Flight Service Sigmet

So how many AFSS briefers are there? ....oops...

2009-03-12T17:42:00.000-07:00

Yesterday we posted about our estimate on how many specialists are left in the AFSS system, and our confidence in the number; 675, give or take. After further review (so they say) we must retract that number. We are confident in the information we have, but quickly came to understand there was information we lacked. As such we now know that number is low, and should be at least 710. We apologize for ‘jumping the gun’ on our findings as will try to ascertain a more accurate number.

The rest of our opinion stands, however; the flying public is not getting what they bargained for in this contract.

So how many AFSS briefers are there?

2009-03-11T12:32:00.000-07:00

675. Give or take a few.

This does not include specialists who may be in initial training or on extended medical leave.

Lockheed Martin has treated the number of specialists they have on hand almost like a closely guarded secret. But there are a variety of ways to find out and we used one of them. While we are open to the possibility of an error in information we are fairly confident of our conclusion and would take this number with only a small grain of salt.

Let’s say that we’re fairly accurate here. It wasn’t supposed to be this way. When Lockheed Martin first won the contract it was for 1000 briefers. Since this was higher than the Government’s in-house bid of 940, then-AOPA President Boyle used it as a major reason in favor of the LM award.

But now instead of being 60 specialists below the original Lockheed bid, Flight Service is populated at 325 below anticipated staffing.

Oh. Remember also that when the contract was awarded there were approximately 2200 specialists on staff.

Closures and rumors of closures.

2008-10-16T15:15:00.000-07:00

Lockheed Martin is going to close some Flight Service Stations. During a telephone conference to facility managers yesterday, it was announced that five stations will close their doors on February 1st, 2009: Denver, Oakland, San Diego, Albuquerque and Macon. We all remember that the promised number of stations in the Lockheed Martin contracted Flight Service was 20. Today it is 18, and on next February 2nd it will be 13.

It was also announced that Flight Service is ‘over-staffed.’ Lockheed Martin will not say how many specialists there are. They will not say how many they want. Why either of these numbers should remain a secret is unexplained. But since a buy-out was announced a couple months ago, over 140 have left the ranks. We have no hard-and fast data, but we suspect that the current number of specialists is below 1000, likely closer to 900, and that is too many. Recall that in 2005, then-AOPA President Phil Boyer championed the LM contract over the internal government bid because one significant difference was that LM offered 1000 controllers, and the government bid offered ‘only’ 940. Snookered yet again, Mr. Boyer.

Because of this ‘overstaffing,’ after the above facilities are closed there will be a RIF should the unnamed staffing number not be reached.

One last item…it seems that specialists may have not been told the whole story today. Since there are a number of entities with an interest in this contract, a number of telephone conferences were held. We have it from a source that previously proved trustworthy that this is not the last of the planned closures. While details may vary, the general upshot is this…on October 1st of 2009, five of the remaining 13 facilities will close. By February of 2010, only 5 facilities will remain open…the three hubs (D.C., Forth Worth, and Prescott), Miami, and Honolulu. We’re hoping for more confirmation, but have little reason to doubt the basics of this.

2008-08-27T16:13:00.000-07:00

When one receives a letter, it’s always politest to respond. We were fortunate to receive an e-mail from one we’ll call ‘Freebird.’ The letter read as follows:

Are you ever going to revive Flight Service Sigmet? Do you need
outside help. Did you retire from LM? I always thought your blog was
very good, but it is a drag that it is inactive. I also am a flight
service controller, so I always could really relate to it. Would you
like a guest blog, or have you just decided to stop?

Fair questions, and we’re gratified that people still visit this site hoping to find some relevant information. And we always welcome outside commentary, experiences and thoughts through our e-mail. But the primary purpose of Flight Service Sigmet was to alert pilots, and the public in general, to what awaited them in the contracting out of Flight Service. Since pilots are now living with the contract, our approach became res ipsa loquitur.

But perhaps there is room for additional commentary. Pilots may be under the impression that Flight Service is now ‘stabilized’ in its present form. This would be inaccurate. Lord knows that pilots have been disappointed with LM AFSS to a degree not seen during the FAA days. From our view, between broken promises of the past, and more broken promises to come, it’s not going to get any better.

Better late than . . . whatever . . .

2007-11-14T19:16:00.000-08:00

There’s been more talk on Capital Hill about what’s happening with what used to be ‘Flight Service.’ Recent hearings at the House aviation subcommittee have resulted in the FAA being asked to submit a progress report “every 90 days to ensure that the FS21 [flight service twenty-first century] service provided by Lockheed Martin is equal to or better than the old FAA-operated system.”

In his letter to Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters, Costello said that the report should “include the steps that Lockheed Martin is taking to correct the prominent deficiencies, as a result of flight service station (FSS) consolidation, in providing adequate local knowledge for every pilot’s intended route of flight.”

We couldn’t help but laugh when we read that. OASIS was a Flight Service technology that controllers could actually use to great effect in serving pilots. It took years to get it to a reliable, usable version and was in about a dozen stations before the roll-out was halted. FS21 is a cobbled mish-mash, thrown together in an effort to meet an artificial deadline. To think that such an amalgam of dissimilar parts could be equal to or better than even the outdated, widely used (but time-tested) Model 1 is rather a joke.

While the attention on Capital Hill is welcome, we are inclined to think that Congress will be equally effective in its oversight role as FS21 is in its own sphere. We’ve heard through the grapevine that some in the LM executive ranks are “embarrassed” by the system they’ve foisted on controllers and the flying public. The FAA, on the other hand continues whistling past the graveyard, confident in the wreckage they continue to manage and spin. And Congress? They’ll be embarrassed to the extent that they ever really get a clue.

Farewell Follies

2007-09-13T16:18:00.000-07:00

There’s something to look at in the annual speech by FAA Administrator. Two quotes just don’t seem to mesh very well. First, there’s the self pat on the back:

“If you want to be a first-rate organization, you’ve got to operate like one. From the creation of the ATO back in 2004 to the competitive outsourcing of automated flight service stations, we’ve shown that this organization is capable of handling change and big-ticket items. [emphasis added]”

It’s difficult to square this with an earlier statement in the same speech:

“With all of that said, the focus, and success, of the Flight Plan has been its link to the organizational success increase — the OSI. The big question, as always, are we going to make it? This year, going into the final weeks, I can’t predict whether or not we’ll hit 90 percent of our goals and receive the full payout. As of today, we know we have three red targets that will stay red for the remainder of the year. Those are the commercial fatal accident rate, the average daily airport capacity at the big seven metro airports, and our customer satisfaction rating. That last one, which comes from the 2007 commercial pilots survey, was an unexpected reversal. We're still analyzing the specific comments submitted by the pilots, but they seem to be concerned about three things: the response they’ve been getting from Flight Service Stations during the transition, the perennial issue of standardization among FSDOs, and the potential for user fees. [emphasis added]”

The OSI (organizational success increase) is an annual ‘bonus’ of increased base pay given to all FAA employees if the agency meets it’s preset goals for the fiscal year. Three items are in ‘red,’ one of which is customer satisfaction, brought about, in part, by the poor performance of the contracted flight service stations.

So, the FAA has shown that it is “first rate” by providing bad service via contracting. This could result in an interesting justice…FAA employees my not get their full pay increase because of how badly the contract was handled. For an organization trying to paint itself as ‘successful’ they obviously didn’t know how one of their key components functioned, thus couldn’t tell if they were letting a properly written contract. They weren’t, of course, and the result is pilot dissatisfaction that might finally hit FAA employees in the pocketbook.

Flight Service was always the FAA’s ‘front line’ air traffic function, the agency’s daily ambassadors to the users, if you will. Blakey may claim an “unexpected reversal” in pilot satisfactions, but the AFSS Controllers, who know pilots and their needs best, said from the get-go what would happen.

Bad memories

2007-09-03T20:40:00.000-07:00

John Carr left the FAA after losing his bid to keeping his job as NATCA president. Taking his bat and ball and going home? Did he forget how to actually control traffic while acting as President and couldn’t face the scope again? Hard to say…

But his bluster continues on his blog and there seems to be no change to the self-serving, self-delusional reading of his tenure as NATCA president. In this post he attempts to remind people of “…the lengths to which NATCA went to try and get the Flight Service folks transferred into Centers, Towers and TRACONS.”

