Whats going on with ATC Shortage?
extralite, the reason so few of us have been "tempted" to return is age. We were all at least 56 so probably approaching retirement anyway. It very definitely wouldn't be a case of walking back into the job as regaining a medical would probably not be straightforward and we'd need to undergo retraining. Why would anyone approaching 60 or older want to? Not to mention 5am/6am starts.
LB, to be honest when the redundancy program was mooted it wasn't at all obvious air traffic was going to pick up as fast as it did. By the time we left it was evident things were picking up to an extent but it still wasn't entirely evident how much faster it would occur. More than a few airlines were equally caught with their pants down. All of us were likely within five years of retirement at most.
All that goes to show is that all the highly-paid executives who are supposed to be smarter than the rest of us and be better strategic planners, aren’t. What was their ‘Plan B’ and ‘Plan C’. TIBA and TRA should be Plan Z.
There is plenty of research out there on how strongly traffic picks up after a global shock, to say it caught anyone by surprise indicates that that anyone is ignorant and ill informed. Every rebound has been strong and eclipses the previous traffic levels.
Airservices is on par with Qantas, once a journalist has the will to investigate this it'll be a great story and it will eclipse Qantas shenanigans.
Airservices is on par with Qantas, once a journalist has the will to investigate this it'll be a great story and it will eclipse Qantas shenanigans.
From an article about Qantas.
There was a lot of demand, the sheer volume of flight credits that they (QF) were holding should've told them something. And baby boomers trying to catch up for 2-3 years of no travel. One of AsA's executives previously worked with IATA (airline data), and AsA being part of CANSO (ANSPs), so there would've been lots of information.
Unfortunately the new normal is reduced traffic flows, delays and restrictions.
But they (QF) also should have understood that demand could bounce a lot quicker than they (QF) had planned
Unfortunately the new normal is reduced traffic flows, delays and restrictions.
The following 3 users liked this post by missy:
I don't think it's a hindsight thing, it's called leadership and not being able to admit when you are wrong. Every ATC is happy to take VR, once in a generation opportunity, but it was a poor decision given the amount of work needing to done. Project after project after project. OneSky, INTAS for Sydney Tower, programs to enhance network air traffic flow management, including airport collaborative decision making (A-CDM) and long-range air traffic flow management (LR-ATFM).
Last edited by sunnySA; 12th Sep 2023 at 10:20. Reason: spelling
The following 5 users liked this post by sunnySA:
For each of the TIBA/TRA and OPR Restrictions NOTAMs there are probably a dozen times where units / sectors / groups / Towers are operating short staffed or without a Supervisor. If the ATCs stopped working O/T or stopped accepting changes of shifts, for an even a week the place would completely collapse.
Guys have gotta stop working on RDO's & "helping" them out with duty changes for a token payment, if you want to get their attention. Conditions will NEVER change as long as they keep crewing flights.
The following users liked this post:
- SERVICE OBLIGATION
5.1. The parties to this Agreement recognise that Airservices is obligated to continuously provide safe and efficient air traffic services in accordance with the provisions of the Air Services Act 1995 (Cth) and Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth).
5.2. In meeting this obligation, the parties to this Agreement commit to the development, application and review of mechanisms, consistent with the obligations of clause 8 (Consultation on Change), to provide service continuity on an on-going basis to ensure the safety of air navigation.
When you have conditions like Unlimited Sick Leave, you are always going to struggle to have staff turn up when they are supposed to.
Hi TIEW - as you would remember from your FSO days, under CASRs you are not allowed to operate when sick, therefore unlimited sick leave must be a prerequisite of any organisation that operates under CASRs. To limit sick leave would be a contravention of the CASRs. Do you not agree?
But that is not the problem.......
Airservices is a Government organisation that is required to recover its cost from the industry. This is, was, and always will be, complete nonsense for a public service that has monopoly control of a national asset; that is the airspace available for flying.
Other comparable countries do not do this. Their airspace control agencies are either military, a joint civil-military agency or a not-for-profit civil agency. That is a different thread, so let's return to Airservices.
Qantas claims, is it 60% of air traffic in Australia? Hence, they pay the majority of the money "earned" by Airservices. Almost all of that revenue is "earned" in the upper airspace and particularly in the approaches to Australia gifted to us by ICAO, the Oceanic airspace. That is why they concentrate their "One-Skys" on this area. A fundamental requirement of One Sky is the feed that goes into the Airservices revenue branch, ATC is what creates and sustains that monetary feed.
