CERTIFIED SHAFTING

Minister wants resolution...?

2009-02-02T09:37:00.002Z

Minister urges end to controllers' pay row as airlines get nervous

Steve Creedy, Aviation writer | February 02, 2009

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24994047-5013871,00.html

TRANSPORT Minister Anthony Albanese has urged air traffic controllers and Airservices Australia to resolve their long-running pay dispute as airlines become increasingly nervous about potentially crippling industrial action.

The air traffic controllers union, Civil Air, and Airservices Australia have postponed talks scheduled for tomorrow and airlines worried about costly flight disruptions are lobbying Mr Albanese.

Regional airlines are particularly concerned that industrial action would have a devastating impact on a sector of the industry already struggling because of the economic downturn.

But your number 1 support (sic) Airservices are taking a tough stand in your interests...

Regional Aviation Association of Australia chief executive, Paul Tyrrell said member airlines were writing to Mr Albanese seeking a quick resolution to the dispute. Mr Tyrrell said the timing could not be worse, given the economic situation.

"We're not taking sides, we're not party to the details of the dispute and neither do we want to be," Mr Tyrrell said. "But my board has spoken to me and the unequivocal position is a timely resolution.

Then indicate to Airservices and the minister that paying (insert figure)% more for ATS is acceptable; so far your charges have been reduced in real terms over the last 10 years, all the while so to the controllers wages and there has been a massive increase in profitability of Airservices in terms of tax and dividend returned to the government, somethings got to give...

"These guys all get paid no matter how long this conflict goes on, our members don't and it hurts them."

ah, well no! If controller takes industrial action, they won't be getting paid...

Civil Air has been given permission to ballot its members on industrial action and will be in a position to start an industrial campaign towards the end of this month.

The action is unlikely to be a full-blown strike but could involve either rolling stoppages or an overtime ban. Either of those options have the potential to seriously disrupt air travel.

This is the crux of the problem, an overtime ban will criple the service, such is the reliance on overtime, the short staffing bubble has burst, it's now a crisis, acknowledged or not... We were supposed to be fully staffed by August, how many people were we short in June when this month was picked, how many short now? No closer at all, amazing!

Major carriers have also expressed deep concerns about the dispute and have told The Australian they have been lobbied by Airservices to become a party to the dispute in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.

But the airlines are reluctant to get directly involved and want Mr Albanese to act.

The Transport Minister yesterday stopped short of promising direct intervention but urged the parties to find a solution.

You gutless prick, it could easily be resolved by telling the Board to open the purse strings, and to fix the staffing problems... Pay less in dividends, spend it on the staff... That is the only solution!

"I urge the parties to resolve the outstanding issues, particularly given the current global economic situation and the fact the aviation industry supports more than half a million Australian jobs," Mr Albanese said.

Then BIG TONY, you know what the answer is... It's not ROCKET SCIENCE!!!

Civil Air executive secretary Peter McGuane said the meeting scheduled for tomorrow had been postponed and the parties were setting up a new date.

He said the major sticking point in a resolution remained sick leave but disagreements also remained about rostering.

Air traffic controllers want to retain unlimited sick leave, arguing they are on a 24-hour roster and have to meet higher health standards than other members of the community.

Or another way to look at it, don't offer us less than CPI rises to give up this condition of employment, for us, not for sale at any price, but to give it up for NOTHING is completely unacceptable!

There has also been a disagreement on pay increases but both parties are understood to have been willing to negotiate on that matter and there has been some movement towards reaching a pay deal.

Airservices wants to limit sick leave to 15 days, saying this would bring it into line with other government organisations. Mr McGuane said the ballot, which was being conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission, was due to finish on February 11.

Yes all those other 24/7/365 government departments that are subject to federal legislation about their obligations to attend work unimpaired, right?

Assuming there was a strong endorsement of industrial action, he said the union would then be required to give seven working days' notice before it could begin.

He believed there would have to be some sort of outside intervention if the dispute were to be resolved.

But Greg Russell promised a quick CA process and a Bloody Good Pay-Rise, do you mean he's a lying C|_|nt?

More Bad Press 5

2009-01-30T20:30:00.002Z

Dear Louise,

Get some reality please, otherwise known as do a bit of fucken research, not simply regurgitate a 'fed' story.

Kevin Rudd talks of wage constraint and tighter fiscal policies where it will 'cost jobs'.

The total wages cost of Air Traffic Control in Australia is in effect less than the tax and the profit that Airservices pays the government.

A strike is far from a forgone conclusion; but the clock is ticking. Stop work meetings are far more likely as a first step.

Your Key points:

1. The dispute is a test of the governments call for wage restraint.

Where productivity is proven, it should be rewarded, an offer of reduction in real term wages is not the equivalent of restraint, it's opportunism. Compare ATC wages growth with AWOTE since 1990; which way are ATC wages headed?

2. It would have serious implications for the struggling tourism industry

A full blown strike yes, a stop work, no! Linking the tourist industry a the ATC wages dispute is akin to link GP charges with Hospital funding, related yes, critical no.

3. The union has rejected Airservices' offer and recommended strike action.

That's just wrong, the union has initiated a legal bargaining period and is asking it's members to vote on a range of options as required by law, in order to take any of the listed industrial actions.

Fact, Air traffic is at Record levels; BTRE predictions is reduced growth, not reductions; note the subtle difference?

This means that graphs like this:

Are still going to trend upwards. Compare this to the reduction in ATCs in the corresponding period and it is clearly a productivity gain, which has not been rewarded in any way. In fact when compared to AWOTE Australian ATCs have slipped some 23%.

All this in a climate where the worldwide shortage has seen more ATCs leave Airservices in the last 12 months at higher rates than any other year. Why would ATCs leave:

1) To get away from arguably the worst ANSP in the modern world,

2) For better conditions of employment,

3) For an increased salary.

The current cost of Air Traffic Control wages is close to $1.00 per ticket. Do not confuse 'Airways revenue' with the cost of the service, the service costs do not proportionally rise if the ATC wages do.

A rise of 63% would cost every punter a grand total of 63 cents a ticket. An extra 63 cents a ticket is never going to be the catalyst for crippling the tourism industry! The full claim is on average for 39% or 39 cents a ticket.

Civil Air's vision is a claim not a settling point; but the counter claim (the Airservices Offer) a reduction in real wages is not even close to reality either. There has been no pay-rise for in excess of 12 months, the 'conditions of service' that the employer wishes to remove far exceeds the financial offer; they want to remove conditions of employment without paying for them; most controllers will not want to surrender any conditions of employment. IT'S ALREADY A SHIT PLACE TO WORK!!!!!

We also repeat that the 'efficient rostering' proposed is nothing to do with the Certified Shafting Process; it's a total smoke screen, a good PR Spinners line.

More Bad Press 4

2009-01-24T23:48:00.003Z

Original article here

Up in the air

Tony Wright

January 23, 2009

AS PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd set off on his latest round of continuous campaigning — this time flying around the nation to promote Australia Day — his chant was about trying to keep people in jobs.

"We are all in this together: business, unions, governments, the community sector — and every nation in the world," he said. "In these times, employers must do their utmost to protect their workers from dismissal, knowing that these workers will serve them well when times turn good again. Workers, too, must restrain any wage claims."

Not much later, he was mounting the steps of his jet to take the message across the land. Soon after, the headlines were all about thousands of jobs being lost, miners in Western Australia offering to forgo pay rises for a year in a desperate attempt to keep working and predictions that a quarter of a million jobs were at risk.

Across the Pacific, where the current rot began, one of President Barack Obama's first moves was to freeze White House staff wages as an example to his nation. Back in Canberra, the Rudd Government is considering a second year of no pay increases for politicians.

But as Rudd was flying between capitals, a long-bubbling dispute over pay and conditions between the two bodies that keep planes in the air was reaching the point where air travellers are likely to find themselves grounded next month. The government-owned Airservices Australia and the union representing Australia's 900-odd air traffic controllers, Civil Air, have been a stand-off since the middle of last year. The reason: wage restraint, or the lack of it.

Restraint, oh please you biased prick! This “dispute” has been ongoing for some 10 months, but has roots much further back than that, think 2001, when the controllers showed extreme restraint when Ansett fell over and the industry was in significant trouble.

With the controllers out of contract since December 21 and discussions about a new agreement all but broken down, there's virtually no goodwill in the air. This week the air controllers got permission from the Industrial Relations Commission to hold a ballot on whether they should hold stopwork meetings that could range from two to 24 hours. The betting is that stopworks will be given the thumbs up, meaning we will have to rethink air-travel plans from about February 21.

Controllers have showed restraint, we could have walked out over Christmas. The lack of goodwill has festered from the mouth of the CEO, who has promised much and under-delivered on everything, from Business Reform, to Growing the Business, to Service Delivery Environment, to improved communication through revised supervisor structures, or moving Supervisors to AWAs.

All this in a climate of extreme lack of operational ATCs. Controllers are working on more days per annum than ever, have been working harder due to massive increases in traffic and huge reductions in headset wearing controllers.

Controllers are leaving, not to go somewhere, just to get away; such is the contempt for senior management and lack of faith in where the company is headed.

This week, domestic airline executives were tramping around Canberra trying to get a handle on the esoteric details behind the row and urging anyone who would listen that they "just want to get this thing fixed".

First you must recongnise the true problem, is it this trumped up false industrial campaign or is it really a poorly managed business fundamentally under staffed?

"It's hard enough getting bums on seats without having to worry about whether we're going to get planes into the air," one of the harried airline executives told The Age as he wandered the corridors of Parliament House.

Amen brother, fix the problem. But if you gave the controllers everything they are requesting will the problem evaporate? Hell no, the real problem is not enough Bums on Scopes.

And what's at issue? The air traffic controllers want to keep the right of unlimited sick leave (yes, that's 365 days a year), they have on the table a "vision statement" demanding pay rises of between 18 per cent and more than 60 per cent (although the union says, vaguely, it is willing to modify this to somewhere around 7 per cent) and they don't want a bar of a new rostering system designed to ensure that controllers will be endorsed to step in to oversee air routes that are left unwatched when colleagues are ill.

What a lot of shit, did you get paid to write that? Fuck us, you should be sacked. What is the current average leave, despite the fact leave is unlimited? What happens to the average when you exclude long term illnesses such as cancer/depression etc.? You do understand that whilst it is sick leave as required, any more than a single day off sick needs the support of a Doctor?

The new ‘rostering system’ is nothing of the sort. It’s an attempt to make all controllers work whenever and wherever the employer wants. This isn’t part of the ‘pay claim’ it’s a total side issue. SDE has failed, will fail further and repeat, isn’t about the pay claim.

Airservices, which gets its income from airlines to employ air traffic controllers, admits that previous administrations failed to plan adequately, leaving the current management playing catch-up.

How many of the current management crop are included in the previous administration, how many years (4 and counting) does Greg Russell get to blame the previous mob?

It insists that sick leave be reduced to a standard 15 days a year, just as it was up to the 1990s, and is offering the balance of unused sick leave (based on the new rate) for all workers, leaving some of them with accrued leave of up to 200 hours.

What problem are they trying to solve? The average is less than 15 now.

Airservices is also offering 4 per cent annual pay rises plus various bonuses over the next three years and wants to reduce dramatically the number of endorsements over the nation's air routes.

The bonuses are BS and won’t count for Diddly Squat. The 4% is an insult; the conditions of work being sort for surrender are worth 16% (calculated conservatively).

Bear with us here, because this is about the air space your passenger jet may be flying through. Currently, each air traffic controller is endorsed to control just a few routes, leading to 144 separate such endorsements. If the person controlling the space your plane is going through is not available, that leaves the pilot essentially flying blind. Airservices want to reduce these 144 endorsements to just seven, so if a controller goes absent for any reason, another controller on duty would be qualified to take over their routes.

Again, this isn’t the industrial battle, this is PR. The endorsements are a total side issue, if ASA could train us to this level of expertise then we say, go ahead, do it. Controllers who work ELW/BLA or KAT/BTH have no issue in working elsewhere, just give us the farken training, not just say go do it. After all it’s just a minor issue like people in aluminum coffins heading at each other right. Tony you are a tosser!

Over the past nine months, the system has become increasingly chaotic. Since May, when air space closures suddenly leapt to about 60 for the month, the number of such closures has climbed inexorably. Last month, they peaked at about 110. In short, no one was in control of often-busy air corridors on 110 occasions. Domestic airlines won't fly through such areas, meaning scheduled flights have to travel around these "black" areas, often consuming tonnes of extra fuel. International airlines, however, often have no choice because they are already en route, and their pilots have to keep their planes apart by talking to each other over the airwaves.

Again, why, are you truly swallowing the BS that Greg and Co. are pushing? Or perhaps deep down is there a problem? How many shifts of OT are being worked, on average? How many should be normal? What is the historical data relating to Sick leave and Overtime?

The Civil Air union says these unfortunate occurrences are caused by a serious shortage of air traffic controllers, for which it blames Airservices. The union says the already stressful job is made all the more stressful because their people are constantly being called to do overtime, and many are sick of it.

Amen, and the longer it continues, the more controllers will depart for jobs overseas, in Ireland, Germany, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Hong Kong, South Africa and New Zealand; or simply quit the career.

Airservices — and government figures all the way up to Transport Minister Anthony Albanese — suggest something darker. Mr Albanese and Airservices chief executive Greg Russell said publicly last year that it appeared a small number of controllers were taking "sickies" and some of their colleagues were playing along by refusing to answer the phone when replacements were being sought. The union and many of the controllers reacted with outrage to such allegations.

I am the Lindbergh Baby!!! You’re a fucken idiot Tony; how can you write such BS. If it were true in anyway, where are the controllers on a first second or third warning? Where are the sackings for illegal industrial action, where are the law suits? The truth is that it is convenient to attempt link these two events, the CA and the short staffing crisis as a single event; the reality, is the more you try the more you isolate the staff.

The fact remains, however, that the spike in air-space closures mirrors the situation that preceded the previous contract agreement for the air traffic controllers three years ago.

BS, how many closures happened in 2005? How many are happening now? That little graph was wrong when it was made, it’s even worse now that managers protest it’s a fact.

It seems Mr Rudd can call for restraint and declare "we're all in this together" until he is blue in the face. In this dispute, it might appear some are in it for themselves.

That’s right, guilt us into accepting a shit deal, why the fark would we stay working for this pack of assholes, if we had a choice to work elsewhere in Oz, ASA would solve all it’s problems they would no longer employ ATCs; the international options are getting more and more Ozzies apply everyday; keep it up Greg, you’ve a chance to lose us all yet. And Tossers like Tony Wright who regurgitate the clap trap do nothing to advance the cause.

Application made

2009-01-17T11:30:00.003Z

Again we’ve been quiet. Why? Well there’s been so little to say, without providing the industrialist from HR at ASA with more fodder for the eventual AIRC hearings; which now are surely to come.

We have seen recent media scrutiny about the way ASA runs it’s accounts, loading up with debt in a times of a credit crisis, simply to ensure payment of a dividend which the government (the owner) doesn’t demand. We wonder where the “Delaware deal” is now, what is the true state of the bonus payments required, what is the effect of those payments now with the AUD in the toilet again?

