AusFIC - Could THIS be the beginning of the demise of???
Thread Starter
AusFIC - Could THIS be the beginning of the demise of???
Heard on 'the grapevine'......
Doncha just luv-it?? - 'Ere we go again.....
A 'review' - (LUV that word - NOT) - in AirServicesAus is set to cut jobs from the 100 or so AusFIC staff by Mid 2007 - apparently ??
Anyone want to bet 'London to a Brick' that this review will have the outcome of 'INTEGRATION' of the services of AusFIC to ATC, in part or whole???
All in the name of 'efficiency' - no doubt!
The provision of 'Service Delivery' to us, the clients of that service, would then be transferred to ATC, at the higher ATC salary rate, at a time when ATC themselves are 'under review'......
That is, MORE 'services' / workload for ATC to provide to us, the industry, with LESS ATC's, and at a higher cost....=....Less FIS at a Higher cost!
FIS was established external to ATC as the 'trade off' for the demise of Flight Service, when the then FS VHF Freqs were transferred to ATC functions. This would now put the FIS back onto ATC Centre Freqs - increased congestion and delays in service - That makes sense??
Other forums rumour the ATC staff cut to be in the order of 10% -
around 200 or so staff 'across the board'.
So, that, combined with this proposal, would indicate that the industry will get LESS, at MORE cost, and the ATC's will be expected to do MORE, with LESS staff. (more or less...couldn't help that - but, you get the idea...)
Interestingly, the FAA of the USA, has announced on
Aero-News (Fri. 25 Aug '06)
that THEIR plan is to HIRE MORE than 1,130 additional ATC's in fiscal year 2007 - based on updated traffic forecasts, retirements etc. The plan also allows for the hiring of more than 2,000 ATC's over the next 2 years to allow for retiring controllers and increase the size of its workforce by more than
200 ATC's.
Funny, thats the same number ASA are reducing by......but the percentages are vastly different of course.
The FAA plan "also adresses the broader need to hire more than 11,800 controllers over the next ten (10) years based on the latest attrition and traffic growth modelling..."
Its EASY to guess what ASA will do when the attrition rate vs traffic becomes a real issue - REDUCE SERVICES FURTHER!!!
What else will they then be capable of doing???
I simply fail to comprehend the logic -
if there is any......
Cheers Guys and Gals....
Doncha just luv-it?? - 'Ere we go again.....
A 'review' - (LUV that word - NOT) - in AirServicesAus is set to cut jobs from the 100 or so AusFIC staff by Mid 2007 - apparently ??
Anyone want to bet 'London to a Brick' that this review will have the outcome of 'INTEGRATION' of the services of AusFIC to ATC, in part or whole???
All in the name of 'efficiency' - no doubt!
The provision of 'Service Delivery' to us, the clients of that service, would then be transferred to ATC, at the higher ATC salary rate, at a time when ATC themselves are 'under review'......
That is, MORE 'services' / workload for ATC to provide to us, the industry, with LESS ATC's, and at a higher cost....=....Less FIS at a Higher cost!
FIS was established external to ATC as the 'trade off' for the demise of Flight Service, when the then FS VHF Freqs were transferred to ATC functions. This would now put the FIS back onto ATC Centre Freqs - increased congestion and delays in service - That makes sense??
Other forums rumour the ATC staff cut to be in the order of 10% -
around 200 or so staff 'across the board'.
So, that, combined with this proposal, would indicate that the industry will get LESS, at MORE cost, and the ATC's will be expected to do MORE, with LESS staff. (more or less...couldn't help that - but, you get the idea...)
Interestingly, the FAA of the USA, has announced on
Aero-News (Fri. 25 Aug '06)
that THEIR plan is to HIRE MORE than 1,130 additional ATC's in fiscal year 2007 - based on updated traffic forecasts, retirements etc. The plan also allows for the hiring of more than 2,000 ATC's over the next 2 years to allow for retiring controllers and increase the size of its workforce by more than
200 ATC's.
Funny, thats the same number ASA are reducing by......but the percentages are vastly different of course.
