Replying to various posts here,

AENA is a public company, and thus, it is either financed by its own income, or by taxes, or a combination of both. Until now, ATCOs sustained that they didn't cost the public anything, as their salaries came out of route fees, and AENA was in the black.

However, you could by the same logic say, if AENA has money left at the end of the year, money which came from fees, then it could buy gold-plated toilets for all the ATC centers. Or buy everyone a new car as a bonus.

Things don't work that way - the duty of the public company is to rationalize spending, and if it does bring in a profit, to spend it to the benefit of the public. Just because you bring in rakes of cash doesn't mean you can spend it all on huge salaries and bonuses. Thus, if AENA is wasting money it could put into improving a service, into something else, such as inflated salaries, that money is effectively coming out of the public's pocket.

The second most expensive in Europe, behind Switzerland. For December 2010, the unit rate is set at 84.11€, as an example. You could say these are high to pay for ATC services, or that due to the high cost of ATC services, the fees have to be set so high.

Because the issue is not comparing the cost of hiring a new controller versus paying the existing one a huge premium. The issue is comparing paying the existing controllers a huge premium, versus the cost of a strike, be it hidden or open. The estimate of the losses due to the walk-out stands at some 1.500 million Euros, and yet the government decided to stand its ground. It would have been WAY cheaper to pay the controllers 4x or 5x the hourly rate, than to suffer the consequences of the walk-out.

Nope, the controllers landed themselves in hot water by continuously complaining about their conditions, complaints which were always fixed with more money and better conditions, and curiously, the issue now is not salaries. For the first time, we face a problem that cannot be fixed with money. It is at least, curious.

Thank you! Muchas gracias! :)

Ahem. I have not called anyone a liar, yet I have been called a liar several times. It's a rather strong accusation. You can say that my calculations are not correct, that I'm missing some info that you do have, and provide more accurate calculations. You cannot say that I'm lying and then not provide any figures or data to back up your claim. Other than "because I say so" of course.

Training is a cost, of course, but maybe the high costs of training are due to the fact that ATCOs are in charge of the training process, and we know how much an ATCO costs in Spain. In any case, USCA keeps repeating that in their training there is something like a 95% pass rate, so there doesn't seem to be so much waste in the system.

I didn't say you had to double the number of ATCOs to solve the problems, maybe a few hundred are enough. Maybe there is enough staff already as it is. What I was pointing out is the fallacy that paying huge premiums is cheaper than hiring new staff, in this particular case.

OK so we cut down on building airports, and we leave the ATCOs alone with their huge salaries and associated costs? Or we do an across-the-board rationalization of spending. Let me remind you that many public services are loss-leaders, are you thus saying we should just leave open BCN, MAD and Palma, and close all other airports in Spain? Because they generate losses? We ferry all the passengers in Spain via bus or train to/from these three airports?

There are train stations that see three passengers a week, yet they have to be there as a public service. Same goes with many other public services. Including airports. Having said this, I don't agree with some of the recent spending in new airports, considering the crisis we are in, but this doesn't mean I can automatically ignore the ATCO problem.

As far as training goes, word now is that you can pay 45.000€ to a private learning center, and get an ATCO license, which makes you eligible to be hired by AENA or other ATC providers. You will of course need additional on-site training, but can anyone comment on how much this extra training entails, compared to when SENASA was handling all the training? Is it three weeks? Three months? I would be interesting to know.

The cost of conversion will be: time of trainee x salary + time of trainer x salary - time of controller needed in that position regardless x salary + cost of extra training equipment used.

I will asume that the cost of the equipment is not into the hundreds of thousands so if it costs up to a million it must be because those receiving the training are still on mega salaries even thought they are not yet productive.

The solution is then quite easy: don´t pay 300k to a trainee. Don't pay 600k to the trainer

" The controllers landed themselves in hot water "... Nah ,.. I would imagine it was not comfortable for a day or two but now the false indignation of the politicians is gone , the press have to worry about what Prince Harrys wife will wear to her wedding and a tidy solution for another 12 months is being hammered out behind closed doors. Nobody will be charged with anything for the most part for sedition etc etc. because it would be too messy given the government is acting illegally anyway. The bottom line is the government doesnt really have options and will negotiate properly now..I would imagine the controllers want to negotiate too ..but the laws of supply and demand have not changed.

Flameproof no matter how many books I read about being a pilot , I still had no idea what it was like to fly a plane..you are mixing fact with opinion quite freely such that opinion may appear to be fact when of course it is not..

Tolgab,

I do on the whole agree with your post, and commend you for your clear exposition. I will make a few remarks though.