We have seen the inevitable occur, as predicted, Civil Air has now filed for a Protected Bargaining Period, a time where they can ask the members what industrial action they’d like to pursue to improve their strength at the bargaining table.

But will it improve anything? Will the employer get the backing of the owner and the press run some stories of effected passengers standing in non moving check-in line; crying about missing granny’s funeral or the kids not getting home in time for school (lucky buggers).

The answer is of course the media love to hate a bad guy; so any form of industrial action will put you down on the bad guy side of the ledger.

Why would Australia’s ATCs want a better deal?

The current (sick, vomit, spew) offer, has a reduction in real terms and conditions on the table.

Not bad considering that the employees entered negotiations with a vision document which sought to address the difference in the global market and what we are currently on, bring us in line with the local employment market and really make ASA an employer of choice, unlike the clap trap they claim on paper. Employer of choice, our arse it is!

The employer has ‘offered’ a reduction in real wages, ie less than CPI, no recognition of the staffing crisis, no improved starting salary, no bonuses (except the flakey 5% that no one will qualify for) and to get all that controllers must surrender their entitlements particularly those relating to sick leave, the headline point.

Currently controllers have access to “Sick leave as Required” (not unlimited)... This is a very good thing for both sides, it ensures that people who have statutory obligations about their requirements to report for duty in a fit state have no fear about not getting paid if they don’t go to work; plus it stops the spreading of community diseases in the very small community that is ATC, colds and flu, gastro etc.

The employer has offered a cap of 15 days leave, a figure nearly double that of the current ATC average sick leave in a 24/7/365 work environment (when you exclude long term illnesses). 15 days isn't bad unless you bust the cap... Then what, go to work sick or tired or something else in order to secure your bags of silver and gold, or stay at home and reduce your take home pay. The concept is still very grey between 15 days and 28 days leave...

The employer has stated that genuinely sick people will get looked after, but the implication is that if you currently use more than 15 days, without a major accident or event such as cancer, you aren’t genuinely ill. This is a ridiculous premise.

In 2008, some employees of ASA worked in excess of 60 shifts of Overtime. Such is the reliance on Overtime. The current West Radar roster has 50+ shifts of overtime to split between 21 people in 6 weeks; before there is any “abuse” of sick leave, yet there is no staffing crisis, awsure! Is there more than a causal link between sick leave and overtime?

The pressures of the CASRs are real, the employee who reports for duty fatigued because they don’t want to push their leave cap, won’t be less productive pushing paper or may make minor mistakes that will get picked up by the editor, or need to go for a walk in the daylight to recharge the batteries, any controller turning up to work fatigued has the real ability to endanger the public by putting planes closer together than they should be.

The employer has form regarding covering someone in the event of an accident. They do whatever they can to reduce their own liability, if that means hanging the employee then they do it; very recent experiences have highlighted this.

Imagine if the controllers in the recent coronial enquiring stated they had worked 13 of the last 15 days leading up to the accident and had only had 4 hours sleep before reporting for duty; do you think that angle may have been explored by the council assisting the coroner?

Do you think the employer would have been in their defending the controllers or simply producing the FAID reports saying there is no issues as 80 was never busted, if the controllers were fatigued they shouldn't have been at work?

If the controllers don’t have the right to protect themselves then who protects the public from the consequences of unsafe work practices? Is it likely that the employer would ask are we asking too much, nope less than 80 on FAID = green light! Over 80, green light after some mirror work.

Enough about sick leave, lets talk about the $$$.

The current Australian agreement has effectively 13 bands (with minor variations); that’s 15 years from entering employment to get to the top salary, if you tick all the right boxes for your annual increment advancement which is now at the behest of your manager; many people are getting restricted, some now even for being involved in incidents, such is the no blame culture.

The current ASA conditions are incredibly uncompetitive in the global market. Hong Kong currently pays double what Australians get with lots less tax and living allowances to offset the costs of living in HK; Germany is offering 110,000 Euros with effectively the same costs of living, Ireland is offering a similar amount to Germany. All these places are recruiting Australians as we write.

Then there is the Middle East, which will expanding even in the reducing global economy; the new UAE centre (Abu Dhabi) will be demanding extra controllers to meet it’s expanded role in the through put of traffic. Dubai will be expanding within months with the opening of Jebal Ali (or Dubai World Central) airport, which will be the largest airport in the world and be ever building to Atlanta type movement rates; Muscat and Bahrain always looking for experienced people.

The grass in the middle east might be somewhat sandier, but the pay is effectively double (or more) with no Taxation so in essence at least a 3 fold increase in the take home pay; all the while living expenses in the UAE in particular have reduced in recent times. The Middle East will be chasing people by the middle to end of the year, Australia will be a significant poaching ground as we have a very good reputation for producing competent controllers.

But the number one reason why people will leave Australia, is respect. The employer has taken significant advantage of their employment power, to the point where most people now passionately dislike working for Airservices Australia. Whilst leaving home and Australia isn’t a viable option for a lot of people, there has been a significant shift in the attitudes of many in recent months. If there were valid options for alternate ATC employment in Australia, numbers would have left already.

This so called ‘informal industrial action’ taken by a few employees has tainted the whole workforce; the tainting has been a broad brush approach towards all employees by the CEO, the Board, and now of late the minister and CASA. The CEO choosing to publicly bash the entire workforce has backfired, it didn't motivate these rouges to change course, it put the entire workforce onto the same path or sticking together to fight the common enemy, Greg Russell and the ASA Board.

The fact that 20-30 people (or around 4% of the workforce) refusing to work overtime can cripple the nations system speaks volumes about how poorly managed ASA is. Why can’t people choose not to work overtime, surely it should be sufficient to work your rostered hours; in a properly run business it would be.

We would suggest that the crippling is conveniently blamed on the 4% of people not working OT; when often the service disruptions are now where need these so called rouges. The projects such as SDE and the ALM debacle of removing operational ratings have had a much broader effect, one which isn't recognised at all by these piss weak managers; from Level 4 to level 1; you're all guilty of the cover-up. The controllers are aggrieved because they told management in no uncertain terms that SDE would waste resources and with proper resourcing, which was never gong to eventuate, the ALM process was unnecessary and dangerous for long term coverage, not to mention staff welfare and management relations.

When CASA and the minister back the corporate rhetoric it not only highlights further the incompetence of management, to spin such a BS story, but it exacerbates the conflict between management and operational staff. The vast majority of staff are still working overtime, unreasonable amounts, and thus become increasingly disengaged and what an even better outcome from the ‘negotiations’ are retribution for the lies being told.

Over the last 10 years the gap between ATC wages growth and AWOTE is ever growing, the ATCs are falling further behind the average punter at the same time being required to give up conditions of employment to secure this less than AWOTE advancement.

Productivity by any measure is up up up, but recognition of funding of pay through productivity is all but non existent. Failure to pay while the sun shone should and does deserve no recognition of possible reductions in growth. If the wealth was shared then fair enough to share the pain, but alas there has been no sharing.

Conditions of employment currently being required to be surrendered don’t represent value for money. To take 16% of conditions for 4.1% pay isn’t fair and isn’t reflected in community standards as a fair deal.

We are truly sorry it has come to this, alas, it will be a national stoppage or similar action that will focus their attention; the government may choose to take some action to prevent this occurring but to what end, to stop and further alienate the workforce; they’d be better off publicly stating that the controllers deserve more pay and push their employer into giving it to them.

Machines and projects “that go ping” will not revolutionalise the ATC world.

Dear Greg and the Board, make a decent and fair offer soon, or we will be at war, again, and your messages of "piss and wind" will be forever lasting as nothing more.

Controllers Sacrifice Opportunities - Again

2008-12-23T08:56:00.003Z

Today Civil Air on behalf of Australia's Air Traffic Controllers ruled out industrial action prior to Christmas.

Despite the numerous certified shafting meetings delivering nothing but predicted frustrations, the controllers have chosen to do the right thing by the Australian public, again.

Controllers currently have the right to initiate a bargaining period and take legal industrial action within that bargaining period; but are doing the right thing again, despite remaining on the boards and consoles at work without a valid contract.

In 2001 controllers chose to delay industrial action due to the effects of September 11 on the industry and economy, and then subsequently delayed action again during the Ansett crisis which saw the destruction of that company.

This position was taken to assist the public and minimise the impacts that national ATC industrial action was likely to have. The result of not taking action was an 18 month pay freeze and a conclusion which delivered a less than CPI rise.

In 2005 the controllers obtained a less than satisfactory outcome, as many unions did, to avoid the Howard workchoices reforms that would removed many options and power relating to industrial action and the ability to negotiate on an equal footing.

In 2008 there have been 15 formal negotiating meetings and from all reports we are no closer to an agreement than the first meeting. Despite numerous attempts to get 'financials' so that modelling could occur, the net result has been:

Trust us, it costs an "Arm and a Leg".

We hate to say it, but as predicted by the shafters, all the fluffy promises have delivered less than a CPI offer again, and to get that the employer wants to take conditions of employment easily argued to be more than the value of increase on offer, generous, NOT!

Secret Squirrel

2008-12-16T10:08:00.003Z

It appears that there is a round table discussion to occur before the minister tomorrow.

Sources close to "the shafters" confirm that the rumours published on 'crikey' indeed do have legs; perhaps that's what we meant about 'black shirts' on Wednesday in our last post.

We have checked with parties from both sides of the 'summoning' before Big Tony; sources from both sides confirm that there is a meeting.

As for the agenda, well it's not exactly about crushing the union as suggested in the rumour. But it is about the CA and whether a way forward can be achieved. Of course there may be more in the rumour than is being publicly stated by both parties (well at least by our contacts).

We understand that the great TFN will be on duty before the minister along with some VPs and the Exec Sec.

We hope that discussions are real and fruitful; but you won't mind if we don't hold our breath will you?

Ya can't make this shit up

2008-12-14T22:00:00.000Z

In recent days with much "fan fare" we have seen the employer Airshambles Australia 'launch' a new community service (why?)

WebTrak
Note: Due to the large amount of interest in the Airservices Australia WebTrak service, you may expereince difficulties in accessing this service. If you experience problems, please try again at a later time.
WebTrak is an innovative system providing the community with information on where and how high aircraft fly, as well as noise levels of these operations.
It allows members of the public access to detailed information on aircraft operations around major airports.
WebTrak is part of the largest integrated Noise and Flight Path Monitoring System in the world.
How does it work?
WebTrak uses information from air traffic control secondary surveillance radars to monitor aircraft:
within 55 km of the airport
up to a height of 3000m above ground level
Aircraft noise data is downloaded daily from noise monitors strategically located about the communities close to the airport.
The information is then displayed on a detailed map (road or aerial) which enables the user to zoom down to their street level.
In Current Flights mode you can view current operations (delayed by 40 minutes for aviation security reasons) around the airport.
In Replay Mode you can access flight information and noise data for the previous two weeks.
Contact details
To provide comments, lodge a noise complaint or request additional information please use the contacts below:
Online form
Phone: 1800 802 584
Email: community.relations@airservicesaustralia.com
Liability and Copyright
We have made every reasonable effort to ensure the information presented is accurate. However, the data within WebTrak may still contain inaccuracies in some cases. It should not be relied upon when making personal, legal or financial decisions.
Noise data may not be available due to problems with the telecommunications network or maintenance works on the monitor. In such cases, try again in 24 hours time or contact the Noise Enquiry Unit.
In extreme cases some track deviations can occur at low altitudes due to radar reflections, which gives the impression of an aircraft deviating off the runway.
WebTrak is provided for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not modify, copy, distribute or reproduce in any form the data obtained from WebTrak. All maps used by WebTrak are copyright.

This service cost around $20M to install, god knows what the ongoing wages and maintenance costs will be, (read not cheap folks). Another over promise and under delivery, right there for the public to read before they even get to look at the product. Is this supposed to reduce or increase complaints about noise?

So what does Joe Public get for their $20M investment, sweet FA we'd say.

When you agree to terms and conditions, follow the link above, you get to see (sic) arrivals and departures within 30NM of an aerodrome as long as they are under 3000 meters above the ground. we figure it's filtered out above 10,000 feet for those reading with an aviation background.

Does it pick up all movements, well apparently not, we have observed this in action for a while now, the peak periods have only one or two departures every 10 minutes. The "picture" is 20 mins delayed. The interaction with the details promised like callsigns and aircraft types works pathetically (or not at all).

This is your tax dollars at work. The $$$ otherwise returned to staff in terms of higher wages or to the government in terms of more profit dividends are wasted by an administration eager to have another machine that goes 'ping'. All this approved spending in the same period as saying that any proposed cost for improving conditions of employment are at an 'arm and a leg' cost basis.

We here at "the shafters" have a very interesting rumour about the week ahead, particularly Wednesday (we hope you wear your Black Shirts); let's hope something positive comes out of it, unfortunately we suspect that by the end of the week, we'll be writing again to confirm that 'we told you so' again.

Long time no see?

2008-12-10T21:10:00.003Z

You may have noticed that we've been quiet for a while; we were requested by a member of the CANG (via email) to "lay off" and not to interfere with the proceedings; or not to provide fodder/evidence for the AIRC; we have primarily stuck to that request, but cannot remain silent.

Yesterday marked the final negotiating meeting for the "2008 Certified Shafting" in 2008. We presume this makes it a "2009 Certified Shafting" process after all.

As predicted by us back in April, nothing above CPI has been conceded by our wonderful employer and to get that we need to surrender conditions of employment that the employer cannot be trusted to administer in a fair and reasonable manner.

They have form, none of it good!

Airshambles has hitched their wagon to the latest 'sky is falling' crisis that has come along; this time the financial credit crunch and reduced airline growth (note not reductions just slowing growth) is to blame, last time it was the crushing impacts of fuel increases and reducing airline industry figures produced by IATA combined with the Howard workchoices implementation dates.; the time before that it was the collapse of Ansett and post Sept 11 aviation market reductions.

Can we as a collective catch a break?

Well since 2001 we have observed massive growth in movements of bigger and bigger aircraft, providing now huge revenues with ever decreasing wages. We have seen or 'customers' produce record after record profits all the while playing the 'sky is falling' card.

Airshambles Australia is offering you in "real terms" a reduction of between 8 and 17 %, depending on the value of the conditions of employment they want you to surrender, some say much more. Airshambles claims that they have provided a fair and reasonable offer.

We have seen more and more ATCs depart for other paddocks or simply removing their shingle from the stoop and running away to another locations; we have seen more than ever the reliance on overtime, and the few of us that remain on the boards under more pressure than ever; particularly when 'required' to attend for additional duty, or at least made to feel that way.

The supply and demand argument is definitely in our favour; bugger the 'frame work arguments' because they principles contained within that document are being selectively chosen or selectively ignored.

We note that a deal is not likely now until well into the new year.

That the wagons are being circled on both sides and an industrial battle looks more likely than not.

That the promises by TFN for "a better way" have probably resulted in the most hostile negotiations in recent memory.

We hate to say it, but WE TOLD YOU SO.