So, if you were running a business, and 60% of your income came from one customer, and another 20% from overseas customers in your upper and oceanic airspace, where would your Boss (currently Catherine King) want you to concentrate your efforts?
As a CASA ATC inspector, I saw control towers falling apart, and control cabs no longer fit for purpose. I saw airport plans to build new control towers continuously knee-capped by Airservices, their reluctance to open new control towers at airports trying to get a foothold in the industry, and all efforts directed into making sure the primary customer (Qantas, and on their coat-tails, other airlines) was satisfied.
This, I believe, is not the job of a government agency. It should be operating a service for all Australians that combines defence of the airspace, with, in peacetime, an airspace system that protects fare paying passengers while expediting the nation's commerce and allowing recreational airspace users to also participate. In short, the airspace should be defended by the RAAF while Airservices expedites commerce and protects everyone paying a fare to travel. (Another new thread should anyone wish to pursue it)
The Australian Government should:
1. Change the Airservices model to not-for-profit. (if it makes too much in a given time period, the money is returned to industry, not to the federal government)
2. Insist that the RAAF defends Australian airspace, by establishing radar systems capable of detecting aircraft that are not declaring their presence in Australian airspace. (Currently, Airservices is decommissioning radar in favour of ADS-B, the RAAF, to the best of my knowledge only has one air defence radar, JORN)
3. Do this by having Airservices and the RAAF jointly monitor radar defence systems, instead of complacently assuming the Indonesians might tell us about "incoming" before they hit Darwin.
4. Change the airspace regulation process to accommodate the above (the current top-down approach) to allow ambitious airports to apply for local airspace categorisations and employ their own air traffic controllers to administer that airspace. (This is a bottom-up approach)
5. This will require minor changes to CASR Parts 172 and 171 (if radars are to be used) and to the airspace act and regulations. (PS. None of this is new, it takes some of the characteristics of the US and UK airspace models and plants them into an Australian context)
A few other things would need to be modified, but if we do not start with some fundamental changes, the 1950s system we have now will never change.
But that is not the problem.......
Airservices is a Government organisation that is required to recover its cost from the industry. This is, was, and always will be, complete nonsense for a public service that has monopoly control of a national asset; that is the airspace available for flying.
Other comparable countries do not do this. Their airspace control agencies are either military, a joint civil-military agency or a not-for-profit civil agency. That is a different thread, so let's return to Airservices.
Qantas claims, is it 60% of air traffic in Australia? Hence, they pay the majority of the money "earned" by Airservices. Almost all of that revenue is "earned" in the upper airspace and particularly in the approaches to Australia gifted to us by ICAO, the Oceanic airspace. That is why they concentrate their "One-Skys" on this area. A fundamental requirement of One Sky is the feed that goes into the Airservices revenue branch, ATC is what creates and sustains that monetary feed.
So, if you were running a business, and 60% of your income came from one customer, and another 20% from overseas customers in your upper and oceanic airspace, where would your Boss (currently Catherine King) want you to concentrate your efforts?
As a CASA ATC inspector, I saw control towers falling apart, and control cabs no longer fit for purpose. I saw airport plans to build new control towers continuously knee-capped by Airservices, their reluctance to open new control towers at airports trying to get a foothold in the industry, and all efforts directed into making sure the primary customer (Qantas, and on their coat-tails, other airlines) was satisfied.
This, I believe, is not the job of a government agency. It should be operating a service for all Australians that combines defence of the airspace, with, in peacetime, an airspace system that protects fare paying passengers while expediting the nation's commerce and allowing recreational airspace users to also participate. In short, the airspace should be defended by the RAAF while Airservices expedites commerce and protects everyone paying a fare to travel. (Another new thread should anyone wish to pursue it)
The Australian Government should:
1. Change the Airservices model to not-for-profit. (if it makes too much in a given time period, the money is returned to industry, not to the federal government)
2. Insist that the RAAF defends Australian airspace, by establishing radar systems capable of detecting aircraft that are not declaring their presence in Australian airspace. (Currently, Airservices is decommissioning radar in favour of ADS-B, the RAAF, to the best of my knowledge only has one air defence radar, JORN)
3. Do this by having Airservices and the RAAF jointly monitor radar defence systems, instead of complacently assuming the Indonesians might tell us about "incoming" before they hit Darwin.
4. Change the airspace regulation process to accommodate the above (the current top-down approach) to allow ambitious airports to apply for local airspace categorisations and employ their own air traffic controllers to administer that airspace. (This is a bottom-up approach)
5. This will require minor changes to CASR Parts 172 and 171 (if radars are to be used) and to the airspace act and regulations. (PS. None of this is new, it takes some of the characteristics of the US and UK airspace models and plants them into an Australian context)
A few other things would need to be modified, but if we do not start with some fundamental changes, the 1950s system we have now will never change.