The FAA plan "also adresses the broader need to hire more than 11,800 controllers over the next ten (10) years based on the latest attrition and traffic growth modelling..."
Its EASY to guess what ASA will do when the attrition rate vs traffic becomes a real issue - REDUCE SERVICES FURTHER!!!
What else will they then be capable of doing???
I simply fail to comprehend the logic -
if there is any......
Cheers Guys and Gals....
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 2nd Sep 2006 at 02:31. Reason: space / punctuation...
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Third Barstool on the left
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Translation for the uninitiated?
Hey Griffo!
I get the drift mate but... what is AUSFIC?
I think I can cope with FIS and ATC... but give us pyluts some more info with the three letter acronyms (TLA's) that only you Control Freaks (CF's) understand.
Thanks moit!
I get the drift mate but... what is AUSFIC?
I think I can cope with FIS and ATC... but give us pyluts some more info with the three letter acronyms (TLA's) that only you Control Freaks (CF's) understand.
Thanks moit!
Thread Starter
G'day 'Bendo',
Yeah, I know the acronyms really used to give me the 'irits' too...
NAIPS TAAATS etc etc ad nauseum......
Don't really quote me, but Australian Flight Info Centre???
Situated at YBBN ATS Building -
Houses the Flight Info Service (FIS) - both Domestic and International,
HF Services,
Flightwatch - a couple of VHF sites and HF,
The NOTAM Office,
CENSAR,
Briefing - such as it is nowadays...
etc etc and currently has around 100 or so staff.
I think........
Yeah, I know the acronyms really used to give me the 'irits' too...
NAIPS TAAATS etc etc ad nauseum......
Don't really quote me, but Australian Flight Info Centre???
Situated at YBBN ATS Building -
Houses the Flight Info Service (FIS) - both Domestic and International,
HF Services,
Flightwatch - a couple of VHF sites and HF,
The NOTAM Office,
CENSAR,
Briefing - such as it is nowadays...
etc etc and currently has around 100 or so staff.
I think........
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way I understand it is this
AusFIC = Australian Flight Information Centre = the old "briefing office"
domestic HF
international HF
Flightwatch VHF - 29 freqs
CENSAR
Briefing
NOTAM office
Message switching
It is staffed by <100 and that is going to be cut by 19 by July 2007 (about a 20%cut)
There was a "review" done last year that essentially proposed moving AusFIC functions into the ATC centres and this is the basis for the staff cut.
This review seems to be getting legs and by the end of 2006, the Flightwatch VHF freqs (29 at various sites around the country) will be decommissioned and ATC will action flightwatch requests as part of their normal duties - as opposed to telling pilots to "Contact Flightwatch".
Point to note here is that ATC already can/should provide FIS (Flight Information Service) on their freqs but are often too busy to do so; hence the "contact Flightwatch" out.
One rumour also is that the Flightwatch freqs are not to be decommissioned but merely moved to ATC consoles and allow ATC to mute them when need be. BAD idea if someone calls with a problem/IFE don't you think??? Kinda tough to hear a MADay/PAN call with the freq rejected/muted: and from what I am told - there have been quite a few situations where IFE calls have been made on VHF flightwatch.
Nomination/cancellation of SARTIME is a huge component of VHF flightwatch ops and that too will have to be handled by the ATCer. They will have to coord the sartime details to their Flight Data person who will have to coord that to the CENSAR operator. Did I just hear someone mention "SARTIME Mismanagment" and ESIR???
Numbers of sartimes on VHF are about 3000 per month. Quite a few to have to triple handle.
Another good rumour doing the rounds is that SARTIMES are to change. I have not been able to find out much about that but I guess that it could have something to do with reducing access to SARTIMES or at least making it more difficult to nominate/cancel them. Maybe something like a hybrid SARTIME/US system of opening and closing a flight plan by phone????
All in all, I think it will mean a serious reduction of services available to the GA sector and to all users of Flightwatch - which includes most if not all aviators in the country.