As Flight Service controllers who lived through the A-76 outsourcing to Lockheed Martin, this caused us to laugh out loud. John Carr and NATCA did nothing of substance to assist us in 2004-2005, or anytime since. Oh, there may have been some pretty statements and a few crocodile tears but there was never anything approaching “lengths” to come to the aid of his AFSS controlling brethren.

Really, though, NATCA has long looked at Flight Service in the same manner the FAA did…second class controllers (at best), red-headed step-child, etc. etc. It used to be common for FSS controllers to ‘cross options’ and move into a tower or even center. But NATCA pushed for a job bid form that punishes FSS controllers by deducting ‘bid points’ for each year they did not work in a tower or center. This effectively removed many previously eligible FSS controllers from consideration for tower and center positions.

Then there was the ‘seniority rule’ that NATCA adopted a few conventions ago. Seniority used to be based on ‘2152’ time, which included FSS controllers. But NATCA changed that, sending multi-decade controllers to the bottom of the seniority list at towers and centers.

The only “lengths” Mr. Carr goes to involves spin of the most extreme sort.

Maid Marion and the Train Wreck

2007-09-01T10:05:00.000-07:00

Imagine the following scenario…a railroad engineer accelerates a train to top speed toward a broken bridge. Once the train reaches top speed he leaves the engine cab. With the train unable to stop before reaching the bridge, a second engineer takes control and does not prevent the crash. In fact, the actions of the second engineer are debatable as to any positive effect in mitigating the situation, and may have made it worse.

Question: who is most responsible for the crash, the first engineer or the second?

To use the reasoning found in some Air Traffic Control (ATC) blogs, the answer is the second. Everything that is wrong with ATC can be laid at the doorstep of departing FAA administrator Marion Blakey, and all was hunky-dory prior to her arrival.

Let’s add a second facet to our initial scenario: the passengers on the train were cheering the first engineer as the train gathered speed, yelling “Faster! Faster!” while accusing the second of “malfeasance in office, perjury, theft, and treason.”

In FAA terms, the first engineer can be thought of as Ms. Blakey’s predecessor, Jane Garvey. During her term, controller compensation skyrocketed, operational discipline declined, infrastructure problems went unaddressed. Controllers grew to expect that they also controlled the FAA, in effect at times, displacing local management. No wonder they enjoyed her reign and despise Blakey’s, who saw the out-of-control work area, sky-high compensation structure, loose work rules, and tried to do something about them.

This is not to say that Blakey made the right choices; we disagree with some of them ourselves. But there’s no question that ATC operations were out of control and needed to be reigned in. The excesses of the previous administrator set the table for a financial train-wreck that led to the AFSS outsourcing. No matter what the “right” choices were that Blakey did or did not make, they would have raised the ire of her NATCA detractors.

An apology to those who've commented.

2007-06-05T17:44:00.000-07:00

Something we didn't realize is that comments to this blog have been placed on a 'hold' awaiting 'moderation.' We're not sure when that began, since we initially set this blog to publish all comments as they are made.

Today we published all that were awaiting disposition.

Our fault...and apologies.

The Dam Bursts

2007-06-05T17:26:00.000-07:00

One could say that the AOPA has changed its view of contracted Flight Service from ‘cheerleader’ to ‘buyer’s remorse.’ Let’s take a look at the chronology.

AOPA President Phil Boyer waxed enthusiastic about the contracting of Flight Services almost from the very start, based on a fear than any ‘unbid’ future government forms of the Service would involve user-fees. Once Lockheed Martin won the contract, Mr. Boyer could hardly contain his enthusiasm, declaring “all I can say is, ‘Wow!’” (3/05). Our opinion at the time seems to be rather prescient, if we do say so ourselves:

"Now we’re certain that LM showed Mr. Boyer some wonderful bells and whistles when they briefed him on the equipment they’ve created for FSS use, and there’s little doubt that what he saw is better than what most FSSs have now (aside from OASIS that is in a few stations). But this would be true of any of the five bidders. What we need to realize is that Mr. Boyer has no experience at all delivering air traffic services or using any such equipment to brief pilots. We should largely dismiss his “wow” comment as uninformed and inexpert.

Let us be clear; no Air Traffic Controller currently certified to provide flight services to pilots had input on the LM system or has seen it in action. In fact one could assert that Mr. Boyer saw little more than ‘vaporware’, an untested beta version of a system that has yet to be approved for use or even compatible with the current National Airspace System databases." (7/26/05)

Mr. Boyer’s stance never wavered, promising that “the consolidation of these facilities should not impact the level of service pilots receive” (9/29/05).

The first indication that things weren’t going quite as promised was AOPA’s admission that “Some members may not agree, but overall, Lockheed Martin has earned a B+ so far for its operation of the flight service station (FSS) system…” (8/23/06). Nevertheless, the best possible face was put in the “modernization” as facilities closed (2/26/07).

But as facilities closed and the predicted (at least by us) weaknesses began to surface, AOPA could no longer whitewash the facts from general aviation pilots. Admitting to ‘frustration,’ AOPA acknowledged that too many pilots were experiencing problems with the new system (4/25/07).

The ‘negative vibes’ began to mount and AOPA had to fully admit to “Long hold times. Disconnects. Lost flight plans” (5/4/07). Andy Cebula, AOPA executive vice president of government affairs said that “This is not the level of service pilots expect.” This is the same Andy Cebula that in July of 2005 stated that “Regardless of who provides the service, pilots need and deserve much better than what they're getting now.” We chided Mr. Cebula’s spin of the A-76 process (8/2/05) and he should be reminded of his misplaced optimism.

Inevitably, Mr. Boyer had to face reality:

“In short, the FS21 (twenty-first century) system is in crisis and failing pilots. Based on the hundreds of complaints that AOPA has received in the past month, it is clear that the technical and operational problems plaguing FS21 are now affecting safety.” (5/11/07)

It’s a reality that we predicted on 10/4/05:

“Our position remains unchanged…that pilot contacts are likely to be longer due to 'cover your rear' concerns, and with a slashed workforce of diluted expertise and promised metrics (not yet fully revealed), Mr. Boyer’s dream of cheap, fast, personal, local, expert service is not likely to be realized. One or more of those will have to give.”

And in his most recent missive, Mr. Boyer stated that “…while some teething pains could be expected during such a radical transformation of an antiquated system, the problems have deteriorated recently from inconvenient to dangerous.” To emphasize the point a graphic was added to the story, a frustrated pilot staring at a phone.

There’s even a blog to chronicle the day-to-day soap opera.

Sorry, but we just can’t resist the obvious…we told you so.

Aroused from slumber

2007-05-24T07:36:00.001-07:00

No, we haven't been active on this blog. There seemed little point in posting diatribes over minutia or 'inside baseball' events that only the controllers could identify with but might be invisible to the pilots. That has now changed. It's time to chronicle what everyone now realizes; the emperor has no clothes.

They never existed in the first place.

The Rock of Ages?

2007-03-05T08:03:00.000-08:00

We're all aware of the FAA's move to allow older pilots in airline cockpits. Air Traffic Controllers are correct to ask why they shouldn't be included. The FAA response so far has been that while the FAA is allowed by statute to set the forced retirement age for pilots, changing controller age would take an act of Congress.

Perhaps adding fuel to the argument for a higher retirement age is this report showing that older pilots perform better due to their experience. Now we're well aware of the 'battling study' syndrome when it comes to deciding any given issue, but we haven't seen a recent equivalent study showing justification for forcing controller retirement at 55.

But it's our thought that the FAA wants to remove older, more 'expensive' controllers in favor of younger, cheaper ones. They're not about to push for a higher retirement age. We'll see what NATCA does with this issue, and how Congress responds.

A new resource!

