NATCA Going Down in Flames

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

This is the same argument that we all tried to use against privatizing
Flight Service.

Surprise! After the dust settled, it turned out that the "most
experienced" briefers -- the ones who retired -- were actually the
deadwood in the organization, and (in the short term, until they start
charging per-call) we're better off with Lockheed-Martins' version of
FSS. Call performance is better, briefers are better trained, with
better equipment, and getting a weather briefing is a more positive
experience for pilots.

There are almost 300 million people in this country. No one is
irreplaceable. No one.


I wasn't aware there had been any changes in equipment or training to date.
What's your source for that?

I don't think FSS "privatization" is a valid comparison. There have been
superior alternatives available to a weather briefing from FSS for years, I
can't even remember the last time I called for one.



I sure wish you guys would learn that lesson, and keep quiet about this
silly dress code issue.


I don't understand why you view this is just a "silly dress code issue".
The dress code is just a small part of the newly imposed work rules, yet all
you've chosen to focus on is the controllers no longer being able to wear
cut-offs and flip-flops to work, something so prevalent that I'd never seen
or heard of it in 23 years of FAA service.

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?



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?

"John T" wrote in message
m...

We're going to have to part company here, then. I can understand
resistance to formal or even professional attire, but that in no way
negates an employer's privilege of setting the dress code - even after the
fact, as it were. It also does not infringe on the employee's ability to
simply change employers if they do not like the new rules. I've certainly
done it.

Personally, I'm more concerned with a controller's diction than his
physical appearance, but I also don't see the big deal about Dockers and
golf shirts. I think there are far bigger fish for the union to fry - like
a shortage of controllers.


The FAA has addressed the projected controller shortage with a reduced pay
scale for new hires.

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...

So if I am circling over my airport (00V) at about the same altitude
as a 737 coming into COS, my altitude is unverifed by COS approach,
and the 737 path will intersect mine within a mile or closer, the COS
approach controller will leave it to the pilot to avoid a midair?


Strictly the pilot's responsibility under those conditions. The controller
should issue a traffic advisory, and may suggest a course of action to avoid
the traffic. But that's it.

Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2006-09-04, Paul Tomblin wrote:
In a previous article, Larry Dighera said:
If US auto makers are to remain in business, they must cut costs, and
those fat labor contracts are a prime source of cost. So, the reason
They've also got to stop designing crap cars. My Toyota Corolla was built
in Cambridge Ontario by Canadian Auto Worker union members, and it's so
well built that they export them back to Japan. Meanwhile your average
Ford, GM or Chrysler is a gas guzzling maintenance nightmare because Ford,
GM, and Chrysler care more about keeping shareholders happy than investing
money in research and design.

You want to see unmaintainable?
Try a Jaguar XJ12 some time. Dragging things back towards an aviation
related theme, we're building a new winch for the glider club. Our old
one is a bit long in the tooth, and uses the (excellent) Jaguar XJ6 4.2
litre straight 6. A great engine that's virtually indestructable. But we
want to get a bit more power, so when an XJ12 showed up for scrap (a
garage had collapsed on it crushing the roof) we decided to go for a new
engine.

The V12 in the XJ12 is also a great engine. But in the process of
extracting it from the donor car, I had to wonder how routine services
were done. We'll have no problem maintaining it because we've got rid of
all the cruft (i.e. the car!) that surrounded the engine. But to get the
front two spark plugs out (a routine maintenance job), you have to take
the air conditioning compressor off! To get that off, in turn you have
to take off parts of the cruise control system. To get the AC compressor
off you would also have to discharge the AC system since the pipework
would all have to be disconnected - not flexible hoses. Changing the
spark plugs must have been an all day job - something on most other cars
would take fifteen minutes tops.

And with 100,000 mile spark plugs you should be doing this job every 5
or 6 years or less. In the mean time, the engineers were able to meet
other design constraints such as fitting the engine and it's accessories
into a limit space in the engine compartment. Sounds like a reasonable
trade-off to me.

John

"Jose" wrote in message
...

So, maybe we should charge for aiding the controllers and the other
aircraft, rather than being charged for the assistance we are being
provided.


Makes sense to me. The ATC system is structured as it is to serve the
airlines primarily, for them to complain that GA is not paying it's fair
share is absurd.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
m...

"Emily" wrote in message
...
Jose wrote:
Well, someone has yet to give me a way that I can fly IN MY LOCAL AREA
without talking to ATC.

Sounds like a case of "if it's not in my back yard, it's not a problem".
It reminds me of the DC ADIZ.

Jose
I'm not saying anything's not a problem. If you can fly without talking
to ATC, more power to you. I can't.

What, the airplane will fall out of the air if you aren't talking to
someone?


Remember Emily thinks it is unprofessional to not file a flight plan for all
flights.

In a previous article, said:
You want to see unmaintainable?
Try a Jaguar XJ12 some time. Dragging things back towards an aviation

Way better than an E-type. I know a guy who had three E-types so he'd
have a better than even chance of keeping one of them on the road.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Microsoft is a cross between the Borg and the Ferengi. Unfortunately,
they use Borg to do their marketing and Ferengi to do their programming."
-- Simon Slavin in asr

Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:

Remember Emily thinks it is unprofessional to not file a flight plan for all
flights.

I think you have a case of mistaken identity. Wasn't that one of the
Michelles who stated that?

--
Peter

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:27:44 -0500, Emily wrote:

Most of it is traffic.

We've that here too.

I'd be willing to be the nearest uncontrolled
field is 30 miles or so away

That's at least part of the difference. Airports lie N07 and LDJ are
closer than 30 miles to Manhattan.

BTW, one thing to consider is "off hours" flying. One of the members of
the club to which I belonged used to love to fly such that he'd be getting
back home at something like 6 or 7am.

[Road] traffic? Not at that hour (though it is starting to build around
then).

Of course, I know this isn't a serious problem as (at least for now)
you're not in serious need to avoid speaking to ATC.

- Andrew

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:05:26 +0000, Ron Lee wrote:

I may not..in theory. But only if they eliminate the federal fuel tax on
100LL. I estimate that I paid in about $320 USD last year from fuel
taxes.

My town just created a "Sewer Authority" and we started receiving bills
from it. Up until now, this charge was paid through our property taxes.

I hope I don't have to point out that property taxes didn't go down (in
fact, they went up 5%).

- Andrew