fuel up 30% in the last 3 months of the year? perhaps he shouldn't have hedged so high?

As far as the pay issue is concerned, I'm fed up with having my "expectations managed". NATS has made a very healthy profit in the last several years and I believe they're on track to post a similar profit this year. We need to tell our union reps what we want and what we're prepared to do if we don't get it.

Sadly, they know what we are prepared to do ... roll over and be shafted again and again :{

Given that NATS makes most of it's profit in the Summer and the recession was considerate enough to wait until October before it kicked in it's pretty likely that NATS will make some profit in this financial year. Anybody who thinks that means that there is no problem is deluding themselves. NERL income over the last two months was down 8%. Schedules will be similar through to Easter so that seems a pretty good estimate of income till then. Summer schedules are the big unknown but does anybody honestly believe that Land Rover, Honda, Woolworths and Zavvi employees are rushing out to book their fortnight in the sun ? If income is down 8% you then have to add in the RPI-x element, the annual increments that mean that NATS staff costs rise year on year regardless of pay settlements, the likelihood that pension costs will increase (the settlement was only about limiting the cost not reducing it) and very quickly the profit margin is reduced and the company is making a loss.

Unfortunately not living in the real world is a privilege only open to Government, companies owned by generous benefactors (think Football clubs), Banks (a surprising new addition to the list) and companies which have reserves built up over many years. Everybody else including NATS can only trade at a loss for a very short time and PB and the other Directors are legally obliged to ensure that it doesn't. If income falls there are only two choices reduce costs or put up prices. Even if the Regulator were prepared to do the latter does anybody really think that would work ? When your customers are struggling raising charges will do nothing except reduce demand and make the problem worse. Reducing costs is the only option but however much you think might be wasted on reward ceremonies and management initiatives there is no way you are going to save the sort of sums involved without cutting jobs.

I also hope they've got their act together but I suspect we have different views on what that means. My expectation of a union is that it represents all its members and gives the weaker members some power derived from the more powerful. I hope that for any union protecting jobs comes top of the lists of the things it does, protecting income is also important but not as important. I don't expect a union to favour improving the lot of its more powerful better off members at the expense of its weaker ones.

A very dangerous strategy and one only advocated by those arrogant enough to believe that they aren't likely to get chopped. The problem is none of us know how long we will be fit and able to perform as well as we do today and one day, when it happens again, you may find yourself in one of those posts that somebody thinks isn't important. When that time comes you'll have to hope that your colleagues don't take the same view as you are now. The only safe strategy is to fight for every post whoever fills it and whatever you may think about their abilities. I hope that is what the union will do.

EGLYNTermmm.... don't people retire ? Some popping off the top and saving top-of-the-scale wages, and then being replaced by entrants at the bottom ?

Are increments for all 5500 staff, or just ATCOs, ATSAs and ATCEs ?

EGLYNTOur charges to the airlines are in euros and I understand they have been reduced by about 30% already over the last year due to the pounds deflation.

EGLYNTWhilst I applaud the sentiment, a $hitload of operational staff are feeling exactly that way at the moment. Do YOU feel valued by management ? Do YOU feel that they think YOU or your job is important ? I don't. I'm made to feel as if I'm an expensive overhead, not a dedicated and trusted professional. I'm expected to work with second-rate equipment, $hite radios, in a freezing ops room, with continually added and amended Operational Instructions, layer upon layer of new procedures (with minimal training), while all the time worrying about the uncertainty of my pension and the monkeys who are screwing every last ounce out of this once fine company.
So, NO, I don't believe that means we should expend energy on retaining nonsense jobs and supporting an out of control paperwork bureaucracy.

Look around at the countless layers of management at your unit - how many would $hit themselves if asked to plug in and try and validate ? How many of them couldn't wait to get out of the ops room, or couldn't validate ? How many are puffed up with their own importance and job titles ? How many are contemptuous of operational staff who object ?