2006-11-28T07:37:00.000-08:00

It turns out that someone took one of our suggestions. Former AFSS employees can join a new Yahoo newsgroup to see what is happening and possibly take action regarding their loss of retirement and employment rights due to the way the FAA handled the RIF:

"This forum is established to initiate and promote legislation that would provide an avenue for many current and former FAA Federal Employees to attain retirement benefits that were lost in the outsourcing of our nations' Flight Service Stations in October 2005."

Dis Continued

2006-09-13T17:41:00.000-07:00

Many times we’ve covered the fact that the FAA has not met its employment obligations regarding Flight Service controllers displaced by the Lockheed Martin contract. First, the FAA did not live up to mandates defined in order 3350.2c, requiring them to "make every reasonable effort," up to and including a hiring freeze, to employ RIFed workers. Second, bids for controller positions have been cancelled or withheld at an unusually high rate over the past 2 years (resulting in a number of short-staffed towers). Third, new requirements for tower and center positions were suddenly popping up all over the place. For example, where having passed the FAA ‘controller screen’ was recently sufficient to be considered for a position, now only those who have been certified as controllers within the past two or three years counts as ‘qualified’. Fourth, many controller bids were recently cancelled under the veneer of the “new NATCA (National Association of Air Traffic Controllers) contract.”

Now a new wrinkle popped into FAA bids this spring; the ‘Selective Factor.’ These are new kinds of conditions heretofore not seen that further remove Flight Service controllers from consideration, even for non-controller jobs. For example, a job in the FAA Safety Evaluations group requires that the applicant have been a controller in the terminal or en route options of air traffic control. Never mind that there are a number of former AFSS controllers with Evaluations experience. And there seems to be no difficulty with considering a small tower controller evaluating an en-route center, even though they are vastly different environments.

In sum, the sudden invention of such application filters serve only one purpose…to yet again deny AFSS controllers proper access to positions for which they have been historically qualified. It’s clear that this pattern will continue. The only question now is does this pattern of behavior indicate ‘prima facie’ evidence of an illegal action?

Ventris Gibson continues to crow and preen over how she’s working hard to make sure the AFSS controllers get an even break, even first crack at available jobs. The reality is not at all true, of course. The only remaining question is if she is clueless or ‘characterless.’

Mail Bag

2006-08-31T22:47:00.000-07:00

Regular readers of this blog (if there ever was such a thing) will recall from our post of 12/2/05 (‘Sidebar’) that we don’t answer e-mails. We’ll not iterate the reasons here, but we’ve been deluged with letters over the past couple of days and thought it best to answer all three (yes, for us, that amount justifies the verb).

To Randy at Wired.com: Your information is on track, but best to get clarification from ‘the horse’s mouth.’ Talk to someone from an en route center that engages in such oceanic operations; Seattle, Oakland, Miami, New York.

To Bill (retired): Thanks for the kind words. We’re gratified that what we do can be of some value, no matter how small.

Finally, to the AP reporter who has asked the following:

"…we're trying to gather more information about the air traffic control side of
what happened during Flight 5191 crash in Lexington. We're also trying to
get in contact with the air traffic controller who was working that night to get
his side of the story, because right now it seems like investigators are placing
a pretty big burden on him and we don't know if that's fair. If you have any
information or know of anyone who might be able to give us a few hints or ideas
to pursue, I would greatly appreciate it."

We understand the media wanting to get the story, but please realize that there’s no more ‘story’ left to tell at this point. It has always frustrated us that news tends to exist in the vacuum of the immediate ‘now’ without the benefit of historical ‘context.’ In this case, there’s enough precedent to indicate what happens next; namely we sit and wait for the NTSB report. Please read your own news archives. If you want a good template, check out the Wellstone crash of a few years ago. You’ll find a very identifiable sequence of events following such an event.

Yes, it may seem that “investigators are placing a pretty big burden” on the controller involved. But that’s only because there is. We have a controller not only working solo during a crash in his area of responsibility, but a witness to relevant events as well. This is not a matter of judgment or blame, but simply the way it is. Res ipse loquitor.

Finally, even if we knew the identity of the controller involved, the last thing we would do is assist reporters in contacting him. We have a pretty good idea of what is going through said controller’s mind and stomach right now, and the last thing he needs is a media encampment in his yard or a chorus of phone calls seeking comment.

In short, you’re not going to get any comment from the controller in question. And believe us, he doesn’t need ‘persuasion’ from the FAA to remain silent; he knows it’s in his own best interest to do so (and wise, we believe). If you want some generic controller viewpoints on accidents or the airport, there are most likely some recent retirees in the Lexington area. The LEX union representative can help you there.

Carr Wreck – Update

2006-08-04T09:43:00.000-07:00

We’ve learned a bit more about the controller sentiment that resulted in John Carr failing his bid for re-election as president of NATCA.

It appears that indeed Mr. Carr’s abrasive style was irritating those he was representing. Mr. Forrey made this a centerpiece of his challenge.

We also learned that there was dissatisfaction with Mr. Carr’s financial management of union funds. A great deal of money was spent on consultants that wrote speeches fro Mr. Carr, but produced no results on the labor-management front (we’ve heard figures ranging from $500,000 to $1,000,000). Also a box suite at RFK stadium seemed to make it into the union’s budget.

Mr. Forrey has a campaign web site here.

Carr Wreck

2006-08-02T18:19:00.001-07:00

While NAATS was having its union authorization vote, NATCA (National Air Traffic Controllers Association) was having a leadership election. John Carr lost to challenger Pat Forrey.

We were not privy to the campaign the two nominees waged, and our contacts in the centers and towers are not extensive enough to warrant more than an anecdotal glance at possible reasons Mr. Carr failed to win re-election, but so far we’ve come up with three :

- lack of results in recent negotiations
- Abrasive approach and commentary
- Inability to realize and work with the new labor/management realities in the FAA.

Granted, those are rather inter-related and there is probably more to the story, but all-in-all we are not surprised. In our posts of 12/11/05 (“Mr. Carr gets a Blog”) and 12/1/05 (“The Archaic Playbook”) we stated that Mr. Carr was not grasping the new realities of FAA labor-management relations. From what we’ve learned about the election outcome so far, it seems that NATCA controllers have agreed with our assessment.

See No Evil.

2006-07-30T20:21:00.000-07:00

If there’s one thing that NATCA President John Carr is good at, it’s ‘complaint.’ This is understandable once you grasp the reality of what passes for Human Relations in the FAA.

What is not excusable is when it crosses over into the realm of ‘hypocrisy.’ In his blog, Mr. Carr has been complaining steadily since July 17th about a shortage of controllers; nothing new, really. Aside from ‘cherry picking’ examples of ‘compromised safety’ (he ignores, for example, separation errors when half or more of the controllers have decided to take a break, or arranged featherbedding for overtime, or de-activate proximity alert systems…) it would be nice for his argument if the FAA were solely to blame. Yet NATCA had an active part in this story as well.

Item 1 - In a contract negotiation long ago in an administration far, far away, NATCA insisted on new ‘bidding’ rules for open controller position in towers and centers. Without going into minute detail, it revolved around a new scheme of awarding ‘points’ for time in Air Traffic Control positions. This necessitated the drafting of a new job ‘bid’ form that minimized the ability of Controllers in Flight Service to obtain positions in towers and centers. What used to be commonplace became increasingly rare. Eventually, novices off-the-street had a greater chance at these positions than any who were more experienced, but in the ‘wrong’ Air Traffic option.

Item 2 – When Flight Service was contracted out to Lockheed Martin last year, Mr. Carr cried the expected crocodile tears and stated that these controllers should be welcomed into towers and centers with ‘open arms.’ This sentiment apparently didn’t make it down to the facility level; word got back to us on more than one occasion from acquaintances in towers and centers that if any Flight Service Controllers reported for training, they’d be washed out as soon as possible.

Keep in mind that, from all available accounts, Flight Service controllers have had a greater success rate in completing training than those from other sources.

To be sure, a few Flight Service controllers have been able to run the joint NATCA/FAA gauntlet and secure controller positions in other facilities. But for someone who constantly whines about a lack of experienced people coming in, Mr. Carr is unforgivably selective in his angst.

Advantage, Lockheed

2006-07-25T18:50:00.000-07:00

When NAATS lost the contract vote, union President Kate Breen stated that she would “never understand the no vote.” We posted a bit before about what NAATS (and the AFSS Newsgroup) did wrong in this particular fight. But what did Lockheed Martin do right?