Gooorne

2008-09-18T03:20:00.002Z

We here at the shafters would like to wish all the best to the greatest HR advisor that our once proud company has ever seen.

The "King of Bling", "KOB", "Jolly Jumper", "Jolly Jumbuck", "the bloke I wouldn't piss on if he was one fire", otherwise known as Gary, has left the building.

Gary, our long time fan, we hope you had the time of your life.

Relax Staffing Crisis Over

2008-09-09T01:09:00.000Z

Cameron Creedy - The ORRRRSTRALIAN

39 August 2008

The flying public should now have every confidence that the Orrrrstralian aviation environment will run efficiently from early tomorrow. True to his word the CEO of Airshambles (Grog Rustler) announced today that the alleged ATC staffing crisis had been officially resolved.

"Yes we have had 25 closures / disruptions after August 31, hence the move to extend August just once; because I'd previously committed to no crisis after August."

"Look we had our troubles, we were left in a horrible position by the previous management." Mr Rustler said, "I came to this business, and like any new CEO, had to make my mark, so I reduced the decentralisation of the core activities, this made us much more efficient."

"The most difficult task we had was convincing the modern world to amend their calendars in a one off adjustment, we were pleasantly surprised with the support we got from the Ministry of funny walks, but now we can officially welcome September with gusto."

Rustler said, "Some people said I just sacked people and made the others we kept work harder, it's not the way it happened, I gave people generous resignation and retirement benefits and diluted those often duplicated duties amongst the remaining workforce."

"Sure it would appear that it was a dud decision, and that's who I'm blaming next." Mr Rustler said. "Hindsight is always wonderful in hindsight, we didn't know that our staff were telling us the truth when they said it was a stupid decision and wouldn't work."

To appease the workers, in 2006-7 Airshambles hired almost 20% more staff than they had previously enabled to explore other options, but these were mostly in clerical roles, which is now running more efficiently than ever.

"We had to take this business in a new direction, we have, now it's completely on course." Mr Rustler said, "Look you have to understand that the future of the business is looking very bright, some may say the only way is up, I don't feel that way, if we play our cards right during contract negotiations we can get much lower than this."

Meanwhile Mr Rickturd Dooright, Airshambles PR chief stated, "Those saying this company is a bad place to work need to realise that it's a big bad world out there, what skills can our employees sell on the open market, they are trapped and we know it and they need to know it too."

"Our staff just complain, but they don't go anywhere, this tells us that deep down, we have them by the balls, or they would have left long ago. Sure some have jumped off the lifeboat, but look where they are headed, to high cost of living environments, they'll need to double their pay to survive."

"Our intention is to pay market rates, and we own this market so we determine the rate." said Mr Dooright.

Meanwhile the staffing unions that represent the workers, Filtered Air and CUPS, said that the management have got it wrong.

Mr Minsick, a Vice President at Filtered Air, said that "Airshambles was flogging themselves, these Johnny come lately management types aren't realistic, it starts at the top and works it's way down like a very vicious cancer, each stupid idea must be trumped by a stupider idea."

"What we don't see is the Board even appearing to care, at least they could pretend to care" said Mr Minsick, "we expect the controllers to turn on each other, or us their union, before they stand up to the hollow men from the Bullshit Castle."

"Rumours of people leaving in droves are highly over exaggerated." Mr Rustler said today. "I have fully briefed the minister Mr Lemoneasy, I have his full backing, he understands it's not my fault."

When questioned about 15 trainees employed earlier this month, 4 months prior to their training commecning Mr Rustler simply stated, "I reject the allegations that we are hiding or wasting anything, we had no plans to train everyone at once, we planned to employ 80 trainees this year, we are planning on doing that, we are right on course. At no time did we state we would graduate 80 trainees out of the college this year, hell we didn't even say we'd train 80 people, we are just taking 80 trainees."

"We plan to take 100 trainees next year" Mr Rustler said, "We don't think that anyone expects that it means 100 graduates, or even 100 controllers in training, it means 100 trainees , training or not, and nothing more".

PRESS RELEASE

2008-09-03T12:58:00.003Z

As it appears to have slipped the Airservices Australia management team’s observation, or quite possibly it was noticed but remains deliberately unreported, Certified Shafting would like to make the following major announcement.

May 2008 was the single busiest month in Australia’s air traffic control history*.

The 303,112 movements nationwide smashed the previous high of 294,712 set more than seven years ago in March 2001. This figure is an extraordinary affirmation of the professionalism and dedication of the nation’s air traffic controllers, who have achieved this amazing feat under the cloud of constant and oppressive managerial attacks, critical short staffing and the lowest levels of morale in the company’s history.

Our sincerest congratulations to the devoted men and women who dedicate their lives to keeping Australia’s airways safe.

*source: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/projectsservices/reports/maa.asp?id=2008

Boo Hoo - Sookie sookie la la

2008-08-27T23:31:00.001Z

We here at certified shafting get lots of information from time to time; some of this information is 'gold', some is unrepeatable, some is made up and scurrilous, some is just damn funny.

We understand that at last weeks National Executive meeting there was broad and robust discussions about the treatment ALMs are getting from the rank and file membership of Civil Air.

The ATSM Divisional rep, doing his job, representing his members, reported about commentary he had received from ALMs. Apparently the collective ALM group is pissed off and annoyed at the way the rank and file members lambaste (bag, rubbish, admonish, castigate, chastise, chide, rebuke, reprimand) them particularly in an anonymous fashion on the various forums, but particularly so on the unions forum.

We here at Certified Shafting have absolutely nothing to say other than HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

NOW THAT IS FUNNY!

The poor little "cherubs" who failed to follow, our advice, the unions advice and has generally individualised themselves away from the collective by signing an AWA. Now they are annoyed that the individuals who potentially have been shafted by these ALMs and the decisions they took to remove themselves from the collective are having a go at them.

BOO HOO! Grow up.

You had a choice, whatever your individual justification, you deserve what you get, you made your choice. You are now a manager, you are on your own AWA. For those who attempt to justify you had no choice, well you were wrong, you just couldn’t stomach the other options, go cry to your mum, not your union.

For the ALMs (and other senior roles) who held strong and didn’t sign an individual contract (AWA) good on you, we hope the stench flowing towards your ‘colleagues’ doesn’t stick to you too.

Project SHHHHH!

2008-08-27T01:42:00.002Z

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24248226-31477,00.html

Traffic controller merger plan stalls

Cameron Stewart | August 27, 2008

AN ambitious plan to save taxpayers more than $300million by ending the wasteful separation of the nation's civil and military air traffic management systems has stalled.

$300million, wow what a headline. Where is this money coming from? Facilities management, reduced wages, location costs? Or is it a total furphy?

Defence has backed away from any rapid implementation of the plan to create a unified national system, declaring it wants to move only at "a measured pace, cognisant of the requirements to maintain Defence capability".

Defence doesn’t trust Airshambles to deliver, they think putting the fox in charge of the hen house is a silly idea; they like their hens.

This is despite Defence claims, made in a 2002 document signed by the current Australian Defence Force chief Angus Houston, that "Australia simply cannot justify, sustain or afford to continue operating two almost identical Air Traffic Management systems".

Afterwards they wised up, will Airshambles provide ‘critical’ military airspace services when there’s commercial revenue to be chased; what faith has airservices demonstrated where they currently provide a service to military airspace, the Richmond RAAF base is provided an approach service by the civil controllers in the Sydney TMA.

The Defence go-slow has angered civil air traffic control manager Airservices Australia, which wants to push ahead with the unification plan, arguing it would produce savings of more than $300 million.

They can’t understand why the RAAF is restricting their plans to save their own staffing crisis.

Airservices spokesman Richard Dudley told The Australian: "Airservices and Defence have both been discussing an improved, national air traffic management system for a decade, but Defence concerns over loss of its own 'capability', difficulties with funding models and no real incentives for change have precluded real progress.

The RAAF are right to be concerned, Airshambles can’t get it’s own house in order, why would you give them more control? What “guarantees” would there be about service provision?

"The existence of two independent air traffic control and airspace management systems driven by different objectives, priorities and cultures hampers the delivery of a better product for Australia. Improving the inter-operability has the potential to produce savings in the order of $300 million plus."

There’s that figure again. We don’t believe that figure is a ‘true cost’ at all. Think about the numbers, 258 controllers in the RAAF. Cost = $300,000 each (way too much) total $77.4M; so are we saying the RAAF spends over $223.5M on their system and facilities?

If so giving them TAAATS consoles and sharing development costs would be much more efficient than merging the organisations. ADATS (the system used by the RAAF) is no doubt expensive to buy and maintain and change, but it was a ‘customised’ product for RAAF use, do they need it, probably not, but will TAAATS give them what they want, definitely not.

No wait, NEWS FLASH, the $300M is not ‘annualised’; it’s a total. Over how long? 25 years? 10 years?

Australia developed separate civil and military air traffic management systems because it was considered necessary to meet the separate specific requirements of civil and military flying.

Well not quite, all military forces had or have had their own controlling workforce, there are not too many in the world who do not.

Primarily because the substantive differences in deployment and defence capabilities; but also there are substantive differences in ‘dealing’ with military operations, that civil controllers do get involved with occasionally, but very rarely.

A 2002 study, obtained by The Australian, found that having separate systems was no longer essential and that the duplication was a waste of taxpayers' money.

No doubt the duplication wastes costs in terms of systems and facilities, but essentially the ‘body cost’ is identical. The RAAF is right to not trust Airshambles to deliver the ‘right bodies’ for their needs; they can’t delivery enough bodies for it’s own needs.

In 2005, the Air Force and Airservices set up a program called Genesis to integrate military air traffic control into the civil system.

They have transferred the PEARCE RAAF TCU to TAAATS and the Perth Terminal Unit, but the ‘blue shirts’ still have their blue shirts. They are just co-located; but still very separate units.

Defence now says Genesis failed to deliver viable reforms and although it remains committed in theory to a unified national system, major obstacles remain. It is understood to believe that integration proposals have not paid sufficient attention to its need to have tactical and strategic air traffic control in a time of crisis.

Whose crisis? Airshambles would love to deploy the remaining RAAF controllers where it needs them, you could immediately see RAAF deployment/capability/services significantly reduced as the ‘free’ controllers (cross paid by the RAAF) would get them out of the huge staffing hole that Airshambles has manufactured.

What is Airshambles ‘urgent’ motivation for fast tracking Genesis; it’s not about saving the tax payer or the government money you can bet your last cent on that.

Maybe they are more concerned about having to spend serious money to provide a 'Civil' facility at Williamtown (Newcastle) because CASA has told them to provide the service there outside RAAF hours, and the RAAF have said not using our kit (national security etc.) or staff (they are ours) you don't.

Focus on Training

2008-08-26T07:56:00.002Z

Training crisis for air traffic controllers

Paul Bibby August 26, 2008

THEY were recruited to address Australia's critical shortage of air traffic controllers, but the latest crop of trainees at the Airservices Australia learning academy are effectively twiddling their thumbs because there are not enough instructors to teach them, academy sources and the air traffic controllers union say.

Classic, this is a classic case of WE TOLD YOU SO! Idiots, 80 trainees a year, hell 100, why not. And pay them to sit on their arses watching the Olympics and surfing the internet, don’t pay them to train as controllers. ATC Awareness courses for Air Traffic Control trainees, Classic!

Airservices Australia has repeatedly claimed it is addressing the shortage - which is resulting in large areas of air space going unmonitored each day - by dramatically increasing the number of new recruits each year.

I guess you can increase them all you like at this rate, hell why not recruit 500 controller trainees, that way you can say you are replacing all the retirements and all the bastards leaving for jobs overseas.

But a staff member from the Melbourne academy says the latest intake of around 15 trainees have been given jobs running an air-traffic simulator program and told their training will not begin for three months because there are not enough instructors.

But the Learning Academy is state of the art, it’s been restructured, twice, in the current CEOs tenure, to be flexible and cope with the demands of the modern world. One Manager received the coveted “Australia Day Award” for his role in that process. He’s now left the organisation, of course.

"The simulator program requires people to act as pilots while others learn how to be controllers; they're called simulator service operators and Airservices already employs people to do that," the staff member said.

"But because there are no instructors, that's what the latest group are being told to do all day. There is virtually no benefit other than to learn a bit about what it's like to be a pilot."

Any delay in the training of the recruits would be significant given the safety problems created by the air traffic controllers shortage.

This is as good as Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”, we can’t train them, so why employ them? 180 trainees recruited between 2008 and 2009, how many controllers will that be by mid 2010? NONE! Idiots. How many by 2011? At this rate, NONE! - THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CONTROLLER AND A TRAINEE OR RECRUIT (EVEN WHEN YOU TRAIN THEM).

Large sections of air space go unmonitored almost every day and there have been a number of highly publicised mid-air near-misses, which some in the industry have blamed on the shortage.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority recently stepped in to limit the number of passenger jets allowed to fly through the uncontrolled zones.

Then they denied doing that?

Airservices says it has increased the intake of new recruits from 48 last year to 80 this year and 100 in 2009.

But isn’t that the point of this story, 80 people doing what? Training or being paid as trainees, there’s a big difference. What is BIG TONY doing with this latest INFO, oh that’s right, Mr “Head in the Sand”, or Ostrich, is doing nothing?

It strongly denied there was any shortage of instructors and said trainees spent more than 70 per cent of the course in the simulator where they developed practical skills. It did not specify what role they took in the program.

What course time, they don’t start one until Feb 2009, yet they are already employed, it’s a fraud.

"There is no setback of any training duration due to instructor shortages," its statement said.

"All current courses are running according to the planned schedule."

WTF? You know they are lying right?

Trainees at the college have been asked to sign confidentiality agreements which prevent them from speaking to the media.

As have all Airshambles employees.

But the executive secretary of the controllers union, Peter McGuane, said the learning academy had been allowed to run down, and that having trainees working as simulator service officers breached Airservices' own manual of standards.

"The manual says training courses must use … instructors or training officers with current expertise and identified qualifications appropriate to achieving the goals of the course," Mr McGuane said.

The MOS says a lot of things, not many of them are enforced. CASA?

"These trainees aren't being supervised at all. They've created this situation for themselves by not hiring replacement instructors and not bringing in extra instructors to cope with the new intake - they're repeating the same mistakes they made with the controllers."

Well they may as well play amongst themselves, there is only so many hours one can spend on the internet you know.

Airservices said it had a rotation plan that allowed instructors to swap between the academy and the country's control centres.

Now that’s funny! How many current controllers are instructing at the college?

"Airservices has spent over $17 million on the academy in the past year," its statement said.

But what does that mean? Facilities, wages, trainees, SSOs, electricity, heating, water, text books, computers, new machines that go PING?

Another dud headline on a reasonable story.

2008-08-19T05:04:00.003Z

Militants in air traffic control towers

Cameron Stewart | August 18, 2008

IT would be a nightmare for Christmas holidaymakers: an industrial brawl that grounds planes across the country over the festive season.

This is the spectre that looms for travellers as tensions escalate between air traffic controllers and their government-owned employer, Airservices Australia.