And I've not even mentioned CTC :E

How many man hours go into producing website upon website with interminable guff and TLAs about 'vision', 'projects', 'purchase', 'customer', 'opportunities' etc..etc... I could go on and on. How many man hours go into 'Pulse' and how much does all that pish cost ? Does it contribute one iota to making my job as an ATCO any easier ? Does it ####.

How come the huge majority of comments on Natsnet are from CTC - surely they should be so busy creating 'opportunities' for the rest of us they shouldn't have time to fart on about bloody photos and bloody award ceremonies. BTW Hope all you poor dears made it in through the huge snowdrifts :hmm:

Someone please remind me. What is the raison d'etre of NATS ? Some job creation for trendy, stripey middle management? or to stop aeroplanes hitting each other ?


Do you know something - I'm tired of it. I'm tired of seeing "sicknotes" rewarded with promotions. I'm tired of seeing safety issues swept under the carpet because they cost too much. I'm tired of seeing $hite controllers promoted beyond their ability and then watch them swan around as if they're ####ing experts in keeping aeroplanes apart. I'm tired of continually having to adjust to the ever changing rulebook to cover somebody elses ar$e.

After only 20 years, I'm ready to chuck in the job I love.

I can't help but think that the dross that needs removing will be the very ones hiding most behind the union.........

We need a staff suggestion box with ideas for savings.

In addition to the old favourites of pointless and costly awards ceremonies, business bull!!!! bingo initiatives, etc, I am sure we could all come up with our own local savings.

I'll throw in a starter which would save maybe around £0.5M per annum. Get rid of the Watch Managers at Scottish. They are in theory aligned to a Watch but seem to write their own roster. They don't do nights, they disappear early and come in late. They are often off unit attending one or other of the Baron's junkets. Often you can't find one or they are in a 'meeting' and can't be disturbed, other days there will be 2 or 3 of them skulking around the building doing 'important' stuff. What do they actually do ? No, that's actually a serious question. What do they do for the operation ?

We had 2 Managers ATC before who looked after the non Op stuff for each room. Under them were 10 Supervisors (1 per Watch per Ops Room). Between them they dealt with everything that was needed. Things weren't perfect, but we coped and things usually got done eventually.

Now we have some sort of Business Delivery Manager (ex ATCO), some sort of Operational Manager (ex ATCO), 5 Watch Managers (allegedely ex ATCOs :p ) and 10 Supervisors. And this is more efficient and focused than the old system how exactly ??

We went through big cuts and efficiency savings in the late 90s and early 2000's. It was painful, but essential and helped us become a better organisation. Why then have people like Baron built our organisation up again in to a top heavy, multi layered management biased company who have lost sight of why we are in business ? If they were real business men, they would have kept us streamlined and efficient. Instead we are just another fat cat 'jobs for the boys' business, wallowing and ineffective in our own mire. It's time for the government to get someone to come along and clear out the dross, for someone to question what everyone adds, and to get rid of the wasteful layers of experts and managers who pontificate and spout mantras like a herd of sheep. The best place to start would be at the top ... and work down.

Charges in euros have indeed been reduced but that is only a benefit for those airlines which trade in euros. For those whose majority income is in sterling the price is pretty much the same.

The majority of people working in CTC are hard working professional people who work longer hours than operational staff without the benefit of the routine regulatory breaks that operational staff enjoy. The clue to what most of them do is in the T part of CTC rather than the first C. If it pleases some of them to take a minute or two to contribute to a tired and worn in-joke that most of us never understood in the first place should it really bother anybody else ? Maybe it's a welcome break from the pressure that most of them are under. Oh and by the way most of them did get in apart from those relying on the inadequate public transport system which management still seem to think is an alternative to the car.

I think most people in NATS cringe at most of that stuff whatever job they do.

eglnyt


I'm not arrogant, though I know my job is pretty safe.

It is not arrogant to say we should cut the fat and get rid of people who contribute little or nothing to the company.

It is not arrogant to expect the company (who when it suits claims times are hard) to look at roles and decide which ones are really necessary and which can be dropped.

It is not arrogant to say that if the company wants to tighten it's belt then we should ensure that we only employ people making a meaningful contribution.

