did anyone read IFATCA's bulletin published 9th December?
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). I have the bulletin, but I will not publish it here. It is available at IFATCA's forum if you register. It is definitively worth a read. |
Originally Posted by 10W
(Post 6120498)
It was what the contract said they should get. How can that make them thieves ?
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).
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
(Post 6120846)
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.
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. |
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 )
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
So forget your theories and claculations to the euro. Overtime is cheaper.
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...
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.
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)
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.
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.)
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 ?
Originally Posted by supraspinatus
did anyone read IFATCA's bulletin published 9th December?
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).
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. |
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? How could work have been done with 1670 hours in the past, and not this year? What has been different? "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? 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 "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. |
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. 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. |
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? "...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."
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?
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Del Prado
While your contributions are welcome
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.
|
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 ? |
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 ? |
As I have intimated earlier, you don't get into a mess like this without seriously CR:eek:P 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). |
HI ATC Watcher,
thanks for your sensible writeup; it sheds up some some light with valuable insight information from an actual ATC Controller :ok:; 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 :p 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. |
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.
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 .
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.
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.
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. 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 .
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
Preparing AENA for privatisation with a docile reduced de-unionized workforce, at half the costs as before ? you bet.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
Cutting Overtime and mass recruitment would have solved the problem.
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 .
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 ?
Ribera del Duero it is! :) |
ATCW,
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
(Post 6122248)
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 . 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, 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 . 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. 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 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. |
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. 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 :E 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,:{ |
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. |
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) |
that comes well short of €1bn. 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 . ;) |
AENA directors
What about the salaries of all the AENA Fat Cat directors who dont do much.
Dont see their salaries being cut ? |
|
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. |
I think that local water and sawage company will have more impact on Royal decree than Ifatca.
:E Spanish ATCOs have problems with numbers, :mad: |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.