Air Traffic Controllers "strike"

cp251

It's brinkmanship and the usual Irish trade union negotiating stance. Aer Lingus do it all the time. Only occasionally do management call their bluff and let the strike go ahead. I've seen it all before after 14 years working in Irish aviation industry. I can't tell you how many times I was on strike notice. But I never actually went on strike. Other times I was on notice for layoffs. It never happens.

There will be a last minute delay, labour court intervention or Bertie. Gawd it's so predictable! It's a high stakes game.

All it does is wreck the heads of passengers who believe they are serious. No wonder so many new companies and multinationals avoid unions like the plague. Who has time and patience for these games?

ATC have a good case, but the system in the public service in this country always ensures we are subject to this kind of childish brinkmanship. Why can't people just sit down and negotiate seriously?

FlutterinBantam

I agree with everything you say there.

Mick O'Leary fought long and hard way back when to ensure no unions in Ryanair
(as we know them)
Now you know why !!!!

The unions know that the public sector is the only place that will tolerate this kind of stuff,and Dublin Airport is the pinch point to squeeze.

Over 500 people are being made redundant in Arnott's and not a peep out of anyone.

Time the travelling public woke up to these dudes.

Zzippy

cp251 wrote: »

It's brinkmanship and the usual Irish trade union negotiating stance.

All it does is wreck the heads of passengers who believe they are serious.

Too right! I'm supposed to be flying out that day on the first major holiday I've had in years, Argentina. Have 2 connecting flights dependent on getting out of Dublin that day.
Trying to find alternatives to get to Madrid and a one-way flight is working out nearly as expensive as the return trip to Buenos Aires.
Thanks a lot IMPACT! :mad:

Tenger

Zzippy wrote: »

Trying to find alternatives to get to Madrid and a one-way flight is working out nearly as expensive as the return trip to Buenos Aires.
Thanks a lot IMPACT! :mad:

Any luck with going out the previous evening? With airport hotel in Madrid?

Zzippy

Bramble wrote: »

Any luck with going out the previous evening? With airport hotel in Madrid?

That's my next option, but it means taking another day of holidays, and I'm already swamped with work trying to get everything sorted before going!

Girrrrseach

Im completely put out if Thursday is cancelled....

Rang Ryanair, they said that they have nothing to do with it, and wouldn't say whether they can refund / reschedule.

Do you guys really think this will go ahead? And if I booked a very early Friday morning flight, would that be at all delayed because of the back-log??

FlutterinBantam

My gut feeling is it won't come to a stoppage.

Only real difference is that on Friday all flts will be full.

Tenger

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

My gut feeling is it won't come to a stoppage.

Only real difference is that on Friday all flts will be full.

Agree here. The thursday flights will be emptier than usual as a lot of pax may have rebooked to wed/friday.

A strike on thursday 'shouldn't' cause too much of a backlog. Its not like a bad delay which has knock on effects. The thursday flights just will not happen,the firday flights will go as normal. Perhaps 1-2 extra flights laid on. Thats it, the 3 main Irish airspace users (EI,FR,RE) would not have the spare aircraft to add extra flights ,unless Ryanair use aircraft from another base. But that would then mean cancelling flights from that base. Contrary to what Mo'L says, FR do not leave aircraft lying on the ramp 'to save money'

irishatco

cp251 wrote: »

ATC have a good case, but the system in the public service in this country always ensures we are subject to this kind of childish brinkmanship. Why can't people just sit down and negotiate seriously?

You're missing the point, ATCOs have attempted to negotiate seriously with the IAA for a number of years, the end result has usually been a visit to the Labour Court with the IAA emerging with their tails between their legs.

I regret the inconveniance caused to the travelling public, and I'd rather it was a shorter stoppage, but I am sick to the back teeth of IAA management's incompetence and being blamed for having the gall to want to have a life outside of work.

rugbyman

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I agree with everything you say there.

Mick O'Leary fought long and hard way back when to ensure no unions in Ryanair
(as we know them)
Now you know why !!!!

The unions know that the public sector is the only place that will tolerate this kind of stuff,and Dublin Airport is the pinch point to squeeze.

Over 500 people are being made redundant in Arnott's and not a peep out of anyone.

