All:

Through my brother, who is an FAA instructor at the FAA academy in Oklahoma City, I became aware of a situation in which I believe you will have personal interest. It involves a bizarre set of circumstances which have created potential compromises to air safety. Because I have been quite detailed in the document found at the following URL, I won't repeat the information here. I would appreciate it if you could take the time to review it, and, if inclined, to help protest. This URL is no consequence to the issue.. It is for a small company I own with my son and daughter. I've simply created a folder there for this purpose.

Thanks very much for your assistance.
http://206.107.120.225/PAMM/FlyerTalkAppeal.htm
Sorry - will work now...



[This message has been edited by svpii (edited 10-09-2000).]

The link does not work.

Larry

Sorry - I've amended URL to the numbers:
http://206.107.120.225/PAMM/FlyerTalkAppeal.htm

[This message has been edited by svpii (edited 10-09-2000).]

I read most of your link although not in detail. A couple of things quickly come to mind:

1- no detail or data is given re your claim of diminished "air safety" etc

2- it would appear any salary negations should be the primary focus or your brother's union reps

3- you give neither salary nor responsibility info, only a reference to "...How do you imagine co-workers will interact in an office with people of equal qualifications and tenure, doing the same job, whose annual salary is up to $20,000 greater? Equal pay for equal work should be required by law. (Or is it already?)...". This happens all the time FOR NON-UNION JOBS. I have the same or better "qualifications and tenure" as many of the VP's in my company, but unfortunately my annual salary/bonus is about $200,000 less per annum (my source is the company annual report and my monthly pay stub).

4- the current price (10 Oct 2000) of a 1 oz FC USPS stamp is 33 cents

MisterNice

"Equal pay for equal work should be required by law. (Or is it already?)...".

Certainly it should be equal, in my view -but if it was illegal, then women would not rotinely be receiving less pay!

Regarding the issue at hand, however, I'd certainly think that most FT'ers would like our ATC folks to be happy and get along reasonably well just as we expect them to be awake and well trained!

I'd write in support of them as well, but it may well be due to my penchant for a more egalitarian society!

BTW- MisterNice- May I suggest that if we meet for drinks sometime in the future that you pick up the first round!

I was resisting posting here, hoping this thread would simply fade away. But seeing as it has attracted attention, I feel compelled to add my 2 cents.

Yes, your brother and the others like him got a bad deal. But with all due respect, he and they do have options. They can go back to being sups and controllers - there are positions available - and get the pay raise they want. Increased staffing at centers and TRACONS by people already qualified would certainly improve air safety more than an increase in salary would for people in staff positions.

The FAA academy no longer trains most new recruits. While it used to be that all new hires went to Oklahoma City for three months of pass/fail training, the FAA has figured out it saves the taxpayers money by having the training privatized. Most new hires now come out of a college program in Minnesota and never see the FAA academy. There is little danger of not being able to train ATCs due to lack of filling staff postions at the academy.

Yes, some of the regional and headquarters staff positions may require ATC training, but many are glorified secretarial positions, requiring people to review paperwork that has already been completed at the facility level, that come with six-figure salaries.

The amount of pay the controllers and supervisors receive has a lot to do with working around the clock and the stress of working traffic. People in staff positions have none of that. Supervisors and controllers make more than staff people for the same reasons software engineers make more than quality assurance people. Quality assuarance people know engineering job, but they're not actually doing it.

One point that's been made many times is that staff people were happy with their pay before controllers got a raise. Why are they unhappy now? They didn't get a pay cut.

As for the number of bidders to the academy ... 22 bids for five positions is far better than the couple of bidders that New York center received for a bid that's been open for three or four years (and is still open).

Mr Nice: The positions the letter refers to are non-union.


[This message has been edited by letiole (edited 10-10-2000).]

Thanks for the clarification, letiole.

While I'm actually an outsider, what struck me about the situation is shown in the following paragraphs:

Prior to 1998 there were approximately 60 FAA terminal and enroute air traffic control Instructors at the Academy, comprised of some of the most experienced controllers from the largest/busiest airports in the world (Chicago TRACON, Dallas Tower, New York TRACON, Atlanta Center, Cleveland Center, etc). Since pay reclassification in 1998, the FAA�s Academy has lost, without replacement, approximately 46% of its FAA instructors who have accepted assignments back to field positions.