Lockheed’s head of AFSS operations, Dan Courain, made a large number of visits to facilities to pitch his case. One item that stuck out to many that we’ve talked to is that under a union shop, there would be no more direct access to higher-ups in LM like him. Everything would have to be done through union channels. By itself this seems to be of little import, but there can be no doubt that LM has responded when controllers have made legitimate complaints. Since taking over, we’ve heard of three facility managers given a well deserved sacking. LM has not put up with bad facility management the way the FAA did.

While certainly not a universal feeling among controllers, our pulse-taking seems to affirm that Lockheed-Martin is a more reasonable employer than the FAA was. The union vote makes this observation self-evident.

Secondly, LM made a shrewd tactical move by agreeing to a quick, immediate vote on the issue, rather than take part in a long drawn-out court battle over union succession. Our view is that LM was likely to lose such a case, so the ‘road taken’ may have been a relative no-brainer. But taking a union vote at this time yielded an advantage; there will never be a larger share of FAA retirees in the Service than there are now. Such individuals are less likely to be disgruntled over their current circumstances. Indeed, by garnering both an FAA retirement and equal compensation for continuing to do the same job, this worker segment has never had it better. They also feel they have the option to leave the job at any time, given their annuity income.

All this is not to say that working for LM in Flight Service is, or will continue to be, all beer and skittles. There are a number of challenges LM has to overcome, with long-term doubts about their commitment to maintaining the legacy facilities (a limited sampling indicates that at least half of controllers believe the legacy stations will start closing during the second five years of the ten year contract). But the doubts were not large enough to counter the image and actions of LM to date.

The Envelope Please…

2006-07-10T23:11:00.000-07:00

The Air Traffic Controllers at the nation’s Fight Service Stations have cast their ballots and the results are in. To the question of continuing NAATS as their bargaining unit representative, 1056 ballots were cast; 431 voted ‘yes’ and 598 voted ‘no.’ America’s AFSSs are now officially union-free.

We’ve refrained from electoral comment for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that this blog is meant to contain observation, not campaigns. Still, a post mortem yields some interesting thoughts and conclusions as it relates to the path we’ve trod over the last few years and to the future we might be able to anticipate.

Our first conclusion is that NAATS was trounced in this vote because of their own ineptitude. President Kate Breen has stated that “I will never understand the no vote.” Perhaps we can help. We noted before, during the contracting-out of AFSS, that NAATS seemed incapable of disseminating its side of the story. That was the case here as well. Interested parties at the facility level had trouble getting answers to their questions, and it’s not good enough to say ‘Well, they could have e-mailed through the web site!’ It is still unclear to many, for example, if all controllers would be forced to join the union and pay dues. Top-down organization was needed to present the Controllers the reasons to vote for NAATS, and that effort did not seem to materialize (or even be conceived). Kate Breen, God bless her, is hard working and dedicated to the cause, but her talents do not extend to this kind of battle.

Corollary to this was our critique of Dan Hart’s restriction of the NAATS newsgroup, further constricting the flow of information (“We have met the enemy…” 12/30/05). We’re in no position to say that an ‘open’ policy by Mr. Hart would have guaranteed an 84 vote swing in the result (and a win for NAATS), but that’s less than 7% of the eligible vote, a small enough margin to sway with a couple good choices. Freezing out NAATS members who were active in the cause, but chose to stay on the sidelines until NAATS made its case was, without question, a bad choice. Rather than see the ‘big picture,' Mr. Hart tried to create some sense of ‘benefit’ for paying ‘dues’ to NAATS. But in the end, this attempt was a stunt that accomplished worse than nothing.

Game, Set...

2006-04-07T20:35:00.000-07:00

As we mentioned before, it’s contract negotiation time for the union that represents air traffic controllers in centers and towers (NATCA). We made our thoughts known long ago (“The Archaic Playbook”, 12/1/05 and “Mr. Carr Gets a Blog”, 12/11/05) and haven’t seen reason to reassess.

Suffice it to say that NATCA President Mr. Carr has gone weepy lately, crying crocodile tears over the fact the FAA has left the bargaining table and gone to Congress. As presently written, the law gives Congress 60 days to respond to the FAA/NATCA impasse. Otherwise, the FAA gets what it wants.

Now we are no fan of this particular set of rules, being the victim of same. But likewise, pardon us if we don’t cry in our beer over the fortunes of NATCA, instead rejoining with a round of “We told you so.” Let us go so far to as to say that NATCA is at least partly responsible for the position they find themselves in now.

On 12/11/05, we stated that “A ‘firewall’ for NATCA was available during that A-76 'study', but they chose to ignore it. Mr. Carr doesn’t seem to have a very far or wide tactical vision.” Our point was that NATCA could have short circuited the FAAs negotiating methodology by taking the side of Flight Service during those earlier contract negotiations, out-sourcing study (A-76), the efforts to keep the FAA honest and the service in-house during the contract contest period and beyond. It’s not like they weren’t asked, but apparently Flight Service was beneath their station.

Yes, yes, it can be said that NATCA wasn’t in the business of representing AFSS controllers. But then there’s that “tactical vision” thing. If Mr. Carr had any foresight, he would have served his membership best by watching, learning, and derailing FAA methodology while he had the chance. Instead, the Blakey Cannonball gained momentum and is now in the process of rolling over NATCA. The membership would be correct in demanding some answers of Mr. Carr as to why he didn’t take action to stop or at least slow this juggernaut while he had the chance.

Meanwhile, in the now-contracted Flight Service Stations, the general sympathy level tends to be rather low, with stated reactions along the lines of “Now they know what it's like,” and other less charitable observations.

April Fool

2006-04-01T09:19:00.000-08:00

Let us now revisit the promised land of upgraded Flight Service facilities under the direction of the contract awarded to Lockheed Martin by the FAA.

A recap first. The Lockheed plan called for two major equipment upgrades; new computer data architecture (FS21) and voice-switching (i.e., radio calls could be transferred between facilities). These would allow for consolidation to begin six months after the contract went into effect on October 4th, 2005. In other words, right about now, facilities were supposed to start closing their doors. You will also recall that AOPA’s Phil Boyer was given a personal presentation of these new technologies, during which “…all [he] could say was ‘Wow!’” At that time we called these promised upgrades nothing but ‘beta and vapor’ which had never been shown to work in the National Airspace System (NAS).

So what has happened since 10/4/05?

First, Lockheed fired its voice switch sub-contractor, Redflex, last November; things apparently weren’t progressing very well. This effectively placed the voice-switch ability back to square one.

Then, the Boyer-touted FS21 was discovered to be incompatible with the NAS data flow (as we predicted) and could not be readily ‘plugged in.’ Lockheed apparently attempted to buy a working NAS compatible database (called OASIS) from Harris Corporation. Harris had paired with the losing FAA bid to keep Fight Service in the government, and OASIS was already installed at a number of facilities.

One letter we received over the transom stated in part;

“…Lockheed has now briefed the FAA that neither of these functions will be ready until first quarter of ’07! …I know that Lockheed was trying desperately to bring in some outside help to try to stop this huge schedule slip. (My company is a contractor on the FAA’s OASIS program and Lockheed was trying hard to essentially buy our software and expertise --- but they didn’t want to pay anything near what it was worth!)…”

The upshot is what we originally anticipated…major delays due to a lack of system knowledge. The first station closure will be more than a year behind schedule (a generally good thing in our book), and all the promises of cost savings and better technologies remain locked in Mr. Boyer’s dreams.

The Song Remains

2006-03-30T21:54:00.000-08:00

We want to take this opportunity to re-visit a topic mentioned in our post of 8/30/05 (“The Lies of Ventris Gibson”). There, we dissected Ms. Gibson’s claim as evidence of 'good faith' that the fired AFSS controllers would have a two-year re-hire preference on jobs for which they are “well qualified.” At the time we called this “an empty benefit.”