Time the travelling public woke up to these dudes.

could not agree more with flutterinbantam re unions. the atc want to do less overtime and want IAA to hire more atc so as to reduce the need for overtime. this would mean many more union members with public sector terms and conditions. i.e. perhaps millions of eoro to be paid over a lifetim with pension rights etc. So the atc ,rather than do less overtime as each of them has a right to do(or not do ,to be exact), they plan to go on strike and disrupt the onward travel /work plans of thousands of their customers. Its crazy. Oh, and in the meantime they want to be paid extra just to be available for overtime.

Ml O `Leary and Ryanair have broken the mould and liberated this industry. Aer Lingus , to their credit are following suit. But Aer Rianta and the ATC seem to think we are still in the eighties.

Last comment. to all the Aer Lingus, Aer Rianta, ATC and a host of other semi state employees ,Garda, civil servants ,An Post people etc. Stop moaning when you have a perceived grievance, LEAVE! Go out and sell your undoubted talents to the private sector. You know you are underpaid/maltreated, go out and get the reward you deserve.

microgirl

rugbyman wrote: »

Last comment. to all the Aer Lingus, Aer Rianta, ATC and a host of other semi state employees ,Garda, civil servants ,An Post people etc. Stop moaning when you have a perceived grievance, LEAVE! Go out and sell your undoubted talents to the private sector. You know you are underpaid/maltreated, go out and get the reward you deserve.

And go where, precisely? I could be wrong, but I can't really think of any private enterprise that requires air traffic controllers! Plus, the State will continue to need them, which means that even if everyone currently employed as an ATCO leaves for this fabled new job in private enterprise tomorrow, new ones will simply be employed under the same onerous conditions. Or not, since the IAA seem so hell-bent on not recruiting new staff And contrary to popular belief, not everyone who is fighting for better conditions is fighting purely for themselves.

And if everyone left en masse tomorrow (or ever gradually over the next few weeks) what on earth do you think the outcome would be, considering the problem is the chronic level of understaffing? MORE flights would be cancelled, the entire country would be shut down for a considerable period while the IAA tried to find new ATCOs - an incredibly highly-skilled job requiring significant training - and the ATCOs get serious grief and sh!te from the public anyway?

What on earth do you think a strike is? It is essentially a threat to walk out, to leave, letting management see what straits they'd be in if they don't try to reach an agreement, without hopefully having to actually bring the country to its knees.

No-one likes having to offer these kinds of ultimatums (ultimata?) but sometimes it's just necessary.

irishatco

rugbyman wrote: »

could not agree more with flutterinbantam re unions. the atc want to do less overtime and want IAA to hire more atc so as to reduce the need for overtime. this would mean many more union members with public sector terms and conditions. i.e. perhaps millions of eoro to be paid over a lifetim with pension rights etc. So the atc ,rather than do less overtime as each of them has a right to do(or not do ,to be exact), they plan to go on strike and disrupt the onward travel /work plans of thousands of their customers. Its crazy. Oh, and in the meantime they want to be paid extra just to be available for overtime.

Absolute bull.

The stated position of the union is that they would prefer the IAA did not rely on overtime to cover short term absences. A more effective method of ensuring services are not disrupted is to have staff rostered on standby duites to cover such absences.

The IAA provide no such cover. The roster works with X number of staff, not X+1 or X+2. They are unwilling to provide any level of cover other than to ring staff on their rest days and ask them to attend for overtime. They are also happy to allow an unlimted number of overtime duties be performed by individual staff (unlike pilots we have no legal limit on the amount of hours we can work, would you be happy to know an ATCO may have worked a 58 hour week?)

When staff refused to do so, we were accused of orchestrating the situation (and slandered by that Mullingar weasel who accused staff of engineering a blue flu).

As you pointed out, overtime is voluntary.

When we voluntarily declined the invitation to attend, delays happened.

This situation needs to be addressed NOW. The IAA claims it is recruiting direct entry controllers to address staffing concerns, they have yet to advertise the positions. That is not good enough.

Tenger

rugbyman wrote: »

could not agree more with flutterinbantam re unions. the atc want to do less overtime and want IAA to hire more atc so as to reduce the need for overtime. this would mean many more union members with public sector terms and conditions. ...................... So the atc ,rather than do less overtime as each of them has a right to do(or not do ,to be exact), they plan to go on strike and disrupt the onward travel /work plans of thousands of their customers.