Where they can return to the salary level consistent with their active controller peers. In a corporate setting where one may have similar experience and qualifications as a corporate office but are not receiving similar pay, it's because they, in fact, are not corporate officers. In this case, the controllers are controllers - and hopefully some of the best ones! They aren't just like them - they ARE them.

In a recent attempt to shore up the depleted staff of instructors, the FAA announced five vacancies for bid. Only 22 bidders applied for these vacancies. These bidders were primarily from the smaller facilities that do not work the volume of traffic the more experienced controllers from hub facilities deal with daily. Prior to the pay reclassification of 1998, the Academy received approximately 70 bidders PER VACANCY. This offered a broad panel of candidates with diverse backgrounds and experience from which to choose. As evidenced by the recent vacancy bid, these experienced controllers show no interest in bidding to instructor positions that offer no career incentive nor pay equality.

so what I get out of this is that the premier controllers are not motivated to train new controllers.. as a frequent flyer, I want a system where the very best are training the new controllers. I don't believe the engineer/QA comparison works here.. there's no revenue model influencing these salary levels. In a corporate environment, programmers and engineers make more because they are in short demand and drive product development. QA does so only indirectly and are easier to find. If I ran a national ad for a position in my company and received only 4 applicants for the position from hundreds or thousands across the country, I would be gravely concerned about (a) the quality of the applicants and (b) what was wrong with my offer. Certainly, 4 is better than two. Can't dispute that, but I don't think it goes to the heart of the issue.

With large scale Controller retirement looming, (as a result of the mass hiring to fill the 1981 strike vacancies) the Academy will not be capable of producing enough adequately trained replacements to fill the void left by the retired controllers. Controllers from busy facilities are better equipped to instruct the controllers of tomorrow on techniques and methods for dealing with the congestion and spacing problems they will be facing. The absence of these instructors will not be clearly visible until our system is filled with new controllers trained by less experienced instructors. What will the cost to fix the problem be then?

The FAA is insisting on relearning the lessons learned in the early 80�s when the field controllers� pay grade was increased and the Academy instructors� was not. The management at field facilities began complaining that the new hires they were receiving from the Academy were inadequately trained. There was no incentive for experienced specialists (instructors) to seek assignment at the Academy due to the lower pay grade.

they fixed it then and, I believe, they need to fix it now.

The lack of attention to the FAA training programs goes beyond the personnel issue. Airport delays and automation improvement have been hot topics in the news over the last few years, and the FAA is struggling to maintain a positive public image. Since training is not readily visible, funds have not been diverted there. The FAA recently announced that every Enroute Center was now equipped with the new controller scopes and automation � DSR. What didn�t get such broad dissemination was that the FAA Academy is still training new hire controllers on the old system that is no longer in use at any facility in the country. The current plan is for the Academy to get two systems for training development, but lab systems for hands-on student training won�t arrive for at least two more years. This example is a highlight, not the extent, of the FAA�s lack of emphasis on training programs at the Academy.

This reminds me of my days in the Marines when they trained me to fix radios that were no longer in use. When I got to the field, I had never seen the radios I need to repair.. but noone's life was in my hands!

I really have no interest in 'swaying' anyone.. if you react as I did, you will probably see the logic I see to support these 700 people. If you don't, you won't and that's fine.


Thanks, all!

svpii wrote:

Hardly. Most new hires never step foot inside the academy. They are recruited from a college in Minnesota that offers a program in ATC and then receive years of on-the-job training from highly experienced controllers whom are at field facilities. Even when trained at the academy, such as the old PATCO rehires, they still come to the field facilities in need of years of training provided by currently working controllers.

There are job openings for controllers to work traffic all over the country. Having trained controllers leave staff jobs to work airplanes is, I believe, part of the design.



[This message has been edited by letiole (edited 10-10-2000).]

Thanks for the further information on this subject. It does show the many various options available not noted in the original post. I incorrectly assumed it was a union position.

As for doc's request, I will buy ALL the drinks you desire at our 1st meeting. You have nicely provided me with much travel information, many tips for free miles and a nice chuckle or two. Also saved me many $$$ on newspaper & magazine subscriptions as well as savings on the reading time. Cheap at half the price.

For those who may be inclined to write their Congressperson(s) to express their views:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/


BTW- MisterNice, my request came in jest as you likely know, as a result of my quick and possibly erronious miscalculation of your 200k less than the VP's salary comment - that left you making some real big numbers - at least compared to me. And needless to say, no further salary comments are necessary and I'm truly a bit embarrassed as I look back now and read my earlier post!

