FAA's Answer to ATC Retirement Bubble Staffing Shortfall

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/archive...ll.html#195236

"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.

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?

In a previous article, Larry Dighera said:
On Wed, 23 May 2007 16:54:10 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
k.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

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news

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?

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 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.

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


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news

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?

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?

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?