I can see your argument here and partially agree in theory,however:
This dispute is over the fact the the current Irish ATC system relies on OT to provide a full service. Yes the IAA should not be forced to overstaff with the attendant costs involved. However they should not be allowed to run the system understaffed and put pressure on staff to do OT. OT is a bonus for working extra,it should be an option for staff rather than the norm. OT should be in place to cover sick leave and particular busy periods,it should not be in constant use. Having a backup ATC on call is just safe practise in an industry that tries to have back-up systems for everything(thats why there are 2 pilots)The recent delays have been due to ATCs not doing OT. They are simply exercising their choices.
Another gripe is that as the IAA has understaffed, the ATCs are restricted in their ability to take time off hence impacting on their quality of life.

During Summer 2003 Aer Lingus had many staffing problems due the lay-offs. They rostered the required number of pilots/cabin crew for all flights. But they did not take into account that aviation is unpredictable and when flights were delayed/diverted the schedule went to hell as the company had not had any standby/reserve staff rostered. The IAA appear to be doing the same thing.

rugbyman wrote: »

Last comment. to all the .............semi state employees ..............etc. LEAVE! Go out and sell your undoubted talents to the private sector. You know you are underpaid/maltreated, go out and get the reward you deserve.

Unfortunately in some sectors moving company is not an option. The trained ATCs in the IAA have to move country if they want to move jobs. There are no private sector ATC companies. And I am not sure how their skills would be integrated into a private company.

Moan ahead:
As an employee of one of the companies you mentioned I really love my job but am currently of the opinion that changing career would be probably be better for me in the long term. However as my company have been unwilling/unable to give me any consistency in my work pattern between 2000-2006 I have been unable to do any courses I wanted to do which would allow me to move to the private sector (with my dubious talents) So I am now stuck doing a course that will not help me(if it does) until 2011. This is a reality for many of these people,skills are not readily transferable and the employee may not have the option of upskilling themselves in their current position.

ch252

irishatco wrote: »

Absolute bull.

The stated position of the union is that they would prefer the IAA did not rely on overtime to cover short term absences. A more effective method of ensuring services are not disrupted is to have staff rostered on standby duites to cover such absences.

would you be happy to know an ATCO may have worked a 58 hour week?

This situation needs to be addressed NOW. The IAA claims it is recruiting direct entry controllers to address staffing concerns, they have yet to advertise the positions. That is not good enough.

Exactly, look, an ATCO is one of the most stressful jobs in the world, you need to be on the ball EVERYDAY, if you're not, thats when accidents happen, and I would much prefer industrial action to an accident.. So IMO ATCO's shouldn't have to do any overtime, I know it's near impossible so reasonably minimal overtime is what would be ideal. The IAA need to realise that taking shortcuts does NOT work, I know it is very annoying for passengers, easy for me to say that when I have no flights on but all the same, they work everyday of the year, be it from 12 noon til 7 or 12 midnight til 7 in the morning so one day or two is acceptable seen as it is in a bid to ensure it never happens again.

Darragh

FlutterinBantam

hey hey!! lets slow down a bit here.

In a 7/24 operation there is always a req. for o/t.

As in the airline business,standby resources cost money,therefore you plan right up to the edge.

therefore if one domino falls ,you need a replacement.

What ATC(I think) need is an agreed system of o/t availability,based on payment for stand by duty and an understanding that on fulfilling that criterium ,no further onus is on the individual to make him/her/self available thus providing some certaintity of working duties in any one week.

What seems to be the problem is this thing is all higgeldy piggeldy and no one is sure where they stand.

Is that a reasonable synopsis of the situation or is it not???

irishatco

Flutter,

Before my time in the job the IAA had a call-in scheme which ATCOs could opt into, providing 1-3 days per month (on top of contracted hours) for a fixed payment.

That was scrapped, and the current ad hoc system of calling staff on rest days was introduced, but because nobody was interested in attending for extra duties management ended up negotiating deals with individuals for days in lieu (sometimes up to 4 per duty :eek:).

Currently (until this dispute arose anyway) any staff attending for OT receive double time for the hours worked. There is NO formal scheme to opt in or out of, staff are simply contacted on their days off when a duty needs to be covered. On any given day we might have 20+ staff on rest days in DUB, and on a number of occassions supervisors have been unable to get any volunteers to attend, but the impact is less severe when there are other staff around to cover positions, or we can combine sectors to provide meal and fatigue breaks.

