The poor air traffic controllers

CityCentreMan

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Do you think they should be sacked? Like Reagan did with them,

I mean everyone is arguing their high salaries based on their responsibility. They certainly didn't give a cr*p about their responsibilities today - did they?

No, I dont think that they should be sacked!

I think...

1) If a strike is going to have "collataral" damage outside of the main protagonists, then exhaustive procedures & alternative dispute resolution methods should be mandatory before the strike or other action is called;

2) That if the strike action is called before an exhaustive process has been followed that the union should be liable for the costs / damages suffered by third parties ;

3) That in the case of employment in areas which have fundamental and strategic importance to the country, such as the ATC's that strikes should be made totally illegal.

mickoneill30

jmayo wrote: »

Now if ATC has bad day, they can say route a small Embraer too close to the tail of a 747 and hey presto Embraer gets huge wake tubulence and falls out of the sky.
Guess what 70 people die.
Big fu**ing difference between one and 70.

I know nothing about being an ATC but if the above happens does the computer system not flash warnings all over the place well before that can happen. Surely the system can see that one is a 747 and that another is an Embraer and that both aircraft have certain parameters that can't be breached. Aren't there backups and countermeasures in place. Can the Embraer not track itself and see that it's too close to a 747?
Are ATC personell still looking at that old black screen you see in the movies with the dots or has it gotten more sophisticated?

herya

They can see each other to a degree but an ATC can see complex things in advance, for example that if they continue their flight in 10 minutes all three will be in the same place. In heavy traffic or with bad weather they can't maneuver on their own all over the place or they will crash into something else and the closer to the airport the less space they have. It is not pilot's work to observe all the aircrafts in the vicinity, especially if they have difficulty communicating. It's ATC's work and they also need to maintain live communication with all affected aircrafts all the time to give them emergency instructions. Someone has to tell them OK you continue you wait you go higher you go lower. At every single moment there is a line to each runway and they can't land whenever and wherever they fancy, the route has to be cleared and order established. This can't be scheduled in advance and adhered to blindly - think of all the flights that are late or think what happens if flights are delayed for hours due to bad weather and then they need to depart literally minutes one after another. Someone has to coordinate it all.

TCP/IP_King

stereo_steve wrote: »

I'd bet everything I have that you are a public servent

I'd bet everything you have that you're an IBEC/ISME minimum wage dive apologist.

P. Breathnach

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

... I'd love to see FR sue Impact and see where it takes us.

It would be difficult for them to sue an organisation that they refuse to recognise.

P. Breathnach

CityCentreMan wrote: »

I think...

2) That if the strike action is called before an exhaustive process has been followed that the union should be liable for the costs / damages suffered by third parties...

There was an exhaustive process in train, and the IAA pulled the plug on it; then they suspended ATCs. Where the employer escalates a dispute, who would you make liable for losses incurred by third parties?

Count Dooku

nipplenuts wrote: »

Compare the salary with other than the UK - their currency has lost 40% or so in the last few year. Compare with 5 years ago, maybe.

Irish controllers get double the US pay packet

Irish air traffic controllers earn far more than their counterparts in the US, Britain and France, but lag way behind Spain where the top earners pocket up to €900,000 a year.

Figures this week from the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) reveal that the top 10pc of Irish air traffic controllers in Ireland are earning between €170,000 to €230,000 a year, while the average pay is €160,000.

stereo_steve

TCP/IP_King wrote: »

I'd bet everything you have that you're an IBEC/ISME minimum wage dive apologist.

:eek: We could both be homeless by the end of the week!

I said it purely because of ...


Q: What should we be doing instead of ranting?
A: Get up stand up, stand up for your rights!

It seems to be a recurring theme on boards from the PS. It's typical union quote.

Gardoggle

I support the air traffic controllers. They were involved in labour relations discussions and were waiting on a labour court hearing and the IAA suspended, without pay, 15 controllers. They are not striking for more pay, thats something they are negotiating for. Why people focus on the controllers and not their bosses who suspended them, abandoning any reasonable approach to the problem baffles me. Seems like the controllers are getting all the flack. their bosses are AT LEAST equally responsible imo..

Alcatel

I think that the ATC's have a good and fair wage, at an average of 160k per year, and ought to keep doing it, with the new kit, during the recession without a pay increase. Frankly, that's fair. They're not on the breadline.

FlutterinBantam

Gardoggle wrote: »

I support the air traffic controllers. They were involved in labour relations discussions and were waiting on a labour court hearing and the IAA suspended, without pay, 15 controllers. They are not striking for more pay, thats something they are negotiating for. Why people focus on the controllers and not their bosses who suspended them, abandoning any reasonable approach to the problem baffles me. Seems like the controllers are getting all the flack. their bosses are AT LEAST equally responsible imo..