AusFIC = Australian Flight Information Centre = the old "briefing office"
domestic HF
international HF
Flightwatch VHF - 29 freqs
CENSAR
Briefing
NOTAM office
Message switching
It is staffed by <100 and that is going to be cut by 19 by July 2007 (about a 20%cut)
There was a "review" done last year that essentially proposed moving AusFIC functions into the ATC centres and this is the basis for the staff cut.
This review seems to be getting legs and by the end of 2006, the Flightwatch VHF freqs (29 at various sites around the country) will be decommissioned and ATC will action flightwatch requests as part of their normal duties - as opposed to telling pilots to "Contact Flightwatch".
Point to note here is that ATC already can/should provide FIS (Flight Information Service) on their freqs but are often too busy to do so; hence the "contact Flightwatch" out.
One rumour also is that the Flightwatch freqs are not to be decommissioned but merely moved to ATC consoles and allow ATC to mute them when need be. BAD idea if someone calls with a problem/IFE don't you think??? Kinda tough to hear a MADay/PAN call with the freq rejected/muted: and from what I am told - there have been quite a few situations where IFE calls have been made on VHF flightwatch.
Nomination/cancellation of SARTIME is a huge component of VHF flightwatch ops and that too will have to be handled by the ATCer. They will have to coord the sartime details to their Flight Data person who will have to coord that to the CENSAR operator. Did I just hear someone mention "SARTIME Mismanagment" and ESIR???
Numbers of sartimes on VHF are about 3000 per month. Quite a few to have to triple handle.
Another good rumour doing the rounds is that SARTIMES are to change. I have not been able to find out much about that but I guess that it could have something to do with reducing access to SARTIMES or at least making it more difficult to nominate/cancel them. Maybe something like a hybrid SARTIME/US system of opening and closing a flight plan by phone????
All in all, I think it will mean a serious reduction of services available to the GA sector and to all users of Flightwatch - which includes most if not all aviators in the country.
Heard on 'the grapevine'......
Interestingly, the FAA of the USA, has announced on
Aero-News (Fri. 25 Aug '06)
that THEIR plan is to HIRE MORE than 1,130 additional ATC's in fiscal year 2007 - based on updated traffic forecasts, retirements etc. The plan also allows for the hiring of more than 2,000 ATC's over the next 2 years to allow for retiring controllers and increase the size of its workforce by more than
200 ATC's.
Interestingly, the FAA of the USA, has announced on
Aero-News (Fri. 25 Aug '06)
that THEIR plan is to HIRE MORE than 1,130 additional ATC's in fiscal year 2007 - based on updated traffic forecasts, retirements etc. The plan also allows for the hiring of more than 2,000 ATC's over the next 2 years to allow for retiring controllers and increase the size of its workforce by more than
200 ATC's.
The main reason the FAA needs a major increase in controllers is because all those recruited in 81 as a result of the PATCO strike are at or approaching retirement - Reagan sacked all those on strike
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This rumour has been doing the rounds for sometime.
The initial plan to try and remove Sartime removal seems to have fallen over.
The grand plan for ATC is to restructure the sectors in to basically low level (Below FL245) and join them up laterally a bit more, combine the Radar High Level sectors along the East Coast (new Mode S Radars), and completely revise the non-radar High Level airspace over the GAFA, Oceans etc. trying to create 'flexible' sectors tha change depending upon the UPR/AUSOTS structure of the particular day.
One thing this does require is more ATC's not less - and therefore the ability to add AUSFIC roles on top of the ATC role is simply not possible.
Even on the current structure, it is more likely that we are 100 Operational ATCs short - the amount of overtime being worked and the frequency of TIBA alone shows it.
To suggest a reduction in ATC numbers further, whilst at the same time impementing this new airspace structure, and also attempting to consolidate AUSFIC roles in to the ATC role suggests that not everyone is playing to the same tune. Or that some of these rumours are od rhetoric from a few of the accountant types who need to leave the organisation.
Apparently the ASA executive know that to save their customer base money they need to be able to provide a different service - and to do that they need to staff and resource it properly. So let us hope we see that logic coming to fruition rather than the long knives approach of late.
