FAA's Answer to ATC Retirement Bubble Staffing Shortfall

"Morgans" wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Larry Dighera wrote:
Isn't a policy that reduces staffing, and then authorizes mandatory
overtime (with its federally mandated time-and-a-half pay rate) just
a bit irrational?


I'll bet is cheaper to pay two guys for 60 hours each than 3 for 40.

You bet correctly.

When you consider the benefits, such as vacation, health insurance,
and retirement, and that by not hiring another person that will have
to get all of those benefits, you can afford to pay a lot of overtime.

Also overlooked is the cost of training. There is a large up-front cost to
add an additional controller that doesn't exist if you merely extend the
hours of already trained controllers - even if those extra hours are more
costly.

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Morgans" wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Larry Dighera wrote:
Isn't a policy that reduces staffing, and then authorizes mandatory
overtime (with its federally mandated time-and-a-half pay rate) just
a bit irrational?


I'll bet is cheaper to pay two guys for 60 hours each than 3 for 40.

You bet correctly.

When you consider the benefits, such as vacation, health insurance,
and retirement, and that by not hiring another person that will have
to get all of those benefits, you can afford to pay a lot of overtime.

Also overlooked is the cost of training. There is a large up-front cost to
add an additional controller that doesn't exist if you merely extend the
hours of already trained controllers - even if those extra hours are more
costly.

Many NA car companies (Delphi, etc) have huge ongoing costs from benefits
due to employees that have not worked for years. IIRC it amounts to ~$1400.
/current car produced. I suspect that a similar situation will apply to the
soon to retire ATC employee benefits.

Private wrote:


Many NA car companies (Delphi, etc) have huge ongoing costs from benefits
due to employees that have not worked for years. IIRC it amounts to ~$1400.
/current car produced. I suspect that a similar situation will apply to the
soon to retire ATC employee benefits.

Once an employee retires the money for retirement does not come out of
the FAA budget. That employee simply disappears as far as the FAA is
concerned.

Jim Logajan wrote:

Also overlooked is the cost of training. There is a large up-front cost to
add an additional controller that doesn't exist if you merely extend the
hours of already trained controllers - even if those extra hours are more
costly.


Not mention some folks LIKE overtime, and are perfectly capable of
working a reasonable number of extra hours in a perfectly safe manner.

On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:05:11 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote in :

Also overlooked is the cost of training. There is a large up-front cost to
add an additional controller that doesn't exist if you merely extend the
hours of already trained controllers - even if those extra hours are more
costly.

That is true, and probably significant, but it's a one-time cost, not
an on-going cost.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:05:11 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote in :

Also overlooked is the cost of training. There is a large up-front
cost to add an additional controller that doesn't exist if you
merely extend the hours of already trained controllers - even if
those extra hours are more costly.

That is true, and probably significant, but it's a one-time cost, not
an on-going cost.

But it is a very large one time cost.

That is true, and probably significant, but it's a one-time cost, not
an on-going cost.

Overtime is not an ongoing cost either. It can be ended whenever the
employer wants. New employees can't.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Morgans opined

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Larry Dighera wrote:
Isn't a policy that reduces staffing, and then authorizes mandatory
overtime (with its federally mandated time-and-a-half pay rate) just a
bit irrational?


I'll bet is cheaper to pay two guys for 60 hours each than 3 for 40.

You bet correctly.

When you consider the benefits, such as vacation, health insurance, and
retirement, and that by not hiring another person that will have to get all
of those benefits, you can afford to pay a lot of overtime.

Don't forget training costs.




-ash
Cthulhu in 2007!
Why wait for nature?

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

I'll bet is cheaper to pay two guys for 60 hours each than 3 for 40.

Let's see, 3 guys at 40 hours each is 120 hours of straight time. Two guys
at 60 hours each is 80 hours of straight time and forty hours of time-and-a-
half.

How much would you like to bet?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

I'll bet is cheaper to pay two guys for 60 hours each than 3 for 40.

Let's see, 3 guys at 40 hours each is 120 hours of straight time. Two guys
at 60 hours each is 80 hours of straight time and forty
hours of time-and-a- half.

How much would you like to bet?

OK you're a controller. How much is you benefit package cost the FAA each
month? What about your retirement package? How much would the training for
added employee cost?