If you think that holding the travelling public and industry to ransom by refusing to do stuff which you were already doing when a hearing was imminent, well I hope you are not an ATC who regd to spout here.

How long do people expect talks to go on for?

Why is it that only the relatively well paid and pensioned workforce seem to be involved in industrial disputes?

People would need to get real about these issues before 15 people hold the country in a stranglehold.

Come off it sir!!

monkeypants

Nermal wrote: »

In this case, these people don't even need to be in Ireland, we should have outsourced this thing ages ago.

There may be security or legal reasons for not doing this.

Japer

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Why is it that only the relatively well paid and pensioned workforce seem to be involved in industrial disputes?

People would need to get real about these issues before 15 people hold the country in a stranglehold.

+1. They are paid an average of 160,ooo a year, have a pension contribution of 30% of their salary paid by their employer, are doing 25% less work than last year and yet they seek a bloody 10% salary increase ! Time these public servants took a stress break - only this time unpaid and for good.

CityCentreMan

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There was an exhaustive process in train, and the IAA pulled the plug on it; then they suspended ATCs. Where the employer escalates a dispute, who would you make liable for losses incurred by third parties?

In my world, it is management who decides which technology should be used and whether it is used or not. I suppose that when you are paid over €160K per annum, it is hard to accept that you have to do what you are told.

If refusal to utilise the new technology was based on the fact that it was illegal or proven to be unsafe, then the ATA's may have some grounds for their refusal but simply using this issue as a bargaining chip regarding financila issues is not acceptable.

Although they are paid more than most company directors, the ATA's still have a duty to follow lawful instructions in the course of employment and if they refuse to do their jobs then management have no option but to suspend the workers concerned.

Tim Robbins

CityCentreMan wrote: »

In my world, it is management who decides which technology should be used and whether it is used or not. I suppose that when you are paid over €160K per annum, it is hard to accept that you have to do what you are told.

If refusal to utilise the new technology was based on the fact that it was illegal or proven to be unsafe, then the ATA's may have some grounds for their refusal but simply using this issue as a bargaining chip regarding financila issues is not acceptable.

Although they are paid more than most company directors, the ATA's still have a duty to follow lawful instructions in the course of employment and if they refuse to do their jobs then management have no option but to suspend the workers concerned.

If they new technology makes their job less stressful, then by the logic of some people here who claim they pay should be high due to the stress, then consistency would say they should be getting a pay cut.

I think if everytime there was a house fire and there was detailed analysis on the news (especially everytime a fireman died) and then there was none at all about plane crashes, it would be the firemen who got 160K a year.

Darragh29

herya wrote: »

It's not when there's an emergency. My cousin is training for an ATC, it's not an easy job and there's a lot of responsibility, many burn out very early. They shouldn't be getting this raise but don't belittle them so easily.

You can listen to a live feed from the Dublin Air Traffic Control Tower here. I have to say they don't sound the slightest bit stressed out to me....

P. Breathnach

CityCentreMan wrote: »

In my world, it is management who decides which technology should be used and whether it is used or not...

I don't buy unconditionally into the "management decides" line. Neither do I believe that a union or any other person or group can, without good reason, go against management. There is room to argue about what constitutes "good reason". In the case of this dispute, I don't have enough information to hold an informed opinion, so I don't take a position.

But the point I was making was in response to your suggestion that the union be made financially liable for losses incurred as a result of the strike, and it seems to me that the condition you set -- "strike action is called before an exhaustive process has been followed" -- might not have been satisfied.

On radio yesterday (I think it was on Pat Kenny's programme) I heard a spokesman for the IAA giving the management side of the story. What he said, and the way he said it, had all the hallmarks of a piece of spin: I could almost hear the meeting within the IAA offices beforehand, and the discussions on what message they wanted to get over. The presentation of the IAA position was such that my crap-detector almost overheated.

So my position is simply this: I don't know if the union has a fair case; neither do I know if the employer is being reasonable.

Tim Robbins

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So my position is simply this: I don't know if the union has a fair case; neither do I know if the employer is being reasonable.

And what all the people who needed to fly yesterday - do they have a fair case?

zootroid

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't buy unconditionally into the "management decides" line. Neither do I believe that a union or any other person or group can, without good reason, go against management. There is room to argue about what constitutes "good reason". In the case of this dispute, I don't have enough information to hold an informed opinion, so I don't take a position.

But the point I was making was in response to your suggestion that the union be made financially liable for losses incurred as a result of the strike, and it seems to me that the condition you set -- "strike action is called before an exhaustive process has been followed" -- might not have been satisfied.