After almost 6 months our description seems accurate. Since the Lockheed takeover on 10/4/05, very few controllers have been able to find positions elsewhere in the FAA despite control facilities that are begging for people. One employee who passed the controller screen has sent out 50 applications and made only one interview list. Again, Ms. Gibson is lying when she says “We went all out” to place employees within the agency.

Election Season

2006-03-27T20:33:00.000-08:00

News arrived today that Fight Service controllers will soon be able to vote on bargaining unit representation. The National Association of Air Traffic Controllers (NAATS) and Lockheed Martin have reached an agreement that can be seen here. The first thoughts on this from the parties can be seen here and here. This is welcome news, and we’ll be looking at this over the coming days.

Absence

2006-03-13T07:23:00.000-08:00

Daily posting is the life-blood of the blogosphere. Without fresh material the operation withers on the vine. As you can see, we have not posted for two months, an unpardonable sin in the blogging world. We apologize for the lack of output, but such is our situation, as well as the narrow topic range we cover.

We'd like to be able to say "We'll do better." but can't make such a promise. The topic hasn't completely been drained of content, but there's less to say this year than last. Still there are things to be voiced, and perhaps we can bring these to you.

Flash Paper

2006-01-07T16:22:00.000-08:00

What follows is only tangential to Flight Service, but we found it interesting anyway.

On December 22nd, AOPA posted a story titled “Be Careful what you wish for – user fees could hurt those that want them the most.” The item cites a white paper, "Turbulence ahead: How user fees could ground the FAA," authored by one Darryl Jenkins and dated December 7, 2005. AOPA culls various quotes from the work, but there’s one problem: no link to actual the study itself, only a picture of the cover to show that yes, Virginia, there actually is such a study. In the internet information age this is curious enough, but if one reads to the bottom of the page another citation can be found; it was commissioned by the National Association of Air Traffic Controllers (NATCA). This is where our curiosity began to itch and questions began to press themselves.

First of all, where is Mr. Jenkins’ white paper? Googling the title yields only three references, but no links to the paper itself. A search of the NATCA web site turns up nothing. We make no claim to be super sleuths on the web, but if it’s out there, we think it would have turned up with the effort that was put forth.

So why doesn’t NATCA admit to and release the study? A conclusion is implied: NATCA has a study that says a few things that they want made public, but includes items that do not serve their interests. So they’re sitting on it. Our suspicions are supported by this slide presentation (.pdf file) where Mr. Jenkins urges the aviation industry to operate closer to costs and prepare for some significant pain and upheaval. This includes labor. Query; if airlines and their personnel must traumatically re-vamp, would not some of the same be expected of air traffic control?

Another obvious question is who is Darryl Jenkins? This is easier. We dislike the ad-homonym approach, but without the study there’s little else to examine. Google his name and what emerges is an impressive aviation pedigree. He’s the former director of the Aviation Institute at George Washington University and is currently a visiting professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. He as been interviewed by the Wall Street Journal and on the PBS News Hour, just to name two of a long list of media appearances. In other words, he’s no slouch.

Question four; why did NATCA commission the study? Our guess is that NATCA sees the on-coming contracting/privatization train wreck that will do to the centers and towers what it did to Flight Service, and NATCA doesn’t like that at all. Keep in mind that private contract towers are already an integral part of the aviation landscape. Expanding the program to busier FAA towers would be easy and halting the spread of the practice is at the top of NATCAs to-do list. NATCA probably views the political playing field as follows: user fees, should they become a reality, is a definite (maybe even decisive) step in that direction. However, stopping user fees will tend to stall further contracting or privatization by the FAA.

So how did AOPA get Mr. Jenkins’ paper? NATCA probably feels that public opposition to user fees is not a good front-and-center issue for them, or that direct appeals to pilots on issues such as this is not their cup of tea right now. But they do have a friendly bedfellow in AOPA, who is viscerally opposed to user fees as well as contracted/privatized approach controls (TRACONs) and centers (ARTCCs). Had AOPA funded the study it could have been dismissed as a self-serving, pre-determined work. Since it is nowhere else to be found, we conclude that NATCA commissioned the study and did a hand-off to AOPA who promoted it as work requested by a third party. It would be interesting to know if NATCA gave AOPA the entire study or just selected parts. As we’ve seen, AOPA president Phil Boyer appears more than willing to act as unquestioning lackey when he thinks it will serve his purpose.

A curious subtitle to Mr. Jenkins’ work appears on the bottom of the cover, “An Assessment of The Proposed Changes to User Fees.” This begs the question, fees proposed by whom? As far as we know, the FAA has yet to formally suggest a fee structure. This makes an examination of the work even more important. What exactly are Mr. Jenkins’ assumptions? Are they his best-guess scenario, or did NATCA give him a straw man to knock down?

Finally, we can’t help but be amused at NATCAs resulting contradiction; they castigate the FAA for hiding the slide presentation of their business plan, but they can’t bring themselves to release the study that AOPA is promoting for them.

We certainly haven’t taken this as far as we could, but it’s getting over-long for this blog’s purpose. However, NATCA members might have reason to pick up on these thoughts. Their union should think twice about falling into AOPAs orbit of how to do political business; Mr. Boyer’s recent history of stepping before looking shows that such a partnership is a minefield best avoided.

Revelations

2006-01-06T13:48:00.000-08:00

Not too long ago the FAA put a ‘slide show’ on the internet to illustrate their business outlook for the next ten or so years. For some reason it didn’t last long in the public domain; down it came, off their web site after (apparently) only a day or two. NATCA, in a surprisingly useful effort, captured the slides and has reproduced them here. You can also read NATCA president Carr’s comments on the slide show follies here, here, and here.

For our purposes a few other things stand out. One is an official re-statement of the cost-savings of the Flight Service contract to Lockheed Martin. The savings are still “officially” estimated at 2.2 billion, but over 13 years instead of the previously advertised 10. For those who enjoy direct mathematical comparisons, that equates to 1.7 billion over 10 years. Now just where have we heard that figure before…

Also of great interest to those following this blog is an up-tick in the call for user fees, specifically on this slide entitled “Something Must Be Done.” That ‘something’ is in reference to the FAAs anticipated revenue gap. And prominently displayed under ‘Potential Sources’ for additional income is ‘Cost-Based User Fees.’ What was once just a whisper last year is now growing into an official position.

We’ve always told AOPA president Phil Boyer that cozying up to the FAA is not going to secure his pet issue (stopping such user fees), least of all his uninformed cheerleading of contracting out the FAA’s Flight Service Stations.

“We have met the enemy...

2005-12-30T09:59:00.000-08:00

…and he is us.”

Or so goes the famous line from the comic strip Pogo. There have been isolated moments over the past couple of years when Flight Service controllers must think they have stumbled into a circular firing squad. The most recent example involved the Yahoo newsgroup for members of the Flight Service (AFSS) Controllers union, NAATS (National Association of Air Traffic Specialists). First set up in 2002 (if we recall correctly), union members could subscribe to the group by sending an e-mail to the moderator/owner who would confirm their membership status and let them in.

The moderator for the newsgroup is one Dan Hart. He set up the newsgroup of his own initiative. It is not adjunct to the union, nor is it connected in any way with any of its officers (some of them were subscribers to the newsgroup just as any union member could be). It was an excellent resource, acting as a clearinghouse for ideas, calls to action, and the exchange of information during the contract negotiation and contracting out (A-76) process. Only dues-paying members were allowed to subscribe since 1) the intent was to improve communication within the union membership, and 2) the messages could contain statements and information that may have proven useful to FAA management. We always found this ‘security’ angle dubious and it is of little import now. But it was quite reasonable under the circumstances to limit the subscription to those who were paying for every controller’s future, dues paying member or not, even those who refused to lift a finger, write a letter to Congress, or send a dime to help out in the effort (and there were more than a few).

Times, however, have changed. NAATS failed to win a single round when it counted. The organization is now recognized as a bargaining unit only in the state of Alaska, where AFSS controllers are still FAA employees. In the other 49 states, NAATS is in limbo. They have petitioned the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for ‘successorship’ recognition as the sole representative of the controllers who now work for Lockheed Martin (while there is substantial legal precedence for this, we’re not going to present the supporting arguments here). But for now it means that NAATS can only have members and collect dues via payroll deduction from the controllers in Alaska. For those in the ‘lower 49’ who want to continue funding NAATS, a payment method has been set up to collect the ‘dues’, but since this amounts to more of a contribution to a cause rather than actual membership, response has been meager to say the least.