It is not arrogant to expect the company to amalgamate roles where possibly, therefore cutting some personnel and saving money.

These are things the company should be doing all the time, instead of spunking away money willy-nilly when the times are good, then bleating when the times are bad.
I've said it countless times before, I'll say it again - we are either running NATS as a business or we are not. If we are, as Management try to claim, we should stop pi$$ing about and do it properly all the time, not just in a recession...

It's not as simple as support staff versus operational - there are many staff at CTC etc who we need to retain to ensure that projects that have been started continue to have work done on them. However there are many staff, company wide, we can get rid off. There are many staff we could have got rid of regardless of the economic downturn - it's just a shame that our business 'leaders' can't be ar$ed to do it when we were making money.

NATS is now beginning to sow what it has reaped - we would have been much better placed to face financial storms if we were streamlined all the time, the way a proper business should be.

You write:
Only the jobs that deserve saving. Lets not cut jobs for cutting jobs sake - no one agrees with that. But lets get brutal about jobs and positions that are duplicating effort and/or wasting company money. If that sounds harsh, then welcome to the real world(!) You mention Woolworths and Zavvi etc, maybe if these companies had less overheads they would have fared better... certainly the writing has been on the wall for Woolies for years.

In business there is no room for sentimentalism - We don't live in Utopia, and I for one don't see why the company should be selective about how it scrimps and saves - if the posts are not required then goodbye...

Therein lies the difference between office working and ATCOs...
Maybe you think it is arrogant, but ATCO competency in later years is a real issue, and the company should look after ATCOs when some of them fail to keep up with traffic when they near retirement - the contracts are written to allow work to retirement, NATS is a safety orientated industry after all. ATCOs should not be penalised if, when they have a few years to retire they can no longer keep up with traffic which was (and will again) grow(ing) by huge amounts each year. This very small handfull of ATCOs can still give a hell of a lot to NATS in there last 2 or 3 years.

It's not the same as working in an office, If someone in an office can't keep up with the latest version of Word or Excel, then...

We are a business, lets run things like a business... that means making sure we do not duplicate or triplicate effort, that we do not employ people who have little to really do to fill their days. It does not mean we cannot look after the staff that we keep - it just means that we do not keep the staff we do not need!

It's really not a difficult concept, we are not a charity.

Just a few final points - in your posts you state...

the fact is every little helps.

also

andandSo exactly what are you trying to say? You reply to people who state 'get rid of unnecessary jobs' by implying ATCO arrogance, then you go on to say what you have above.

Do you think we should cut jobs or not??? Your 3 statments above are at complete odds with each other!

So where do we have a cut-off - presumably you want to ensure you are safe, what about 'the people in a weaker position than you'?

If you think we do need to cut jobs, as your first statement clearly states, are you not in danger by your very stance ands statements, of being as arrogant as you claim ATCOs to be?
You talk about protecting weaker members - what about the ones in a weaker position than you? Your statements in the very same post contradict each other!!!

No one believes we should chop people or jobs that are needed, but we should chop jobs that are wasteful. Maybe if you stopped trying to make this an ATCO versus everyone else issue, then you would see the irony in what you write:ugh:

And finally, this gem - Do you really know what NATS core business is?
Do you really understand it?
Do you know what NATS primary function is?

The answer to the third question, in case you are struggling, is SAFETY in the provision of ATC. The breaks we 'enjoy' are as you say regulatory - they are mandated in law.
They are there for safety reasons. You spout off the management line all the time - that is your right... but at least try to understand what ATC is actually about.

eglynt,

I think you will find the recession began in July,not Oct.
I know you like to spout the management line continuously,but get your facts right first.:ok:

OS

Anotherthing:

QUOTE
Maybe you think it is arrogant, but ATCO competency in later years is a real issue, and the company should look after ATCOs when some of them fail to keep up with traffic when they near retirement - the contracts are written to allow work to retirement, NATS is a safety orientated industry. ATCOs should not be penalised if, when they have a few years to retire they can no longer keep up with traffic which was (and will again) grow(ing) by huge amounts each year. It's not the same as working in an office, If someone in an office can't keep up with the latest version of Word or Excel, then...
UNQUOTE

Of course you need to look after people, but why should it be considered automatic that an ATCO falling into the situation you describe should continue to be paid a full ATCO salary once they are no longer doing the ATCO job? By all means have options for people to continue to work for NATS once they are no longer operational, but that may be at a salary level commensurate with their new responsibilities, not their previous ones.