The initial plan to try and remove Sartime removal seems to have fallen over.
The grand plan for ATC is to restructure the sectors in to basically low level (Below FL245) and join them up laterally a bit more, combine the Radar High Level sectors along the East Coast (new Mode S Radars), and completely revise the non-radar High Level airspace over the GAFA, Oceans etc. trying to create 'flexible' sectors tha change depending upon the UPR/AUSOTS structure of the particular day.
One thing this does require is more ATC's not less - and therefore the ability to add AUSFIC roles on top of the ATC role is simply not possible.
Even on the current structure, it is more likely that we are 100 Operational ATCs short - the amount of overtime being worked and the frequency of TIBA alone shows it.
To suggest a reduction in ATC numbers further, whilst at the same time impementing this new airspace structure, and also attempting to consolidate AUSFIC roles in to the ATC role suggests that not everyone is playing to the same tune. Or that some of these rumours are od rhetoric from a few of the accountant types who need to leave the organisation.
Apparently the ASA executive know that to save their customer base money they need to be able to provide a different service - and to do that they need to staff and resource it properly. So let us hope we see that logic coming to fruition rather than the long knives approach of late.
FACT: AUSFIC must remove 19 staff (20%)by financial year's end
FACT: AUSFIC told that services must be maintained
FACT: That's impossible to do
FACT: Briefing to ATC Flight Datas
FACT: VHF Flightwatch to ATC Sectors
FACT: Communications Centre to Techs
FACT: HF Flightwatch up in the air
FACT: Notam Office to AIS people
FACT: ATC numbers must be cut by 15%
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are FACTS and then there are posts claiming FACTS that are nothing more than a load of sh!t. 
Puece, up in the air "fact"; 15% "fact"; That's impossible to do "fact"...
Targets are not FACTS, they are targets, reality often amends targets...
The cold light of day will tell all, SDE is far from implemented; the reality of taking the high level sectors, with the Point to Point concept is probably good, but what you are left with may be totally unworkable; thus the SDE gets amended. "FACT" SDE is not determined; therefore no one could "FACTUALLY" guess at staff reductions. Sure they have a target, but from what I see the mantra is service first, then work on cutting...
SDE should reduce staff at the coal face; will it, not in my working lifetime; "FACT"...
Puece, up in the air "fact"; 15% "fact"; That's impossible to do "fact"...
Targets are not FACTS, they are targets, reality often amends targets...
The cold light of day will tell all, SDE is far from implemented; the reality of taking the high level sectors, with the Point to Point concept is probably good, but what you are left with may be totally unworkable; thus the SDE gets amended. "FACT" SDE is not determined; therefore no one could "FACTUALLY" guess at staff reductions. Sure they have a target, but from what I see the mantra is service first, then work on cutting...
SDE should reduce staff at the coal face; will it, not in my working lifetime; "FACT"...
SM4 Pirate,
You are correct. Nothing posted on these boards is FACT ... unless it has occurred in the past ... and thus, can be validated.
Anything of a future nature, like QANTAS buying x number of A380s or J* to start Honolulu services, or the RAAF to buy F22s is purely conjecture, a guess, a plan, an expectation, an intention ... the FACT is in the pudding.
Perhaps I should have said that it is a fact that it is PLANNED to ...... etc
You are correct. Nothing posted on these boards is FACT ... unless it has occurred in the past ... and thus, can be validated.
Anything of a future nature, like QANTAS buying x number of A380s or J* to start Honolulu services, or the RAAF to buy F22s is purely conjecture, a guess, a plan, an expectation, an intention ... the FACT is in the pudding.
Perhaps I should have said that it is a fact that it is PLANNED to ...... etc
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: A previous life
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Service Mantra!! Really????
The cold light of day will tell all, SDE is far from implemented; the reality of taking the high level sectors, with the Point to Point concept is probably good, but what you are left with may be totally unworkable; thus the SDE gets amended. "FACT" SDE is not determined; therefore no one could "FACTUALLY" guess at staff reductions. Sure they have a target, but from what I see the mantra is service first, then work on cutting...
