September 11, 2001 There are not enough words to express the horror that was visited upon our nation that day. Nor are there enough tears to soothe the pain of the losses that were inflicted. But we can take strength from the extraordinary selflessness and courage exhibited by ordinary people on that terrible day and from the determination of those who go forward today to seek justice for of the injured and the lost. The members of NAATS stand in solidarity with our fellow Americans as we work to rebuild our cities and our nation�s security. -- NAATS Officers, Liaisons & Headquarters Staff ONE -- Author Unknown ,
Contributed by Mike Hiett, HHR AFSS Wally Pike, NAATS President Support for Flight Service When I talked with Chairman Young at his fundraiser, he told me that Congress was working on a resolution to recognize our efforts since September 11. I told him that we appreciated his effort but I reminded him that we still have the pay impasse. He replied that he hadn�t forgotten and then he said, "We are working on some language to put on a bill to try to correct that." He turned to our lobbyist and asked her to talk with his staff and work the issue. Everything we heard in recent weeks indicated that all the big Congressional players (Young, Stevens, Oberstar, Mica, Bird, etc.) were sympathetic to our comparability issue but were unwilling to introduce legislation. Their reasoning is that they are on record in �96 as supporting FAA personnel reform that specifically grants the agency the latitude to pay employees differently. They are reluctant to now legislate mandatory compensation issues. Congressional Support Recanted We�ve had several more meetings on the Hill this week but, unfortunately, we don�t have much to show for it. We still do not have any language attached to any bill. Our lobbyist was out of town a number of days this week and I wasn't able to talk with her until today. She hasn�t been able to convince Young to commit to introduce our language. We met with Senator Inhofe�s (R-OK) staff today but it was the same story, "where is Chairman Young on this?" I did talk with Chairman Young�s
staffer and he advised me that the Chairman fully understands and supports
our issue but he wants the airport security bill to go through clean
(without attachments or riders). He went on to say that, if other
congressional members started attaching riders, it might represent an
opportunity for us to address our issue. He wasn�t sure what other
opportunities there might be for inclusion of the language beyond this bill.
I�m working with the Don Young�s scheduling staffer and I will meet with the
Chairman sometime during the next two weeks. At that meeting I will do
everything I can to find out where we stand. There is a dynamic at play that
you should be aware of. It goes likes this: Our members contact their
congressional representatives and carefully explain our impasse with the
FAA. The congressional representatives, or their staffers, then pledge their
support to correct this inequity. When we meet with them to discuss the
corrective language, however, they invariably respond with one of the below. The bottom line is that a number of our congressional representatives, or their staffers, tell you (their constituent) one thing but us another when we follow-up. There has been a concern voiced that we are explaining and detailing too much in these membership updates. The argument goes that, perhaps the membership doesn�t need to know all the workings and maneuverings to such a level of detail and that maybe an overview is more appropriate. My response is that we made an informed decision some time back that we would tell the membership everything. If we�re providing more information than necessary we can summarize more. I would appreciate any comments you have on this matter. I�m sure the Board will discuss this at our meeting next week. I met with AT-1 Bill Peacock yesterday and asked that he consider meaningful recognition for our bargaining unit members and their efforts since September 11. I asked that it not be letters of appreciation but something more substantive such as time off awards. He replied that Air Traffic was considering something for all 24,000 employees. I told Bill that our workforce was already feeling under appreciated and undervalued and that something specific to them was necessary. He was very receptive and said he would research the matter and get back to me.
-- Clarence Darrow in testimony
before the U.S. Senate NAATS ATP Liaison Report In extensive conversations with Headquarters and Regional Agency personnel, several items have caused me some concern regarding ATCSCC ADVZY 005 and 007, pertaining to the Washington and New York Area Departure Procedures, respectively. It has been decided that the ADVZYs will not be reissued, even though they contain, in my opinion, confusing references to airspace no longer considered "restricted" in full scope. I�ve listed those areas within the published ADVZYs that I believe need some clarification: Under "DEPARTURE PROFILES:" This published statement does not cover all aircraft. A legitimate flight request, based upon the requirements now defined in FDC 1/0989, could also be an IFR aircraft that only wants to fly out of the 18nm restricted area, into an airport now available between 18.1 and 25nm. This is not the only exemption to this paragraph. Under "SECURITY:" This statement, as published,
appears to be very definitive. However, this also does not always apply, as
stated in the example above. *It is important to note that I am not directing a specific course of action on these procedures, but am only expressing my personal views on the issued language. If there is a shared confusion by any of you, seek clarification with your supervisor. In summary, I have been led to believe that those involved from Air Traffic are going to do the "right thing" and accommodate those with requests similar to the examples above. After all, the procedure is being carried out to give some relief to those that have been unable to do anything with their aircraft since the tragedy of September 11th. Unfortunately, all too often we in Flight Service are given direction so strict and specific, of which we do our proper jobs in dissemination, only to have those in the control facilities working out case-by-case "special deals" to assist, placing us in the negative light. It would be in the best interest of our AFSS controllers to seek clarification as these pilot situations arise, so that we as Flight Service can initiate some of the accommodations made.
NAATS
National
Membership
Meeting Being researched Jeff Barnes, OASIS Representative & the OASIS Human Factors Team The OASIS program keeps moving forward in the aftermath of 09/11. The Anderson AFSS, SC (AND) site
survey has been rescheduled and will be happening soon. The installation of
new hardware and software at SEA was moved back two weeks to allow some bug
fixing and more reliable scheduling and will now take place in two weeks. Because of the attention Flight Service and the FAA has received lately it looks like the OASIS budget for 2002 may be increased by 4 million dollars. If this happens, and it seems likely right now, it will enable earlier equipment deployment so that the installation schedule can loosen up a bit. This doesn�t mean that there will be any change in when stations go operational on OASIS, it�ll just mean wiggle room for Harris and their subcontractors that are responsible for the actual equipment installation. Could also mean some earlier fixes maybe...this is less likely though as the Harris personnel have pretty full plates right now and there�s no gain in trying to bring new programmers up to speed to contribute meaningfully. I am back in BNA for a break at home for October. I have been the NAATS rep to OASIS now for 2 years and it is very gratifying to look back to my beginning with the program where the system was thoroughly unusable and to remember the efforts of everyone involved from the union to drastically reshape OASIS into a system that is not only usable, but a system that controllers look forward to getting. We aren�t there yet, but the OASIS system is continually changing and each upgrade has been a useful upgrade with easily identifiable benefits to the controllers. I wish everyone could get some time on this system so they can form their own opinion and disregard mine. I�m not sure how to make that happen for everyone, but beginning in October the Human Factors Team will begin meeting at a different station each meeting to let the controllers there see OASIS themselves using the Team�s laptop configured to be a remote workstation. The October meeting is scheduled for AND, but as stated above events could force a move to BNA. In November we will be meeting in RNO with sites after that yet to be determined. Occasionally events will dictate meetings in SEA, ACY, or Harris, but we will only meet in those places when absolutely necessary from here out. I am also trying to brainstorm other ideas for getting the OASIS out there for more controllers to see. We can also demonstrate OASIS at events. If you know of an event where OASIS would be good to display let your Director know and he or she will pass the info to me. If we can show bang for the buck a remote workstation can be sent along with Human Factors Team members to demo it. OASIS cannot be used operationally at any event unless the controllers using it are certified on it and the OASIS has been installed at the AFSS in whose area the event is taking place (at this time only the SEA flight plan area). Note: The views expressed in this section are strictly those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Union or its governing officials. Neither unsigned nor unaccredited material will be published. Albert Osborn, Miami AIFSS In April of this year, the U.S. Senate passed
the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill, S.27. It went to the House
of Representatives where it was defeated in the Rules Committee. But, make no
mistake, it will be back in 2002. EAA e-Hot Line - Special Edition-Vol.1, No. 25 Courtesy of Scott Morrissy, HHR AFSS How do VFR flight operations in enhanced Class B airspace pose a security threat to the general public? As we�ve gotten further from the tragic events of Sept. 11, EAA and members of the general aviation community have sought a better understanding of these perceived security risks so constructive solutions can be offered for resumption of VFR operations. Our investigations have clearly found that the National Security Council�s three primary concerns relating to VFR operations in the 30 enhanced Class B airspace areas surrounding major metropolitan areas are:
November 8-10
Accountability and Solidarity Elinormarie L. Morrissy, Editor So here we sit, at a standstill while the political powers-that-be play the waiting game to see which way Rep. Young (R-AK), Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is going to jump on our pay comparability issue. To put it bluntly, this really bites! But before all the recriminations, "I told you so�s" and other input from the armchair quarterbacks out there begin, let�s take a look at accountability for this problem. There are those that say Wally and the Board should have gone along and negotiated our contract when NATCA did theirs. The allegation is that the FAA was willing to work the issue with both unions and the assumption is that their negotiators would have given both unions the same deal. There are several problems with this hypothesis. First, historical evidence suggests that the FAA has never considered Flight Service Controllers to be the equals of Tower and Center Controllers. If you doubt this claim consider a few things like how, even before the NATCA pay deal, the FAA considered transfer to a Tower from Flight Service a promotion - even when the pay grade was the same. Also consider how long it has taken us to get OASIS on line. NAATS was on the job on those occasions when FAA Headquarters attempted to use OASIS funds for other projects and the union fought for restoration of those funds. Add to this the fact that the FAA froze new Flight Service hires in 1989 - long before they stopped hiring new Tower and Center controllers from outside. Further, add in the FAA�s 10-year subsidizing of DUATS to assist in competing with 800-WX-BRIEF for customers. Does any of this add up to an agency that respects