On radio yesterday (I think it was on Pat Kenny's programme) I heard a spokesman for the IAA giving the management side of the story. What he said, and the way he said it, had all the hallmarks of a piece of spin: I could almost hear the meeting within the IAA offices beforehand, and the discussions on what message they wanted to get over. The presentation of the IAA position was such that my crap-detector almost overheated.

So my position is simply this: I don't know if the union has a fair case; neither do I know if the employer is being reasonable.

Can you give any example of this? I don't think it's fair to just say he was talking crap.

P. Breathnach

Tim Robbins wrote: »

And what all the people who needed to fly yesterday - do they have a fair case?

Of course.

I simply meant that I cannot judge how to apportion responsibility for the dispute. I don't think it is a matter of one side being entirely right and the other side entirely wrong. So while disappointed travellers have a case, I do not know against whom they have it.

Rujib1

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Of course.

I simply meant that I cannot judge how to apportion responsibility for the dispute. I don't think it is a matter of one side being entirely right and the other side entirely wrong. So while disappointed travellers have a case, I do not know against whom they have it.

Anybody in any job anywhere in this country, in any sector, at any time, day or night, week day, or week end day, christmas day or any other day, who even thinks about thinking about not cooperating with, or using new technology coming into his job, should be INSTANTLY SACKED, given NO COMPENSATION, barred from receiving any future social welfare, and generally speaking shoved in a dark corner somewhere:cool:

We simply cannot afford to carry these eejits anymore.

Idbatterim

No one being paid out of OUR sorry sorry I mean the goverments money i.e Public Servants should be getting any pay increases for the forseeable future! There should be a pay cuts or reform (they can choose)!

FlutterinBantam

Darragh29 wrote: »

You can listen to a live feed from the Dublin Air Traffic Control Tower here. I have to say they don't sound the slightest bit stressed out to me....

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/270820/the-trials-and-tribulations-of-an-air-traffic-controller-at-jfk-international



Have a listen to this dude:D click the video

Tim Robbins

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Of course.

I simply meant that I cannot judge how to apportion responsibility for the dispute. I don't think it is a matter of one side being entirely right and the other side entirely wrong. So while disappointed travellers have a case, I do not know against whom they have it.

I am against strikes in general. They are a way to hold people to ransom.
They also demean from workers who strike who have a serious point. For example, South Africa miners went on strike two years ago because approx 200 of them were dieing every year and no-one gave a cr*p.

In fact, their jobs are infinitely more risky than the ATCs whose jobs are very glamarous in comparison.

So unless its something very serious strikes should not be used.

P. Breathnach

zootroid wrote: »

Can you give any example of this? I don't think it's fair to just say he was talking crap.

I didn't memorise the content of a radio programme, nor did I make notes, and I am not going to bother trying to find it online -- too much effort for probably no return.

I indicated that there was a very obvious effort to spin the story. That is what triggered my crap-detector.

CityCentreMan

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Of course.

I simply meant that I cannot judge how to apportion responsibility for the dispute. I don't think it is a matter of one side being entirely right and the other side entirely wrong. So while disappointed travellers have a case, I do not know against whom they have it.

In this situation it was a "wildcat" strike on the part of Impact Members that inconvenienced and caused considerable financial losses to approx 20000 innocent / uninvolved travellers ( US - Taxpayers , Citizens, Tourists, Employees & Employers)

My position is that regardless of who is right or wrong , these overpaid, well pensioned, underworked, selfish Luddites can not be penalised in financial terms for the massive damage and costs incurred!

If the damage and costs resulted from the actions of the company then they should & would rightly be held accountable.

Pete4779

The 1500 employees in Anglo Irish got 4 billion - so they are obviously worth the €2.6 million each of them cost us the taxpayer. Far more important to bank roll billions for a bunch of idiots than pay air traffic controllers a rewarding wage. More cash to pour into the private sector, but screw services, eh? Welcome to South Africa.

CityCentreMan

Whether it's €2.6Million or just the measley €160,000 that the average ATA is overpaid - it's us that are paying for it and it's more Han most of us (speaking personally) are earning.

2 wrongs don't make a right and they were totally out of order calling a wildcat strike that cost 20000 innocent people a fortune! Grow up and smell the roses!

ei.sdraob

CityCentreMan wrote: »

2 wrongs don't make a right

well said

trade unionistas really have to stop playing "oh but look at the banks" card

its not funny

CityCentreMan

Pete4779 wrote: »

The 1500 employees in Anglo Irish got 4 billion - so they are obviously worth the €2.6 million each of them cost us the taxpayer. Far more important to bank roll billions for a bunch of idiots than pay air traffic controllers a rewarding wage. More cash to pour into the private sector, but screw services, eh? Welcome to South Africa.

Now it's probably against forum rules to call you a silly billy so I won't do it! But seriously, do you really think think the employees of Anglo got the €4Million?