TIEW, sick leave as required with a bunch of conditions, like holding a Class 3 medical, fit for duty, etc.
Geoff, agreed, funding modelling for AsA is clearly wrong.
Facilities are falling apart, or not being repaired. I imagine at some point the radar will be decommissioned.
Oakey radar U/S, another extension.
Geoff, agreed, funding modelling for AsA is clearly wrong.
Facilities are falling apart, or not being repaired. I imagine at some point the radar will be decommissioned.
B1352/23 REVIEW B994/23
RADAR COVERAGE, RADAR INFO SER AND RADAR BASED TRAFFIC INFO SER WEST
OF OAKEY (ROMA/GOONDIWINDI AREAS) NOT AVBL
DLA/RESTRICTIONS MAY OCCUR IN CTA
DUE OAKEY PSR/SSR FAILURE
FROM 09 110925 TO 11 220000 EST
RADAR COVERAGE, RADAR INFO SER AND RADAR BASED TRAFFIC INFO SER WEST
OF OAKEY (ROMA/GOONDIWINDI AREAS) NOT AVBL
DLA/RESTRICTIONS MAY OCCUR IN CTA
DUE OAKEY PSR/SSR FAILURE
FROM 09 110925 TO 11 220000 EST
under CASRs you are not allowed to operate when sick, therefore unlimited sick leave must be a prerequisite of any organisation that operates under CASRs. To limit sick leave would be a contravention of the CASRs. Do you not agree?
Not at all. Some people are unsuited medically for aviation. If someone is so sick they can't perform their job then the employer is within their rights to let them go. Businessess aren't charities, required to financially support someone through extended long term or repeated sickness. That doesn't contravene any regs.
Checkboard - You are of course correct, and that is how it works with Airservices.
It is, however, illegal in Australia to sack an employee because they're injured or sick for up to three months, if they have a medical certificate.
Airservices simply goes one step further, and given the cost and scarcity of air traffic controllers, will go even further for the right people.
They can, of course, be deployed into activities that do not require a medical, this happens quite often.
Charity does not come into it. Missy completes the picture.
It is, however, illegal in Australia to sack an employee because they're injured or sick for up to three months, if they have a medical certificate.
Airservices simply goes one step further, and given the cost and scarcity of air traffic controllers, will go even further for the right people.
They can, of course, be deployed into activities that do not require a medical, this happens quite often.
Charity does not come into it. Missy completes the picture.
as you would remember from your FSO days, under CASRs you are not allowed to operate when sick
Apart from that, I got the standard 5 days or whatever it was per year sick leave entitlement hangover from the old public service days. I'm pretty sure ATC at that time did too. Consequently, not many people went sick. You didn't waste sick days on actually being sick. When I left the game I reckon I could count on one hand the number of sick days I had actually taken during my 10 years. Unlimited sick leave for ATC was something introduced in an EBA back in the CAA days in the 90's. It was offered by Buck Brooksbank as a way of writing off a large unfunded accrued sick leave liability. It was sold at the time as a way of ensuring that someone with a long term illness would have the entire period of their illness covered, but it was really to fix the AsA books. Their stupidity was in not removing it from future EBAs.
From a Jan 2009 thread:
It was introduced years ago to remove a large overhang of unused sickleave from the accounts- to make the books look better, as unused defined sickleave sits as a liability on the books. So a former management, keen to make the books look better, managed to remove a large liability quickly and painlessly by offering controllers unlimited sick leave.
Last edited by Traffic_Is_Er_Was; 13th Sep 2023 at 12:43.
You make it sound like everyone is just off having sick days. I can count on 2 fingers the number of sick days I have had in the last 5 years. Not everyone is just off swanning around sick. To be fair, I haven't included the 10 days isolation I had to take when a member of the household tested positive to COVID, even though I never got it. But that was a state govt requirement, and I don't believe it was entered as sick leave from memory.
You make it sound like everyone is just off having sick days. I can count on 2 fingers the number of sick days I have had in the last 5 years. Not everyone is just off swanning around sick. To be fair, I haven't included the 10 days isolation I had to take when a member of the household tested positive to COVID, even though I never got it. But that was a state govt requirement, and I don't believe it was entered as sick leave from memory.
The following users liked this post:
The following 2 users liked this post by Awol57: