ONE
As the soot and dirt and ash rained down,
We became one color.
As we carried each other down the stairs of the burning building,
We became one class.
As we lit candles of waiting and hope,
We became one generation.
As the firefighters and police officers fought their way into the inferno,
We became one gender.
As we fell to our knees in prayer for strength,
We became one faith.
As we whispered or shouted words of encouragement,
We spoke one language.
As we gave our blood in lines a mile long,
We became one body.
As we mourned together the great loss,
We became one family.
As we cried tears of grief and loss,
We became one soul.
As we retell with pride of the sacrifice of heroes,
We become one people.

We are
One color
One class
One generation
One gender
One faith
One language
One body
One family
One soul
One people

We are The Power of One.
We are United.
We are America.

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.

Congressional Reps. Play Both Sides

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.
This is a labor dispute and we don�t want to interfere or NAATS should work with the mediators or NAATS should work with Administrator Garvey or We will support legislation when Chairman Young introduces it. We don�t want to introduce anything that the leadership doesn�t support.

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.

"I do not say that unions are perfect, they are not. The people that work with them know that better than anyone else. They are just doing the best they can with the job they have, which is a hard one, and with the material they have, which is not perfect."

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:"
*ALL AIRCRAFT WILL PROCEED ON COURSE, AWAY FROM THE 25 NAUTICAL MILE (NM) RESTRICTED AREA, WHEN THEY ARE OUTSIDE THE 25 NM RESTRICTED AREA

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:"
ALL AIRCRAFT ARE RESTRICTED TO DEPARTURE FLIGHT OUT OF THE 25NM VEIL.

This statement, as published, appears to be very definitive. However, this also does not always apply, as stated in the example above.
In addition, FDC 1/0989 contains some language that needs to be clarified. Items 1) through 5) speak to the restrictions pertaining to those aircraft authorized to fly between 18 and 25nm. Item 4) might imply that all aircraft require clearance and release times. In actuality, those VFR flight training operations (by definition) conducting flight between 18 and 25nm at a non-towered airport could depart on their own with an announcement on the published advisory frequency, without a flight plan, squawking the VFR code of 1200.

*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.

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.
The next Human Factors Team meeting is scheduled for the end of October in AND but a conflict with a Clemson home game may force a change of location, but maybe not.

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.

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:

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.

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

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.