Idea for a new handle for me - "PAUPER!"

Letiole,

Since I'm most definitely unqualified to debate any specifics as to the veracity of this argument, I am including a comment from the author:

It is good to see another air traffic controller is responding to our post. It appears there are a few misconceptions that I am glad to have the chance to correct, If our own (FAA controllers) aren't fully informed, it isn't reasonable to believe the general public is either.

The option of going back to supes and controllers and getting the pay increase would be great, if that was really an option. True, we can (and are) going back, but without the pay raise in most cases. Everyone transferring back into control positions, after October 1, 1998, do not get the raise that was given to those who were there on that date.

The FAA Academy no longer trains new recruits. In terminal RTF training we have 18 now and more starting next month. This is not new. Many people falsely believe that since CTI (College Training Initiative) was put in place, all new hires report directly to a facility from college. They come here from CTI and then to the field. There is to my knowledge no waiver process in place that allows any controller to work at a terminal radar facility until they have complete Radar Training at the Academy. (New York used to train locally, but I don't believe they do anymore). Since you are referring to Minnesota, I believe you are probably a Center Controller and referring to their training. I will have to solicit assistance from some of our En Route Instructors. I don't know the percentage we train compared to MARC, but our Enroute program does have new hire programs running now, and scheduled to continue.

I hope you noticed in my article that I tried to make the point the Air Traffic Controllers deserve every penny they got. I agree that the job is high demand and should be compensated as such. The last couple of paragraphs appear to be opinion based, and you are as entitled to your opinion as I am mine.. You state how Software engineers make more than Quality Assurance people. Ms. Garvey gave the Quality Assurance staff at the local facilities the raise with the controllers, but she didn't give her Staff at the National or Regional level the raise. Should software engineers in a company's branch office make more than those at the home office?

Thanks for the response.

Mike

Forgive my somewhat predictable and in-character response, but if the instructors and staff have a salary grievance with the FAA, it seems to me they should either join the ATC union or organize their own union, and then deal with the FAA collectively.

It further seems to me that public entreaties to Congressmen to raise the salaries of any particular class of Federal employees are not very likely to succeed. The elected Representatives are bound to realize that the letters they received will (mostly) have been solicited by the employees concerned, and will then place the appeal in the same category of similar requests from all other Federal employees, who, like all other hourly and salaried employees, believe their pay should be higher.

Just as a point of clarification, I add the following information from author. INHO, this isn't centrally about salary levels: it's about a crack in the system controlled by Congress which has resulted in a disparity/inequality in comparable pay structures - the end risk being scenarios I've described above. Having several family friends who are US Congressmen, I am aware that they do, in fact, respond to 'noise'.

It's difficult to predict here what raises hackles. I could debate the position I've presented, but on reflection, this probably isn't the place. I was perhaps naive in assuming this issue might be interesting to this group. Certainly, It's not as sexy as free miles. Fortunately, several Congressmen are finding it worth attention and it is looking more positive.

My apologies and thread ended.

From the author regarding Union issues:

Unfortunately, since this is an instructional facility and not a live air traffic facility, we are not covered by the same union that covers field controllers. NATCA is a very powerful and relatively large (15,000 or so Air Traffic Controllers in their bargaining unit)organization with legislative connections and financial assets. Our union, PAACE, only has about 46 air traffic controllers and total bargaining unit of about 400. NATCA's management counterpart is Ms. Garvey.(FAA Administrator). PAACE's management counterpart is the FAA Academy Director(Mr. Trailer in Oklahoma City). It is beyond Mr. Trailer's authority to change pay. That has to come from national level. So, the focus isn't the same when PAACE focuses as when NATCA focuses.

This sounds not dissimilar to the situation faced all the time by universities with computer software and business admin programs. Faculty are paid far less than their markeplace value, yet they stay for other reasons. Faculty members can certainly get jobs in the industry they train their students for, but make personal decisions and sacrifices. (Less stress, etc.) In this case, cannot the group request to drop their current union certification and request to join the controllers union?

One thing I never understood about the whole air traffic controllers situation in the US: after Reagan fired everyone, where did the new workers come from, and how come the system didn't collapse? Don't take me the wrong way: I disagree with what Reagan did, but...