While this doesn't change in any way the validity of what you're saying as regards this discussion, I think it should be pointed out that your assertion that pilots "only need the type ratings" is not quite correct. There are also many additional certifications required on the flight deck of practically any aeroplane for any kind of commercial ops, from the lowest end of GA to the airlines. By way of example, think about Cat III ops, hazmat, ETOPS, restricted airports, etc., etc. Most if not all of them carry their own currency and recency requirements.

Yes, understood. That is hardly unique to this sector, and one understands that you are making a point in relation to there being other costs on top of what a previous poster mentioned, but doesn't a controller already on the job also require training, in the form of refreshers, re-training as circumstances change (e.g., airfield or airspace reconfiguration), or simply moving up/around? If that is the case, to an extent training costs are (should be) incurred both in the hiring of new recruits and in keeping existing personnel up to speed.

That is as true in ATS as in any other business needing qualified personnel. But would not hiring new people on the basis of this be a sustainable long-term business plan, in terms of cost savings or otherwise? Not that Spaniards are known for their planning capacity beyond the next half-hour, mind you. :)

Entirely agreed. As you mention demand, one might stress that the volume of air traffic seems to have increased significantly over the last ten years.

This is where accounts differ. As has been mentioned here before, and is a matter of public record, there have been numerous rounds of negotiations over the years, and in particular in the last 18 months or so. Whether those negotiations were in good faith on AENA's side that is subject to discussion. OTOH the persistent bad faith and zero negotiating and PR skills by the controller's union and many individual controllers has been clearly and repeatedly evidenced (the public claims by certain union leaders of being threatened with firearms being particularly outlandish. I certainly hope they get prosecuted for that.)

It takes two to tango, and clearly those who now choose to portray themselves as "victims" didn't bother to come to the dance floor when it was time for them to do so. Kind of narrows the available options, doesn't it? Not saying that any of the other actors were free of fault, but the way the controller's union played it could hardly have been worse--if I were an ATCO I would certainly be demanding explanations from my union leaders.

How is that different from any other activity? Contrary to your assertion, I do not believe that it is easy for a person of certain age to find new work, regardless of their field of activity and regardless of demand. Personally, I am also unconvinced by the cognitive deterioration argument, although I understand that as a common perception, it will play against an aged person even if the claim has no objective basis.

I am also unclear as to how this relates to the main thrust of your argument. Is my understanding correct that you claim that in the short term paying a higher salary to your existing workforce works out cheaper than hiring more people? If so I am inclined to agree.

How about in the mid and long terms? Do you agree that this strategy is not sustainable over a longer time scale?

If you do, the one remaining question is how come we're not there? If you claim that there were no negotiations, that is incorrect: there were, albeit not very fruitful by the looks of it and, whatever the other parties faults and shortcomings, it seems rather plain to see that the controller's negotiating representatives (presumably the union) bear the bulk of the responsibility in letting things deteriorate to this point through sheer incompetence as negotiators (let alone as controllers :ugh:).

In any case, I wish to congratulate you for a very clear exposition of your argument. :ok:

I'd put it to you that ATC is self funding through route charges. Your line of attack so far is ATCOs are being paid by your taxes. Now you say the ATCOs aren't making a big enough profit for you?

Flameproof said
and also said
Once again the maths is wrong, the conclusions are not logical, the only way to describe your calculations was as you requested, lies. I'm therefore surprised at your indignation.
My argument is not subjective but based in fact. Training of ATCOs is a huge expense. I know that from my experience in UK, Tolgab confirms it with his experience in Maastricht and if you read the link I provided, Lon More confirms it with his experience in Maastricht.
I've simply used your figures and then added the cost of training which you conveniently omitted.
I cannot provide the exact figures of the cost of training an ATCO (ab-initio) in Spain, I can't do it for the UK either because the figures could be calculated any number of ways. But the figure for the UK, Maastricht and most european ANSPs will be in the region of 750,000 to 1 million euros per valid ATCO recruited with no experience. If you want a more detailed breakdown of the costs have a look at the excellent posts by Tolgab and Lon More.

I've used the cost of training an ATCO in UK and Maastricht, I think it's safe to say training in Spain will be broadly similar.

It was you who doubled the number of ATCOs in your example, I was following you for clarity.

No fallacy. All ANSPs are under pressure from airlines to cut staff numbers and use overtime to cover. Ireland went through a dispute last year where overtime was used as a stick to beat the ATCOs with, NATS uses overtime to cover significant staff shortages on certain sectors, it's just the Spanish model has gone further than the others.