There are many possible reasons for this lack of enthusiasm among the (now) Lockheed controllers for paying ‘dues’ to a union that can’t actually represent them; dissatisfaction with NAATS performance in dealing with the FAA’s A-76 process or contract negotiations, the failure to get Congressional action on same, mismanagement on the part of the Board of Directors, an on-going rewrite of the NAATS constitution, just to name a few. We do not argue the validity of these or any other reasons, but we must acknowledge that they do indeed exist and that some have more than just a little merit.

So…what happens to that most useful tool, the newsgroup? Specifically, how should Mr. Hart respond to those former members of NAATS who were faithfully, but are no longer, paying dues to an organization that has no legal standing to represent them?

There are two modes of thought. One is to continue allowing subscriptions only to those who pay union dues (or the equivalent) to NAATS. The other is to keep the newsgroup open to all interested parties who have participated up to this point.

Mr. Hart has taken the former option, as is his right. We find this an unfortunate, short-sighted, and very Scrooge-like choice. It is bad enough that the FAA has treated Flight Service controllers with such incredible disrespect. Must Mr. Hart as well? Apparently so. The given reason for his action is that only dues-paying members should have access to the information that is conveyed through the newsgroup. But that information is no longer limited to union business; a majority of messages now involve information about changes made by Lockheed Martin, possible changes in their status vis-à-vis the FAA, or other remedies that will help them attain some relief for the tremendous losses they have suffered this year. Why would Mr. Hart take from controllers the best existing forum from which to learn their options or the best actions to take?

The decision disserves NAATS as well, as those willing to continue the fight will be split, marginalized, and far less effective. Before the Lockheed take-over of October 4th, the union had a representative in each facility who could act as an ‘information conduit’ up and down the line. Each facility had a bulletin board on which the latest news could be posted. Those are now gone, and any future success depends on using the best possible, most open communication vehicle. Presently, the only such vehicle is Mr. Hart’s newsgroup. Many controllers now denied access to the newsgroup were among the most active during the past two years in trying to forestall the contracting-out of Flight Service. NAATS will no longer have their initiative and ideas. If anyone wanted to see a microcosm of the thinking that led to NAATS’ failures, this would be one.

In a way this is a tempest in a teapot since there is a very simple solution, but we wanted to illustrate the act of cutting ones nose off to spite ones face. We hope that Mr. Hart will see the light and reverse his ill-considered action.

As for the simple solution, someone, anyone, should set up an alternative newsgroup open to all current and former Flight Service Controllers who were affected by the Lockheed contract. Such a thing is very easy to do, and we very much hope to see it done. There is little doubt which newsgroup would best serve those that NAATS sought to represent.

Mr. Carr Gets a Blog.

2005-12-11T20:38:00.000-08:00

…late to the game, but finally here nonetheless.

Yes, yes, we know. When it comes to the ongoing Flight Service story there are many issues of greater interest than the NATCA (National Air Traffic Controllers Association) negotiations. We ourselves are wondering how far into this swamp we should meander before realizing we have gone too far afield.

But there’s something compelling about watching others tumble down the same slope on which you just battered yourself, especially when said tumbler makes a remark on the spill you just took.

A comment to our last post by ‘RK RDU formerly MIV’ has a question for NATCA President John Carr; what does he mean in his blog post of 12/6 (“I’ll be home for Christmas”) when he mentions “the Freddie [sic] Kruger of air traffic services, the Flight Service Stations?” You can read the whole entry here.

One could guess that Mr. Carr’s Kruger comment is an attempt to slam the FAA, but there’s no contextual assurance. It isn’t until the latter half of the next paragraph it becomes clear that his sympathies lay with those who used to be his controlling brethren, the Flight Service specialists. Mr. Carr is making a pop cultural reference the famous Nightmare on Elm Street movies; the FAA is the villainous slasher, while Flight Service was the innocent that was slaughtered.

Two things come to mind. First, Mr. Carr continues his crocodile tears over what happened to Flight Service. We can’t help but re-define the famous historical parallel…’they came for Flight Service but I did nothing because I wasn’t Flight Service.’ A ‘firewall’ for NATCA was available during that A-76 'study', but they chose to ignore it. Mr. Carr doesn’t seem to have a very far or wide tactical vision.

The second thing is Mr. Carr’s clumsy attempt at communication. The Freddy Kruger analogy is a botched play that requires further elaboration to become clear. That clarity comes rather late in the semantic stumble that is his post. His membership should hope he does better when it counts.

The Nightmare On Elm Street analogy is an interestingly apt one. In the movies, Freddy Kruger attacked his victims in their dreams, thus he was impervious to real-life tactics to defeat him. The solution was cerebral trickery to bring him into the real world. As we mentioned in ‘The Archaic Playbook’ (12/1), the old expectations in Federal labor relations no longer apply. Mr. Carr’s verbiage indicates that he is operating in a dream world of the past. If he stays there, his Krugerish FAA will likely cut him to ribbons.

Sidebar

2005-12-02T10:02:00.000-08:00

Time out for a bit to talk about this blog…

A couple e-mails arrived recently along the ‘who are you’ line of questioning. One hit our box this morning and we couldn’t have been more pleased; she has our admiration for being probably the most active among Flight Service controllers in seeking legislative relief from her Senators, and continues to do so, tirelessly, it seems. We wish her every success, both with the Senate and in her career.

There have also been a couple e-mails containing some ‘over-the-transom’ information which we haven’t discussed yet, but will soon.

We thought we should take a moment and explain why we haven’t responded to those who have been kind enough to share their thoughts and insights.

When this blog started on July 18th it was a very turbulent time. The contract had been awarded, legislative efforts were stalled, union strategy was at times unclear and coming under sharp criticism, and political affiliations were being forced to the surface, causing divisiveness among the controllers. Yet the word was not getting out to the flying public; our story was not being told. Letters and calls to Congress were proving almost valueless. In an effort that indeed can be described as a long-shot, we thought there might be another way to make a difference. You are reading the result.

The first editorial decision was that this should be an anonymous blog. This is not about us, and we’ll do nothing intended to draw attention to ourselves. We wanted the thoughts expressed taken at face value without consideration of the source or other ad-homonym dismissals.

But as soon to be minted at-will employees, we were also (and still are) paranoid. Should we say something that offends our employer, we can be fired on the spot, theoretically at least. Pardon us if we’d rather not take the chance. Which is why we have not answered e-mail. While pretty good, we’re not the most tech-savvy bulb in the chandelier, and we’d view an e-mail trace as a very bad thing. We don’t even know if that’s possible, but uninformed risk is also bad thing…

By all appearances and results we were unsuccessful in helping to turn the tide of Flight Service fortunes. For one, we started way too late in the game. But this has an element of fun and have chosen to keep going. E-mail like this mornings help the effort.

So, as the old saw goes, keep those cards and letters coming. We do read them and apologize for our lack of response. We beg your forgiveness and understanding.

The Archaic Playbook.

2005-12-01T20:52:00.000-08:00

As we were writing the previous post, specifically those parts dealing with contracting out of services, we couldn’t help but recall that it is a negotiating year for the air traffic specialists represented by NATCA (National Air Traffic Controllers Association). The contract is up and the battle has been joined. From our view, NATCA has not made an auspicious beginning.

Take first of all, the plea for more staffing. NATCA President Mr. Carr complains about how the controllers he represents are overworked and facilities understaffed. Yet cause and effect have not been demonstrated by Mr. Carr.

Some background; whenever two controlled aircraft come closer together than allowed by the rules, it’s called an ‘operational error’, or OE. Every day, a report is issued on the previous day’s errors. The staffing patterns indicate that numbers are not a common factor. Many OEs occur in situations where half or more of the controllers are on break.

To be sure, this ‘on break’ ratio is not universal when OEs occur, but neither can it be shown that errors are more likely when staffing is below the level Mr. Carr seems to desire. Yes, the FAA faces a future controller shortage for which they have not adequately planned (as recognized by the GAO and IG), but Mr. Carr overstates his case for the present.