"I think we all know what's coming," one angry veteran air traffic controller from Melbourne wrote in an online forum to colleagues this month.

"It's time for all the older heads to start preparing our younger colleagues for December. Come December, you (ASA chief executive Greg Russell) will pay mate! A bloke can only take so many insults, especially when they are lies."

These militant views are not the stated position of the air traffic controllers' union, Civil Air, which promises that it will try to avoid industrial action. But they are reflective of deep passions being stirred by one of Australia's most unusual and dangerous disputes.

But Cameron, you know that the agreement expires on December 21, you also know that Civil Air is not talking about any action at this stage. As a conservative union it is highly likely that they will dot every i and cross every t when it comes to following the appropriate laws surrounding industrial action. This means that the earliest they could take action is well after Christmas; do you think they will target the public in such a way?

It is an issue which, if mismanaged over the coming months, has the potential to grind the country to a halt in a manner not seen since the 1989 pilots dispute in which the Hawke Labor government brought in the defence force.

Only if mismanaged on both sides. Nobody wants for the industrial action to become industrial war. Well maybe Greg does.

Put simply, Australia's 900 or so air traffic controllers are fed up with what they see as institutional neglect of their profession over many years.

900 or so, well wrong. There are 753 operational controllers, the others counted against the ‘numbers’ are managers who no longer control, or people on long term sick leave or on leave without pay (in other jobs elsewhere). Whatever the number, there has been clear and deliberate degrading of our profession. They consider us to be glorified traffic cops, or similar skills to ‘data entry’ IT operators, maybe ‘call centre drones’.

They accuse ASA of chronic mismanagement, resulting in serious staff shortages, repeated demands for overtime and pay scales which have lagged behind their overseas counterparts.

"The simple fact is that the system has been unsustainable for some time," says Civil Air president Robert Mason.

The safety of the flying public is also at stake: a shortage of controllers has frequently left large chunks of Australian sky without supervision for hours on end, leaving pilots to fend for themselves to avoid mid-air collisions.

Now we are starting to get it. TIBA is a direct result of staffing levels not abuse of sick-leave or the refusal of overtime. One group has 17 staff, and ‘requires’ almost 50 overtime shifts a month, before anyone calls in sick to meet ‘minimum staffing’.

But ASA chief Russell says the controllers themselves are part of the problem, accusing a small group of deliberately leaving the skies unmanned in order to strengthen their hand in forthcoming wage negotiations.

"It is no coincidence that these interruptions have been occurring in a time we are in a certified agreement negotiation," he tells The Australian.

"The union tells me they are not involved but I do think there are a small number of renegade controllers who are using these sorts of tactics to disrupt Australia's aviation system."

Greg, you are obviously a victim here too, you have believed what the middle management stooges have been selling you. You want to take on the unions, but have you got the right information? Surely you’re not stupid, you must see what you’re selling is rancid.

The issue has come to a head because ASA is now negotiating a new three-year collective agreement with Civil Air to take effect once the current agreement expires in December.

But there is a deadly sting in these discussions which has implications for all Australians. Civil Air, in its so-called vision statement for the new agreement is calling for total pay rises for air traffic controllers of between 32 and 63 per cent over the next three years.

Hardly a ‘deadly sting’. The informal pay claim is large, but inline with the global market. When Geoff Dixon gets a multi-million dollar salary it’s market forces, when the controllers ask that those forces apply to them they are considered greedy and unrealistic, why? The 63% applies to the training wage, we are sick of getting people straight from high school, how about a bit of maturity and life skills.

This would see the wage of senior air traffic controllers rise from $145,367 to $175,000 from January, and rising to $193,214 in 2011: a 33 per cent rise.

And yet will still be less than controller wages in Ireland, England, Germany, Spain, Holland, Italy, Hong Kong, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain, Dubai, Muscat, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Mexico; all of whom have vacancies, some of those have significantly larger salaries and tax free or much less tax than Oz.

Civil Air says these large rises are justified because they bring pay scales into line with overseas controllers and are the only way to attract and retain enough air traffic controllers in Australia into the future.

The numbers are real, despite taking 100 trainees a year, (even though they have little hope of coping with that many), retirements and early resignations will exceed that number; we have a significant ‘age profile’ issue. If we do nothing to retain staff, stop early retirements and departures to other employers there will be much more problems in 5 years than we have now.

Then consider growth, there is no evidence of new facilities in these plans. Parallel Runways at Brisbane and Melbourne, new airport towers at current unmanned locations etc will add significant pressure to the ‘numbers’.

But they will be unacceptable to the Rudd Government because of the precedence such large rises would create and the pressure they would put on its inflation strategy.

Yes, the ‘precedent’ would be set for all the other air traffic controllers otherwise employed in the civil world outside Airservices and residing in Australia. Yes NONE, what inflationary effect will 0.0001 of the national workforce getting less than double "real CPI" have?

They will also be fiercely resisted by airlines which are already reeling from record fuel prices. The airlines pay the salaries of the controllers via ASA which is government-owned but industry-funded.

What are the true costs of the claim, we have had good advice that the total extra claim in the vision equates to almost $30M. This works out to be 75 cents per passenger seat sold in Australia. It could also be fully costed against the ASA annual profit, some $104M last year. Both these options would have little effect on the viability of the airlines or contribute significantly to their costs.

Yet Civil Air is a union full of angry members who genuinely feel that they have been mistreated for too long. It is in no mood to back down, setting the scene for an industrial showdown with national ramifications.

Too right, controllers are really pissed off that their employer treats them like shit, totally unappreciated, totally as a detriment to their efficient business, a cost not an asset. They are equally aggrieved that their employer pays lip service to safety and has ‘restructured’ the business to an inefficient, inflexible, over managed beast that has lost site of it’s core business, to provide the best damn air traffic service we can.

They are also pissed off that their employer doesn’t recognise traffic growth when working out productivity. Controllers even when fully staffed (which is rare) are working harder than ever before and the out of touch managers only see productivity when controllers trade off their conditions of employment to squeeze more blood from the stone as the only way to measure it.

Then there are the AWOTE arguments, controllers get a fair wage by Australian Standards, but by Air Traffic Controller standards we are becoming a laughing stock. Controllers wages have reduce against AWOTE (community growth) by some 15% over the last 10 years.

So how did it come to this? The seeds of the problem were sown years ago by Airservices and by proxy, the Howard government.

Set up 13 years ago to manage Australia's air traffic control system and provide airports services such as aviation rescue and fire fighting, ASA employs about 3000 people, including about 900 air traffic controllers.

There’s that 900 number again.

But over the past eight years, management deficiencies have emerged. In the early 2000s the organisation inexplicably failed to foresee the need to sharply lift its intake of controllers in the face of a worldwide shortage, an ageing workforce and more airline traffic.

It’s failure was a deliberate act; they ‘banked’ on new technology reducing the controller positions at a greater rate than the retirement forecast. What they missed was the ‘delays’ to technology implementation, people leaving for OS and people retiring earlier than the nominal average. They didn’t react to the technology delays. They didn’t react to earlier retirements and they certainly haven’t reacted to OS departures. They couldn't admit that the union knew more about their business than they did.

"I was surprised by how much needed to be done," says Russell who took over as CEO in mid-2005. "There was a lack of planning for the future, the place had become distracted from its primary mission."

What is the primary mission Greg? Selling stuff in Malaysia and Indonesia, manning towers in the pacific, consulting in the Middle East?

Transport Minister Anthony Albanese is also unusually blunt about the dysfunction within ASA which his Government has inherited.

"It is pretty clear that for a long period of time the ball was dropped," he tells The Australian. "The issue of skills in the aviation industry was on autopilot."

So what are you minister going to do about it? Review things? Or simply leave them on course to a disaster? The paper BS is just that, nothing of substance will come from it with any speed.

Russell admits that in his first year as CEO he did not give immediate priority to recruiting more controllers, because he says he was busy trying to restructure a "dysfunctional" organisation.

'I don't think we fully understood the air traffic implications until later in 2006 and that's when we said 'let's fast track people'."

BULLSHIT! Greg you were given promises by your lower sycophant managers that haven’t been delivered, you “moved on” anyone that questions the substance of the plans or the financial benefits of the plans. In 2006 you realised that we weren’t going to have 70 people doing what 100 used to do and the wheels began falling off; you had no choice but to up the intakes.

The ALM and SDE restructures have reduced the operational efficiency of the business when it could be least afforded. You were given direct advice that it’s a bad idea, you don’t like your ideas being criticised, you said “damn the torpedo’s ramming speed”.

GREG, YOU FUCKED UP BIG TIME!

Russell has recently more than doubled planned recruitment numbers to between 80 and 100 trainees a year for the next five years, but it will not help solve the present shortage because of the lag-time of at least a year for recruits to become fully qualified.

Cameron, shame on you, no mention of their ability to train so many people. No mention of the trainees employed in August and won’t start "real" training until January? They’re “on the books” so they are part of the solution, right? Did someone say 'corporate fraud' and saving face?

Did anyone pay attention during the mandatory corporate governance training; how many people have reported this fraud?

As a result, both Civil Air and ASA admit there is a national shortage of controllers, although they differ on how critical this shortage is.

ASA says it has 876 controllers and is only 17 controllers short of its full complement, but Civil Air says the shortage is more like 100 because it says ASA is including managers who are qualified controllers but who, after a management restructure last year, no longer work on the consoles.

There are 753 operational controllers and a need for 807. There are an additional 48 controllers required for training and other specialist roles that are currently vacant. They hope to reduce this number to 700 through cutting out 'archaic rules' relating to CASA regulations and worlds best practice.

Civil Air says that since June 2002 the number of air traffic controllers has fallen by 20.6 per cent while monthly aircraft movements have jumped by 25.2 per cent.

Did anyone say ‘productivity increase’? Did anyone say working much harder and under more pressure?

Either way, all parties agree that there are not enough controllers to manage the skies and the dangerous outcome is that large chunks of skies are being left unsupervised for hours at a time, a situation which pilots have likened to that of Third World African nations.

But Russell is constantly dismissing the impact of this by blaming, militants and renegades and a few people to strengthen their industrial claim.

The surge in the incidence of uncontrolled airspace - which rose by one-third between May and June alone - has put enormous pressure on ASA, embarrassed the Government and angered the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

It has also infuriated airlines which try to avoid sending their planes though uncontrolled airspace for safety reasons, causing delays, cancellations and costly diversions.

Virgin Blue chief executive Brett Godfrey has blasted ASA's management, saying the air traffic control system should not collapse just because a few people call in sick.

Godfrey is right, Sick Leave at traditional levels should not ‘cripple’ your business, even if there is a ‘spike’ which there isn’t.

CASA is also frustrated by the safety risks involved in having uncontrolled airspace. Last month, CASA boss Bruce Byron warned ASA to quickly get its house in order.

ASA knows this embarrassing situation is playing into Civil Air's hands at a time when negotiations for a new collective agreement have begun.

If Airservices was fair dinkum they would present a modest, but above average pay-rise, without wanting to denigrate further the working conditions of the controllers. They haven’t, they won’t and they will attempt to resolve staffing crisis by making the controllers ‘more productive’ ie work them harder, thus reducing the numbers of controllers required.

Russell also smells a rat and believes that a small but militant number of controllers are trying to strengthen their negotiating position by throwing sickies and refusing to work overtime in order to close the skies and highlight staff shortages.

Russell is loose with the truth, he thinks that blaming others will remove the focus on his lack of stewardship and incompetence. At this point in time, the only people believing Russell’s SPIN are his sycophant managers who are trawling through statistics (and manipulating them) to find links to ‘bastardry’, not to mismanagement.

The union strongly denies it is running any such campaign, but there is anecdotal evidence that some controllers are refusing to make themselves available to replace colleagues when they call in sick.

But what is the reason, because they have had enough, are sick of working OT because they work unreasonable hours, have stopped believing the ‘we’ll fix the crisis’ messages due to inaction. Is it that the industrial issue is simply a coincidence to the greater issues. Russell is choosing to link the events, he does so at great risk.

Last Friday, a wide area of airspace between Brisbane and Cairns was left uncontrolled between midnight and 5.30am after one controller called in sick. ASA says six other controllers declined to cover the shift while another four were uncontactable.

The big point here is 1 controller called in sick and airspace closed, did you mention mismanagement? The statistics about controllers being ‘unavailable’ is a side show. See this blog here for an explanation about why controllers wouldn’t come in to work a ‘doggo’; it destroys your plans, it destroys your recovery and the likelihood if they are calling you, you can expect to be at the console all night without a break, where do I sign right?

To support its claims of industrial blackmail, ASA has drawn up graphs showing that there was a similar, though much smaller, spike in uncontrolled airspace in late 2005 when the existing collective agreement was being negotiated.

We have seen those graphs too, see our editing here.

Civil Air disputes the allegations, saying the vast majority of controllers are exhausted and overworked by a system that is falling to pieces.

If Airshambles were serious about attracting staff on overtime, then surely they would simply pay more for overtime? What about paying more for anyone exceeding a certain threshold a month, say 10 hours. The first 10 hours normal OT rate, exceed that we’ll give you 0.7 more an hour. etc. Their only solution appears to be, embarrass them for not coming in.

"I think there will undoubtedly be one or two (controllers) around the tracks who are not playing the game properly," says union chief Mason.

"the vast majority of controllers are exhausted and overworked by a system that is falling to pieces."

"But airspace closures are occurring because Airservices has allowed staff numbers to reduce to inadequate levels despite years of warnings from Civil Air.

"An extremely high level of overtime by Civil Air members has been required over the past two years to sustain service levels and the overtime is now unsustainable as there are too few controllers remaining to manage growing traffic levels."

Albanese is suspicious about the correlation between disruptions to air traffic control services and industrial negotiations, but he still believes that ASA carries more blame than do the controllers.

At last a sign from BIG TONY that there maybe something wrong in the AWB.

"I think the blame for disruption lies squarely at the failure to have long-term planning, not with the controllers themselves," he says.

Huzzah, there you have it. Single staffing, teams, non core rostering all things exploited beyond a joke.

ASA's allegations have further fuelled the anger of many controllers who are offended by claims that they would make the skies less safe in order to secure greater pay rises.

In this toxic atmosphere and with little sign of flexibility or concession from either side, both Civil Air and ASA will next month try to thrash out their differences in a planned series of intense negotiating sessions.

"I don't hold any great hopes,' Mason says.

Wait until the ASA offer is tabled. Many folk talk of the 32% as the line in the sand; but it’s the conditions which hold equal importance to most, not the cold hard cash alone. But the progression so far is trending to worse working conditions for a less than CPI offer, why are they deliberately steering towards the iceberg? Do they want a war? Is there a bigger strategy to crush that pesky little trumped up union?

It's a poisonous atmosphere to work in, every week another dart gets thrown in the CEOs photo, every week, the controllers become more unified in their objectives. Some are lining up to get back at the fool, the CEO from hell, the CEO that has to go.

DEAR BOARD of ASA:

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING!!!!!

ASA's Russell finds himself wedged between a government master which is unlikely to accept any pay rise for controllers beyond 6 per cent a year and a union that wants twice that amount.