The UK college course has been reduced from about 15 months to around 4. The time spent at unit training towards sector validation has gone from 4 months to 18. Guess which part of the training is the most expensive?

So you admit that ATCOs used, and will continue using, the lack of supply as a negotiation tactic? That is called 'extorsion', not negotiation. Things will go lime this then:

1. Charges will be dropped agains ATCOs, who will not set a foot in jail, nor pay any fine.
2. Controllers will sit with AENA, and say "as you failed to have us prosecuted, and you still need us as there are no replacements, we want our huge overtime pay back, and a new Ferrari".
3. AENA will roll over like a trained puppy and give in.

I guess the arrogance of some (I could say many or all, but I don't like to generalize) of Spain's ATCOs knows no bounds.

Er... I didn't generalize, but ever since I started posting, I've had nothing but crap thrown my way, called a liar, had my experience and knowledge questioned, so I think when someone shows appreciation and encouragement, I should be allowed to thank him. There has been a lot of barking, but in your case, it has been stiff opposition, not barking. You have argued your points, without going into the personal bickering - if you feel offended, I apologize.

What is the solution then? I keep asking the same question over and over again, and nobody answers. Should we just keep having a vital service sequestered by just over 2000 people who will, as paidworker has said, keep extorting the government for more money and better conditions.

But a necessary one. Your business cannot operate without incurring that expense.

Keep in mind that different figures are used for different purposes. In principle they're all legitimate, but only useful in the context they were intended to be used.

Incidentally (and my previous remark notwithstanding) that looks fairly cheap when you think of the training costs incurred by, e.g., many elements in the military (from pilots to specialised infantry), engineering, and naval industries.

You appear to be a Spaniard working in the UK as an ATCO. May I ask what led you to make the decision to work in the UK rather than in Spain? Not trying to make a point of any kind, just pure curiosity.

LH2,

I agree that both parties played this wrong, especially the controllers played it real bad. They have no public support for lack of proper communication by their representatives.

To this I stand corrected.

Yes, what I meant exactly in the short term, with dangerous consequences in the long term if you do not make up for whatever is the cause of such need.

But on the ground of aging controllers looking for job, I meant in the ATC business. If I look for a job as an ATCO in some other center, my age will play against me quite substantially. Just trying to say that it will be harder for a 45 year old ATCO to find a job in at least W.Europe than it would be for a 45 year old captain for example, if we consider the demand for pilots be the same as controllers today.

Let me try and explain you what a conversion would have to go through if he was to come to my sector group today.

After all the interviews and stuff, he would join with the ab-initios on the Letters of Agreement(LoAs) phase, where they are to learn the restrictions, rules for silent transfer of control between us and the neighboring sectors. In case of my sector group it is; London, Scottish, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Rhein and Bremen.

Then it would be two weeks of simulator to put into practice those rules with low traffic. Later you go into ops room, as a training co-ordinator controller. A small exam to see whether you learned anything. A month or two and back to simulator for more serious training to get used to different military activations, weather, traffic loads.

Then practical exams in the simulator. If you make them, into the ops room for on the job training in one of the sectors. You get 5 levels in training, 5 being ready for a check out. Can take 5 months to a certain maximum which I cannot remember what. Oral boards about the systems, back up systems, LoAs. Then the practical exam.

Copy paste the on the job training for the other sectors in the sector group, which could be 2-4.

This again is for my center, could be different but don't expect it to be too different. We all want the trainees to get checked out as soon as possible but there are rules and regulations we have to follow before we can let someone take over the frequency. I am sure at least the pilots would appreciate that.

I really would not like to go through all that past 40s. Also even the shorter term re-training of the controllers cost money, so the recruiter has to keep in mind whether the money spend on this controller will pay-back before he retires, also chances of him making it. In case of a 40 year old, you'd have 15 years to work if all goes well. As an ab-initio you are under a contract of at least 10 years before you can leave without damages to the company if I remember correctly. Don't know what the minimum is for conversion controllers or whether there is any.

I don't know how complicated it is to switch companies for pilots, or how complicated it is to get a new type rating. But for every new center the only thing we take from the previous is the 5nm and 1000ft on radar unless you move to a neighboring center. But even how you achieve that 5nm or 1000ft will be questioned.

Hopefully this sheds some lights on why I believe that as we age our chances of switching centers get highly unlikely. We could look for jobs as trainers or maybe consultants somewhere else, but as an ATCO not so easy.

By the way, thanks for the mature discussion, but if you need more clarification please PM me as I am done with this tread.

