation and there's nothing to support them.>>
<<... it's just what happens when a rumour factory is working overtime.>>
From this side of the Atlantic we read about long shifts (greater than 8 hours) with long periods (greater than 2 hours) on the radar without a break, 400nm stretches of airspace being shut down because of a single sick leave hit and a system on the verge of bankruptcy.
I guess of those 4 issues mentioned, it's the bankruptcy portion that concerns me most since the shortage of finances will affect everything else.
<<There's no doubt that morale is low within NATS and at some regional airports but I doubt that it's anything to do with privatisation ...>>
If bankruptcy is a real issue, i can see how this would impact such issues as length of shifts, time on position and benefits. In this respect, it would appear privatizing has had an affect on the employees.
<<I don't work for NATS ...>>
Obviously i don't either, so i'd like to hear some input from some NATS employees addressing your points. Great post! Thanks for the perspective.
StuckMic
<<On pensions and retirement, I think it's probably fair to say that NATS staff win hands down.>>
First i've heard this. I'm not doubting your word, just seems contrary to public perception here in the US.
<<... scare stories little short of propaganda.>>
<<... you'll sometimes hear stories that are simply untrue...>>
<<... ask for substantiation and there's nothing to support them.>>
<<... it's just what happens when a rumour factory is working overtime.>>
From this side of the Atlantic we read about long shifts (greater than 8 hours) with long periods (greater than 2 hours) on the radar without a break, 400nm stretches of airspace being shut down because of a single sick leave hit and a system on the verge of bankruptcy.
I guess of those 4 issues mentioned, it's the bankruptcy portion that concerns me most since the shortage of finances will affect everything else.
<<There's no doubt that morale is low within NATS and at some regional airports but I doubt that it's anything to do with privatisation ...>>
If bankruptcy is a real issue, i can see how this would impact such issues as length of shifts, time on position and benefits. In this respect, it would appear privatizing has had an affect on the employees.
<<I don't work for NATS ...>>
Obviously i don't either, so i'd like to hear some input from some NATS employees addressing your points. Great post! Thanks for the perspective.
StuckMic
Guest
Posts: n/a
Historically, I would say that NATS has always had a good pension scheme, certainly better in many respects than those of controllers directly employed by airports and, if I what I'm lead to believe is correct, significantly better than SERCO in some key details.
I often hear that other European controllers' pension schemes are better than the NATS deal. I don't know much truth there is in such claims - I've never checked - but some of the claims are hard to believe! I don't know what things are like in the US but pensions are a highly emotive subject in the UK at the moment with many funds that may not be able to pay the pensions that have been promised. The situation is not helped by some companies - NATS included, I believe - taking 'contibution holidays' because of financial difficulties. As I understand it, this shouldn't happen unless the fund is in good shape but rumours of creative accounting practices aboud. All in all, although NATS people may not agree, I would still say they are generally better off than directly employed controllers - but things can change and I fully understand their concerns for the future.
As I mentioned, we have rules about working hours. The rules get complex in some areas (e.g. where standby shifts are rostered) but, in general, no shift can be longer than 10 hours, you have to have at least 12 hours off between shifts, after 6 consecutive days on shift you have to have at least 60 hours off and you can't be rostered for more than two consecutive night shifts. After two hours in an operational position you must have a beak of at least 30 minutes but at quiet units I think this can be extended to 4 hours before the break (if the CAA agrees) but then it must be at least an hour's break. Holiday must be taken in chunks of 5 consecutive days at least twice a year.
The rules cover everywhere from Heathrow and Swanwick Centre to the smallest grass field with ATC and as I said in the earlier post, as far as I know, they are pretty evenly and fairly applied. I have heard that the high traffic density units roster breaks after 90 mins or less but I can't say whether it's true or whether it still happens - maybe someone from EGLL or Swanwick could comment.
It's not clear just how bad NATS finances are at the moment. They recently applied to the CAA to increase their en-route charges on grounds of not having enough money and the CAA said no and that things weren't as bad as were being made out. I can't say I followed the story that closely but I think that sums it up but I stand to be corrected by someone who knows more.
