The poor air traffic controllers

dvpower

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.

What? The money went to the employees? :eek::eek::eek::eek:

Pete4779

CityCentreMan wrote: »

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

No of course they didn't, they had already SPENT that much each, because that's what it cost to keep the bank afloat and get back up to "zero". The 1500 employees cost the state €2.6 million each for being utterly crap at their jobs.

EDIT: if we didn't have to pour so much cash into the private sector to keep it afloat (and doing what? I don't know, doesn't seem like much seeing as it cost more than it brought in), the money could easily keep hospitals, schools and obviously airports open.

dvpower

Pete4779 wrote: »

No of course they didn't, they had already SPENT that much each, because that's what it cost to keep the bank afloat and get back up to "zero". The 1500 employees cost the state €2.6 million each for being utterly crap at their jobs.

That's an utterly daft calculation. You might as well say that each sq foot of office space that Anglo have cost us €50k or each printer cost €20m.

Pete4779

dvpower wrote: »

That's an utterly daft calculation. You might as well say that each sq foot of office space that Anglo have cost us €50k or each printer cost €20m.

well it sort of did, didn't it? or was the huge cash injection not to keep the bank open and all the useless private sector employees in steady incomes?

dvpower

Pete4779 wrote: »

well it sort of did, didn't it? or was the huge cash injection not to keep the bank open and all the useless private sector employees in steady incomes?

The purpose of the Anglo bailout was not to keep the employees in jobs. That's a daft suggestion.

It also pretty simplistic to assume that the employees were all equally culpable. The vast majority of employees in Anglo (and any other bank for that matter) had nothing to do with the lending policies of the bank.

CityCentreMan

Post Deleted

donaghs

Is there a Sticky anywhere on boards about how to become an Air Traffic Controller? It's about time I started making money like that. I've seen some general chat on the Work & Jobs forum. With college, work experience, post-grad, more experience, professional certs, and Im still nowhere near them.

Also on the IAA website, only basic spec there. Including the educational requirements;)
"passed at least five subjects in the Leaving Certificate (including English and Mathematics) with Grade C in at least two higher level papers."

jmayo

Pete4779 wrote: »

No of course they didn't, they had already SPENT that much each, because that's what it cost to keep the bank afloat and get back up to "zero". The 1500 employees cost the state €2.6 million each for being utterly crap at their jobs.

EDIT: if we didn't have to pour so much cash into the private sector to keep it afloat (and doing what? I don't know, doesn't seem like much seeing as it cost more than it brought in), the money could easily keep hospitals, schools and obviously airports open.

Ehh sorry for being pedantic, but they are nowhere near back to zero, they still supposedly need another 7/8 billion recapitalisation and to offload their nearly 30 odd billion of mostly toxic debts at only a 30% odd discount.
Then they might be back to zero :rolleyes:

Ah shucks all that money could have been sued to give better hospital care and make Dublin airport a decent airport.
Hang on a minute we had loads of money pumped into these things between 1997 and 2007 and lo and behold it all ended up going on wages.

Oh BTW Anglo is now public sector

I have to say some of the arguments and comparisons being dragged up in this thread are truly and utterly mind boggling.

It really makes me wonder what hope we have as a truly smart knowledge economy

jmayo

donaghs wrote: »

Is there a Sticky anywhere on boards about how to become an Air Traffic Controller? It's about time I started making money like that. I've seen some general chat on the Work & Jobs forum. With college, work experience, post-grad, more experience, professional certs, and Im still nowhere near them.

Also on the IAA website, only basic spec there. Including the educational requirements;)
"passed at least five subjects in the Leaving Certificate (including English and Mathematics) with Grade C in at least two higher level papers."

I would say the big thing you have to be able to demonstrate to become an ATC is sanity, level headiness and ability to keep cool under pressure.
Oh and not be colour blind.

I would bet there are a few posters around here who definetly would not get the job.

BTW I include myself in that, since I have had habit of failing physological profilling tests.
Must be fact that the examiners don't quiet have the same sense of humour as myself

ei.sdraob

i regret now not applying when they gave me a tour of the facilities a few years ago (btw alot of nice people work there, and nicely paid, i suspect its a few rotten union apples giving them a bad name now)

damn i knew it i should have jumped on the public sector boat
this whole taking own path and starting own enterprise is overrated


this whole "knowledge economy" and "we need entrepreneurs" is only hot air, reality is showing that taking the safe option and working in a cozy PS job is the way forward
much less stressful and you can always hold the country ransom in case your tantrums are not listened to


/end rant

dan_d

Mild irony in the fact that the worst bank in the country is now also the safest bank to put money in.......

