The Big Question is:

Showing posts with label trade offs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trade offs. Show all posts

Saturday, July 26, 2008

More Bad Press

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.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

CEO Interview - part 3

Greg Russell on Negotiating principles 1: “We are finalising our thinking ... and in the first instance I need to discuss these issues with our Board.”


Purrrrllllleeeeaaaaassssseeeee!!!!!!, No chance of doing it before June 2008?  Not since July 2005.  We know, the new Chairman might support you more than the last, maybe he'll like your 'new' strategy?


Greg Russell on Negotiating principles 2: “This is one of the major issues for the organisation this year, they want to see it well handled...” 


TOO LATE! You have no idea how pissed off people are already; maybe you need to visit a major centre and have some more no BS meetings?


Greg Russell on Negotiating principles 3: “... I’m still pretty confident we will end up with a reasonable outcome and hopefully one that doesn’t engender quite the degree of acrimony that occurred here in 2005. At the end of the day that level of acrimony is bad for our business and its counter to what I am trying to do here and that’s create a much better organisation.”


You have some serious work to do to get us on board, you have ruled by fear, sacking underlings that have disagreed with you or even questioned you, we believe that you have ripped the guts out of our organisation during your “tour”.  Any thoughts of just leaving, we need a morale boost.  The level of support our direct managers get from Level 1 and his “in fear” Level 2s does nothing to dispel the acrimony coming out of all these ‘stupid’ decisions from on high. SDE, ALMs, AWAs, and the like.



Greg Russell on Communication: “... I don’t think we have still cracked it completely and it is still a very important challenge for Airservices and various levels of our management.”


Cracked what exactly?  If communication got any worse we’d think Joseph Goebbels himself was sitting in the big office.  Nothing but SPIN, SPIN, SPIN!


Greg Russell on what Greg has in mind: “... at this stage ... we are not able to go into

detail at the moment ...”


Oh come on man, roll at least one die, give us a freak’n bone here.


Greg Russell on ADS-B 1: “It was under-scoped to begin with and I don’t think our early

project management was adequate, but we’ve put a lot of work into it in the

past two years.”


As usual we tried to do the cheapest option and got burnt.


Greg Russell on ADS-B 2: We have changed suppliers; we now have Telstra as one of

the principal external suppliers involved and they are doing a good job. 


Did any one say significant legal issues?


Greg Russell on changes to Gyms: “ We’ve been reviewing ... employment package products ... we wanted to see value for money in terms of what we were

spending ...to make sure that a) we are getting good value for money and b) we’ve got appropriately qualified people involved in these roles and that’s what the new providers will bring to both Brisbane and Melbourne. I’m a part time gym person myself and I know how important these facilities are.”


So why then did you award the contract to a big faceless corporation, if you truly wanted report with gym users you would have realised that the ‘little people’ you sacked were part of our community, you robbed us again, way to go, all for a gold coin or two, maybe even the faceless corporation will cost you more. Greg you have demonstrated your obvious lack of compassion, but why SPIN this, were not buying, you may as well 'cold call'.



Greg Russell on the future focus 1: “Waypoint effectively would be our annual meeting with our shareholders - to report to them on how we’ve been progressing.”


Well no, it would be a meeting with key customers, the shareholders reps might be present but it would be a shareholders meeting now would it.  What happens if they are dissatisfied or stop believing the SPIN? Go elsewhere?  Nothing else other than Waypoint?



Greg Russell on the future focus 2: “first of all we need to satisfactorily

conclude the certified agreements ... a litmus test ... a changing spirit of better goodwill as we move to fix a lot of things that have been wrong with the organisation over the years.”


Well you know what to do, put a decent offer on the table, we’ll STFU if you do, we guarantee it.


Greg Russell on the future focus 3: “... to continue this process of reform and improvement within the organisation, especially the great work that’s being done in both the Air Traffic group and the TAS group at the moment.”


Great work, where?  Oh yes, we missed the SPIN



Greg Russell on the future focus 4: “The fourth is the emphasis ... on training.... an enthusiastic group ... I want to see it grow - train not just air traffic controllers and firemen,

but our technical people and our management as well.”


But Greg, you gutted the joint, you’ve removed trained staff and put in ‘educators’ who will turn out great ‘graduates’ who probably won’t know a TTF from an NDB. What are the numbers again?  What were they in 2004, what was planned?


Greg Russell reflects: “All in all, I’ve got to tell you it’s going to be a very busy year. My sense is that we are making progress and as I look back on the organisation I inherited

when I came here nearly 3 years ago, the change is very noticeable, hopefully for the better.”