To compound his error, Mr. Carr did little or nothing when he could have bolstered his numbers during the recent contracting out of Flight Service. There were, and still are, hundreds of controllers in that service that can step into facility training right now, saving hundreds of hours of early off-the-street training. But Mr. Carr rebuffed this source of manpower just as the FAA continues to do.

Secondly, Mr. Carr presents a demeanor that indicates he believes he is facing the type of labor-management dispute that has been experienced in the past. That is a grave error. Unlike the ‘roll over and play dead’ style of past administrators like Jane Garvey, today’s FAA will fight like a pit bull to bring the NATCA contract to heel. New tools are available to them; Congress released the FAA from some requirements of Title V that govern labor relations.

Yes, NATCA can pitch advertisments about how they are responsible for keeping aircraft from banging together. But the public is going to be a tough sell on someone making $150,000 to $200,000 a year, working 40 hours a week, maybe only half that time actually controlling traffic, with early retirement (including medical benefits) to boot. In the real aviation world (and elsewhere), wages, workforces, benefits, and retirements are being reduced.

Third, Mr. Carr admits no error or fault on the part of the controllers. Publicly, the FAA has at least given lip service to historical mistakes and mismanagement. Not so Mr. Carr. New York TRACON (known as N90) is a cesspool of abuse and featherbedding. It is a national embarrassment. Mr. Carr won’t declare such situations as unacceptable, even in the mildest of terms; in fact, he defends N90s record, despite the obvious. If there were any doubt that as the union president, his word cannot be taken seriously, those doubts have now vanished.

Like aircraft mechanics and pilots before them, Mr. Carr and the controllers he represents have come to a fork in the road. They can admit that the FAA can no longer afford them as is and get the best reasonable offer, or they can fight the old fashioned way and go down in flames.

Incoming.

2005-11-29T08:46:00.000-08:00

The GAO has produced yet another report on the FAA. Again, contrary to AOPA President Boyer, it details the problem of falling revenues and rising demands (pg 12). But it is in the conclusions on page 81 that contain interest for many parties:

The Secretary should direct the FAA Administrator to (1) balance current and
long-term investment priorities; and (2) use all available management tools and,
after establishing a record of improved financial management, explore more
fundamental changes that could provide greater financial management flexibility.
…We continue to believe that FAA should explore further uses of available
management tools such as opportunities to contract out its services; consolidate
major facilities; and accelerate decommissioning of ground-based navigation
aids, as we have noted in this report.

The first part looks like another euphemism for ‘user fees’, or at least the authority to assess them as deemed necessary, as well as removing encumbrances that trap the FAA in free-fall spending. The second part is of interest to air traffic controllers and pilots. The controllers, since this bolsters the case for further contracting out of tower functions, which we believe will eventually lead to the contracting and/or consolidation of TRACONs and centers as well.

The message for pilots is mixed. Some favored facilities may be decommissioned or become unusable due to lack of proper maintenance, and new fees seem to be in the future. At the same time, new navigational tools will help bring aviation into the 21st century, an improvement long overdue.

At Odds with the Mirror…again

2005-11-26T06:51:00.000-08:00

We hate to sound like a stuck record, but AOPA President Phil Boyer continues trying to make arguments that have no supporting evidence and contradict previously held positions. We last mentioned this just a few posts ago on November 9th (‘So What Else is New?’). And again, the issue is user fees. This time the commentary is over the FAA’s 2206-2010 Flight Plan. Mr. Boyer makes the assertion here that the aviation trust fund is not running out of money. Once again, he doesn’t tell us how he reaches that conclusion.

The FAA, on the other hand, actually has made a case that, if you disagree with it, requires actual refutation, not just contradiction. We discussed the relevant GAO report on August 13th, available here. Addition data is available in the FAA’s own annual report.

Mr. Boyer did, however, cite needed cost savings as a motivating factor in support of contracting out Flight Service to a private company. He makes the claim here, here, here, here and here, among others.

Until Mr. Boyer actually decides what he believes, he is fighting a losing battle.

Thoughts on the Day

2005-11-24T08:33:00.000-08:00

Thanksgiving Day presents flight service controllers with a dichotomy this year. Those controllers who were able to retire before the Lockheed contract went into effect are generally in good spirits. Some in the legacy (non-closing) stations, in fact, are ecstatic with how things turned out for them; drawing both retirement and the same salary that they were before (at least for the next three years) without having to move, continuing their employment with a top-tier company.

On the other end of the spectrum are controllers who have lost a great deal; a retirement they have been working on for as much as 24 years that is now a complete loss with little chance of recovery, a career, roots in a community, a loved home.

Between the two extremes are situations of every stripe. Hope is not completely gone for a bit of annuity repair as pending legislation would allow some to regain their vesting. Others have glimmers of hope for future employment somewhere in the federal government.

But it cannot be denied that we rarely see such a devastation of an entire profession, which makes thankfulness a more difficult thing to come buy compared to the ‘national average.’ We do not downplay the tragedies that afflicted the Gulf Coast this year; very few controllers lost homes and families to natural disaster (we know some who did and they are in our prayers). But we’ve found that knowing the misery of others at the hands of nature does little to soothe the wounds deliberately caused buy the hand of our fellow man, FAA executives in this instance.

So what is the answer? We have no great wisdom to offer, or words to soothe; we are not philosophers, councilors or ministers. There is no single answer to give, perhaps, since there are so many legitimate reasons to be bitter. We can only realize that as long as our focus on what has befallen us, we cannot be consoled by that which may later be a deliverance. Yes, continue the fight for what is rightfully due those who were fired unjustly, lied to, denied employment opportunities that went to the inexperienced, had pension contributions literally stolen. But do so in a manner that moves forward in climbing out of the rubble, not backward with vengeance.

In all things, look around; take inventory. Each of us has building blocks for future success that we cannot see unless we are willing to acknowledge them and be thankful for them; families, friends, talents, contacts, abilities. Recognize, celebrate and embrace them. Then let your rebuilding begin.

Our thoughts and prayers are with all of you this day.

Whither the Staffing...part 2

2005-11-22T21:03:00.000-08:00

Some time ago we mused about how many controllers Lockheed Martin actually got from the 2200 or more that were available on the day they won the contract. We have it on excellent authority that Lockheed wanted at minimum 1750, and got about 1650.

Where did the others go? Around 350 to 400 were placed elsewhere in the Federal Government (mostly in the FAA). That leaves 200-300 who most likely retired and left flight service, although we've heard rumors of a few that refused to work for Lockheed even though they were not able to retire.

We will be watching the effects on service, though, as delays in the rollout of technology continue, and more controllers anticipate leaving as summer approaches.

The Lies of Joann Kansier

2005-11-21T17:46:00.000-08:00

As mentioned before, Joanne Kansier is the head of the FAA’s competitive sourcing office. She was responsible for managing the process that eventually led to the Lockheed Martin contract for Flight Services. Her efforts were viewed positively by a magazine called Washington Technology when they handed out what they call the Greater Washington Government Contractors awards. You can read about the Public Sector Partner of the Year award they gave her here.

Noteworthy in her comments was the following:

She worked with contractors and the FAA’s human resources department to create
an attractive benefits package for FAA employees who transitioned to Lockheed
Martin.

“I did everything I could for our employees,” she said.

Of course she did nothing of the sort. Regular readers of this blog have seen our recitation of the ignored requirements that are set upon government when employees are about to be RIFed, and we’re not inclined to reitereate them all here. We will say again that Ms. Kansier probably violated article 3350.2c (requiring her to put RIFed controllers in jobs they're qualified for) because she knew her efforts would fail if she did not shepard Flight Service controllers into the contractor’s arms; there was no other place for Lockheed to obtain a workforce.

The obfuscations do not end there, however:

Kansier’s office has now turned its attention to overseeing the contract. She
describes it as a win-win for government and the pilots who rely on the
automated flight service stations. The government saves money, the pilots get
better service, she said.