As to the air traffic controllers......isn't it amazing that the buzzwords when you go for any kind of an interview these days are things like " I'm flexible" and "I work well in a team" and " I'm always open to new opportunities for training" etc, etc.......and yet the basis for many strikes in this country in the last few years are things like being asked to use new equipment, or new schedules or new systems of work!

Just a thought!

The_Honeybadger

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i regret now not applying when they gave me a tour of the facilities a few years ago (btw alot of nice people work there, and nicely paid, i suspect its a few rotten union apples giving them a bad name now)

damn i knew it i should have jumped on the public sector boat
this whole taking own path and starting own enterprise is overrated


this whole "knowledge economy" and "we need entrepreneurs" is only hot air, reality is showing that taking the safe option and working in a cozy PS job is the way forward
much less stressful and you can always hold the country ransom in case your tantrums are not listened to


/end rant

I've been saying for quite a while that our public service is far too attractive for our young people at the moment. I suppose when jobs are plentiful this is of course less noticeable, but how in gods name are we supposed to build a knowledge economy when most of our young people will be encouraged by their parents and others to join the PS for the pay and benefits that go with it. You'd be mad to start up your own business if you have the option of a life in the public service and until things even themselves out between the two sectors the divide between the two, which is very noticeable on these forums will grow wider and wider. A popular soundbite from people who mean well is "we all (public & private) need to stand together", but what does this actually mean? Stand together and do what? Make the gov reverse cuts? Spend money it doesn't have? Increase taxes on everybody to maintain high wages? I think this divide will get even more bitter with the upcoming strikes, and I just hope common sense prevails in the end. If the unions truly believe the gov are going to row back on the paycuts they are even more delusional than I thought, I really can't understand what they are playing at starting a fight they cannot win.

ei.sdraob

mickeyk wrote: »

I've been saying for quite a while that our public service is far too attractive for our young people at the moment. I suppose when jobs are plentiful this is of course less noticeable, but how in gods name are we supposed to build a knowledge economy when most of our young people will be encouraged by their parents and others to join the PS for the pay and benefits that go with it. You'd be mad to start up your own business if you have the option of a life in the public service and until things even themselves out between the two sectors the divide between the two, which is very noticeable on these forums will grow wider and wider. A popular soundbite from people who mean well is "we all (public & private) need to stand together", but what does this actually mean? Stand together and do what? Make the gov reverse cuts? Spend money it doesn't have? Increase taxes on everybody to maintain high wages? I think this divide will get even more bitter with the upcoming strikes, and I just hope common sense prevails in the end. If the unions truly believe the gov are going to row back on the paycuts they are even more delusional than I thought, I really can't understand what they are playing at starting a fight they cannot win.

it gets worse most of the people of the entrepreneurial kind would have decided to gamble in property in the last decade and have no either been badly burned or wiped out (and rightly so) thats pretty much a whole generation of people who might create jobs gone into the property and debt blackhole

anyone whos reading boards and/or newspapers and is about to fill out the CAO in few weeks, take note! the future is bright the future is public or get yourself education in an area in which you can get a job in any of the more normal economies around the world and get the feck out of ireland

dont go into private sector, dont go into starting up businesses, all your ambition and will to get on in life will be destroyed by the all sorts of obstacles put in your way by people who cant be fired and who moan when god forbid the word paycut is mentioned

sorry im just very pessimistic today, no will to work or anything, what the point you'll get shafted either way

SkepticOne

ei.sdraob wrote: »

it gets worse most of the people of the entrepreneurial kind would have decided to gamble in property in the last decade and have no either been badly burned or wiped out (and rightly so) thats pretty much a whole generation of people who might create jobs gone into the property and debt blackhole

Most of those who got burned in the property market were never really entrepreneurial imo. At the time (particularly in the latter stages) it was not seen as a risk. The prevailing view at the time was that property would either continue to rise or at worst level off in real terms - the soft landing. They were never going to create jobs.

ei.sdraob

SkepticOne wrote: »

Most of those who got burned in the property market were never really entrepreneurial imo. At the time (particularly in the latter stages) it was not seen as a risk. The prevailing view at the time was that property would either continue to rise or at worst level off in real terms - the soft landing. They were never going to create jobs.

yeh you right
there was no amount of "chancers" later on in the bubble or just gullible people for that matter, which is typical of any bubble

tho when you hear of good businesses having to close because the director(s) has got deep into debt because on his property gambles and/or given personal guarantees, thats really sad (for employees), alot of people lost jobs in industries not related to property because the owners mis-invested money on property instead of sticking to their businesses