6%, where did you get that from? We have it from many sources that to exceed 4% the controllers will be required to sell their conditions of employment.

But despite Russell's predicament, many believe that it is Civil Air which could come off second best if they pursue a wage claim too out of kilter with the rest of the community.

How about conditions expected in a 24/7 work environment and an adjustment back to AWOTE since 1998, assessed independently. Bring us back to community ‘kilter’.

"Air traffic controllers have a solid claim to better conditions in these negotiations but they will risk it all if they appear too greedy," says one senior aviation insider who asked not to be named.

We hope, Mr Anonymous, you are counselling the executive of Civil Air.

"If they went on strike and brought the aviation industry to a halt because they did not receive a 30 per cent-plus pay rise they would be crucified in the court of public opinion."

Most controllers care not about public opinion, the perception is that even a fair deal will be perceived as outrageous anyway. Look at the manner in which the employer is “leaking” media stories; it’s all about the outrageous claims and the bigger than average salaries and statistics skewed to make us out as radicals out of touch. Controllers are beyond caring about the public court, our employer is making themselves into our enemy, for what/who’s benefit?

Cool heads will be needed on all sides of the negotiating table in the coming months if Australians are to be confident of taking to the skies this Christmas.

Again talk of Christmas, this is hype to sell your story Cameron, not reality.

PS Kick your headline writer in the head, he deserves it.

More Press

2008-08-13T00:55:00.004Z

Air restrictions fly in face of safety claims

Cameron Stewart | August 11, 2008

THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority will restrict the number of passenger jets flying through uncontrolled skies, contradicting the Government's claims that the practice is perfectly safe.

The move is the first tacit admission by authorities that the risk of a mid-air collision in uncontrolled airspace in unacceptably high and that something needs to be done.

CASA has called on the air traffic control manager of Airservices Australia to place new restrictions on airspace when there is no air traffic controller available to monitor that portion of sky.

The move follows a series of articles in The Australian that have disclosed the dangers of uncontrolled airspace, highlighting safety warnings from pilots, air traffic controllers and aviation experts.

A shortage of air traffic controllers has increasingly left large parts of Australian skies uncontrolled, forcing pilots to rely on other pilots to avoid mid-air collisions.

The government-owned ASA has said repeatedly that the practice of flying in uncontrolled airspace, using only radio and visual sightings, is safe. But CASA now wants ASA to declare all uncontrolled airspace a "temporary restricted area" -- meaning no plane can fly in or out of this airspace without approval. This gives authorities a way to limit the number of planes that enter uncontrolled airspace and separate them more precisely before they enter the uncontrolled zone.

Well they did, we have been told that CASA told ASA to do it this way, the clever folks at ASA have decided that well if CASA want’s us to do this then they (CASA) can administer the airspace; or manage the TRA. CASA needs to work out who can enter, when, how high, and ‘guarantee’ that clearance into the TRA in which TIBA procedures would be used is as safe if not safer than just TIBA alone.

ASA is but merely a service provider, as such, if unable to provide the service can throw it’s “hands in the air” and say “we’ve done all we can”; “look how hard we tried, we made 10 phone calls”.

Of course, like other infamous interdepartmental stand offs, like NAS, this is about saving face and not admitting that a real problem has been identified; shifting blame (the blame which started with ‘it’s the controllers fault’) to the other agency is now the key.

CASA should threaten to withdraw the AOC that Airshambles has, because they are unable to fulfill their service obligations.; of course that is ‘politically unacceptable’, because significant proportions of the nations economy will grind to a halt, just like the “PR SPIN” stated when controllers take industrial action; except the withdrawal of the AOC would cripple the nation, not like squeezing a pimple in terms of any controller action.

What is happening is a classic game of bluff, CASA now has withdrawn it’s intention to insist on TRAs within TIBA sectors; because Airshambles has told them to come in and work out what the effects on safety are. Airshambles are good bluffers and again they have made CASA look silly, despite the problems being firmly in the Airshambles corner.

The argument is that broad blanket TRAs are an unknown quantity in terms of risk; where as TIBA risk is practiced, known and historically acceptable; even if it’s at best a third world practice and unacceptable for a modern aviation environment.

So how will Airshambles subject the new requirements to risk assessment, well they can’t without knowing what the intended procedures are; how will CASA make an assessment on this procedure in isolation, well they just can’t; without knowing the procedures.

TRAs logically, must be infinitely safer than TIBA alone, but how do you prove it? What are the procedures to be used, what errors are possible and what mitigations can be implemented to increase safety. Far too many unknowns, far to many people saying we should do something and no one saying we must; time for leadership Russell and Byron and dare we say it BIG TONY.

Russell doesn’t want amended procedures as it doesn’t look good for him and his 17 short (for 17 more days) workforce. Byron doesn’t want to impose more un-assessed risk on the public; BIG TONY has been sold a pup and has no idea what is really going on.

If Airshambles were an airline it would be grounded; that would be the safest thing to do.

It means pilots will still be flying blind but with fewer other aircraft in the vicinity and better spacing, reducing the chances of a mid-air collision.

Well see above commentary, it’s possible that more space will be between them, but perhaps not.

However, the new system could cause delays to those aircraft which are not approved to fly through the uncontrolled zone, adding to costs and inconvenience to passengers.

"We have asked (ASA) to look at TRA as an alternative to (uncontrolled airspace) because it gives a greater ability to be aware of all the traffic in that airspace," said CASA spokesman Peter Gibson.

A spokesman for ASA, Richard Dudley, said the service agreed late last week to CASA's request for uncontrolled airspace in Australia to be designated as TRA.

Both these gents had no qualms in giving out the details when pressured, when considered later after getting kicked in the arse, they both deny any safety enhancement or new procedure was on the table.

CASA has been increasingly frustrated by the air safety implications arising from a shortage of air traffic controllers.

The shortage has come about through mismanagement by ASA, which has failed to recruit enough controllers to offset large numbers of retirements and poaching from overseas.

Cameron, you speak the truth. How many trainees of the magic 100 abinitios per year have been recruited to come to work every day to play ‘pool and play-station’; because there is no capacity to train them yet? The poaching will get worse. The Middle East is bringing a mojor airport online in 2009; they will need 100+ controllers in that region and they will be ever increasing the tax free offer, currently close to $230K per year, to get staff.

ASA accuses air traffic controllers of contributing to the problem by calling in sick and refusing to work extra shifts in an effort to highlight the shortage and help their forthcoming wage claim.

The inference is that all the sick leave is fraudulent, if so, who's getting counselling for abusing sick leave? See this great post from Don Brown over at ‘Get the Flick’ for a simple explanation of why they might be saying no.

Last Friday, a massive area of airspace between Brisbane and Cairns was left uncontrolled between midnight and 5.30am after a controller called in sick.

According to an ASA "service interruption" report on the incident, six other controllers declined to cover the sick man's shift while four others were uncontactable.

ASA head Greg Russell has accused a small group of "renegade" controllers of leaving the skies uncontrolled to boost their industrial clout in looming wage negotiations.

Our read on this is, GREG if you think we need to increase our clout you really are delusional. When the protected ‘bargaining period’ is initiated, if it gets that far, then you will see the clout readily available to us; this is not a threat it is reality. You have spent 18 months beating controllers up, very publicly of late, now they want a ‘pound of flesh’ for their troubles. You can eliminate their hunger by making a ‘reasonable offer with a bloody good pay-rise’ in it.

It is in your interest to put at least an offer on the table, which you have still failed to do in 4 months, in an attempt to retain your staff before they sign the contracts and book their flights out. Give us a hint? 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%, <7%;>

But the air traffic control union, Civil Air, says ASA is looking to deflect blame for its own failings. "Airservices seems bent on shifting the blame to those who have been holding a failing system together, rather than accepting the consequences of its own mismanagement of human resources across an extended period of time," Civil Air president Robert Mason said.

Robert Mason is indeed wise. We have read elsewhere that a single group of 17 staff have been required to work 34 OT shifts between them in 3 weeks. 2 days each in three weeks. This is at ‘roster creation’ time, before anyone has become fatigued and or sick; that group is rumoured to be losing 3 more controllers before October.

The Sydney tower alone has lost four controllers through resignation or retirement in the past two weeks.

2008-08-05T23:28:00.000Z

Where is the SPIKE?

More Bad Press 3

2008-08-04T06:13:00.000Z

This one came from the AGE

Militant controllers 'shirkers'
Mathew Murphy
July 31, 2008
THE head of Australia's air services body has accused the nation's air traffic controllers of shirking work commitments to highlight the current shortage of trained staff.
Airservices Australia chief executive Greg Russell told the Asia-Pacific Aviation Conference in Sydney that absenteeism of air traffic controllers was 20 times higher so far this year as wage negotiations approach.
Mr Russell said that in 2006 and 2007 there were seven interruptions to the staffing of Australian air space, but in 2008 there had been 140 interruptions.
"We may well ask what is different in 2008 and I think the answer is pretty obvious," Mr Russell said.
Airservices Australia was 17 controllers short of the 900 required, but the situation had been the same for more than three years, he said.
The shortage of air traffic controllers made headlines recently when the absence of two controllers due to illness meant air space between Sydney and Canberra was unstaffed for two hours. Mr Russell said the situation was not "palatable" but at no time was there danger to aircraft and international standards were not breached.
Air traffic controllers were averaging almost three times as many sick days a year than the rest of the workforce. "Is it too high? … the national benchmark is about six sick days a year. We are running considerably higher than that at the moment … we have to better manage that absenteeism. It's really hurting us," he said.
Mr Russell said the industry needed major reform, including combining the 32 separate air space sectors across Australia so air traffic controllers could be moved across sectors at short notice.
Over the next five years as many as 500 air traffic controllers would be employed, he said.
He said he was hopeful of being able to sit down with the union and work through a deal by September.
The union did not returns calls from The Age yesterday.

More Bad Press 2

2008-08-04T00:08:00.005Z

Don't forget you can subscribe to our blog via RSS

Type this (or copy it) into your browser then bookmark it. feed://certifiedshafting.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default

This one came from last week's Australian:

Air boss blames union for gaps in traffic control
31 July
THE problems with the nation's air traffic control system are the fault of an industrial campaign, excessive sick leave and an outdated endorsement system rather than staff shortages, the chief executive of Airservices Australia claimed yesterday.
Greg Russell told an aviation conference in Sydney there had been only seven incidents where pilots were left flying without air traffic control over 2006 and 2007, years where there were no wage negotiations.
But since October last year, there had been more than 140 interruptions to service, with about the same number of air traffic controllers. "You may well ask what's so different in 2008 and I think the answer is pretty obvious," he said.
Mr Russell said Airservices was short of about 17 controllers on the basis of "the current inefficient way" it operated.
"Is it a critical shortage? No." he said. "But it can sound very persuasive when it's being talked up in a year of wage negotiations."
Airservices had a training and recruitment initiative under way "after some years of neglect".
But it needed to move ahead with a program to improve the efficiency of airspace management, as well as tackling restrictive union work practices in areas such as rostering and absenteeism, he said.
One problem was that 144 separate endorsements were needed to work across the 32 sectors of Australian airspace.
The reform program would reduce the number of endorsements to six or seven, allowing Airservices to move workers around more easily if a controller called in sick.
Steve Creedy

We seek the TRUTH!

2008-08-02T04:44:00.007Z

As you know in recent weeks the upcoming battle has become public.

The CEO has been lambasting 'a small group' of controllers as the reasons for all his ills.

He has called them (or at least the sub editors have) various words including, militants, renegades and shirkers.

In what now is a very public battle, apparently all the TIBA lies at the hand of a small group of employees who originally were refusing to work overtime, but now are also 'spiking' their sick leave. In other words, taking fraudulent sick leave to cause maximum damage.

But what is the truth? How much sick leave is actually covered by overtime? How much overtime is used to cover "HOLES IN ROSTERS"? Is sick leave on the rise at all? If it is rising, is there a link between working harder when at work and having less days off a month?

We have evidence that some groups have as many as 30 shifts each month, and that is at the roster 'population' stage, that need coverage with overtime. THAT IS BEFORE ANYONE HAS CALLED IN SICK.

So in that particular group, of the 15 employees they each have to work 2 shifts of overtime each, before anyone calls in sick to cover the core roster. Not bad for a roster that gives most people 10 days off a month. The average sick leave across the ATC workforce is unknown. Recently it was about 12 days a year; much more recently it's been 4 times the national average (36), or three times (27), or three times the national benchmark of 6 (18). But let guess it's close to 12; or one day a month. So talking of that particular group, 15 shifts will also need to be covered because of sick leave. A total of 45 shifts or 3 shifts each.

The expectation is that the overtime will be shared equally. This is far from reality as we all know that we have different work/life balances. We can also surmise that as a result of our rostering processes that most of the shifts (at least 30) of them are in the middle of the night; which are the most difficult to cover; who want's to work a night shift in the middle of two days off; it effectively counts against both days off, so you end up with 20 odd hours between shifts, but NO DAYS OFF AT ALL.

So how did it get this bad?

We here at Certified Shafting have concluded that it's not the fault of renegades and militants. It's totally at the hands of management.

In particular the CEO Greg Russell, who's sycophants implemented the SDE without any consequential thought about whether the idea was good or not.

Long term we can see benefit in the SDE, in terms of keeping jets away from lighties, and changes to airspace classifications in the future in terms of training resources. But what was the rush?

We have burnt countless good will and inherent efficiencies that the previous structure had built in through years of amendment. Prior to SDE in late 2007, the sector structure has been effectively unchanged since 1995; with the exception of minor amendments associated with transitioning to TAAATS. These sectors and rosters had been subjected to significant reforms in that time in terms of roster lines required and (mostly) efficient procedures, refined over that time.

SDE was effectively a clean slate (yeah right). It was predicated on the myth that standardisation exists, which it doesn't. It is a flawed concept in that CITY PAIRS were used to determine the airspace design and structures; with pertinent exceptions from the model; leading to significant inefficiency and complications.

SDE split rosters.

SDE split people who had multiple ratings into small groups with isolated roles.

The above group, went from 19 Staff requiring 6 people on any given shift, to 15 on one side needing 5 on a given day and 12 requiring 4 on a given day. One group of 19 people that used to run efficiently now need 27 staff. This was done in the name of efficiency. WTF?

It was pointed out by middle management that we shouldn't proceed with SDE on the original time lines. This was rejected by senior management as 'politically unacceptable".

These new groups now required night shift coverage; this group used to have 2 night shift staff; now it has 4. Is there any wonder that night shift coverage has become an issue?

The extra 8 people didn't suddenly appear. Most of the holes in rosters were covered by overtime; initially it was accepted with grace; but it was soon clear that the staffing problems were going to exist for a significant period of time, people got sick (quickly) of being called every single day off to come to work, our informant tells us that it was not uncommon to get multiple calls every day.

Then when you were at work, it was likely that you didn't have a full complement of staff on most days; single person duty was (and is) relatively common. So minimum staffing was three but only one controller was on duty; funnily enough this had a propensity to increase your unavailability to work on subsequent shifts; because you were going home far too knackered. If you were called on your day off; it was likely that you'd be subjecting yourself to short staffing rostering again too, thus it was not a 'normal shift' you were replacing but a "super shift"; and one you were less likely to accept.