You can't have it both ways:

QUOTE
We are a business, lets run things like a business... that means making sure we do not duplicate or triplicate effort, we do not employ people who have little to really do to fill their days. It does not mean we cannot look after the staff that we keep - it just means that we do not keep the staff we do not need!
UNQUOTE

eyeinthesky -

NATS primary business is safety, if an ATCO thinks he or she cannot maintain proficiency when they near retirement, how do we sort it out?

Here's a question... If they have 6 years to retirement, what do you propose happens with their pension if they take a salary cut to fill an office job? Should their pension then be reduced because their average salary in their final years has decreased?

Or should we use these ATCOs with numerous years valuable experience carrying out NATS primary function in training roles/ops jobs that require that type of experience, thus allowing them to keep their wages and freeing up some other, younger ATCOs to return to the OPs room?

Or do you propose we be dishonest about it and stick them on the quietest sector in the room and carry them?

It's not a case of having it both ways - unless you look at it simplistically. It's a case of using resources efficiently. If an ATCO has to withdraw from the Ops room, then we can look at other ATCO grade jobs (real ATCO grade jobs, not some of the made up ones we have kicking around) that would be suitable.

If that means swapping places with a younger ATCO who has gone to do a years work in Ops or the training department, then so be it.

The amount of people we are talking about is minimal - there are essential jobs out there that actually need to be filled by people who have controlled.

Working in the Ops room is not the same as working in a nice benign office environment! Safety is paramount.

You sound a bit chippy old chap. What's yanked your chain? Feeling the heat? :}

There's a teesny weensy reason for that 'benefit' that we 'enjoy'. (But thank you for your munificence anyway). :D

Concentrating on stopping aircraft hitting each other is slightly more critical and (difficult) than fannying around on a computer. :hmm:

I should know - I fanny around on the computer at home, for hours and hours. And guess what ? I don't need a professional licence to do that, or to run meetings. :ugh:

I also 'enjoy' a profession with one of the highest rates of high blood pressure, crap equipment, ever changing procedures, the constant threat of having to co-ordinate with Scampton .. oh, yes and if I screw up I'm either on the front page of the news, stabbed on the doorstep, a mental wreck for life, disciplined or all four ..... :hmm:

Next! :mad:

and get a significantly better pay package compared to the average CTCer to make up for it. :ok:

And here was me thinking all CTCers were above average.

Reminds me of the joke about the US Senator who got wound up by a 'concerned' constituent. The 'outraged' citizen demanded to know why 50% of Americans were of below average intelligence. :}

The aforementioned Senator then went off on one, agreeing it was scandalous ..... and even asked questions in the Senate. :ugh:

:E

What does the average CTCer get paywise? :)

And here I thought the pay package for ATCOs was merely commensurate with other European countries, for the skills required for to do a job that not everyone can do...

The pay has nothing to do with consequences of screwing up, or the reduced life expectancy of an ATCO... But now you mention it, maybe we should ask for an extra payment to cover those things as well...:ok:

Not being smart :), but what do they actually do at CTC ?
All I know is there are about 1400 staff, and seriously can someone tell me what they do? None of the shop floor staff (and there are many)at my large unit can give me an answer without mentioning Latte and photo of the day.
My world is far removed from all this corporate stuff and is just plain old ATC/RADAR , keeping aircraft apart :oh:

and so it starts........
 

Just heard a briefing - management looking to shed 30 staff across asset engineering through voluntary redundancy already - all @ NATS getting an email later today about various other VR requests.

happy days ......if only I had failed my degree and gone to my fallback plan to become an ATCO :{

RS