our contribution to aviation safety? Second, if the FAA truly intended to give the NAATS bargaining unit pay comparability, why was their initial pay offer only a 5% increase to be doled out over the last 3 years of a 5 year contract? If Management had had any intention of showing their respect for Flight Service by giving us comparable pay, it would have already happened by now. Finally, there is the FAA�s refusal to work the issue of reclassification for Flight Service. Northwest Mountain Regional Director Don McLennan represented NAATS on the Reclassification Work Group and his reports repeatedly spoke of frustration with Management�s foot dragging. This was partly why the Board did not feel ready to negotiate pay. How were they to know that the FAA would pull out of the work group? Coincidence or tactic? Either way, it is hardly the conduct one would expect from people who respected our value. Put simply, NAATS went into pay negotiations with FAA negotiators who were focused on an agenda that had nothing to do with respect or equity for Flight Service. After the personnel reforms of 1996, they knew they held most of the cards and they knew that whatever else they happened; they could always stall. And so they still are stalling today - even the Mediation and Conciliation Service people have noted that fact. The union turned to Congress for a legislative remedy. True to their political natures, when contacted about this issue by individual members, legislators from both houses expressed their support for our cause. But when asked by our leadership for specific support in the form of legislation to grant us the same pay equity they supported last year for the 2152s at Headquarters and the Regional offices, it�s been a different story. They balk and shuffle try to pass the buck to Administrator Garvey, whose ineptitude started the problem in the first place. Those few who are willing to speak honestly about it have said they are waiting to see what Chairman Young will do. Their concern over not alienating a powerful committee chair apparently outweighs their feelings of duty toward those whom they represent. So when you�re feeling frustrated and looking for who�s responsible for why we haven�t yet achieved pay equity, take a look beyond just the union�s leadership. This game has several players and some have done more than their share to muddy the waters of an issue (we are all 2152s) that should have been crystal clear. What can you, the individual, do? Well, don�t just sit there feeling sorry for yourself - WRITE your representative. Remind him/her that you, not some committee chair, put them in office. Remind them also, that 2002 is an election year and, to paraphrase Bill Cosby, your vote put them in office and your vote can take them out. It doesn�t matter whether or not you�re a union member, a supervisor or a manager. If you want to see positive movement on this issue, the time has come for you to exercise your rights as citizens and demand the respect due you as valuable employees. I�m certain our Alaskan brothers and sisters are doing their parts to prevail upon Chairman Young�s enlightened self-interest. Now, it is in the interest of every member and everyone who works with the NAATS bargaining unit to support this issue. Solidarity is a powerful force, it brought down communism in Poland in the 80s and solidarity can raise up Flight Service Controllers to the pay and respect we know we deserve. FedWeek, August 29, 2001 Bargaining Duty Not Suspended AFGE noted in a recent announcement that the national emergency declared in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks invoked several emergency powers, but that "significantly, these did not include the power granted the President to suspend provisions of the federal labor relations law or to exclude agencies from its coverage when that is deemed necessary in the interest of national security. President Bush has not suspended any agency�s obligation to bargain or any other provision of the labor relations law." FEHB Premiums to Be Examined The House civil service subcommittee will hold hearings this week on the jump in Federal Employees Health Benefits premiums upcoming for the 2002 plan year-an average 13.3 percent increase that will cost the typical self-only enrollee $4.32 more and those with family coverage $11.57 more biweekly, for a total average increase of $7.90 biweekly from enrollee pockets. Office of Personnel Management officials have produced a breakdown of those costs showing that of the $7.90, $5.67 is due to utilization, technology and medical inflation and $2.92 is due to increased drug costs. Effects of demographics and certain financing changes added another $0.66, while benefit changes and enrollee movement among plans had the effect of saving $1.34. But enrollees might end up paying just as much if not more even in areas where savings are claimed, since plans in many cases will be increasing their co-insurance requirements for doctor visits and co-payments required for prescription drugs. Mandates Likely to Be Questioned Some Republicans in Congress are concerned that coverage mandates that have been added to the FEHB in recent years are contributing to the premium increases, which total about 50 percent since the 1998 plan year. Numerous coverage mandates such as mammography and prostate cancer screening, as well as patients� rights protections, have been added to the program in recent years at the urging of the Clinton administration and of members of Congress of both parties. The Bush administration asked for only minor changes for plans in 2002. However, OPM officials have said mandates add relatively little and they question whether plans would drop those coverages even if given the freedom to do so. Aggregating Buying Power Also to Be Examined Another issue likely to be examined at the hearings centers on