FAA's Answer to ATC Retirement Bubble Staffing Shortfall

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.

"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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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/archive...ll.html#195261

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.

"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.