Japer

ei.sdraob wrote: »

damn i knew it i should have jumped on the public sector boat
this whole taking own path and starting own enterprise is overrated


this whole "knowledge economy" and "we need entrepreneurs" is only hot air, reality is showing that taking the safe option and working in a cozy PS job is the way forward
much less stressful and you can always hold the country ransom in case your tantrums are not listened to
/end rant

+1. Plus you get sick pay, holiday pay, job security, and a nice guaranteed pension. There is no incentive to be a risk-taker, in fact most people who done that and who worked long hours and tried to save for a pension realise they were mad not to just go for a relatively easy, cossetted life in the public sector. Young people ; do not end up working like a slave trying to support those in the public service. Either join the public service, or emigrate. Do not try to create jobs or even your own job in Ireland. Save yourself a lifetime of hard graft and worry.

Guy:Incognito

herya wrote: »

Yes but it won't be 100+ others at one go.

Your decision affects you, your passengers and a very limited number of other people, plus in most cases you have a very good chance of survival even if you have to crawl out of a burning car. There's no crawling out in air collisions.

Well he get spaid €0 for taking that risk. I propose the ATC's can have any multiple of that they like to cover the extra lives they are responsible for.

donkey balls

donaghs wrote: »

Is there a Sticky anywhere on boards about how to become an Air Traffic Controller? It's about time I started making money like that. I've seen some general chat on the Work & Jobs forum. With college, work experience, post-grad, more experience, professional certs, and Im still nowhere near them.

Also on the IAA website, only basic spec there. Including the educational requirements;)
"passed at least five subjects in the Leaving Certificate (including English and Mathematics) with Grade C in at least two higher level papers."

it takes two years to train as an ATCO while i was flying in the US there was a lad from dublin who was ATC and he made around 90k p.a.
i have been in the twr and believe me they earn every single penny also you have to do a class 1 medical every year(fail and you loose your job)
and the new system the IAA want to bring in gets rid of a contoller they work in pairs(planner&tactical) how many people would get on an airplane with just one pilot.(im sure o leary would if he could get away with it)

Guy:Incognito

donkey balls wrote: »

how many people would get on an airplane with just one pilot.(im sure o leary would if he could get away with it)

If it only needed one pilot then I would.

Would you pay extra for a back up taxi driver to be in the passenger seat if he wasnt needed?

donkey balls

Stekelly wrote: »

If it only needed one pilot then I would.

Would you pay extra for a back up taxi driver to be in the passenger seat if he wasnt needed?[/QUOTE]

what a stupid comparison there is a reason for having 2-3 crew members on planes what would happen if the pilot fell ill? who flys the plane.

Guy:Incognito

donkey balls wrote: »

Stekelly wrote: »

If it only needed one pilot then I would.

Would you pay extra for a back up taxi driver to be in the passenger seat if he wasnt needed?[/QUOTE]

what a stupid comparison there is a reason for having 2-3 crew members on planes what would happen if the pilot fell ill? who flys the plane.

Seeing as we're throwing the word stupid around. What a stupid reply. Did you read my post at all or just dive straight to the first line you could rabble about? Here I'll help you out:

"If it only needed one pilot then I would."

So if instead of X amount of crew members needed, the standard was x -2 and we kne wno different, whats the issue?

jmayo

Stekelly wrote: »

If it only needed one pilot then I would.

Would you pay extra for a back up taxi driver to be in the passenger seat if he wasnt needed?

Yet another great comparison.
Aricraft crews have been cut down over the years due to technology advancements, but there is a safety reason for at least two pilots.
Or who would try and maintain control if the sole pilot decides to go postal that day.
BTW it is believed Korean Airliner actually did go down becuase one pilot decided to end it all and that was on multi crew aircraft.

donkey balls wrote: »

Stekelly wrote: »

If it only needed one pilot then I would.

Would you pay extra for a back up taxi driver to be in the passenger seat if he wasnt needed?

what a stupid comparison there is a reason for having 2-3 crew members on planes what would happen if the pilot fell ill? who flys the plane.

Forget it donkey, some people around here think that firemen or lifeguards should get more since they risk their livers and ATC don't since planes rarely crash on them personally. They conveniently forget the fact an ATC can be responsible for hundreds of lives ta any one time.

