That's the thing. I don't believe the annual report comes out until June, so (as far as management is concerned) this is perfectly timed.

We will no doubt end up with a similar situation to our last pay deal. Shafted over bleatings of the company going under, company being skint, recession, and then after accepting a miserly, strings laden pay deal, they announce £100m+ profits in June...AGAIN!!

We seem to fall for managements sob story every time.

Extra 37% cost for the pension??!

If they hadn't taken a fecking pension holiday (remember that), then they wouldn't have to pay so much now!

Rumour (told to us from a place far far away) is a TWO year deal with approx 5% per annum.....no indication if this is true...or what additional constraints have been placed on it...anyone out there care to comment?:confused::confused:

Is it a core pay deal i.e. same % for all NATS...

or have management succeeded in divide & conquer i.e. sectional deals

???:=

The thing that pisses me off big time is the fact that NATS is cash rich as far as its share holders are concerned, they did very nicely thank-you....and also Mr Barron legged it up the road with his suit case brimming with notes as was his golden hand shake......Say what you like but based on those points alone my view is still go take a running fcuk!!!!!!!

I have heard a little pay gossip. That you read it Fishbangwallop narrows you down and I'm very disappointed in your response. I think in today's climate it's a great deal. Particularly considering where negotiations started and the pay deals the rest of the country are accepting. As a two year deal it's a good figure. Maybe we are being asked to give a little too much but the prospect of industrial action would not have been in our favor. We would have looked very mercenary turning this down. All in all this Atco2 is happy. Looking forward to the back dated pay.

Not bad figures... but one deal for one group and a lesser deal for the rest is a very dark path to start down.

Quote :
"one deal for one group and a lesser deal for the rest is a very dark path to start down."

Hmmmmmm.....I think we started down that dark path a long time ago with pay banding.

IMHO, anything less than 5% without strings effectively says that NATS thinks I'm worth less than I was before, despite the management bleating about valuing its staff. In what way is this supposed to make me feel valued?:ugh:

With respect - and I say that as someone who isn't affected by banding - I know it's an emotive issue. Banding is (agree with it or not) an extension of grading in so far as it is a judgement of what the correct remuneration is for the job that you do.

Annual % pay increases are intended to react to increased cost of living and reward for good company performance. They are a percentage hike in your remuneration but not a judgement on the respective value or importance of different jobs within the company.

The former is divisive by it's very nature and there's no way for it not to be. The latter should never be so.

Lets put banding to bed for once and for all because it has nothing to do with core pay talks.

As me x4 states anyways, banding has been around for ages, with the 'busier' units historically progressing further up the same pay scale than 'less busy' units.

The bands as they are set out now just make this more simple to see.

A difference in pay for different units is fair IMHO... time to validate and validation rates bear this out.

Whether a band 5 ATCO is 'worth' £30k more than a band 1 ATCO is a totally different argument... again outside the scope of these latest talks and offers

Spoken as only a Band 5 ATCO can :ok:

Hmmm, lets see. I currently hold 12 validations and it took 5 years to get these. Offers management an immense amount of flexibilty in rostering.

How many validations do you hold again?

Banding - an emotive issue
 

Too right it is. It is not a fair judgement, or a transparent one.

If you take the time to dig into the NATSAG57 document on the intranet, coupled with a spreadsheet the union issued at the time and try to work out how the final numbers were arrived at; you'd be pretty emotional for 7 years at the nature of the unfairness. I'll try to explain this using the NERL model.

Please bear with me on this and don't be too quick to dismiss me as a banding whinger - I am certain I have a valid point.

All data from the union powerpoint "ATCO Unit Grading"

The Total Scores were as follows:

LACC 1202
LTCC 1255
MACC 421
OACC 271
ScACC 355

Total Score was calculated by multiplying Traffic Score by a combined complexity and OR (operational requirement or plainly number of controllers) factor.

Traffic score was calculated by multiplying the average day busy hour total (actual traffic element in the busiest hour of the average day) by a volume profile score (sustained traffic element). Actual values below of average day busy hour total, then volume profile and then the Traffic Score:

LACC 302 x 2.93 = 886
LTCC 272 x 2.93 = 798
MACC 98 x 2.93 = 289
OACC 80 x 2.13 = 170
ScACC 111 x 2.80 = 309

The second part of the calculation involves adding together OR factor, traffic mix (weighted 0.5) and complexity factor (taken from eurocontrol, then taken as a logarithm and then divided by 3- scaling to allow proportionate affect [sic], although the manner of this scaling is only 'explained' in NATSAG57)

The values for OR, complexity factor and (non jet % divided by 2 for weighting) traffic mix are as follows:

LACC 330 0.401 (8.3%/2) 0.0415
LTCC 281 0.554 (10.1%/2) 0.0505
MACC 110 0.456 (21.4%/2) 0.107
OACC 50 0.000! (0.7%/2) 0.0035
ScACC 145 0.280 (20.8%/2) 0.104
As Oceanic complexity was not calculated by Eurocontrol the people 'constructing this' deemed the value to be a nominal 1 (hence log 1=0).

It can be seen by adding these numbers together OR would be a big factor. However what is done to OR to arrive at the OR factor is the key to the real flaw in this dreadful calculation.

OR factor is: average busy hour total divided by OR

There is a flow chart showing the 'calculation' in NATS AG57 with the detail of average day busy hour only appearing in the Traffic Score side (it is a traffic term). The important usage of it appearing in the OR Factor (the non-traffic side) is conspicuous (is this the right word to use in model that seems deliberately opaque?) by its absence and it is not adequately explained why in the NATSAG57 document.

