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.