Others think that the technology can do it all so they shoudl be paid the same as It support starting out, whilst others would have the ATC outsourced to India or somewhere because it is cheaper.
Of course the ground controllers would want f***ing damm good eyesight to keep an eye on the aircraft movements on the ramps if the hundreds of cameras went dead.

And before someone pipes up about me backing them to go on strike, I am not.
Like firemen, gardai, army they should not be allowed strike.
Oh and they should not be looking for compensation for introduction of new technology or new work practices.

Oh and I wouldn't be surprised what the IAA were trying to introduce since I have found they are have a high muppet quotient in their midst.

Guy:Incognito

jmayo wrote: »

Yet another great comparison.
Aricraft crews have been cut down over the years due to technology advancements, but there is a safety reason for at least two pilots.
Or who would try and maintain control if the sole pilot decides to go postal that day.
BTW it is believed Korean Airliner actually did go down becuase one pilot decided to end it all and that was on multi crew aircraft.


Others think that the technology can do it all so they shoudl be paid the same as It support starting out, whilst others would have the ATC outsourced to India or somewhere because it is cheaper.
Of course the ground controllers would want f***ing damm good eyesight to keep an eye on the aircraft movements on the ramps if the hundreds of cameras went dead.

And before someone pipes up about me backing them to go on strike, I am not.
Like firemen, gardai, army they should not be allowed strike.
Oh and they should not be looking for compensation for introduction of new technology or new work practices.

Oh and I wouldn't be surprised what the IAA were trying to introduce since I have found they are have a high muppet quotient in their midst.

You dont know how to read posts either do you? Where did I say there should be only one pilot or that I knew it could be done with one or that I knew abotu flying planes . Plus I wasnt comparing the job of a taxi driver to a pilot.

If the people who did know all these things deemed it perfectly ok for 1 pilot to fly a plane then yes, I would be happy to go along with that. If there had only ever been 1 pilot flying a plane then so would everyone.

See it's very simple when your not just trying to find something to moan about.

jmayo wrote: »

Forget it donkey, some people around here think that firemen or lifeguards should get more since they risk their livers and ATC don't since planes rarely crash on them personally. They conveniently forget the fact an ATC can be responsible for hundreds of lives ta any one time..

So we're going to pay people on a scale of how many people they are responsible for at a time? The guy in charge of security at the All Ireland final will no doubt be a fan of this.

jmayo

Stekelly wrote: »

You dont know how to read posts either do you? Where did I say there should be only one pilot or that I knew it could be done with one or that I knew abotu flying planes . Plus I wasnt comparing the job of a taxi driver to a pilot.

If the people who did know all these things deemed it perfectly ok for 1 pilot to fly a plane then yes, I would be happy to go along with that. If there had only ever been 1 pilot flying a plane then so would everyone.

See it's very simple when your not just trying to find something to moan about.

So we're going to pay people on a scale of how many people they are responsible for at a time? The guy in charge of security at the All Ireland final will no doubt be a fan of this.

Yes i know you stated that if it was allowed then you would be fine with it.
But it isn't a allowed on large aircraft primarily for safety reasons.
And part of those reasons is the workload one pilot would have to carry.

You claim you didn't compare pilots to taxi driver, but then you go and compare a stadium stewart (of which there are many around and the people they are responsible for are all on some form of fixture attached to terra firma) to an ATC.
Isn't that a bit rich.

Did I ever say that people should be paid based on how many people they are responsible for ?
It is not just the number but the location of those people as well.
Also if the aircraft does plummet out of the sky over built up area then a few very unlucky souls on the ground also suffer.

Anyway my gripe is with the way some people see their job as easy (lots of technology to actaully manage things), with little entry requirements and very well paid.

And as I am tired of stating for the record, even though I admire the work they do, I do not condone their actions in this case.

Oh and even though they do hard stressful job they are nowhere as friendly to GA as their counterparts in the states. :mad::mad:

ardmacha

It also pretty simplistic to assume that the employees were all equally culpable. The vast majority of employees in Anglo (and any other bank for that matter) had nothing to do with the lending policies of the bank.

True. Policy in AngloIrish was set by a handful at the top, not by the person who takes the form from you to set up your regular saver account.

When then is this forum largely based on the proposition that the limitations of the public sector are the fault of its employees rather than those in charge of it, i.e. the government largely elected by people who work in the private sector.

Sleepy

To a degree because the employees in the public sector are preventing those in charge of it from running it properly. I'd lay good money that Harney would have had the HSE sorted out (or at least in much better shape) at this stage had she had no unions to deal with. AFAIK, PPARS probably wouldn't have happened in their absence either.