What does this mean then?

Total Score actually is:

Average day busy hour total squared divided by OR

plus

Average day busy hour total multiplied by Complexity factor

plus

Average day busy hour total multiplied by Weighted Traffic mix

all multiplied by Voulume Profile Score

Whats more there has been no mechanism for for the unit bandings to changed depending on a change in unit circumstances. Unsuprising when the exponential effect of average day busy hour total being used in both sides of the multiplication.

MACC Total Score was 421, LACC Total Score was 1202

Lets assume MACC had to get 1202 for Band 5

OR would have to reduce from 110 down to around 28 with the same traffic
Traffic would have to increase by 82% for the same staff numbers

Or lets assume LACC had to get 421 for Band 4

OR would have to increase from 330 to around 8000 with the same traffic
Traffic would have to decrease by 48% for the same staff numbers

As an aside if LTCC had an infinite number of ATCOs their total score would only come down to around 482.

I suspect the airports model has the similar flaw in it although I am ashamed to say I have never took the time to check. With airport ORs being closer together the basis of traffic being the driver in the calculations would mean it is more proportinate (yet clearly wrong).

I've made motions to conference, spoken to BEC members, spoken to the Red Barron and every GM I've had about this to no avail.

I don't expect to be paid more or the same as Swanwick. Cost of living on the South coast is probably more than at Prestwick. What I object to is the gap increasing year on year after every pay round and the justification for that gap is based on this disgrace of a flawed model (by accident or design - either way appalling but I suspect the latter).

Whatever the deal is I'll be voting no (as always) because in my mind I'm voting for a continuation of a flawed model which incorrectly states I'm a second rate controller.

It's a no vote from me. If the ATSAs and PCS say no, and the engineers say no, they we should also say no. It's as simple as that.

And if you think otherwise you're exactly where NATS management want you, bent over their desk, looking teasingly over your shoulder.

Who will be left when they come for us....

If it is 5% then on the face of it it is a good offer. However I believe nsl must do the met so there are strings attached.

The guy who stated that "this atco 2 is happy" also sums this up. We have been divided and conquered. For nerl who will get the same pay deal as certain nsl units for them to carry out extra duties and nerl none is poor to say the very least.

We are going to have 2 votes, one for nerl and one for nsl as promised by prospect. However what we have been lied to about by prospect is that only units carrying out met will be voting on the deal. The whole of nsl will not be doing this. Therefore a couple of units down south who will not be doing met can stitch the regional airports up again with a no strings attached deal whilst we are forced into carrying out extra duties that we feel is unsafe.

I also feel we were on the brink here to flexing our muscles finally. Nsl cannot afford any sniff of industrial action due to the Spanish and Swedish contracts we are in for so we should have stuck it out. I am afraid the bec is made up of too many nerl guys who have got a good rise for themselves and again nsl is the poor relation. The union is there to look after the minority and supposedly prevent this.

Stitched up again but to be honest my complete lack of faith in the BEC makes this not really unsurprising.

Krait....I really dont give 2 Flying Fishes what you think....as an ATSA I once again have been shafted!!!!

Yahoo, you obviously have NOT been to PC lately.

Our ATSAs are stretched to the limit as so many were paid off in the belief that EFD would be in service by now !

FIS spends his time at work either with a headset on doing FISO duties or taking all the :mad: at the DTS desk.

To: All Prospect ATCO Branch Members
ATCO Pay Offer
We have today concluded the final details of the proposed new pay
arrangement and associated agreements for ATCOs and are now able to
recommend it for acceptance.
The detail of the offer made by management is as follows:
RPI + 0.5% (backdated to Jan 1st2011) on pay and related
allowances. This equates to 5.2% based on August 2010 RPI figure
of 4.7%;RPI capped at a maximum 5% from Jan 1st2012 (August 2011 RPI
figure) on basic pay only;
For those in receipt of the Met contingency payment on April 1st
2011, 12 months lump sum buyout (12 months of the rate they
were being paid at the time).
In consideration of this payment, we have agreed the following:
A new ATCO Additional Voluntary Attendance agreement. This is
significantly different to the previous agreement, with new limits
set, no agreement end date in place and is far simpler to
implement;
A new deal on Met Observation and Residual tasks in NSL.
We are planning a series of briefings and will visit each unit at least twice
between now and the ballot opening. We would encourage as many of you
as possible to attend the briefings, as these are detailed agreements that
we should all fully understand before casting our vote. In particular with
regard to the Met agreement there appears to be many
misunderstandings and we would encourage a proper and full debate on
these issues.


In addition to the briefings we will be producing a comprehensive briefing
pack in the next few days. The ballot will run from May 27thuntil June 21st.
We are committed to our mandate to ballot NSL on the issue of Met which
is a fundamental part of the current pay deal. As such we intend to ballot
solely on pay, with a count of the papers from NSL members separately in
the first instance. If this result is positive we will then include the NERL
ballot papers and carry out an additional count to provide the overall
result. As always the count will be carried out and audited by Prospect HQ
staff and the result communicated as soon as possible after the closing
date.
This has been a difficult negotiation, and a long drawn out process. Thank
you for your patience. It has also been difficult with regard to the NTUS
claim and the politics of how this sits with the other members of the
NTUS. We are meeting next week to talk about how we progress this with
regard to the other groups.
Please look out for notice boards and www.atcos.co.uk for further updates
and details over the next days and weeks.
We look forward to seeing you all soon at a briefing.
ATCOs’ Branch Executive
21stApril 2011

:eek: Would you like to borrow my tin hat?