This was not isolated to one group, but every group initially up the ECS line; now we head towards further implementation with RS and UAS groups also making amendments into the SDE environment.

It is not surprising at all to us that SDE has been a significant failure. It was rushed, it was not resourced properly, it was warped into something unrecognisable from the original intent.

All resistance to SDE was treated as an industrial issue and objectors were dismissed as 'wankers' who didn't get it. We are past the point of no return, but how can we get out of this bucket of shit? And will the solution be for the CEO to blame controllers for not coming to work?

Well now 10 months into SDE, where rosters are still short, we ask was it a good idea?

GREG, was it? Please respond, we'll leave your comment here unmoderated.

Another Day, this time the press is good

2008-07-28T10:19:00.004Z

15 . ATC emerges as a threat to air safety. Something should be done

Ben Sandilands writes:

It is time for a management clean-out at AirServices Australia as well as Qantas.

AirServices Australia is now emerging as a serious threat not just to public safety, but to Australia’s international reputation.

At last someone is displaying that they get it, well done Ben and Crikey!

It is unprecedented for the managements of Qantas and Virgin Blue, and CASA more recently, and ICAO -- the International Civil Aviation Organisation -- to raise concerns about lack of air traffic control over high density areas of our airspace because of staff shortages.

Airservices runs at the behest of their AOC, this includes a requirement to have enough staff to provide the required services according to the relevant PART under the CASRs; is it time for CASA to really examine if Airservices is capable of running according to the rules that it is required to comply with?

The last time ICAO broke its usually diplomatic reserve in such cases was almost 50 years ago, when the department of civil aviation and the airlines of those days and some senior pilots resisted the installation of black box flight recorders and the costs of weather radar.

Australian aviation has been very, very change resistant for a very long time.

The chief executive officer of AirServices Australia, Gregg Russell, is blaming everything from "renegade" controllers to head-hunting by overseas countries and union demands for his inability to keep the radar consoles manned.

Don't forget he started out blaming previous management for poor planning; yet under his stewardship we cut training and recruitment even further; introduced a business model which required about 10% more controllers and moved 11% of operational staff into management roles, to increase communication.

Yet before Russell took it over, AirServices Australia it had a functioning air traffic control system, albeit one that was imperfect, but one that delivered developed world standards of aircraft separation.

Amen, we blame the FPT, otherwise known as TFN too.

The aviation sector is bewildered by the Minister for Infrastructure, Anthony Albanese, saying nothing about this so far except to repeat Mr Russell’s excuses about unionists wanting more money.

Yes, what is the agenda, is this a union that can be taken on to prove Labor can be tuff on unions too. After all this is the union that puts those noisy aircraft over your house.

Well, of course they want more money. But CEOs earn their money by improving an enterprise, not leaving gaping gaps in the service and dropping the owners, in this case the government, in boiling water.

This CEO has made massive bonuses for himself and inner sanctum but cutting operational budgets beyond all recognition; removing waste, previously known as the core business. One of Labor's election promises was to remove public service 'bonuses'; he's not a public servant he's a CEO... hmmmm!

Russell should review whatever advice he is being given, ask himself who has been misleading the Minister, and insist that the radar consoles be manned, 24/7. If he can't deliver that, he should resign.

Resign, nope, don't give him the honour of resigning, BIG TONY Sack him before he gets you into more trouble. Talk to the controllers before you swallow the spin that this corporation has become a master at.

More Bad Press

2008-07-26T06:55:00.008Z

This is one of the crappiest ‘hack pieces’ any of us have ever seen; speechless!

http://www.theage.com.au/national/renegade-controllers-leave-pilots-flying-blind-air-chief-20080725-3l2x.html?page=-1

'Renegade' controllers leave pilots flying blind: air chief

Tony Wright

July 26, 2008

A GROUP of "renegade" air traffic controllers in Melbourne and Brisbane are deliberately closing air space, leaving pilots to fend for themselves on some of the nation's busiest air routes, according to the head of the agency that manages Australia's skies.

Bullshit Tony, it’s bullshit. It is a completely insufficient that a single controller calling in sick can result in the closure of airspace.

The chief executive of Airservices Australia, Greg Russell, said it appeared a massive increase in incidents in which air space sectors had suddenly been left with no air traffic control was linked to an industrial campaign for big wage rises.

Greg Russell says a lot of things, he’s obviously starting to believe his own spin. Controllers don’t need to close airspace to get a big payrise; we are a unique profession, and on the open market have proven our worth, all that closing airspace does is highlight that you can’t organise a beer in a brewery.

Mr Russell said he did not believe the campaign was authorised by the air traffic controllers' union, Civil Air, and he did not believe most controllers were part of it.

Thank goodness, because if you did, you’d be in the AIRC before we could say “Minister sack this incompetent CEO”.

"I do think there are a small number of renegades who are involved in this activity," he said.

If you really did think it was ‘renegades’ it’s not in your nature to not pursue them or punish them; so why haven’t you, this organisation has form, none of it good.

There were only seven incidents in which control of air space sectors had been interrupted in the 22 months between January 2006 and October 2007, rising to a whopping 135 in the eight months since, he said.

It’s amazing how the stats line up. Are the numbers real? Or just stolen from the union website which was only just starting to track things then?

The New Management Structure started in earnest September 2007, and the ALMs dropped their ratings about 21 days after that. Most of these people did lots of overtime, now they can’t do any.

The New SDE airspace/sector structure September 2007? The numbers were just about right then, your dividing of groups has cause massive inefficiencies, and you know it.

Did your stupid ideas come back to bite you? We told you SDE was stupid; then and now; it’s still stupid. Where was/is the business case to justify it? The last person to ask that question, Brian, was sacked for doing so.

AWA ideology was more important than the message. Greg, you and you alone (well not including your sycophant managers) have stuffed our company, go away please.

The union's executive secretary, Peter McGuane, emphatically denied any campaign, accusing Airservices of "desperate spin-doctoring".

"There is an acknowledged shortage of air traffic controllers, there is no campaign and our people are sick of being harassed to work on their days off," Mr McGuane said.

McGuane is right, we are all sick of getting called at home to come to work, sometimes 5 times a day, sometimes if you let it go to the answering machine you get, “you must call us back messages”; it’s harrassment; it does effect our health and crushes our morale.

In many of the incidents, air traffic controllers in Melbourne and Brisbane have suddenly declared themselves sick and when their colleagues have been contacted in an effort to find replacements, no one has been available.

Your missing the point, it’s shift work; you don’t call in sick with 24 hours notice if your last shift was only 10 hours ago? If you start work at 0600 when do you call in sick, when you wake up feeling like shit, or when you magically wake up to give 6 hours notice? What business runs without ‘contingency’, one person calling in sick should not cripple the service, it's poor management, fact.

Air traffic controllers won the right to unlimited sick leave in the 1990s and are required to give only two hours' notice of their unavailability to work. The rate of absenteeism among air traffic controllers is an average of more than 15 days a year - about three times the national average.

There is no requirement to give 2 hours notice. And it would very rarely happen that less notice is given, often much much more; but it can happen. When did 9 x 3 equal 15? This is deliberate propoganda, what is the national average for sick leave? What is the national average sick leave in work places that work rotational, non bidding 24/7/365 shift work?

The federal Minister for Transport, Anthony Albanese, also made plain this week he was convinced the rate of uncontrolled air space was linked to the air traffic controllers' industrial campaign.

"It is a fact that Civil Air, the air traffic control union, is engaged in industrial negotiation at the moment over a wages agreement," Mr Albanese told Brisbane radio 4BC. "At the same time, there appears to be a situation whereby you've had a number of people not turning up for work in order to create a situation which causes some difficulty."

BIG TONY it would appear you have swallowed the SPIN, hook, line and sinker. Has sick leave gone up? Are there more ‘holes in rosters’ than ever before? Has the over reliance on ‘overtime’ finally impacting and people have just simply reassessed their ability to keep working 10 on 1 off? We need 'oxygen' we want off the ride.

Many industry figures point to an anonymous blog circulated on the internet last November - just as the incidence of uncontrolled air space shot from one to 21 occurrences in a month - that exhorted air traffic controllers to refuse to relieve colleagues who had reported sick.

The blog said the Government would only react to public pressure and media interest, which would only be gained when airline schedules were disrupted or air space was closed.

We often blog, but we haven’t been here that long? Are you talking about PPRUNE?

"Turn off your phone; don't answer unknown phone numbers; if you are contacted advise you have a 'family commitment', 'have had a drink', are 'too tired' or simply 'unavailable'," the blog advised.

One individuals response to being constantly harrassed to come to work, clearly a conspiracy.

Mr Russell has refused until now to criticise air traffic controllers or to link their industrial campaign to the spike in uncontrolled sectors.

So why is he doing it now? If it were a handful of people it is not in this organisations nature to not call people on doing wrong? Is Greg about to sack some? No that would make it worse. Is Greg trying to shame them? Is Greg trying to poke the bear with a stick and hope you get a nasty reaction?

However, the controllers' certified industrial agreement expires on December 21 and while their union has not yet made a formal log of claims, it has issued a "vision statement" that calls for pay rises ranging from about 30% to 64%.

Mr Russell said such figures were clearly not realistic when Qantas long-haul pilots had received a 3% rise, private sector wage outcomes were about 3.8% and the public sector was receiving rises of about 4.2%.

There is a balance due, the airline employees have received various bonuses on top of base wages whilst times have been good. We have lost wages growth compared to AWOTE consistently since 1996; we are due for an above average correction.

It’s not about what others are getting. It’s about your value in the ‘global market’. If a CEO gets $1.5M and an annual increase of 14%, it’s market forces, if controllers claim 32% over 3 years it’s ‘not realistic’. Well why not? If we can get that pay and much more by going OS, why should we stay? What makes you Greg, so confident we have no choices?

He also pointed to the cost to airlines, which pay Airservices Australia to manage the skies on behalf of the Federal Government.

Did he point to the Airservices profit from last year (FY06/07), and the BIGGER PROFIT that will be delivered for FY07/08? Did he mention that if the claim were to be paid in full it would represent a significantly less amount than the profit for FY07/08 and translate into less than $1.00 per passenger seat; like it would be paid in full.

Most Australian domestic airlines refuse to fly through uncontrolled air space, meaning that at a time when fuel costs are cutting deeply into profits, the requirement to fly around black areas causes immense financial pain.

No, one airline avoids TIBA, sort of.

A regular passenger jet such as a Boeing 737 flying from Melbourne to Sydney requires an extra two tonnes of aviation fuel to fly around what is known as the Canberra sector if it is closed - a broad area between Canberra and Sydney's southern suburbs. With aviation fuel at $1.90 a litre, this equates to an extra $3800 for the journey.

And what would the daily cost of having one extra FPC controller available per shift? Are these “facts” real? How many minutes does it take to avoid Canberra Group if it is closed? 5? 10? what is the burn rate for a Boeing 737 86 kg per minute? 430 kg, 860kg of fuel? Not cheap but not two tonnes either. SPIN!

Many international airlines flying in to Australia from Asia have had no choice but to fly through uncontrolled space because they were already in the air when control closed down.

In one incident last month, the entire northern approach to Australia from Queensland to Darwin was uncontrolled after three air traffic controllers in Brisbane called in sick. Fourteen of their colleagues were called in an effort to find replacements, but all were unavailable or uncontactable. The result was that dozens of airliners carrying thousands of passengers had to rely on pilots advising each other of their positions with no assistance from the ground.

Hazards of teams rostering, communal diseases; flu’s and colds are ‘contageous’; or are you/they suggesting it was an orchestrated event? Have they been counselled, sacked or even hinted at that they ‘did wrong’, have now we guess, shamed in the paper.

What shift was on offer? A Night shift? To cover 3 peoples jobs by yourself, attractive no?

How dare people have a life, no it’s a conspiracy that they all said no to working in the middle of the night “ON THEIR DAY OFF”. Most of them were still expected to work their ‘rostered’ shift the next day too, we’re sure.

Despite claims by the union that the problem was caused by a big shortage of controllers, the figures provided by Airservices Australia show the average number of controllers has not changed significantly over the past three years.

The figures Airservices presented say lots of things, they are just wrong, lies, they are using ‘end state’ numbers, we are a long way from end state; at least two years away. They are figures calculated with ‘rostering efficiencies’ that they don’t yet have; ‘out of our cold dead hands’.

The union claims the system is 100 controllers short. Mr Russell concedes a shortage of 17, but believes the problem will be overcome within a month.

Where are they coming from? The mythical magic ATC Fairy bus? Nobody else leaving this month? Nobody retiring? Nobody getting the shits working for this pack of lying arseholes? So what happens if TIBA happens in August and September? With the right numbers there won't be any right, no, that will be wild cat, renegade, industrial action.

Tony Wright, how much of this article did you write? Did you seek any evidence about ‘facts’? Did you get them checked by a researcher? What a disgraceful way of getting your biline on a front page. “F” back to journo school for you. Airservices has a habit of SPINNING, they shop around for gullible journo's, whoops.

Andrew Jaspan, We expect better from you, our favourite broadsheet; what a quality biased hack-job, we are not happy.

On a wing and a Prayer

2008-07-21T02:22:00.005Z

We replicate the following commentary from the Courier Mail.

Why do Queenslanders get it, but Canberra people don't?

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/comments/0,,24048495-27197,00.html

Fly on a wing and a prayer

By Mike O'Connor

July 21, 2008 12:00am

"GOOD MORNING. This is your captain speaking. Today we will be flying through uncontrolled airspace. To avoid a mid-air collision, the first officer and I will be monitoring a special radio frequency and as long as any pilot heading towards us does the same thing, we should be OK."

You won't hear announcements like this being made as you sit on the tarmac at Brisbane airport because, if you did, there'd be a stampede for the exits. If, however, you are a nervous flyer, read no further for, because of a chronic shortage of air traffic controllers, domestic and international airliners in Australia are now regularly flying through unsupervised airspace.

When this happens, pilots have to rely on TIBA – Traffic Information Broadcast by Aircraft or, more accurately DIYATC – Do It Yourself Air Traffic Control. We presume, you and I, as we buckle our seat belts, adjust our seat backs upright and half-listen to the familiar safety demonstration, that after we take off our progress is monitored by the ever-present and watchful eye of the guardian angel known as air traffic control. We've seen it in the movies, men in open-necked shirts perched in their control tower eyries, staring into radar screens and speaking in staccato bursts to pilots as they guide 300 trusting souls from A to B.

They're still there but there are not enough of them, creating a situation former chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Dick Smith has described as "incredibly unsafe".

According to the controllers' union, Civil Air, the incidence of unsupervised airspace – pilots telling each other where they are and hoping to God everyone knows the TIBA rules – rose by 63 per cent in June.

CASA's head Bruce Byron disputes this figure but has been forced to concede that "what we may have is some circumstances where TIBA might be declared for maybe a 45 minute or two-hour period".

