Thanks Frank, point taken.

O.K. -
How will the salaries - Civil v Military - be 'adjusted' for both parties doing the same job, in the same environment, presumably doing the same rosters etc, (Doggoes etc) even though most Military bases would normally 'close' at night / weekends?

And, will either party require more training for the differences in the Military v Civil system / standards (?) ?

And, if so, how much do ya reckon?? :ok::ok:

Dunno;

I'll ask The Minister by email this afternoon. Don't expect a rapid reply.

This is the letter sent today.
 

Anthony Albanese MP,
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.
PO Box 6022
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
[email protected]
Dear Sir;

I refer you to The Australian Newspaper on 15 September 2009 and note that the Rudd Government has decided to merge the military air traffic control system with the civilian, (ie. Airservices Australia).

I also note in 2002, a Defence document signed by current Australian Defence Force chief Angus Houston stated: ‘Australia simply cannot justify, sustain or afford to continue operating two almost identical air traffic management systems’.

Whilst many of us applaud such an initiative I am cognizant of some very serious hurdles the government will have to overcome. I have been seriously asked by someone with a genuine interest how will the salaries - Civil v Military - be 'adjusted' for both parties doing the same job, in the same environment, presumably doing the same rosters etc, (Doggoes etc) even though most Military bases would normally 'close' at night / weekends? And, will either party require more training for the differences in the Military v Civil system / standards and, if so, how much?

Many readers of a major public forum will also be interested in your response which I presume you will have no objection to my sharing.

Yours most sincerely,

Frank,

Good luck with getting anything concrete out of 'Big Tony'.
By the way I'm getting bad reception out of my radio, should I have the husk on or off?

This thread is a load of rubbish started off by a crap article. Some have taken it as gospel.

There is no "merging of ATC", there is no "take over by ASA". There won't be any system where ASA controllers are reservists who get deployed. Its all BS. The article talks a lot of crap about a lot of issues and they're all rolled in together. Along the way people think that this great take over/merger will happen. ITS NOT HAPPENING. ITS SPECULATION.

Reality time;
The working groups from Defence and ASA have been together for some time discussing the next Gen ATC SYSTEM, combined training and other ways to improve the overall ATC system and save money.

Thats it.

C-change;

It's always good to get some positive, definitive proof from an unbiased source and with such a grasp on the workings of a crystal ball.

I have obviously wasted my time writing to the Minister for comment when his reply is not now needed. But I suppose a non reply will be even more positive proof that it is crap.

max1;

If he doesn't reply, it will tell you more about the Minister than a reply probably would. Also check the thronmeister isn't wet.:cool:

Thankyou Frank.

I share your last (above) and applaud your effort.

Cheers. :ok::ok:

P.s. A spray with WD-40 usually works....for me anyway.....:ok::ok:

Frank,

Not trying to upset you or others but some have just taken the original article and ran with it, seeing it as a plan for the future. Nothing wrong with trying the pollie also, hope you get a response. You might get something back from a staffer, maybe.


For others, have a read of ollie A's post #21 (the link), then read DNC's post #23 and finally RAAFASA's at # 36.

During a recent visit, CAF and the head of RAAF ATC discussed what was published in the response sent to the Australian.
So no, I don't have a crytal ball, but I did listen to what they had to say and they responded honestly to some tough questions. The original article and its contents were actually discussed at length.