whether the government could better leverage the covered population of some nine million employees, retirees and family members. Currently, buying power is split among the roughly 180 participating plans, and many observers believe that the program could save money through centralized purchasing of certain goods and services common to all plans. But officials say that consolidation would risk reducing the competition among plans that can help hold down premium increases. They add that any consolidation effort would require the cooperation of the health industry-and that past proposals along those lines haven't been successful. For example, an attempt to begin a pilot program last year of having one plan ride on the lower rates for prescription drugs charged to the Veterans Affairs department had to be dropped when the drug companies balked. Air Traffic Halts - Controller Workload Rises As air traffic ground to a halt after the tragic events of September 11th, air traffic controllers, in the Flight Service Stations (FSS) around the country, found themselves deluged with work. Pilots, stranded all over the country were, anxiously looking for information as to when they could resume normal operations. New emergency Federal Air Regulations (FARs) were developed to cope with various security issues, and it was up to FSS Controllers to decipher the information and explain it to the pilots. As different categories of flight operations were released, more questions were raised ... "can I fly under that category?" "When can I fly?" "Why can they fly and I can�t?" "The emergency rules were like federal tax code, five accountants could give you five different interpretations." Said one controller, "This is not acceptable in air traffic. To avoid havoc in the air, the rules must be applied uniformly throughout the system." It was up to FSS controllers to be fair, consistent and firm. Changing regulations allowed some types of flights under certain flight rules, while other types remained grounded. The complexity of the system is such that a single pilot/aircraft combination can fall into several categories and may be authorized under one part of the regulation yet grounded under a different part. And all the time, military planes were diligently monitoring the skies for unauthorized traffic. Numerous pilots found themselves escorted back to earth by a flight of F-16s. Even under normal circumstances, the aviation community is an intricate array of pilots, equipment and regulations, all designed and working together to make US aviation the safest system in the world. And at the forefront, providing valuable information and expertise to the pilots, are the dedicated individuals working in the nation�s Flight Service Stations. For a list of focals see: www.naats.org/nprt/nfocals.htm. ALASKA REGION CENTRAL REGION EASTERN REGION Donna Holmes, AEA Regional Director The thoughts and prayers of the Eastern Region are with all of those who experienced loss in the recent tragedy. Thanks go out to all NAATS members for their dedication to ensure the flying public received the quality of service they deserve. We were the front line defense for the NAS. Often we were misinformed or received late or conflicting information yet we continued to give our BEST!! Our customer service and value to the NAS will not go unnoticed. As a Union we will strive to ensure the FAA and Congress realizes the vital role the Controllers of Flight Service play in the Safe and Efficient flow of our Air Traffic Control System. A NEW BOARD OF DIRECTORS ARE ELECTED Our National Elections are over. The members have voted and I thank all who took the time to cast their ballots. Many regions had very close elections that every ballot counted. There was fierce competition with very well qualified candidates. We have 4 returning directors in Central, New England, Great Lakes and Northwest Mountain. That means we have 5 new Regional Directors, a majority of the board has changed. I want to thank the outgoing Directors for all the time and energy they devoted to NAATS. Many made numerous personal sacrifices. Their efforts did not go unnoticed even though we may not have always agreed. I want to personally thank Ron Maisel, outgoing Eastern Region Director, for the many years he devoted to NAATS . He mentored many of us in the Eastern Region to become strong in Union rights and aware of all important issues facing us. I wish him luck in the position of NAATS ATX liaison and wherever his career choices take him. I also want to acknowledge Pat Less, outgoing Eastern Region Coordinator. We had a very close election with strong qualifications on both sides. The membership had a very tough decision with both of us having unique assets. Pat has helped the Eastern Region grow over the years and I look forward to working with him in the future. The new Board has many issues facing us: Pay, Contract, Staffing just to name a few. We need to develop goals and strategies to continue to show that Flight Service is and always will be an integral part of the NAS. We need to take the time at our first Board meeting to get our feet on the ground so we have the knowledge to succeed in the future. I look forward to serving on the Board as the Eastern Region Director and I encourage every member to hold their Directors accountable for their actions and decisions. Til next month...Keep our Union strong...Donna GREAT LAKES REGION NEW ENGLAND REGION SOUTHERN REGION NORTHWEST MOUNTAIN WESTERN-PACIFIC REGION HAWTHORNE AFSS NEWS Elinormarie L. Morrissy, HHR AFSS Everyone at Hawthorne AFSS extends their condolences to those who suffered losses in the September 11th terrorist attack. Our prayers go out, not just to those who continue to work at the sites of the devastation, but to all our co-workers and customers who are working to help bring our nation back from this terrible tragedy.
|