A check of the Civil Air website shows that on July 15, airspace in southeast Queensland from 30 nautical miles north of Brisbane to 70 nautical miles north of Rockhampton on the main Brisbane-Cairns air route was unsupervised for eight hours.

On July 16, a northern New South Wales sector on the heavily trafficked Brisbane-Sydney route suffered the same fate for five hours. The same site shows that in June, there were 98 closures and service reductions declared in Australian airspace. As of last Monday, there had been 56 this month.

In August last year there were none, in September four, and October two.

Do the simple mathematics and the conclusion is obvious – the air traffic control system is breaking down, devolving to a situation which in some reports controllers have described as "a disaster waiting to happen".

This situation is exacerbated by the fact that Australia is one of the few developed countries in the world to have unsupervised airspace.

This means that no matter how professional and well trained they may be, overseas pilots commanding international flights entering and leaving Australia are flying in an unfamiliar environment when air traffic control is suddenly suspended and they have to switch to TIBA.

Mr Smith has said pilots are not air traffic controllers and are not trained to work out their position in relation to other aircraft. "In other countries, they would not allow aircraft to fly in that airspace," he said.

The body that manages air traffic controllers is Airservices Australia, owned by the Government but funded by the airline industry, and it is this body which has so catastrophically failed to see a looming, global shortage of controllers. Put simply, in a scandalous abandonment of its responsibility to ensure the adequacy of the air traffic control network, it did nothing.

Equally, no one in the then Howard government appeared to know or particularly care. Civil Air says there is presently a shortfall of 80 controllers around Australia and many of the 900 controllers are nearing retirement.

Airservices now is desperately playing catch-up and doubling its recruitment program but this will not put extra controllers in towers for several years.

Behind this frightening scenario is the controllers' demand for significant pay increases but the wage dispute is not the issue.

The issue is that Australian airline passengers are boarding domestic and international aircraft sublimely unaware that their lives may be dependent on a Third World system of air traffic control.

Australia has an enviable safety record in civil aviation but the Government – and ultimately the responsibility lies with the Government – is playing Russian roulette with the lives of Australian air travellers.

One miscalculation, one misunderstood radio message, one garbled transmission and it will all end in flames and tears. Watch then, as politicians from both sides of the political spectrum run for cover.

Every day, they spin the chamber in the gun that passes for our air traffic control system.

It's only a matter of time before the hammer falls on a live round.

Oz Article - Cameron Stewart

2008-07-17T03:11:00.002Z

Our comments imbedded in Red:

LAST week, as a dwindling number of air traffic controllers struggled to keep pace with the number of aeroplanes in the sky, one controller lost his cool.

"Who's off to jail then?" he fumed in an online forum for air traffic controllers and pilots. "Imagine our worst nightmare," he wrote. "TIBA (uncontrolled) airspace somewhere in Australia. Two aircraft collide, multiple fatalities. World headlines. The pilots had insufficient briefing on service levels and procedures. In the ensuring investigation, who would the authorities recommend be indicted on formal charges (for) reckless abandonment of responsibilities?"

It was a good question in the present climate, for there are few precedents in this country for what is going on in Australian skies. A shortage of air traffic controllers is forcing large chunks of the skies to be unmanned for hours on end, meaning there is no air traffic controller to monitor the passage of fully-laden jumbo jets criss-crossing this airspace.

Yes it’s a very good question, who would go to jail?

The federal Government's figures show that large sectors of Australian airspace were closed on 24 occasions in June, a record level and a one-third increase on May. What's more, passengers are told nothing. They do not know when they board a plane whether they are flying through uncontrolled airspace or what risks they face.

TIBA on 24 Occasions is scandalous; is this each sector or ‘groups of sectors’ being counted? Is this including the multiple events to allow controller breaks, or simple 1 NOTAM = equals one count? Basically once a day Airshambles is uanble to provide any service whatsoever. How many times a day is it providing a less than minimum ATC establishment service?

How dangerous this practice is depends on who you speak to. Air traffic controllers are unhappy, warning that this is a disaster waiting to happen.

Air safety regulator the Civil Aviation Safety Authority disagrees, maintaining that uncontrolled airspace - while not desirable - does not pose an unacceptable risk to aircraft and passengers.

CASA has suddenly shifted ground on TIBA, now they are ‘auditing pilots’ and reviewing ATC procedures relating to TIBA. On the first visit the CASA dude was very unimpressed by what he saw; look out for more news on TIBA from CASA, of course for political expedience the news may never get out.

Qantas has signalled its view by instructing its pilots to avoid flying through uncontrolled airspace wherever possible. It has cancelled, delayed and diverted flights as a result of the increasing number of airspace closures in recent months.

Qantas appears to avoid TIBA where it can, but on multiple occasions Qantas has flown through TIBA and in some cases only minor diversions would have been required to avoid the Area effected.

So how did such a disturbing situation arise in a country with a well-resourced and advanced aviation industry?

The origins of the problem can be traced to the early 2000s when air traffic control manager Airservices Australia - a government-owned but airline industry-funded body - failed to plan for future air traffic control needs. This inexplicable management oversight was not noticed or felt for many years, but it has grave implications.

Don’t be fooled here Cameron, Airservices reduced ATC recruiting as early ago as 2006. They ‘restructured’ the training college, now called the Learning Academy. They moved on multiple contract instructors as they wouldn’t need them “going forward”.

Airservices restructured ATC into Service delivery environments (SDEs) and the executive apparently were promised massive staff reductions as a result of the efficiencies of that project. Unfortunately the SDE and concurrent management restructure has absorbed more resources than it saved; much more.

Airservices did not read the global trends of growing air traffic coupled with an international shortage of controllers. It did not lift recruitment when it should have and now - because of the long lead-time needed for training - it cannot solve the shortage.

The shortages in the short term could be significantly reduced by releasing managers back to consoles; but ideology is god in this organisation, you can’t be the boss and work side by side with someone; it’s just crap! The management restructure also threw up multiple redundancies; so we lost controllers to replace those managers who got VR; there are more awaiting the AIRC decision on whether they get VR too.

Airservices chief executive Greg Russell admitted his organisation's liability in a private letter written to an airline in February and obtained by The Australian.

"When I arrived in 2005 one of the first requests was to see the Airservices workforce plan to see how the organisation intended to address future resource requirements," he wrote. "There was no such plan available."

This is a common lie. and Greg should be made to prove it. There was significant ATC planning done in 2000, 2002 and again 2004. Greg Russell’s first mission was to reduce staffing, he did so in non operational positions by giving out multiple redundancy packages; he did it in Air Traffic Control by reducing recruitment.

Russell said little planning had been done to address recruitment and the fact that many of Australia's 900 controllers were nearing retirement.

Wrong, this was done to death, the Certified Agreement process in 2001/2002 called for 60 trainees per year infinitum to address the pending ‘staffing crisis’. That plan was rejected on a cost basis and the reliance of overtime increased. It was a calculated and deliberate decision; new technology was supposed to save bodies by now.

"All of these issues were uncovered against a backdrop of a worldwide shortage of air traffic controllers and increasing customer demands and growth," he wrote.

He’s lying. Greg Russell is often loose with the truth. If he truly believe this then his advisors are lying to him., fact.

Airservices is belatedly trying to redress the shortage by more than doubling the number of recruits to between 80 and 100 a year. This will solve the problem in several years, but offers no immediate solution. The result, say air traffic controllers, is that the existing workforce is being overworked and saddled with unrealistic demands.

"Staff shortages abound," says Robert Mason, head of the air traffic control union Civil Air, which claims there is a 10 per cent shortfall of about 80 controllers in Australia.

He says controllers are often asked to come in on days off and and while on leave to cover shortages and avoid airspace closures.

"Simple things like breaks to go to the toilet or give tired eyes a break from staring at consoles or airborne traffic are willingly forgone to minimise disruptions to service," Mason says.

But the Government does not believe that controllers are as being as pure and selfless as Civil Air would like people to believe. Government sources believe Civil Air is exploiting staff shortages and exaggerating safety risks in order to win steep rises in pay and conditions. They maintain that there is a shortfall of only 17 controllers, not 80.

They are being loose with the truth again. this magic low number is about bodies on consoles, but the other 63 jobs are needed and required to get us back to full staffing. The other jobs are in training, licencing and project work; all ‘required’ tasks; yet not included in the headline Airshambles figures, why?

Civil Air is pushing for pay rises of between 32 and 63 per cent over three years when its collective agreement with Airservices expires at the end of the year. The move would have senior air traffic controllers earning $175,000 a year from January.

Civil Air says this will bring Australia more into line with the conditions enjoyed by controllers overseas.

It’s true, in Europe and the Middle East the conditions of employment and monetary incenties are significantly higher than $175,000. People have traditionally stayed here, because Australia is great, but now, they have reached the crest on the pile of shit and don’t want to work for Russell and his cronies any longer.

While Airservices will not comment on the wages push, the timing could not be worse for airlines that face record fuel prices and for a Government seeking to contain inflation.

What would the cost to the airlines be if you gave us everything we wanted? We have read figures of 35 cents to 75 cents per ticket; not exactly a massive breakout in inflation. One of us paid 50 cents more for a roll earlier today compared to yesterday; a 25% rise.

Civil Air is unrepentant about its claim, saying it is the only way to attract and retain air traffic controllers in the future.

But the pay claim means that Airservices and the Government are viewing controllers' safety complaints through the prism of industrial politics. In this volatile climate there is a risk that authorities will downplay the warnings of air traffic controllers regardless of how credible these warnings are.

It is clear that they are circling the wagons, CASA and Airshambles are relying on the lack of accidents to justify safety; is it acceptable, hell no.

Former CASA chairman Dick Smith says air traffic controllers are right to warn about the danger of passenger jets flying through uncontrolled airspace, describing the practice as "incredibly unsafe".

"I find it amazing it could ever be allowed to happen," Smith says. "In other countries, they would not allow aircraft to fly in that airspace."

Last week The Australian revealed warnings from controllers that many foreign pilots do not understand the correct collision avoidance procedures in uncontrolled airspace.

Not just foreign pilots, all of them; but at least Australian pilots will have more familiarity to it as they are likely to see it more often.

When flying through uncontrolled airspace, pilots must rely on themselves and other pilots to avoid collisions by keeping track of developments on a common frequency.

Without a controller watching over them, the potential for human error is magnified, especially because pilots are not trained to separate aircraft. Some controllers say they have seen examples of aircraft in uncontrolled airspace failing to broadcast their presence and their movements on the correct frequencies.

One controller, writing on an online industry forum said: "It quickly became apparent that none of the international crews - Malaysian Airlines, Thai Airways, Singapore Airlines - understood the procedures."

Could he be right? Perhaps they’ve never heard of TIBA, perhaps they have never received any training in it, perhaps their operations departments haven’t got full knowledge and didn’t draw pilots attention to the relevant NOTAMs.

Peter McGuane, executive director of Civil Air, says controllers often have to teach foreign pilots the safety procedures for uncontrolled airspace in mid-flight.

CASA initially dismissed the concerns revealed in The Australian, saying that the procedures for uncontrolled airspace are internationally mandated rules that all pilots are taught and are explained in flight manuals.

But really do we believe that? In Manuals yes, but taught it? When? Are they current in these procedures? Not on your nelly.

But what CASA did not say was that many foreign pilots have never before used these procedures because they do not have uncontrolled airspace in their countries.

Singapore Airlines hit back at the controller's claims about foreign pilots, implying that it bordered on racism.

"Our pilots are trained to the highest internationally recognised standards and suggestions that they would compromise safety in controlled or uncontrolled airspace, whereas pilots for Australian carriers would not, are both false and professionally offensive," the airline said.

Again there was never intent to differentiate, all pilots are equally inept at flying in TIBA. They are neither worse or better than Aussie pilots, all pilots are crap at flying in TIBA, and if CASA doesn’t know that then heads need to roll.

The airline said the controller's claims were part of an Australian industrial dispute and that it did not want to become involved.

TIBA is nothing to do with an industrial claim, perhaps they have their wires crossed too?

Yet several days after The Australian's story appeared, CASA said it would start quizzing foreign pilots about their knowledge of the procedures for flying through uncontrolled airspace.

CASA also said it would write to foreign airlines pointing out that there was uncontrolled airspace in Australia and ask them to refresh their knowledge of the procedures.

These actions by CASA contradicted its initial claims that there was nothing to worry about. It made the regulator appear to be reactive on a safety issue that affects all Australians who fly.

CASA has been caught out, they don’t know whether there is compliance with the procedures or not, they haven’t checked before, again, no accidents = safe, well maybe not.

Civil Air has now called for a sweeping review of the safety of passenger jets flying through uncontrolled airspace.

But CASA says that to ban jets from uncontrolled airspace would raise other potential risks, such as overcrowding in other airspace sectors, or forcing planes to take long detours. If planes were forced to take long detours this would add significantly to airline fuel and maintenance costs and would push air fares higher.

The costs and inconvenience would be substantial. Yet they would be nothing compared to the horrendous cost of a midair collision.

Amen!

For now, CASA maintains that the risks of such a collision are too small to support the dramatic step of closing all uncontrolled airspace.

"CASA has already done careful risk analysis and we believe this is the best way to proceed while acknowledging it would be far more preferable to have (controllers) all the time," CASA spokesman Peter Gibson says.

Controllers say this is not good enough and that not all pilots are knowledgable enough to send their jets hurtling safely through uncontrolled airspace.

To gain situational awareness is extremely difficult, pilots are keenly listening for reports of traffic at their level; but when pilots are choosing to change level either for a better ride or because they are getting near their destination the risks are significantly raised.

"There is a serious deficiency in what advice-briefing these crews are receiving," writes one controller in an online forum. "Personally I don't think the NOTAMS (the instructions given to pilots about flying through uncontrolled airspace) spell out exactly what they are getting themselves and the 300 trusting souls down the back of each of these flights into.

"This is in no way a reflection or comment on my fellow controllers: it is an indictment on our management for letting things get this bad, and on CASA for not ensuring that international crews operating in to this airspace are adequately operationally prepared."

Despite the warnings from air traffic controllers, CASA says there have so far been no confirmed close calls between aircraft in uncontrolled airspace.

How would anyone know? The only event that would be reported is a TCAS Resolution advisory; so a pair of aircraft could miss by 5NM on crossing tracks and there are no reports to be filled yet in reality they are less than 20 seconds from a midair. This is BIG SKY THEORY at it’s best.

Smith says this is no defence for what he believes is an inherently unsafe practice. "As people fly across Australia they think there is an air traffic controller instructing their pilot, telling them how to keep clear of other planes, but often there is not," he says.

"Pilots are not air traffic controllers; they don't have the training to work out where they are. It is impossible to believe this is really happening in this country."

Amen!

In the news

2008-07-15T07:44:00.004Z

In recent weeks it appears that the mainstream media have given us a run. Some of them, despite the false starts of 63% wages claim, are even starting to question the inevitable 'TIBA is safe" and "Safety has never been compromised" and 'pilots are trained in the procedures" and "International practice" defences trumped out by the PR Spinners of CASA and Airshambles, when they are providing no ATC service whatsoever. Heck TIBA is worse than OCTA, cause at least in the OCTA environment you get a traffic statement about other IFRs.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24019978-23349,00.html?from=public_rss

We will be back soon with our analysis of this article, but the main questions you can garnish from this article are:

1) are the controllers causing TIBA running an industrial campaign, or
2) are the numbers really low and will be that way for some time, and/or
3) is TIBA not safe as claimed by the controllers and those responsible will really be in the shit if something goes wrong.

