Flight Service Sigmet

Two things the FAA has done very well during the contracting out of Flight Service: one is keeping up the PR. Every few weeks there seems to be some high-profile FAA executive giving an interview emphasizing how there is absolutely no down side to the contract. The second is actually related to the first; liberal use of the old maxim that any falsehood told often enough becomes accepted as truth.

Ventris Gibson is head of FAA Human Resources. Last week was her turn in the barrel, so to speak, in the continuing disinformation campaign. The venue was an interview in the Federal Times issue of August 26th. Serpent-of-Eden-like, she coiled around the questions with lies of both omission and commission. You can read the whole article here. But for now let’s take a look a just a few of the factual felonies she committed:

Q: I heard not all employees were offered jobs with Lockheed.

Gibson: All employees were given the right of first refusal. The right of first refusal from Lockheed was, ‘Here’s the job offer. You accept or not.’ Some accepted, some obviously did not apply, and some declined. But they were all offered jobs.

This response glosses over the fact that over half those ‘jobs’ will come with a pre-printed pink slip that terminates employment in 6 to 18 months. In context, we wouldn’t call that a ‘job offer.’

Q: What did you do to help employees with the transition?

Gibson: It was a significant challenge for us. We went all out. We have dedicated Web pages to provide transition information. We have a special placement program where if an employee walks out the door under a reduction in force for two years [after] they receive their reduction-in-force notices, they can receive consideration and must be selected, if well qualified, for a job within the agency.

For the head of FAA HR, Ms. Gibson seems mystically unaware of FAA order 3350.2c which requires that she “…make every reasonable effort to place surplus employees in other jobs or regions of the agency with the least possible interruption to their careers and personal lives” before conducting a Reduction In Force, up to and including a hiring freeze. Far from going “all out,” the FAA has yet to go beyond a few token acts.

For those outside the FAA the “special placement program” sounds like a very nice foot in the door. But given how the program is actually applied, it means little; using the FAA’s definitions, Flight Service controllers who are “qualified” for a move to a tower or center are “well qualified” only for Flight Service positions. Of course the FAA won’t be hiring any of those, so the two-year placement consideration is an empty benefit.

That leaves the job assistance and placement programs. These are worthless when the FAA is keeping actual jobs beyond reach. Hundreds of Flight Service controllers are qualified (there’s that word again) to take other controller jobs, yet these are being filled by new hires off the street, as she herself emphasized in this, the last question of the interview:

Q: FAA is hiring nearly 600 air traffic controllers next year as part of the plan to hire 12,500 air traffic controllers over 10 years to cope with new waves of retirement and other personnel losses. Are you confident you’re going to be able to hire all these people in time?

Gibson: Most definitely, yes. We have various lists that are robust. We have what we call the college training initiative. These are where our colleges and universities have accredited aviation programs that graduate individuals as air traffic controllers. That has hundreds of candidates on it a year. The second is veterans. These are individuals who are air traffic controllers in the military. We have hundreds on that list as well. We have former controllers seeking reinstatement. And then another is when we choose to do job fairs.

Note that one readily available list goes unmentioned; Flight Service controllers already in her employ.

The retirement issue is also addressed:

Q: What about employees’ concerns about losing their retirement benefits?

Gibson: That’s really not so because if I’m not eligible for voluntary or regular retirement, my retirement can stay in the retirement fund and I can get it at the time I become eligible….pretty much the majority of those questions have settled as people have become aware of their individual circumstances...

We wonder if Ms. Gibson was really listening to what controllers were saying during those site visits she pointedly mentions elsewhere in the interview. If she did, she’s not being at all honest with the interviewer, since those 'settled questions' are usually not friendly to what people had been told to expect. And this statement clearly shows that she is unfamiliar with annuity calculations. Let’s take a common example of a CSRS employee, late 40s with 20-24 years of ATC service. He will have few or no Social Security quarters and no 401-K. His annuity (mentioned by Ms. Gibson above) will not start until he is 62. During that 14 year period there will be no COLA adjustments so the eventual pay-out will have lost an expected two-thirds of its value, if not more. Plus the annuity will be off-set by any Social Security payment earned during that 14 years. Plus all retirement medical benefits will be lost. No loss of retirement benefits indeed…

To our knowledge, this is a first. We could be wrong but we don’t recall other such defense-of-contract exercises addressing the retirement issue, let alone answered with such a ready-made glib response. It could very well be that the lost annuity issue is gaining ground in the Beltway and the FAA is feeling some heat on the cavalier handling of their employees.

There are so many other falsehoods in the article (such as the misleading sick leave buy-back answer) that we could spend a great deal of time on each. But alas, time grows short and we are still seeking employment that will allow us to finish with our careers and retirements at least minimally intact. It’s a difficult undertaking in a field where there is only one employer, and that employer is creating every roadblock she possibly can.

UPDATE: We neglected to add the link to FAA Order 3350.2C above. That has been corrected, and added here as well (9/4).