Flameproof,

Thanks for the apology, either case I will agree to disagree with you and end my part of the discussion. For me both parties screwed up big time, but only the controllers seem to be getting the bad end of the stick. Which I find highly unfair that the government is getting applauded by the public.

A solution? That would depend from which point onwards. They should never have allowed things to get this bad. And now, who knows? We will have to wait and see where they get from here.

Thanks for making the peace, till another tread puts us for or against.

@Del Prado:

Let's do some math. Assume we have

2400 ATCOs x 450.000€/year = 1.080M€ in ATC personnel costs.
Route charges = 1.200M€/year.

We have a 'profit' of 120 million Euros. Now, let's place the same controllers into the lower salary levels:

2400 ATCOs x 150.000€/year = 360M€ in ATC personnel costs.
Route charges = 1.200M€/year.

We now have a 'profit' of 840 million Euros. Do you know how many schools can be built with the difference? Or how many improvements can be made to airports, or even ATC services, like better facilities, better technology, etc.? What is being overpaid to controllers is not being spent on other things. Are these lies too?

OK let's include training expenses of 1M€ per new ATCO.

2400 ATCOs x 450.000€/year = 1.080M€/year.

or,

2400 ATCOs x 150.000€/year = 360M€/year.
500 New recruits, training expense = 500M€ (let's say they are all recruited and trained at the same time).
500 New recruits earning the same as ATCOs, for argument's sake = 75M€ (they would logically earn much less).

So, for this first year, we have a total cost of 935M€, still a whole 145M€ savings over having 2400 controllers earning the huge salary. If we were to take 300.000€ as the average salary quoted in various media, instead of 450.000€, we'd be looking at 720M€, so the first year you'd lose 215M€, but the next year, you're paying 2900 ATCOs 150.000€ which comes to 435M€, thus, you'd be saving 285M€, or recovering 70M€ already.

The lifespan of a government is 4 years unless re-elected, so this cost/savings structure fits very well within their timeframe.

Now, please, do your own math, with your own facts as you say, and post them here. Don't just say I'm lying because you say so.

So it is also safe to say that ATCO salaries in Spain will be broadly similar to those in UK and Maastricht. But they are not, they are at least triple. Please provide accurate training costs for Spain, or else don't speculate.

Granted, and point taken. Please see my above calcs with an increase of 500 controllers.

Excellent debate between people that have fixed opinions beforehand and won't change.
Figures thrown in the debate are not verified , nor correct but of course you can , just like with statistics take those that suit you to support your already made opinion. 3 weeks to train a controller ?. why not. In a small TWR with 10 IFR mvts a day, sure. but in Madrid ACC ?


I give you just a few FACTS based on 35 years experience :
You can take my word for it or not, your choice , I have nothing to sell.

1) in a modern en route ACC centre with an advanced flight processing system ( e.g , London, Geneva, LATCC, Maatricht , Rhein , etc ): , ab initio recruitment from selection to fully validated ( i.e bringing money in ) is 3 to 4 years.
Absolute failure rate : ( i.e from selection to fully validated FOR THE POST YOU WERE RECRUITED ) is between 40 and 60% .
Simulator training costs double, the trainee controller you pay, plus the costs, of a fully validated controller that you take off the ops room to do this for weeks on: double costs, no revenue. So training a controller today is hugely expensive. Plus a controller when fully validated, will get sick, might get kids and ask for part time, might leave you to go somewhere else in 10 years, needs insurance and a pension.
Overtime is flexible, does not get sick, does not need pension and no training.

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 )

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

Now conversion training versus ab-initio : again based on exeperience in a large centre, depends on the age you get them , contrary to Pilots, the older and more experienced the longer it will take : a young guy ( say 25ish, takes 9 months minimum, 25 to 30 , a year, above 30 anything from one up to 2 years, not worth it m in fact same or longer OJT in ops room that an ab-initio.

Is Palma, Barcelona, Madrid and Canarias ACCs exactly same as those above ? No. In Spain, just like in France for instance failure rate is lower because you can swich the slower trainees to locations (APP or TWRS )where complexity is less. The traffic complexity in Rhein, LATCC , Maastricht is far superior , so training takes longer.

Now back to the original problem: Who will control Spanish airspace in the next years ? AENA? New controllers or the same ones as today ?

Indeed.

I am afraid that will probably be the case. There seem to be two factors (or two views of one factor if you wish): on one hand, the recruiter's perception that an old man is less "sharp" than a youth--although lots of progress have been made on this front, it will still play a part. The other thing is one's own view of one's capacity, and our tendency to look for accommodation as we grow older: this is not any easier to fight against than the first point, unless one is put in a tight corner with no options :)

Thank you for the insight into how controllers are trained and released on the job, that is quite fascinating.