The poor loser will again be the pilot. If, as Griffo's rumour suggests actually goes ahead, it seems that the ability of pilots to get information in Flight about say a destination several ATC sectors/frequencies ahead will be very difficult. The external (to ATC) standalone Flightwatch service is the simplest way to get inflight info, or make a change to flight plan. I'm sure all the regionals and freight haulers will not be pleased if they can't get the latest WX for destination/ALTN, because the "non" service delivery environment of the overloaded ATC sector is too busy, unable to handle an information request.
From what Slug has said, it looks like the proposal is pretty poorly thought out from an operational perspective, e.g. relay of infomation through several hands. It does seem dumb to put more work on fewer ATCs, and then increase the workload by doing it with relays to yet other people.
It would seem to me that the Flightwatch setup is pretty efficient as it is. You get an almost instant response to the information and the operator is the one that is guarding my Sartime. And I understand that they get less pay than controllers. ****su says that to do what Aircircuses is proposing will actually need MORE controllers. This whole thing doesn't make sense.
Maybe there are some people trying to "fly a kite" with this rumour to see if it crashes! Can anyone verify this???
Jamit
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Late mail
I just heard that a workshop is planned for this coming week to thrash out all the issues of VHF Flightwatch being turned off and FIS done by ATC.
Supposedly representatives from all atc groups will attend.
It sounds like a "how to do it" rather than a "can we do it" meeting???
Yes AusFIC staff get less $$ that ATCs and do run a very lean operation with a roster that has a high ratio of console time to rostered hours (If the numbers in other posts are to be believed).
I think puece is correct in that it is impossible for AusFIC to maintain services *and* cut 20% of staff.
I don't know about the rumours v facts of staff/service cuts: but look at the rest of the "right sizing" in Airservices and you could easily conclude that some form of change is coming to the operational service.
I just heard that a workshop is planned for this coming week to thrash out all the issues of VHF Flightwatch being turned off and FIS done by ATC.
Supposedly representatives from all atc groups will attend.
It sounds like a "how to do it" rather than a "can we do it" meeting???
Yes AusFIC staff get less $$ that ATCs and do run a very lean operation with a roster that has a high ratio of console time to rostered hours (If the numbers in other posts are to be believed).
I think puece is correct in that it is impossible for AusFIC to maintain services *and* cut 20% of staff.
I don't know about the rumours v facts of staff/service cuts: but look at the rest of the "right sizing" in Airservices and you could easily conclude that some form of change is coming to the operational service.
Thread Starter
G'day to all....
History: - Step 1 - "Let's 'downsize' F.S.".....12.12.'91 ....Done!
(How? By REDUCING / ELIMINATING SERVICES....)
Step 2 - "Let's 'Get rid of F.S."......15.12.2000....Done!
(How? By REDUCING / ELIMINATING SERVICES....)
(Only took 'them' nine (9) Years!!!)
Step 3 - "Let's 'Get rid of AusFIC"......We'll start by "Downsizing"
first - THEN, we'll get rid of them......
( How? By..............................)
You can fill in the blanks.............
You've got the drift.......
Enjoy...."Air No Services".......(But, YOU still pay......)
Cheers!
History: - Step 1 - "Let's 'downsize' F.S.".....12.12.'91 ....Done!
(How? By REDUCING / ELIMINATING SERVICES....)
Step 2 - "Let's 'Get rid of F.S."......15.12.2000....Done!
(How? By REDUCING / ELIMINATING SERVICES....)
(Only took 'them' nine (9) Years!!!)
Step 3 - "Let's 'Get rid of AusFIC"......We'll start by "Downsizing"
first - THEN, we'll get rid of them......
( How? By..............................)
You can fill in the blanks.............
You've got the drift.......
Enjoy...."Air No Services".......(But, YOU still pay......)
Cheers!
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 3rd Sep 2006 at 05:48.
Enjoy...."Air No Services".......(But, YOU still pay......)
Zero
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Return to Shareholder.
Well, we all know there is only one - and supposedly that shareholder is 'employed' by all of us.
