NATCA Going Down in Flames

Matt Whiting wrote:
Emily wrote:
Grumman-581 wrote:

"Emily" wrote in message
...

Ok, this was bugging me all day. I actually bought far away from
work -
I hate living near work, and actually never have. Then I got a new job
which just happened to be with a prestigious company and I couldn't
turn
them down. Only problem was, it was only five miles up the road.
Sucks, but what are you going to do?


Obviously, you need to move to Corsicana...


Hey, at least they have good fruitcake!

good fruitcake is an oxymoron.

Matt
Oh, you've never had Corsicana fruitcake!!!!

Collins Street Bakery, google it.

Monopolies don't require a feedback loop for profitability.

Well, uh... yes. That was half the point. The other half was that the
FAA isn't even out for profitability.

Apparently you don't understand the employer-employee relationship.
What you fail to understand is that profitability is irrelevant. If
management *believes* that a dress code is best for the overall health
of the organization, then requiring workers to dress professionally is
well within their prerogitive.

Could I *measure* any direct improvement in our profits when I decided
to provide aviation-themed Hawaiian shirts (quite expensive ones, by
the way) to our desk staff employees, and required that they wear them?
Nope. But *I* thought they looked cool -- and that's all that
matters.

The FAA can require its employees to wear bullet-proof vests and Reebok
tennis shoes every day, if that's what they think is in their best
interest. You can continue to deny that this is part of the
employer-employee relationship -- but your denial won't change
anything.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

One of the other changes was the elimination of CIC pay. When a controller
was functioning in a supervisory capacity, Controller in Charge, an
additional 10% of base pay was earned. Over the past 18 pay periods I
averaged $99.87 in CIC pay, so I just took an effective pay cut of almost
$2600 per year. Would you be happy about that if you were in my place?
Would your employees be happy about it if you imposed it on them? Why do
you choose to ignore that change and focus on the dress code?

NOW you're talking about something substantive. Of course what you've
described is an issue -- so get your collective heads out of your
collective butts about having to dress professionally, and start
discussing the *real* issues.

Privatization is NOT going to be good for GA.

Why not? Aren't private sector employees superior to government employees?
If it improved FSS why wouldn't it improve ATC?

I firmly believe that privatization WOULD make ATC better. But that is
certainly NOT going to help GA.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Then I got a new job which just happened to be with a prestigious company and I couldn't turn them down. Only problem was, it was only five miles up the road. Sucks, but what are you going to do?

Buy a house near an uncontrolled airport, silly!

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Emily wrote:

Hey, at least they have good fruitcake!

good fruitcake is an oxymoron.

Matt
Oh, you've never had Corsicana fruitcake!!!!

Collins Street Bakery, google it.


And I thought this thread had become totally irrelevant. Now you're actually talking about something
important. Absolutely no fruitcake better than Corsicana fruitcake!

Mike

Apparently you don't understand the employer-employee relationship.
What you fail to understand is that profitability is irrelevant. If
management *believes* that a dress code is best for the overall health
of the organization, then requiring workers to dress professionally is
well within their prerogitive.

.... and if Management is wrong, then the overall health of the
organization suffers. For a profit making company, that eventually
invokes Darwin. Even if you think it's cool.

The FAA is immune from Darwin.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Mike Adams wrote:
Emily wrote:

Hey, at least they have good fruitcake!
good fruitcake is an oxymoron.

Matt
Oh, you've never had Corsicana fruitcake!!!!

Collins Street Bakery, google it.


And I thought this thread had become totally irrelevant. Now you're actually talking about something
important. Absolutely no fruitcake better than Corsicana fruitcake!

Mike
THANK you. At least someone has some sense.

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
Hey, at least they have good fruitcake!

You're talking about Collins Street Bakery, right? Haven't tried their
fruitcake, but their cheesecake is definitely good...

On 2006-09-07, John Theune wrote:
And with 100,000 mile spark plugs you should be doing this job every 5
or 6 years or less.

When the donor car was made, gapping the spark plugs was an annual job.
It's only relatively recently that you've been able to do that with
spark plugs.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On 2006-09-07, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Why should routine maintenance require access to the spark plugs?

Routine maintenance on OLDER cars (which the XJ12 donor car is),
removing the spark plugs and gapping them was an annual job.

Comparing your Corolla to an old XJ12 is like comparing night and day.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de