I agree that OT is a necessary evil, but the IAA rely on it to a far greater extent than necessary. One estimate of OT requirements in DUB is that 800 duties were covered last year. That's 2+ a day, with rostered standby duties that could be managed much better, though with OT being the cheapest form of labour it is natural for the IAA to prefer to cover those duties with call ins rather than extra staff.

If they do want the staff body to make themselves available for a call in scheme they will need to make it worth our while. With traffic levels and complexity increasing (particularly in SHA) a large number of ATCOs simply want to take their rest days without interruption. I will certainly think long and hard before making myself available for a call in scheme, regardless of the pay on offer.

What would you suggest the company does in the absence of an adequate take up of their call in scheme?

FlutterinBantam

I'm a bit confused here.

Where the situation is at:

Agree a system to cover shortfalls.

Where the system needs to be:

Staff the system adequately to cover operational requirements.

All agreed by both parties.


Not much more than that to it is there??

irishatco

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I'm a bit confused here.

Where the situation is at:

Agree a system to cover shortfalls.

Where the system needs to be:

Staff the system adequately to cover operational requirements.

All agreed by both parties.


Not much more than that to it is there??

Are you suggesting a voluntary overtime scheme, or a compulsory one?

If it is voluntary, what if there is not enough interest to cover shortfalls?

Ultimately the money on offer will be the deciding factor, human nature suggests that if the € signs flash before the eyes people are more likely to agree to the scheme.

I'd welcome a scheme that formalised staff on rostered call in duties, much easier to plan the non-work side of one's life and manage fatigue. Doesn't mean I'll be signing up though.

FlutterinBantam

Read my lips.

Agreed system

irishatco

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Read my lips.

Agreed system

I've read your lips fine up to now.

Agreed doesn't necessarily mean voluntary.

If Impact and the IAA emerge from the Labour Court next week with a proposal that ATCOs surrender one rest day each month for an agreed payment, and ATCOs then vote in favour of the agreement (say by a margin of 70/30), does that mean that staff who have no interest in doing extra duties will forced to do so?

The majority of staff want to get away from work, not spend more time in there!

If it is a voluntary, opt-in scheme, then my original question remains valid: what if not enough staff opt in to cover projected shortfalls in staffing?

Is it not the norm on your side of the mic for airlines to have staff on standby to cover some level of sick leave? I'm happy to stand corrected on that.

Oilrig

FIB...

"read my lips" ... Leave it out.

This is a serious issue, you're posts are being replied to in a reasoned manner and it would be good if you could replicate this.

If you don't agree with what is being posted, fine, state your arguments in a civil fashion if you want them to be considered by others.

Lets give the Miami Vice sound bites a miss please.

kraggy

Oilrig wrote: »

FIB...

"read my lips" ... Leave it out.

This is a serious issue, you're posts are being replied to in a reasoned manner and it would be good if you could replicate this.

If you don't agree with what is being posted, fine, state your arguments in a civil fashion if you want them to be considered by others.

Lets give the Miami Vice sound bites a miss please.

+1

Clytus

TBH...Michael O Leary got it spot on...a group of Civil Servants paid very well indeed looking for a 15% increase just to be available!! A shocking indictment of the attitude of the Civil service.

So the ATCs have a standard working week of 35 hours....Jaysus God love yas!!!!

Darwin

I'm not an air traffic controller but I would imagine a 35 hour working week where your full attention is needed most of the time and lapse of concentration at the wrong time could have terrible consequences. You simply cannot compare their duties to an ordinary office worker who can afford to have "off-days" and it's no big deal. O'Leary is just looking for more publicity with his big mouth and incorrect assertions of the truth in regard to this situation. His bottom line is to make money for the shareholders of Ryanair and he does that extremely well - part of that process is to pare costs to the bone which includes hiring mostly eastern european as cabin crew and paying them ****ty wages. That old cliche 'the race to the bottom' springs to mind.

FlutterinBantam

Oilrig wrote: »

FIB...

"read my lips" ... Leave it out.

This is a serious issue, you're posts are being replied to in a reasoned manner and it would be good if you could replicate this.

If you don't agree with what is being posted, fine, state your arguments in a civil fashion if you want them to be considered by others.

Lets give the Miami Vice sound bites a miss please.

I am treating this as a serious issue.

If others want to elevate the issues into personal abuse fine, I want nothing Lo do with it.
If you want to go off half cocked on these issues please don't blame me

What I said, if people took the trouble to read it and digested it is very simply.

Current system is slipshod and needs fixing.