Nice theory. A post from another forum about this structure:
*TFN = Greg Russell - CEO of ASA.
Will be interesting to see if ATC's are 'consulted' or told. There is one definite fact that you can take to the bank - current ATC numbers can not take a cut in numbers and continue even their current duties - they are unable to cover their current duties with existing numbers without significant overtime, and even cancelled recreation leave. This does not take in to account acquiting outstanding recreational leave and sufficient training time for new projects (such as SDE). To then suggest that AUSFIC functions will be 'integrated' (or whatever weasel word you wish to choose) in to the ATC roles leaves only one possible outcome - the AUSFIC functions will cease to be - either that or the ATC functions will cease to be.
Even ICAO think it is a nonsense.
Well, we all know there is only one - and supposedly that shareholder is 'employed' by all of us.
Nice theory. A post from another forum about this structure:
You describe what is essentialy the problem with most (real) businesses in Australia and indeed around the world.
Overpromising and under-delivering with the exit strategy of the golden parachute is the disease that many CEO's are infecting previously sound organisations with.
Imagine if Airservices was a real business and we actually had a shareprice to measure market sentiment? I wonder where it would have moved over the past 2 years or so?
I don't think TFN* is a fool - he is just working within the parameter he has been given - given by those to whom you probably refer (i.e. who are the idiots?).
Is it that we are really stuck with this zero-net-gain scenario as long as we continue to be a pretend business? i.e. not private and not government. Telstra is another example where the executive are stuck in an impossible position, however they have taken on their (currently) majority masters in a very public attempt to rectify the problem. The executive of Airservices have no personal interest in such courage. But would we be better being simply a government department again? In my view that is a tricky question. I think we might actually be even more politicised, and possibly even more bloated with Canberra parasites.
Overpromising and under-delivering with the exit strategy of the golden parachute is the disease that many CEO's are infecting previously sound organisations with.
Imagine if Airservices was a real business and we actually had a shareprice to measure market sentiment? I wonder where it would have moved over the past 2 years or so?
I don't think TFN* is a fool - he is just working within the parameter he has been given - given by those to whom you probably refer (i.e. who are the idiots?).
Is it that we are really stuck with this zero-net-gain scenario as long as we continue to be a pretend business? i.e. not private and not government. Telstra is another example where the executive are stuck in an impossible position, however they have taken on their (currently) majority masters in a very public attempt to rectify the problem. The executive of Airservices have no personal interest in such courage. But would we be better being simply a government department again? In my view that is a tricky question. I think we might actually be even more politicised, and possibly even more bloated with Canberra parasites.
Will be interesting to see if ATC's are 'consulted' or told. There is one definite fact that you can take to the bank - current ATC numbers can not take a cut in numbers and continue even their current duties - they are unable to cover their current duties with existing numbers without significant overtime, and even cancelled recreation leave. This does not take in to account acquiting outstanding recreational leave and sufficient training time for new projects (such as SDE). To then suggest that AUSFIC functions will be 'integrated' (or whatever weasel word you wish to choose) in to the ATC roles leaves only one possible outcome - the AUSFIC functions will cease to be - either that or the ATC functions will cease to be.
Even ICAO think it is a nonsense.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Tiwi Islandz
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Next thing you know all Airservices centres will be migrated to Indian Call Centres...
Velcom do Brisbayne (Calcutta) Cender, my name is Sanjeev, vat area vould you like me do fax do you?
Velcom do Brisbayne (Calcutta) Cender, my name is Sanjeev, vat area vould you like me do fax do you?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icarus2001,
"Zero"
is understood.
I'm interested to know what is your take on the provision of services to this section on industry?
Are you putting forward that no services should be provided or that there should be a cost involved?
"Zero"
is understood.
I'm interested to know what is your take on the provision of services to this section on industry?
Are you putting forward that no services should be provided or that there should be a cost involved?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pirate old son, I must beg to differ with your assertion that Aircircuses is all about service.
There of course is likely to be some undermining of the principles by those that sit above; the board when realising how much it's all going to cost in the cold light of day may change the Mantra quickly; but until more flesh is on the bones there won't be a change in the current principles.
