FAA's Answer to ATC Retirement Bubble Staffing Shortfall

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"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.

No, it didn't. If you take the message in the context of the thread it was
written you would know that.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

No, it didn't. If you take the message in the context of the thread it was
written you would know that.

Yes it did. Here's your message along with the context:

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.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

No, it didn't. If you take the message in the context of the thread
it was written you would know that.

Yes it did. Here's your message along with the context:

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.


Did I any where limit the cost I was talking about to the wages? If you
think I did then you are the stupidest person in the group. Hell, even Larry
knew what I was saying.

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...


Maybe in a center. We just got a new controller four weeks ago. She
started training Monday. It'll take about 5 weeks to get her checked
out in ground control. Maybe another 8 weeks for local and then she
goes to RTF in OKC for three and a half weeks. Then back for training
on radar. At most 4 months for that. That's it, she's done.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
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?


I have insufficient knowledge to allow me to comment on whether they would
be concerned, my comment was meant to imply that they should be. IIRC, the
GAO? is the oversight department that is ultimately responsible to ensure
that they are. I have no knowledge to allow me to comment on the
effectiveness or motivation of the GAO.

Ultimately, 'We get the government that we deserve', and it is time that
citizens took responsibility for the actions (and crimes) committed in their
names and on their behalf.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

Did I any where limit the cost I was talking about to the wages?


Yes.



If you think I did then you are the stupidest person in the group. Hell,
even Larry knew what I was saying.

There's no question that you did.

On Thu, 24 May 2007 22:52:44 GMT, "Private" wrote
in 0Ho5i.215135$DE1.125358@pd7urf2no:

it is time that
citizens took responsibility for the actions (and crimes) committed in their
names and on their behalf.

It's hard to argue with that.

Yes it did. Here's your message along with the context:
I'll bet is cheaper to pay two guys for 60 hours each than 3 for 40.

I stripped the context. So sue me. Nonetheless, "cheaper to pay..."
could be interpreted as including all the costs relating to the actual
payment, including administrative fees pertaining to actually cutting
the check. It's cheaper to pay by check than to pay by krugerrand.

While this example is a bit silly, it does illustrate that it's not just
wages.

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.

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

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.

If that's only 'a very large cost', I can't imagine what you might
consider to be "unaffordable".

Neil