NATCA Going Down in Flames

Havent your seen one of those skirts that are low on top and high on
the bottom?

With the coin slot? Yeah, I saw one in Pasadena. I guess that counts
as "almost wearing" it.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

There is sloppy code and sloppy dress. Can you demonstrate a positive
correlation between them?
Yup.. These are the same people who wrote software that have us
clicking on "start" to turn off our computers,,, They comment how they
make as much if not more the ATC workers. Money doesn't seem to weed
out the bizarre so it must be the clothes they wear.....

Ducking and running.

I wonder what windows would be like if programmers were nude.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 06:22:50 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

Jose wrote:
I laugh when I hear the term "Software Engineer". Slop shop is what
I've
seen.

There is sloppy code and sloppy dress. Can you demonstrate a positive
correlation between them?

Yes.

We had one programmer who was always neatly dressed. I had to rewrite
a lot of his code as it was difficult to read and he didn't know what
internal documentation meant. Neat dresser, sloppy programmer albeit
the stuff worked.

So like many other things I'd have to say...some times yes and
sometimes no.



Hint: Ghetto.

Ghetto = subdivision, group, or as in Brooklyn (borough)



Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

In article ,
"Roger (K8RI)" wrote:

We had one programmer who was always neatly dressed. I had to rewrite
a lot of his code as it was difficult to read and he didn't know what
internal documentation meant. Neat dresser, sloppy programmer albeit
the stuff worked.

Wait a minute... you re-wrote his code and you are giving him credit for
it working?

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...

NATCA throwing a fit about a minor dress code change was newsworthy
enough for AvWeb to pick up; thus, the thread.


NATCA isn't throwing a fit about a minor dress code change. What made you
think it was? The AvWeb piece you quoted refers to "the new rules cited by
management", the dress code is just one of them. It is the whole body of
newly imposed rules that is the issue. Nor did AvWeb mention cutoffs or
flip-flops, but you zeroed right in on them. It's true that shorts are
banned in the dress code, but AvWeb didn't say they were. What was your
source for that? You must have had additional information before you
started this thread. Why didn't you cite any of them?



My statement stands. If controllers want issues to be taken seriously,
tell your union to stop worrying about the window dressing, stop
whining about having to dress like businesspeople, and focus on the
substantive issues. Starting a dispute over this kind of stuff isn't
doing anything but make NATCA look unprofessional.


NATCA doesn't listen to me. It appears to me that NATCA is focused on the
entire body of newly imposed work rules, and it is just you that is focused
on the dress code.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

Because after several years of on-line sparring with you, Steven, I've
learned that your method of debate is to simply keep asking questions
until the original point is lost. It's counter-productive and results
in uncontrolled thread-drift.


What question did I ask that doesn't address the original point you raised?

I expect you will ignore that question.



Because competitition always improves performance.


Privatization would not bring competition. Whether provided directly by the
government or through a contractor ATC must be a monopoly.



If you (as an
employee) know that you can be replaced tomorrow by someone younger,
stronger, smarter, and cheaper, you will work just *that* much harder
to be a great controller. If, on the other hand, you think you're
invulnerable to discipline by management because of work rules, union
contracts, etc., a major incentive to "go the extra mile" is gone.

It's the primary reason communism fails as an economic system. Thus,
privatizing ATC would inevitably improve it.


I know I can be replaced tomorrow by someone younger, stronger, and cheaper,
but I cannot be replaced by anyone smarter.



I don't care about *all* users. GA doesn't *need* improved ATC, and
therefore shouldn't be made to pay for it.


Privatization doesn't require any changes in how ATC is paid for.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ps.com...

You think there's no one waiting in the wings to bid against
Lockheed-Martin?

I'll bet there's at least half a dozen companies, all willing to bid on
the ATC contract, all promising to do it "cheaper-faster-better"...


That may be, but that's not competition. Competition will come to ATC when
the user has his choice of providers. Of course, when that happens, ATC
will no longer be able to ensure separation.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...

You think there's no one waiting in the wings to bid against
Lockheed-Martin?

I'll bet there's at least half a dozen companies, all willing to bid on
the ATC contract, all promising to do it "cheaper-faster-better"...

That may be, but that's not competition. Competition will come to ATC when
the user has his choice of providers. Of course, when that happens, ATC
will no longer be able to ensure separation.


That comment raises an interesting question. Let's imagine that ATC
services are bid by some logical boundary (center?). Would different
companies manning different sectors really mean a loss of separation?

My initial thought is NO. What professional ATC person will
"sabotage" any element of the system to make another company look bad?
I do see where a company will do their best to look good thus
enhancing their prospect of picking up additional sectors.

The one nagging concern is the law of unintended consequences.

Ron Lee

Ron Lee wrote:


That comment raises an interesting question. Let's imagine that ATC
services are bid by some logical boundary (center?). Would different
companies manning different sectors really mean a loss of separation?


Of course not, that's an assinine assertion.



My initial thought is NO. What professional ATC person will
"sabotage" any element of the system to make another company look bad?


They all work under the same rule book.

Newps wrote:
Ron Lee wrote:


That comment raises an interesting question. Let's imagine that ATC
services are bid by some logical boundary (center?). Would different
companies manning different sectors really mean a loss of separation?


Of course not, that's an assinine assertion.



My initial thought is NO. What professional ATC person will
"sabotage" any element of the system to make another company look bad?


They all work under the same rule book.