Do I expect a change when it comes down to dollars and cents, absolutely, but until then I think that there is some real value in exploring further these ideas.
ECS is going to have about half the ATCs, RS about 40% and UAS about 5%. This makes UAS a real cash cow (50% of the revenue and 5% of costs...) Current charges for Oceanic and continental cruise is massive; if it's done with bugger all ATC then there is your first privatised ATC unit, but that's a whole other topic...
Enufsaid, I think the concept is bring all the other airspace here, not the otherway around... "global domination, mmmuuuhhhhaaawwwaaahhhh!"
TFNs hasn't impressed many, yet, and he does appear to be here on a short term basis and probably positioning himself to maximise his payout; rumours abounding elsewhere about new recruits for MAp (but I hear the Axe and TFN don't get along)...
The real joy of this adventure is when the CA expires only 14 months to go until negotiations start again (this is why the structure must be implace by mid next year). I'm wondering how many OMs will take the current AWAs on offer, I've never seen a more pissed-off bunch of managers... Worse than taking the car deal away...
Last edited by SM4 Pirate; 4th Sep 2006 at 23:48. Reason: edited to add the last paragraph...
Thread Starter
G'day Icarus,
I don't know about you, but, have you faxed a Flight Plan in recently?
Lodged a SARTIME?
Then phoned to 'confirm receipt?
Paid with your 'PHONECARD' BOTH times?? Real money.......
And, yes, CURRENTLY you CAN call FlightWatch and receive the weather etc etc for ZERO.....
I think THAT is the point 'they' are trying to stop.....(My Opinion)
Currently, nobody is actually paying for FW 'RADIO' services directly.........
But, IFR do pay for ATC en-route, who will be the SOLE provider of these services, "When Time / Workload Permits" - i.e. you may ask, but you may not necessarily receive....
Hence my comment....
Cheers
I don't know about you, but, have you faxed a Flight Plan in recently?
Lodged a SARTIME?
Then phoned to 'confirm receipt?
Paid with your 'PHONECARD' BOTH times?? Real money.......
And, yes, CURRENTLY you CAN call FlightWatch and receive the weather etc etc for ZERO.....
I think THAT is the point 'they' are trying to stop.....(My Opinion)
Currently, nobody is actually paying for FW 'RADIO' services directly.........
But, IFR do pay for ATC en-route, who will be the SOLE provider of these services, "When Time / Workload Permits" - i.e. you may ask, but you may not necessarily receive....
Hence my comment....
Cheers
Griffo, forever a RaDO and diplomat!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: A previous life
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about Safety?
Griffo,
I take your point that this whole exercise has an endpoint of effectively removing the service that Flightwatch currently provides.
The posts of Pirate and co certainly convince one that putting the task on to ATC is not going to get wings. If the management is hell bent on reducing the staff as rumoured above, then the only way they can go is to stop the provision of Flightwatch!!
So is there no interest from the IFR community who call up Flightwatch for the latest weather, Are they not interested in their own safety??
As I recall, the ICAO definition of "FIS" goes something like "the provision of such advice and information so as to ensure the safety of flight".
Do these Managers that pirate quotes really want the political odium of having to justify the removal of a safety service, albeit one that is relatively revenue neutral?? As Sir Humphrey would have said: "Courageous Minister!"
I take your point that this whole exercise has an endpoint of effectively removing the service that Flightwatch currently provides.
The posts of Pirate and co certainly convince one that putting the task on to ATC is not going to get wings. If the management is hell bent on reducing the staff as rumoured above, then the only way they can go is to stop the provision of Flightwatch!!
So is there no interest from the IFR community who call up Flightwatch for the latest weather, Are they not interested in their own safety??
As I recall, the ICAO definition of "FIS" goes something like "the provision of such advice and information so as to ensure the safety of flight".
Do these Managers that pirate quotes really want the political odium of having to justify the removal of a safety service, albeit one that is relatively revenue neutral?? As Sir Humphrey would have said: "Courageous Minister!"