FAA's Answer to ATC Retirement Bubble Staffing Shortfall

[Larry Dighera]

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?



UNION: FAA "STAFFING TO BUDGET"

The FAA seems intent on challenging long-established norms in
terms of staffing levels, work hours and overtime management in
many of its facilities as it copes with the "retirement bubble" of
controllers hired in 1981 when President Ronald Reagan fired
thousands of striking controllers. According to the National Air
Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA), the agency recently began
ordering controllers to stay at their consoles beyond the two
hours that the unions says is the "longest possible period that
controllers should ever work to ensure safety and allow them
adequate rest periods." In a news release, NATCA says the agency
is also instituting mandatory overtime to maintain minimum
staffing at facilities and, even though traffic is
increasing, recently reduced the minimum staffing levels at
hundreds of facilities by as much as 26 percent. NATCA claims the
reductions are reducing safety margins and increasing controller
fatigue. The FAA did not respond to AVweb's request for comment.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/869-full.html#195236

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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?
>

Depends on the goal.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 23 May 2007 16:54:10 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
. net>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> 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?
>>
>
>Depends on the goal.
>

True.

Presumably the goal was to reduce costs.

What other goals would make sense, reducing air safety?

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Larry Dighera > said:
>On Wed, 23 May 2007 16:54:10 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
. net>:
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>> 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?
>>>
>>
>>Depends on the goal.
>>
>
>True.
>
>Presumably the goal was to reduce costs.
>
>What other goals would make sense, reducing air safety?

Cause a big accident, use it as an excuse to privatize the whole mess, and
outsource it to China.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not
because they are easy, but because they are hard...." - John F Kennedy

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> True.
>
> Presumably the goal was to reduce costs.
>

It still is. But first you have to drive out the high-priced controllers.


>
> What other goals would make sense, reducing air safety?
>

Do you really think that makes sense?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

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.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> 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.
>
>


Me too, when everything beyond the hourly cash pay rate is honestly
accounted for.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 23 May 2007 17:51:35 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> True.
>>
>> Presumably the goal was to reduce costs.
>>
>
>It still is. But first you have to drive out the high-priced controllers.
>

So you're saying that ATC controllers who have been on the job for a
long time are more expensive than new-hires, and understaffing ATC
facilities will drive out the old hands?

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 23 May 2007 13:02:51 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>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.
>

Let's use $10/hour as a labor rate just to keep the math simple.


2 personnel X 60 hours X $10/hour = $1,200
2 personnel X 40 hours X $5/hour overtime premium = $400
Total = $1,600



3 personnel X 40 hours X $10/hour = 1,200
Total = $1,200



$1,600
-$1,200
-------
$400 Savings


How do you figure it?

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 23 May 2007 14:38:29 -0400, B A R R Y >
wrote in >:

>Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>
>Me too, when everything beyond the hourly cash pay rate is honestly
>accounted for.


What items would you include in "everything beyond the hourly cash pay
rate" that you would expect to be less costly using overtime pay in
lieu of standard pay rate?

[Jose]

> What items would you include in "everything beyond the hourly cash pay
> rate" that you would expect to be less costly using overtime pay in
> lieu of standard pay rate?

Things like health benefits, which are per person and not per unit time,
and something like overhead (I forget what they call it) which doesn't
go up with overtime.

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.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 23 May 2007 17:51:35 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>:

>
>>
>> What other goals would make sense, reducing air safety?
>>
>
>Do you really think that makes sense?
>

I think it's reasonable to expect a tired employee to be less
competent than a rested one.

If you disagree, please state your reasons.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 23 May 2007 19:14:19 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>> What items would you include in "everything beyond the hourly cash pay
>> rate" that you would expect to be less costly using overtime pay in
>> lieu of standard pay rate?
>
>Things like health benefits, which are per person and not per unit time,
>and something like overhead (I forget what they call it) which doesn't
>go up with overtime.
>

Perhaps. But you'll have to admit that the hourly cost of overtime
labor is more, and overtime has the potential to impact safety.
Without quantifying the data, any savings it's going to be difficult
to ascertain.

So some small-minded bean-counter figured out that the savings in
reduced benefits can be quantified, but the increased hazard to air
safety doesn't impact the FAA's bottom line? Despicable!

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>
> What items would you include in "everything beyond the hourly cash pay
> rate" that you would expect to be less costly using overtime pay in
> lieu of standard pay rate?


Simple.

If you have less employees, you pay fewer sets of medical benefits,
vacation, retirement pension contributions, savings plan matches, sick
days (used or accumulated), etc...

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 13:02:51 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Let's use $10/hour as a labor rate just to keep the math simple.
>
>
> 2 personnel X 60 hours X $10/hour = $1,200
> 2 personnel X 40 hours X $5/hour overtime premium = $400
> Total = $1,600
>
>
>
> 3 personnel X 40 hours X $10/hour = 1,200
> Total = $1,200
>
>
>
> $1,600
> -$1,200
> -------
> $400 Savings
>
>
> How do you figure it?

So, you think that is all it costs to have an employee?

Think, Health insurance just as a single example of additional costs. I'm
sure you are smart enough to think of others.