What both parties need to do is establish an AGREED procedure to handle shortfalls.

less of the histrionics please ,it certainly doesn't impress me.

kraggy

Clytus wrote: »

TBH...Michael O Leary got it spot on...a group of Civil Servants paid very well indeed looking for a 15% increase just to be available!! A shocking indictment of the attitude of the Civil service.

So the ATCs have a standard working week of 35 hours....Jaysus God love yas!!!!

You obviously haven't a clue about the ins and outs of the disagreement.

It's not about money. It's about rostering and future recruitment and staffing levels. It's not about money.

It's not about money!!!!

The controllers haven't had a standard 35 hour week in years. The system is run on overtime. And they're sick of doing it.

It's not about money.

FlutterinBantam

Obviously a lot of hotheads around that particular profession,a quality I would have thought would not be an asset.

When did I say this dispute was about money????

Based on my posts ,please inform the Boards subscribers why you think I haven't a clue??

Regretfully this thread is degenerating into a slagging match,not by my wishes ,but by people who,in my opinion,think because they work in the profession,or are in closely associated work,rubbish the opinion of anyone else they perceive not to be in that coterie...

Please explain,in less emotive language why you feel my views are contrary yo yours.

For every bodies benefit I will paraphrase my opinions.

1.. Current situation is not sustainable and impinges unfairly on the workforce.

2.. Both parties need to AGREE a system which will end the current situation to the satisfaction of all!!

Thats no different to what my line has been all through this thread.

Girrrrseach

Guys, I'm sorry to butt into this conversation with a practical question but....!

Any update on this at all??? I am meant to fly out Thursday night, should I be booking a friday morning flight at this stage, or when will there be a definite yes/no answer to whether the strike is going ahead???

qnhhpa

"TBH...Michael O Leary got it spot on...a group of Civil Servants paid very well indeed looking for a 15% increase just to be available!! A shocking indictment of the attitude of the Civil service.

So the ATCs have a standard working week of 35 hours....Jaysus God love yas!!!! "

TBH Clytus, Michael O'Leary got it all wrong.

For those interested in the facts:

We are are not Civil Servants, we are not covered by benchmarking and we have never gone on strike before.

The pay for qualified air traffic controller in the Irish Aviation Authority ranges from €65,000 - €98,000 (After 20 years service). This includes shift pay - controllers work 24 hours a day 365 days a year. This is good money but it is nothing like O'Leary and others have claimed in the media.

Working week is 41 hours gross - probably about 35 hours net - is that unusual?

The issue at stake here is not money but safety.

The IAA is short staffed. Nobody has been recruited since 2001. 7 years. A lot of people have retired during that period - none have been replaced.

Air traffic has risen by between 5 and 10% per year during that period.

Controllers cannot get leave. We are expected to work overtime on our days off. We are fatigued. This is unsafe.

We have refused to continue working overtime on our days off. We are not obliged to.

You've seen the dispruption this causes and this is a quiet time of year.

This problem has been raised by staff with management for the last three years and they have done nothing.

A recent intake of trainees, originally 24, now 36 as a result of our actions, start training in mid March. The first of those will not be basically qualified until the end of 2009 at the earliest. By then an estimated 30 current controllers will have retired...

To quote a colleague who posted this on another site...

"This is not about money, the current industrial action up to and including next weeks 24 hr stoppage is because of the Controllers DUTY OF CARE to him/herself, his/her employer, aircraft under his/her control and the flying public. The same DUTY OF CARE that stops me coming in to work intoxicated etc. The same DUTY OF CARE that makes me value my job, my fellow controllers jobs, my pilots and their passengers lives and the property of many international companies.


Therefore, I am proud to walk out on Thursday, exercising my right to let nothing preclude me from using my own initiative to ensure the safety of all aircraft and passengers who use Irish Controlled Airspace.

To the travelling public: Sorry for the inconvenience, but this is for you as well as us.
To Mike O' Leary: Show us who is greedy. You won't be charged for flights planned on next Thursday and you won't have to pay for fuel, probably won't have to pay the staff either. So refund your passengers money if they don't fly.
To the IAA: Don't say you didn't see it coming. It's not "biting the hand that feeds you" it's "reaping what you sow"."

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=310303&page=31

qnhhpa

You are right. There does need to be an agreed solution. But IAA are convinced its all about money. They are accountants. They don't know or care about people. Its like negotiating with a brick wall.