A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FAA's Answer to ATC Retirement Bubble Staffing Shortfall



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 24th 07, 03:54 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,477
Default FAA's Answer to ATC Retirement Bubble Staffing Shortfall


"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.


  #22  
Old May 24th 07, 03:57 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,477
Default FAA's Answer to ATC Retirement Bubble Staffing Shortfall


"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?


  #23  
Old May 24th 07, 04:00 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,477
Default FAA's Answer to ATC Retirement Bubble Staffing Shortfall


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news

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?


  #24  
Old May 24th 07, 04:01 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Ash Wyllie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 100
Default FAA's Answer to ATC Retirement Bubble Staffing Shortfall

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?


  #25  
Old May 24th 07, 04:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default FAA's Answer to ATC Retirement Bubble Staffing Shortfall

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

  #26  
Old May 24th 07, 04:37 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,886
Default FAA's Answer to ATC Retirement Bubble Staffing Shortfall



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.
  #27  
Old May 24th 07, 04:38 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default FAA's Answer to ATC Retirement Bubble Staffing Shortfall

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


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news

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? :-)

  #28  
Old May 24th 07, 10:51 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,477
Default FAA's Answer to ATC Retirement Bubble Staffing Shortfall


"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.



  #29  
Old May 24th 07, 12:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
B A R R Y[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 782
Default FAA's Answer to ATC Retirement Bubble Staffing Shortfall

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.
  #30  
Old May 24th 07, 02:24 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Gig 601XL Builder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,317
Default FAA's Answer to ATC Retirement Bubble Staffing Shortfall

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?


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Even after LEX the FAA staffing chaos continues Gary Drescher Instrument Flight Rules 1 October 9th 06 12:43 AM
FAA's new Instrument Procedures Handbook/comments? Mitty Instrument Flight Rules 8 September 16th 04 03:48 AM
FAA's Instrument Procedures Handbook Barry Instrument Flight Rules 3 June 5th 04 07:31 PM
FAA's failure to comply with the law. Larry Dighera Piloting 11 April 16th 04 08:05 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.