[Jose]

> But you'll have to admit that the hourly cost of overtime
> labor is more

Yes, though the hourly cost isn't the full cost. Take on a new employee
and you have a new liability (another person you can't let go when you
need to, for example, and another health plan that goes from here to
infinity).

> and overtime has the potential to impact safety.

No argument there.

> Without quantifying the data, any savings it's going to be difficult
> to ascertain.

True. Some ballpark estimates could be made by those who know what
typical figures are likely to be.

> So some small-minded bean-counter figured out that the savings in
> reduced benefits can be quantified, but the increased hazard to air
> safety doesn't impact the FAA's bottom line? Despicable!

The tradeoff of money vs safety is made all the time, even by pilots.

It is a common tactic to shift costs from where they can be measured
("see what we're saving!") to where they can't ("free money!"). The
myth of trying to get businesses to move into a town and assume some of
the tax burden is another example (nobody can quantify the monetary cost
of more traffic, more pollution, more water usage, but everyone can see
free money coming in).

I don't know whether in this case it is better to hire more controllers
(less overtime, more safety), or to encourage overtime (fewer employees,
less wasted overhead in the future when we no longer need as big a
staff, more money available for other safety enhancements rather than
paying now unneeded staff). I see your point, but there are other
considerations, and I don't know how they figure in.

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[_2_]]

"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.
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Logajan]

"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.

[Private]

"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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 17:51:35 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> et>:
>
>>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> True.
>>>
>>> Presumably the goal was to reduce costs.
>>>
>>
>>It still is. But first you have to drive out the high-priced controllers.
>>
>
> So you're saying that ATC controllers who have been on the job for a
> long time are more expensive than new-hires, and understaffing ATC
> facilities will drive out the old hands?
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> So you're saying that ATC controllers who have been on the job for a
> long time are more expensive than new-hires, and understaffing ATC
> facilities will drive out the old hands?
>

That should be obvious even to you.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> I think it's reasonable to expect a tired employee to be less
> competent than a rested one.
>
> If you disagree, please state your reasons.
>

So you didn't mean reducing air safety was a goal?

[Ash Wyllie]

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?

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 24 May 2007 02:54:02 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
.net>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> So you're saying that ATC controllers who have been on the job for a
>> long time are more expensive than new-hires, and understaffing ATC
>> facilities will drive out the old hands?
>>
>
>That should be obvious even to you.
>

How does under staffing motivate (expensive) old hands to retire?

Are they less able to cope with the stress of long hours and high
traffic rates?

Or does their experience permit them to deal with the stresses with
perspicacity?

That is not so obvious?

[Newps]

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.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 24 May 2007 03:00:44 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
.net>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I think it's reasonable to expect a tired employee to be less
>> competent than a rested one.
>>
>> If you disagree, please state your reasons.
>>
>
>So you didn't mean reducing air safety was a goal?
>

That bit of sarcasm should have been obvious even to you? :-)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> How does under staffing motivate (expensive) old hands to retire?
>

It induces lots of overtime.


>
> Are they less able to cope with the stress of long hours and high
> traffic rates?
>

More able.


>
> Or does their experience permit them to deal with the stresses with
> perspicacity?
>

Gesundheit.


>
> That is not so obvious?
>

It should have been.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

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.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

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?

[Larry Dighera]

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.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

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.

[Private]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> 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.

The fact remains that these are real costs and should be considered in any
proper analysis. As in all other government expenditures, ultimately the
cost is borne by the taxpayer.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 24 May 2007 09:35:39 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>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.
>


No. I think 'significant' describes it accurately enough.

A very large cost is the $3 billion per week and 3,400 soldiers' lives
Bush's vendetta is costing America, not to mention the loss of respect
for our great nation throughout the world as a result of our
president's buffoonery on the world stage.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 24 May 2007 15:09:38 GMT, "Private" > wrote
in <SUh5i.214501$DE1.211260@pd7urf2no>:

>
>"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>The fact remains that these are real costs and should be considered in any
>proper analysis. As in all other government expenditures, ultimately the
>cost is borne by the taxpayer.
>

Are you suggesting, that the entity charged with ATC hiring and
staffing schedules, the FAA, would actually be concerned with the
expense incurred by other agencies as a result of their policies?

[Jose]

> 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.

[Jose]

> Assume that our workers are making $35/hr in base pay, time and a half
> in overtime, and $15k per year in benefits.
>
> If you have 3 people working full time, the cost at 2000 hrs per yer
> is $255k.

That's not the cost, that's what the employee gets. It costs the
employer more. A factor of two more is what I've heard in the past.

> Overhead is the same no matter how many employee hours you have. It
> doesn't go up with overtime, but it doesn't go down with reduced heads
> either. The air conditioning, for example.

Depends if you need more facilities. But support staff should be
included too, that goes up with number of heads. In any case at this
point I'm more or less guessing, since I don't work at ATC and don't
know what their actual situation is. And perhaps "overhead" (as in
office space and electricity) may not be what I'm trying to refer to.

> It is POSSIBLE to save money by having people work OT instead of
> hiring new heads. Of course it's done for short term bubbles of
> demand, but it's very rare and difficult to do as a normal way of
> doing business.