As for whether NATS could go bankrupt? I honestly don't think it would be allowed to happen - there's too much at stake for the Government to let it fold - but there's lots of politics involved. Lots of parallels are drawn between NATS and Railtrack, the train track operator that was privatised a few years ago. Not all of the parallels are valid but Railtrack was recently restructured and effectively taken back under greater Government control when things went awry. So I can't believe NATS would ever go bankrupt, but working in an organisation in such disarray (or potential disarray) must sap morale faster than just about anything else I can think of. Even if the worst were to happen, the working hours restrictions would still apply but who knows what might happen to pay and conditions - so those concerns have some foundation.
I'm not saying that everything is wonderful but simply trying to tell it like it is. Nor am I trying to start a NATS vs the rest thread, but I am surprised that there is relatively little activity on the topic.
I often hear that other European controllers' pension schemes are better than the NATS deal. I don't know much truth there is in such claims - I've never checked - but some of the claims are hard to believe! I don't know what things are like in the US but pensions are a highly emotive subject in the UK at the moment with many funds that may not be able to pay the pensions that have been promised. The situation is not helped by some companies - NATS included, I believe - taking 'contibution holidays' because of financial difficulties. As I understand it, this shouldn't happen unless the fund is in good shape but rumours of creative accounting practices aboud. All in all, although NATS people may not agree, I would still say they are generally better off than directly employed controllers - but things can change and I fully understand their concerns for the future.
As I mentioned, we have rules about working hours. The rules get complex in some areas (e.g. where standby shifts are rostered) but, in general, no shift can be longer than 10 hours, you have to have at least 12 hours off between shifts, after 6 consecutive days on shift you have to have at least 60 hours off and you can't be rostered for more than two consecutive night shifts. After two hours in an operational position you must have a beak of at least 30 minutes but at quiet units I think this can be extended to 4 hours before the break (if the CAA agrees) but then it must be at least an hour's break. Holiday must be taken in chunks of 5 consecutive days at least twice a year.
The rules cover everywhere from Heathrow and Swanwick Centre to the smallest grass field with ATC and as I said in the earlier post, as far as I know, they are pretty evenly and fairly applied. I have heard that the high traffic density units roster breaks after 90 mins or less but I can't say whether it's true or whether it still happens - maybe someone from EGLL or Swanwick could comment.
It's not clear just how bad NATS finances are at the moment. They recently applied to the CAA to increase their en-route charges on grounds of not having enough money and the CAA said no and that things weren't as bad as were being made out. I can't say I followed the story that closely but I think that sums it up but I stand to be corrected by someone who knows more.
As for whether NATS could go bankrupt? I honestly don't think it would be allowed to happen - there's too much at stake for the Government to let it fold - but there's lots of politics involved. Lots of parallels are drawn between NATS and Railtrack, the train track operator that was privatised a few years ago. Not all of the parallels are valid but Railtrack was recently restructured and effectively taken back under greater Government control when things went awry. So I can't believe NATS would ever go bankrupt, but working in an organisation in such disarray (or potential disarray) must sap morale faster than just about anything else I can think of. Even if the worst were to happen, the working hours restrictions would still apply but who knows what might happen to pay and conditions - so those concerns have some foundation.
I'm not saying that everything is wonderful but simply trying to tell it like it is. Nor am I trying to start a NATS vs the rest thread, but I am surprised that there is relatively little activity on the topic.
Last edited by Spitoon; 13th Jun 2002 at 20:03.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Moon
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the U.K certain sectors/positions at some units have been identified as "enhanced relief" positions due to traffic volume/ airspace complexity etc.These positons can get a break after 90 mins.
cheers
AyrTC
cheers
AyrTC
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AyrTC: We at Swanwick are finding to our cost at present that the 90 mins that we thought protected us against fatigue in busy sectors is not legally binding (i.e. SRATCOH) but just a local agreement. As such, any breaches of the 90 mins are not reportable on safety grounds, so many people are now being forced to work up to 2 hours on very busy sectors because there are insufficient staff. All that happens is a note goes in the Watch log. We all know what effect that has on the future: NONE. And the Swanwick local and upper managment get away with crap organisation AGAIN.