Personally, I would be inclined to think that although there is quite an effort involved and if I understood correctly most of the procedures will have to be relearned, there must still be those basic elements of the job that only experience can give you (the sort of sixth sense where you look at a screen and say "this don't look right"), and that would certainly add quite some value to a mature, experienced person. What I'm trying to say is that I hope that recruiters do look at the risk/benefit balance when they hire new people and don't always go for the 20 year old.

Since you have mentioned the shipping business in a previous post, it looks like the kind of situation (marine) pilots eventually find themselves in.

One last thing if I may: Out of interest, what sort of training, refreshers, or exam/revalidations are involved for people to stay on their current position?

Likewise, it's been a pleasure to read your contributions.

Actually now that you mention it, given their situation and need for specialized knowledge of the port, would be a very good comparison.


Yearly refresher training, which is a bunch of random computerized multiple choice tests, and simulator training for back up system and unusual occurrences.

We need to have worked so many hours within so much time to keep validations. If we lose them we sit with competency assessors for revalidation. In case of long absence you will need a training before such in house test. Longer periods, over 180 days I believe, you will need to do the oral board, LoA tests and a new full scale check out on the individual sectors, all this after simulation runs to get you up to date. Again this is for my center and things might change but shouldn't by too much within European ATS centers.

edited to add: The competency assessors will also monitor the controllers during normal course of the day. They will take notes and put those controllers in need to retraining.

ATC Watcher , thanks for weighing in with your experience.

It looks like this will be just the start for all European controllers read the comment of a senior EU minister in the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/wo...raphael_minder

"The dispute also comes as European nations are striving to integrate the region’s air traffic control systems into the Single European Sky, with the first phase of the project to begin in 2012. A senior E.U. official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said the Spanish strike “is very clearly linked to European air-traffic management reform,” adding that “next year people will start to see a lot of privileges end.”

Spain might be the first but I don´t think anyone is safe. :uhoh:

The points about costs of recruitment and training versus overtime are an interesting turn in the debate (finally!). The problem is that one cannot rely on overtime alone - it is not sustainable in the mid to long-term. As people leave, retrire or die the remaining workforce eventually becomes insufficient to cover the overtime required.

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.

Spitoon,
Originally posted by Flameproof, 2 or 3 pages ago :
It seems not too much in the last 9 years...

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

Whether the contract was acceptable to you or I is irrelevant. AENA agreed to it and presumably budgeted for it. And the Spanish union obviously didn't want to give it up. I don't think they will win the argument in the long run, but 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).

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.

The union, for their part, are not squeaky clean either. They have mishandled their customers, the press, and the public and refused to come to a reasonable agreement on terminating the over inflated overtime rates. Whilst they have a duty to protect what they have won in the past, they also need to recognise the position of their country and their public in these hard financial times. That might mean some compromise is needed, a word which I don't believe exists in their dictionary.

For a lighthearted look at Spanish ATC then listen to this (slightly amended) Barcelona broadcast.

Spoof Barcelona ATIS

Some individual has obviously spent some time in order to replicate that awfully posh accent too that greets you when you listen to the ATIS at most Spanish airports! I did laugh when I heard the caveat at the end about the 'controller on the job training monitored' which gets blasted out at Madrid all to frequently nowadays too. However, I am sure many people can come up with a witty remark for controllers being 'on the job'! :}

Studi :
Interesting remarks coming from a commercial pilot . From your profile, let me guess : Germanwings ? does not matter but would be nice it it was, as I happen to follow closely the VC Cockpit campain about deterioration of working conditions for Flight crews and the move of your parent company (DLH) towards a cheaper and more flexible workforce ( i.e working far more hours for far less salary ) a la moda Italiana .
VC cockpit organised a few work stoppages ( strikes) to that end this year.

Different tactics, legal ones , OK, but the reasonning is the same as yours : so far pilots used their own defined rules to defend very good working conditions and benefits. You also want to maintain rules fit for post WWII operations into today's environment. In 1960 it was far more complicated (and dangerous) and tiring to cross the atlantic on a Constellation than flying a DC3 overland . Hence the large salaries and the (huge) pay difference between long and short haul. Today flying a A320 between Frankfurt and London required far more work that crossing the Atlantic on a A340 ,( let alone in a A380 , as with 3 return flights per month you'll have reached your max hours ). But the salaries difference is still there.

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.)

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 ? .

.