Maybe that's what they're doing.

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.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 24 May 2007 15:54:20 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>
>Overtime is not an ongoing cost either.

It is if it's part of an on-going policy.

>It can be ended whenever the employer wants. New employees can't.

As I understand it, the issue isn't about terminating ATC employees.

There's some good information in this article:



FAA CONTROLLER TRAINING PLAN TO BE AUDITED

Does the FAA have an adequate plan in place for training the
15,000 new air traffic controllers it plans to hire over the next
10 years? That's what the Department of Transportation's Office
of Inspector General (OIG) is wondering, and it plans to commence
a study (http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=2052) of the issue
next month. Top among its concerns is whether the FAA's plans for
training at the facility level are adequate. Facility training
takes three to five years, and comprises classroom, simulation and
on-the-job training. It's the longest and most expensive part of
certifying new controllers. "FAA projects that
[controllers-in-training] will make up 25 percent or more of the
entire controller workforce through fiscal year 2014," said David
Dobbs of the DOT OIG. "Furthermore, as experienced controllers
retire, FAA will increasingly lose more experienced [on-the-job]
instructors, who are critical components of facility training."
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/872-full.html#195261

[Jose]

> Does the FAA have an adequate plan in place for training the
> 15,000 new air traffic controllers it plans to hire over the next
> 10 years?...

> Facility training takes three to five years...

Ok, the training portion (where the employee is not doing all that much
good) takes one third to one half of the time in question. If we are
=only= looking into the next ten years, then maybe it's best to keep the
old ones on overtime.

If we are looking beyond that, we need a crystal ball to see how the new
GA user fees may eliminate the need for more controllers, by eliminating
us pesky airplanes.

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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>
> 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?

Your proposed wager had only to do with hourly pay.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> 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?
>
> Your proposed wager had only to do with hourly pay.

No, it didn't. If you take the message in the context of the thread it was
written you would know that.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>
> No, it didn't. If you take the message in the context of the thread it was
> written you would know that.

Yes it did. Here's your message along with the context:

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.
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> No, it didn't. If you take the message in the context of the thread
>> it was written you would know that.
>
> Yes it did. Here's your message along with the context:
>
> 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.


Did I any where limit the cost I was talking about to the wages? If you
think I did then you are the stupidest person in the group. Hell, even Larry
knew what I was saying.

[Newps]

>> Does the FAA have an adequate plan in place for training the
>> 15,000 new air traffic controllers it plans to hire over the next
>> 10 years?...
>
>
>> Facility training takes three to five years...


Maybe in a center. We just got a new controller four weeks ago. She
started training Monday. It'll take about 5 weeks to get her checked
out in ground control. Maybe another 8 weeks for local and then she
goes to RTF in OKC for three and a half weeks. Then back for training
on radar. At most 4 months for that. That's it, she's done.

[Private]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 15:09:38 GMT, "Private" > wrote
> in <SUh5i.214501$DE1.211260@pd7urf2no>:
>
>>
>>"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>The fact remains that these are real costs and should be considered in any
>>proper analysis. As in all other government expenditures, ultimately the
>>cost is borne by the taxpayer.
>>
>
> Are you suggesting, that the entity charged with ATC hiring and
> staffing schedules, the FAA, would actually be concerned with the
> expense incurred by other agencies as a result of their policies?
>

I have insufficient knowledge to allow me to comment on whether they would
be concerned, my comment was meant to imply that they should be. IIRC, the
GAO? is the oversight department that is ultimately responsible to ensure
that they are. I have no knowledge to allow me to comment on the
effectiveness or motivation of the GAO.

Ultimately, 'We get the government that we deserve', and it is time that
citizens took responsibility for the actions (and crimes) committed in their
names and on their behalf.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>
> Did I any where limit the cost I was talking about to the wages?
>

Yes.


>
> If you think I did then you are the stupidest person in the group. Hell,
> even Larry knew what I was saying.

There's no question that you did.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 24 May 2007 22:52:44 GMT, "Private" > wrote
in <0Ho5i.215135$DE1.125358@pd7urf2no>:

>it is time that
>citizens took responsibility for the actions (and crimes) committed in their
>names and on their behalf.

It's hard to argue with that.

[Jose]

> Yes it did. Here's your message along with the context:
>> I'll bet is cheaper to pay two guys for 60 hours each than 3 for 40.

I stripped the context. So sue me. Nonetheless, "cheaper to pay..."
could be interpreted as including all the costs relating to the actual
payment, including administrative fees pertaining to actually cutting
the check. It's cheaper to pay by check than to pay by krugerrand.

While this example is a bit silly, it does illustrate that it's not just
wages.

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.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:

> On Thu, 24 May 2007 09:35:39 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> No. I think 'significant' describes it accurately enough.
>
> A very large cost is the $3 billion per week and 3,400 soldiers' lives
> Bush's vendetta is costing America, not to mention the loss of respect
> for our great nation throughout the world as a result of our
> president's buffoonery on the world stage.
>
If that's only 'a very large cost', I can't imagine what you might
consider to be "unaffordable".

Neil