This assumes that everything will go as planned. So far, it’s not. Promised improvements to technology is slipping behind schedule, and the cost savings continue to be pushed lower. Pilots are still being served in the same manner as they were before the contract, and that is likely to continue beyond 2006.

The article mentions that on the day that the controllers were fired and Lockheed began it’s slippery slide down a list of broken promises, Ms. Kansier’s husband sent her flowers. We can’t help but wonder what the spouses of the Enron executives did for them when the company declared bankruptcy.

So What Else Is New?

2005-11-09T20:01:00.000-08:00

Time and time again we’ve mentioned that AOPA president Phil Boyer has been fighting a losing, contradictory battle by supporting Flight Service (FSS) outsourcing on the one hand and opposing further Air Traffic Control (ATC) privatization/contracting and user fees on the other.

The issue is up on his radar screen again, as witnessed by an AOPA on-line article here. As usual, it smacks of denial and illogic; the former because of his support of the Lockheed FSS contract undercuts his goals, the latter due to lack of supporting argument. For example:

“…user fees and privatization of air traffic control services could remove that
important oversight function from the hands of elected officials...”

Notice in the article that no reason is given as to why this would be so. Mr. Boyer further states the following:

“The FAA must be very careful not to advance funding policies that would
dismantle the air transportation network…”

Again, no support for this 'dismantling' conclusion.

Pilots may not know it yet, but Mr. Boyer has cost them dearly with the precedent he set in support of contract ATC functions. His inability to articulate a rationale for positions in support of pilots should have them doubly worried. AOPA members need to ask themselves if this lack of articulation and results is what they want on their president. And they should ask it quickly.

Metric Madness

2005-10-26T21:14:00.000-07:00

The much ballyhooed metrics surrounding the Lockheed contract are starting to go into force, and the actual applications are approaching the absurd.

Example 1 – If an in-fight pilot call is not answered in 5 seconds, no matter what the reason, it’s a failure. Thus, if aircraft A calls while the controller is giving a clearance to aircraft B, and aircraft A is not answered in 5 seconds, it counts as a violation of the metric. The only way to avoid this failure is to stop giving B the clearance in mid-sentence, tell A to stand-by, then complete the clearance to aircraft B. If you think there might be a possible safety problem in such a scenario you’re in good company.

Example 2 – It was promised that flight plans would be filed within 3 minutes. Turns out the clock starts when the pilot states that he wants to file a flight plan. Quite often, though, pilots ask for information in the middle of giving their plan, like winds aloft, radar information, or even NAVAID or airport identifiers. It also is not unusual for a pilot to be creating the flight plan as he goes along. If any of these actions by the pilot causes the filing time to extend beyond three minutes, it is also a violation.

This apparently is the interpretation of the FAA. Why such silliness? There are a couple possibilities. One is that the FAA will try their level best to avoid paying Lockheed any of the bonus money for meeting metrics, so the hurdles are being set imaginatively high. A second is that the contract, still under seal, is actually written this way. Lockheed apparently wants to see what kind of data is collected over the next few months, and will then try and renegotiate some concessions on the metrics from the FAA. Good luck…

Time to start asking Mr. Boyer if this is what he was told regarding these wonderful metrics.

The Future of Contracting

2005-10-16T20:12:00.000-07:00

We’ve mentioned before that contracting out of air traffic control (ATC) will not stop with Flight Service Stations. Within the next two or three years, expect the same to happen with level 5 towers, followed by the busier facilities.

Up until now the FAA has had political difficulties when trying this. When the seven-year FAA Re-authorization bill was debated in 2003, 69 level 5, 6, and 7 towers had been identified as targets for contracts. Some of these served fairly high-profile airports, like Boeing Field (BFI).

This was too much for many politicians to swallow, and a promise ‘not to do that’ for a couple years was placed in the bill. Much of the heat came from the AOPA , who has been committed to the fight against further contracting of towers and centers, and NATCA, the union for the controllers working in the towers, TRACONs, and en-route centers. To break this wall of opposition, the FAA appears to have adopted a more incremental approach in support of their efforts, and we expect that there will be three support ‘pillars’ to their argument, some established, another to be developed:

1) The successful contracting of Flight Service.
2) The proven safety of existing contract towers.
3) Successful contracting of the next level of towers.

Item 1 has largely been accomplished in a PR fashion; all that remains is to create an aura of undeniable, measurable success around the project. Currently, this might be easy, but increased operational errors, reduced controller experience, or delays in delivering promised technology may result in higher levels of pilot dissatisfaction (and with satisfaction rates of 90%, there’s more room for frowns than smiles).

Item 3 is in the future. But unless the AOPA wakes from its tactical slumber, we don’t see significant resistance to contracting of level 5 towers. After the level 5s are gone, it makes it much easier to follow with the level 6s, and so on. Once the pattern is established, where and how will AOPA (and NATCA for that matter) be logically able to object?

That leaves item 2, and has the potential to be a great untold story. We view it as the key in the battle to come.

Pushback

2005-10-10T19:13:00.000-07:00

Lockheed Martin and the AOPA have been bragging regularly about how the new FS21 system technology will enhance the services AFSS provide. Originally, installation of this upgrade was supposed to begin next spring. Now we hear that the timeline has been pushed back a few months. We are not surprised; it is always dangerous to contract an unseen, untried system. Upgrades are now expected to begin mid-summer or next fall.

“…the familiar voices…

2005-10-09T17:35:00.000-07:00

…giving your preflight weather briefings will stay the same.” Or so promised Mr. Phil Boyer when discussing Flight Service change-over from the FAA to Lockheed Martin.

It hasn’t quite worked out that way, and stories keep popping up about dissatisfied pilots not reaching the facility they’ve always used. We’ve mentioned many times how pilots will not be pleased over losing contact with those most familiar with their local area. That prediction has now become reality due to Lockheed’s National Offloading Contingency Plan, first mentioned here on 10/1.

'The Plan' is an attempt to even out call loads among the facilities. Here’s a sample of how it works; McMinnville, Oregon (MMV) is transferring 50% of their calls from area code 541 to Boise, ID (BOI). BOI, in turn, is shipping all of their calls from area code 208; 40% go to Great Falls, MT (GTF), 60% to Casper, WY (CPR). CPR, in turn, sends 50% of area code 307 to Denver (DEN).

That’s a lot of pilots not hearing those “familiar voices.” Many are ‘working around’ The Plan by asking for the direct 866 number to their ‘home’ station. This is a hole on the Lockheed offloading plan for the next 6 months to a year; pilot’s can defeat it by directly dialing the station they want. It seems they’d rather be on hold than talk to a briefer from another state about their local conditions and forecast. A pity that they’ll have no choice in 6 to 18 months; MMV, BOI, GTF, and CPR are all slated to close. That’s four states without a local Flight Service Station presence.

We hope the pilots that are displeased with this form of ‘progress’ are giving AOPA an earful (members and non-members can call them at 800-872-2672). While your at it, please give your Senators and Congressmen a call as well. Mr. Boyer certainly won’t tell them that you’re unhappy with his favorite contract.

Faxing Senator Tim Johnson.

2005-10-08T08:17:00.000-07:00

Tim Johnson is a Senator from South Dakota. He has originated an amendment to the Transportation-Treasury-Housing bill (HR 3058) that would delay the contract; it has been co-signed by a few other Senators. Successful passage could possibly void the award. Word is that Mr. Johnson is getting cold feet on offering the amendment.

We controllers are asking all pilots (everyone, actually) to contact Mr. Johnson’s office this weekend in support of this amendment. Then contact your own Senators as well.

Mr. Johnson’s web site is here. Contact information is as follows:

Washington Office:
136 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone (202) 224-5842
TDD (202) 224-8279 Fax (202) 228-5765

If You’re a Pilot…

2005-10-08T08:02:00.000-07:00

…include your Senators or Congressman when voicing your complaints about the new AFSS system (contact information here and here). Calls to Lockheed Martin, the FAA or AOPA will likely be buried or at least not talked about publicly.

Whither the staffing?

2005-10-07T19:54:00.000-07:00

A basic question: how many AFSS controllers were there when the contract was announced on February 1st compared to how many remained on October 4th when Lockheed took over? