Thursday, July 21, 2005

 

On a Pale Horse

‘Garf’ runs a general aviation blog at Fieldwalsh.com (I’ve linked to it here and on the link list to the left – give it a look). He was kind enough to be my first comment contributor, asking some very good questions:

"So where is Lockheed Martin going to get the people to work FSS. Are they going to close down all the local FSS and just open a central station. Are any of the current FSS staff going to move over to Lockheed Martin?"
These might sound basic, but I believe Garf thinks he sees that there is more than meets the eye, and he would be right. I was going to address these questions at some time over the next few weeks. But since Garf asked, I’ll put them to the front of the list. Fair warning; there are lots of tangents and corollaries in the answers. It won’t be a quick explanation, so please bear with me as I divide the answers into digestible chunks.

First the straight-forward facts: On October 4th, Lockheed Martin will begin their operation at existing FSS locations staffed with existing Air Traffic Controllers. However, in the 18 months that will follow, LM will close 38 of the FSS stations in the lower 49 states, leaving 20 stations instead of the current 58. 17 of the existing stations will stay open and will be called ‘Legacy’ stations, but they will be open for business from 6am-10pm only. Three stations in Virginia, Texas, and Arizona will be re-built into super stations; these will be the only 24-hour facilities (see the ‘end-state’ list of stations here).

About 350 controllers from the 38 closing stations will be moved to one of the three new super stations; the rest will be fired. Those working at the 17 ‘Legacy’ stations will be employed for three years, perhaps more, but the language surrounding the offer contains a few caveats.

(Note that the state of Alaska is not in the contract, a testament to the political power of their Congressional delegation; Senator Stevens chairs the committee overseeing the Department of Transportation, while his House colleague, Representative Young, chairs the equivalent committee in that chamber. The FAA exempted Alaska from the onset so as to short-circuit any objection from these gentlemen...for now).

As the stations close and controllers are ‘let go’, a workforce of about 2200 will be pared down to 1000. I’d like to address the impact in four separate veins:

- the impact on the controllers.
- the implications for pilots
- what the law says the FAA should be doing (but isn’t), and
- how the A-76 process was ‘re-written’ to cover the FAA’s actions.

Let’s start with the controllers.

Every Flight Service controller (except those in Alaska, of course) is in the process of being fired by the government so they can be hired by LM. The tool being used is a ‘Reduction-in-Force,’ or RIF action, introduced because there will be no more FSS jobs in the government. As part of their contract bid, Lockheed Martin promised to hire all existing controllers, a fact loudly crowed by the FAA and LM. Actually there was real no choice. Where else was LM going to get the controllers they needed for the seamless transition required by the contract? And how could the FAA have a successful outsourcing if they didn’t deliver the bodies? But conveniently left out is the fact that over half of these ‘hired’ controllers will be forced out within 18 months.

Let’s divide the controllers into two groups; those who are eligible for retirement (about 40%), and those who are not. Those who can retire and are forced out will at least have an annuity. But those who are short of retirement eligibility will, in effect, lose it just as they are about to achieve it. There are hundreds of controllers who are anywhere from one day to a few years short of vesting after more than two decades of service. The time served will count for almost nothing in the end. Because they have been contributing to the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), these controllers will be in their late 40s and early 50s without Social Security, a pension, or a 401K.

Some have referred to this as an ‘Enron Effect,’ a retirement effectively yanked out from under one. Probably over 40% of the controllers fit into this group, and is never mentioned by the FAA. Privately, some LM personnel have expressed shock at how the controllers are being treated in this regard.

Why such a large number of controllers in this dilemma? Remember the PATCO strike in the early ’80. Most of the FSS personnel came on board during the hiring binge that followed. And a controller is eligible to retire after 25 years of service.

While this is only one controller impact, it is the most damaging.

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?