Airshambles 1st position – part 2

2008-07-15T03:08:00.002Z

The primary focus of managing the business is in the area of attendance.

The inference therefore must be there is a significant problem with attendance. But what are the facts? Excluding long term sick-leave (3 months +) the average sick leave in the centres is 11 days per annum, slightly higher in Sydney and much lower in regional towers and the outer TCUs/TWRs.

This compares to other public service roles and those other roles do not work 24/7/365 shift work. HARDLY 4 times the national average, Julian, you've been sold a pup!

Is our sick leave too high? Well yes, in some cases there is leave taking which could be inferred as "abuse of leave"; but the problem we have is the way that all ATCs are targeted with the same managerial plan. Rather than address the individuals that abuse leave entitlements; they sweep everyone into the ‘problem bucket’ and punish us all. So because we don’t have managers that can sort out staffing issues, we need broad brush policies and practices. Leaders leading, ha, not likely, fools reacting, yes that’s closer.

Sick Leave cap.

Well you can’t buy what we have now, so can we sell it? What value would you really place on introducing a cap. Ask anyone struck down with an immediate issue, such as cancer or a heart attack, how much value they place on sick leave as required.

We have heard some managers say that they could still approve sick leave payments for legitimate issues, inference, current sick leave is not legitimate.

Can you get ‘income protection' as an Air Traffic Controller? No, is the simple answer, so if you can’t insure yourself against a long term illness and the employer won’t pay you if you get sick, what exactly will we do to protect ourselves, yes the fog is clearing, KEEP SICK LEAVE AS REQUIRED; don't touch it!

What if we conceded to a maximum of 7 days without certificate, with no restriction on leave with certificate? Yes we'll give you that for $15K each on base pay, seems fair given that we currently run at 30+ days each (well according the J.McGauran) of illegitimate leave, and it would comply the governments Enterprise Bargaining Framework, productivity initiatives for more pay.

Non Operational Duty.

We have higher standards than the general community relating to health and fitness when performing the task of ATC. We cannot take many readily available over the counter drugs and ‘soldier on’, etc. So what should we do?

Airshambles seems to believe that ATCs don’t do enough non operational shifts, when they have a head cold, have a migraine, etc, when they have taken codeine, pseudoephedrine or similar drugs.

Well there are a number of reasons why we avoid non operational work, most come back to management. What does a non-operational controller do? Plenty, if you have an admin portfolio or the like, not much if you are simply a ‘tools man’, filing paperwork is not legitimate work for non operational ATCs. Most ATCs are paid to do operational work only, pity that's not always possible.

Then what shift are you working during your non-operational day at work, as rostered or something else. Most controllers organise their lives around their shift work, to change your shift at short notice to ‘work non-operational duty’ it may have a significant effect on your outside of work life; the work life balance. This isn’t always the case, but try telling a manager that you’ll be in for non-operational duty from 10-17 vice your 06-13 shift and you’ll be meet with a WTF response; why?

What if you are fatigued for your 0600 shift. You could work later in the day after you get sleep, damn that work life balance, already organised things with the accountant/doctor/kids/wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend/principal etc. so can’t do that; is it fraudulent leave? No it’s legitimate as long as you did all you could to reduce your fatigue prior to ‘taking the knock’. If you can do for example an afternoon vice a morning, to manage your illness, in this case, fatigue, will they let you?

So we are sure that more people would attend non-operational duty if there was true flexibility, and a method of assigning something worthy to do on said shifts. Management is 100% responsible for not developing any value adding non-operational tasks and then they further exacerbate the issue by not allowing some shift flexibility if you can't front for the shift as rostered.

Of course their concern is that if you can change shifts on a whim, without penalty, why would you ever work a doggo?

Did anyone else notice the line that ‘there is an obligation to work reasonable additional hours’? Why slip this into the ‘sick leave’ section?

The current rule states:

4.3.1 We expect that you will work a reasonable amount of additional hours if the requirement becomes necessary. You may choose not to work additional hours in circumstances where the working of such hours would result in you working hours which are unreasonable after consideration of:

(a) Any risk to your health and safety;

(b) Your personal circumstances including any family responsibilities;

(c) The needs of the workplace;

(d) The notice given by us and by you of your intention to choose not to work the additional

hours; and

(e) Any other relevant matter.

Consultation:

We think this means Airshambles wants the right to do whatever they want, the consultation clauses make it very inconvenient for us when staff point out that consultation is required as per the agreement. How many times have they been caught out not consulting; more than they have done it right in the first place.

Part 7:

They want to reduce (clarify/simplify) your entitlements relating to ‘Discipline, Redeployment and Termination of Employment’. We assume this means that they want to impose more restructures and not be caught out by possible redundancy provisions; like during the ALM debacle; there are still some ATCs waiting AIRC advice about their entitlements. We also suspect that they want to be able more readily able to sack employees that have disciplinary issues, these existing processes are very restrictive on their ability to be complete arse-holes.

Grievances:

Airshambles obviously doesn’t understand what the current grievance system is. The paragraph they have written is exactly what the current process is, idiots.

Sustaining Capability (you’re joking right?)

Air Traffic Control is a great place to work and is able to maintain capability within the global marketplace. Oh please! We have the lowest morale ever, you need to fix it, you need to relax terms and conditions and be less focused on 'fraud' and more focused on the individual.

How about starting with paying global rates and recognising that working 24/7/365 is difficult. How about not standing people down for every little irrelevant event, how about recognising that our safety culture is primarily a box ticking exercise. How about giving something back? How about tapping someone on the shoulder and saying go home, you've done a good days work?

Airshambles now wants ‘flexibility’ in recleave; but wait they wanted the 18 month rolling plans so they could be better informed about operational training requirements and sustaining capability. This was a pillar of the Airshambles position in 2002. Well which is it? Locking in things so you can plan, or needing flexibility cause you can’t organise a beer in a brew house?

Methods of retaining ATCs, SHOW ME THE MONEY JERRY! Do we smell individual contracts?

Career development, blah blah, how about sticking to something? Management training, how many processes in the last 5 years, leaders leading, cert IVs in frontline management etc.

Less CBT, real training courses, real refresher training, movement between ATC roles, now that’s development, reduce change, INFORMATION OVERLOAD LEADS TO MANAGEMENT ARSE COVERING AND INCREASED RISK!

Career Break scheme options - is that a carrot? You can’t be trusted, we know that in 5 years time we will still be short and you know it, you can give us all you want when we have full staffing, not in the three years of the next agreement. Next move on, no wait that’s it.

Airshambles, we here at the shafters are very unimpressed by your first effort, F, go back to your desk do better next time.

Airshambles 1st position – part 1

2008-07-12T02:47:00.005Z

Five meetings into the negotiations, which are to be conducted in an open, honest manner, in a more positive way than last time and we have got the first card played by the employer relating to what they want.

How predictable. In making the work environment a better place to work, they want to SHAFT YOU some more. Way to go, way to build morale; way to win them over.

The first point of order: GET RID OF PORS the obvious route of all evil, that cripple the business and only let them make $106M in 06/07 and more in 07/08.

The employer wants to get rid of PORS, well are they a dead duck, well you can have them, when you take them out of our COLD DEAD HANDs.

Under the enterprise bargaining framework this would represent how much? Well in our minds it’s worth 50% of our wage. Want us to give up PORs show us the money, otherwise Piss Off, Right (POR). This is a significant opportunity to offer us a bloody good pay rise.

Shift Lengths: They want flexibility to roster 6 to 10 hour shifts as they choose; they don’t want to pretend the teams thing exists, well because it doesn’t. Note the lack of ‘run of shifts' advice here? Maybe 6 x 6 hours shifts a week would be much more efficient.

They don’t want to be held accountable to staff if they don’t want to start working at 5am, get rid of FA requiring the 5am start; well it was only recently changed, but that was because of FRMS, was it not? We know that 5am starts are debilitating, why would you need to ask staff to turn up at that unholy hour, just tell them to be there.

Triple acquittal: Once upon a time, as an employer of choice, the employer would recognise the debilitating effect of starting work before 6am; hell 6am starts are tough enough. To start at say 5am and work through to 3pm, a ten hour shift would be neigh on impossible, we are talking air traffic control here, not sweeping floors or digging ditches, give us a break. You don’t like it, fine, staff the night shifts properly and avoid paying the triple acquittal.

Start Finish periods: They want to start and finish shifts as per their whim. Will we see 4am finishes, 3am starts? Of course we will. This benevolent employer will do what ever it can; hell they often ignore the rules by ‘reinterpreting them’ give them an inch and they’ll take a mile. This is SHAFT CENTRAL - the not so thin end of the wedge.

FRMS alternative: Sure bring it on, let’s have real science behind our rosters, seek review of rosters worked from those that work them. Evidence is one thing reality is another. If Airshambles had played real attention to the FRMS and used FAID as it was intended then maybe we would have some faith, alas, we do not trust you, CEO - Greg ‘Fencepost Turtle’ Russell, we do not trust you. What have you given us in the last 3+ years that tells us you are trustworthy, oh yes absolutely nothing, no substance, no rewards, no retraining, no retention, nadda. Hot air and spin that we can all see through, you present very well but your message is management wank word bingo and it doesn’t cut the mustard.

Get rid of rostering Committees: Hell they are obviously just a hindrance, how dare the workers put forward their point of view on rosters. Notice subtle use of ‘centrally constructed’, yes they are going to buy another crap piece of software that will give them optimal efficiency and you no life whatsoever. Of course it will work, trust us, the last 7 attempts have been abject failures because of PORs, not the products themselves; see point one.

Reasonable overtime:

They want to ‘spread’ the overtime pain, a fair enough concept, if we were all robot drones with the same extra curricular activities. We aren’t. If you are young and free, perhaps travel, dating, partying on your days off are more important than work. If you are in the family realm, then maybe family activities, kids sport, birthday parties, special days are more important than going to work, if you are now free of kids and enjoying your later years, perhaps beers with mates, gardening, playing golf, having a punt, are more important than going to work. Some of us have no desire to improve our income, but would rather focus on non work activities, some of us obviously don't like our homes, because some of us are always at work, improving our incomes.

If you want us to reprioritise our lives, then SHOW US THE MONEY! Getting less now for overtime than 3 years ago is not exactly the ‘incentive’ for going to work on your days off.

Traditionally overtime is ‘double time’ obviously taking .15 off this community-normalised target is not enough incentive to give up other activities. Then again it is about balance. If we could actually get days off without calls to come in, perhaps we would be more willing to enjoy the extra cash on the occasional overtime shift; because we would be properly rested. A significant amount of rosters do not have enough staff to cover base rosters, still. Those that do often don’t have enough leave lines to acquit accrued leave; and you wonder why we have issues.

The real issue is not just TIBA and TRAs, which happen when only one or no ATCs are available, but how many times have we been below minimum staffing without any evidence of a NOTAM to industry and we the controller keep going despite at times being overloaded make it work.

Stanby shifts to apply to morning and nightshifts. What do they mean? Do they want to have grey day doggos? What are grey days? Oh yes we forgot to mention, PISS OFF!

Targeted additional shifts, this means they can call you and you can’t say no. PISS OFF! Roster us on or bugger off; we owe you 36 hours a week, that's what you pay us for.

Overall this is a pathetic effort from a pathetic employer, if we had a choice we'd be leaving in droves, whoops, we are; it's more an effort than seeking a job in the next suburb, but we are going; get used to it.

More Defending the indefensible

2008-07-09T10:49:00.003Z

We have been busy in other places of late. Most of the Certified Shafting Team have been exploring external employment opportunities and all have been successful. Yeah, well done team. GET OUT WHILE YOU CAN.

Airshambles Australia have been pillared in the last few days by the main stream media. With little opportunity to Spin their position, such is the veracity of the case against them. Good on you media, at last some 'balanced' reporting.

We repeat today's Courier Mail editorial here to keep it handy for future reference.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23989178-13360,00.html

THERE are some areas where cutting corners may be tolerable. Air safety is not one of them. If something goes disastrously wrong at 40,000 feet, there are no second chances.
You do not pull over to the side of the road to inspect the damage, or hope that the airbag will deploy properly as you careen into a ditch. With aircraft, the results are almost inevitably, and tragically, catastrophic.

It is of grave concern, therefore, to read the alarming reports of commercial pilots in Australia increasingly "flying blind" over airspace that is not being monitored by air-traffic controllers. Nor are these isolated instances. In the past fortnight there have been yawning gaps in air-traffic control coverage in southern Queensland and Cape York, as well as busy aviation routes such as that between Melbourne and Sydney. At the moment these black spots are causing extended delays as flights are rescheduled and redirected to fly around them.

Of equal concern are reports that foreign pilots – often in jets carrying hundreds of passengers – are effectively "flying blind" through deactivated airspace. Air-traffic controllers have warned that, with Australia being one of only a few countries that allows passenger jets to fly through unsupervised airspace, foreign pilots are often unaware of the safety procedures for navigating such routes.

The problem stems from a critical shortage of skilled air-traffic controllers. This has also raised the issue of controllers working extended or double shifts because of staff shortages, leading to claims of fatigue and stress. And this is a profession in which there is not a margin for error.

Nor, when it comes to fatigue-related safety concerns in the aviation industry, are air-traffic controllers on their own. At a recent Senate inquiry, the Australian and International Pilots Association raised claims of repeated breaches of regulations governing pilot fatigue and cockpit duty time.

Unlike so many other seemingly intractable problems at the moment, this one is fixable. The simple solution to the issue is to hire more air-traffic controllers, and pay them properly – both to attract new people to the sector and to retain experienced personnel.

If claims by the union representing the air-traffic controllers are true – that Airservices Australia was explicitly warned of staff shortages six years ago, but failed to act – are correct, then someone's head should roll. Only at the beginning of this year was a plan introduced to increase the number of recruits, which does not bode well for staff shortages and extended overtime in the short term.

When it comes to aviation, public safety is paramount in our increasingly busy skies. There is no room for error, and no scope for cutting corners.

As John Cusack's character remarks to a fellow air-traffic controller in the film Pushing Tin: "Oh, you really think the pilot is controlling this plane? That would really scare me."

Hopefully this will start getting Ministerial pressure on the CEO and Board.

We say TIBA is unacceptable. Airshambles says TIBA is the appropriate contingency plan nd the risks are known. CASA says TIBA is international recognised and doesn't compromise Safety as the pilots have had training, The Ministers office says they wouldn't overrule CASA when it comes to safety, because they know their stuff when it comes to safety. These are circular arguments we've all seen before.

Shit it's "NAS" all over again.

The only difference is that Dick Smith has become the poster boy of the anti TIBA campaign. We suspect he's out for Fence Post Turtles/TFN/Russell's blood. Good on him, regardless of his motivation.