NEWS FLASH - NEWS FLASH - NEWS FLASH, In case you missed it, we think you have f@#^KED the joint, please leave and get yourself another job.  Whatever your view of our comments, ask random staff if it’s been "for the better", go on we dare you.

PS Don’t sack them if you get an honest answer.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Meeting 3 - 17 June 2008

Another NOTHING Day.

All reports from the parties is that the employer has nothing concrete to offer, except a promise for a presentation (read - "death by powerpoint") after the next board meeting, the presentation is to be made on July 3 2008.

That Board meeting is scheduled for 24 June 2008, some 2 months after negotiations were to commence and they still haven't got a sign off from the Board.  Sign off of what?  The final deal? Or the initial offer?

Funny we were thinking that negotiations have commenced, they've gone no where (well what were we expecting?), but the deal is to be ticked by the Board on 24 June 2008; which deal, the initial deal or the final deal?

Rumours from other sources tell one of our members that Big Tony, The new minister, has given the green light for "substantiated productivity based" pay rises.

So the folks in WA are generating the worth of our pay rises.  Revenue up by 11%, so we should expect an 11% offer then CPI annual increases.  Will this represent a "Bloody  good pay rise?"  That will be up to you to decide, we believe an offer of that ilk will be a slap in the face.  We also believe they will not make such a generous offer.

What will be the employers 'pillars'? Perhaps a cap on sickleave, limiting the days without certificate or the absolute "business requirement" to introduce fatigue based rostering (otherwise known as removing PORS).  So trade offs required to get a "Bloody good pay rise"; which in our view will not represent value for trade, again.

Think about the last agreement and overtime change, 1.85 for AD vs 1.57 plus 2 hrs travel on ED vs 1.18 on OT; sure a leg up on OT, but most will now agree the ED value trade was a dud; and possibly as a direct result, the cheapening of overtime costs, the employer has taken more liberty with staffing than it otherwise would have.  Remember those cancelled abinitio courses in 2006?

And what of retention, will there be a defence styled retention bonus?  $25K after 3 years?  Like you, we wait to see the offer; but a little tip for ya, don't hold your breath.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Ding Ding

Well on points, the first round has gone to Civil Air. There were certainly no knock-out blows landed.

The employer postulated about all the reasons why a 'bloody good pay rise' would not be forthcoming unless 'trade offs' were utilised to increase the productivity.

We have seen speculation that a cap on sick leave is absolutely required and that PORs are an unreasonable restriction on our business.

But most interesting of all is that despite the first meeting being 3+ weeks late, the employer isn't in a position to make an offer yet, because they don't know what their staff want!

Well we say, why the hell don't you know that?

We have more managers than ever in an effort to increase communication (see justification for ALM structure) yet now we are all (both ways) less informed than ever.

The employer has advised that crucial information will be included in the WAYPOINT 2008 presentation; of which a copy will be provided after the event. 

WAYPOINT 2008 is where they announce to industry what the 5 year charging plan will be.  This is what they will then use to justify their inability to open up the purse strings and reach inside; because they will be returning all but a modest profit back to the industry.  And they will clearly factor in a modest ATC wages growth that will be 'locked in' after this announcement.  Therefore in their minds the only other way to get more money in your pocket will be to surrender your valuable conditions (which hamper their business) for that extra productivity.

MARK OUR WORDS, we won't be getting a 'bloody good pay rise' unless we fight for it.

We are particularly interested in the commentary of "FOCUS GROUPS" these have been referred to in the past as "FUCK US GROUPS" and rightly so.  These are utilised to justify that Civil Air doesn't represent the views of the membership.  They are about dividing and conquering.

Despite the explanations that Civil Air has 90%+ coverage of ATCs; they still think that Civil Air is the voice of the vocal minority and everyone else is either a sheep or too afraid to stand-up to the national executive (or individual members of it).  

Thus the logic, we have a right to talk to our staff and when we do we find they don't reflect the same views that Civil Air puts to us; thus we can't trust anything that Civil Air says because they don't represent their members.

From our reading of events; this meeting was about getting beyond WAYPOINT 2008 without making any commitments and then being able to say, "well this is what we have told industry and the ACCC has approved it sorry that's all we can do also this is in line with Federal Government Bargaining Framework".

Hell they have stated that they won't be able to make us an offer for 4 or 5 weeks, that's two months after the meetings were supposed to start.  Its about getting beyond a time when the figures are "locked in".

What can you do to help bring things to ahead?  Spread the word that the employer has shown clear signals of not being prepared to bargain in good faith again.  Spread the word about this blog.

Then ask yourself "Do I enjoy my days off?"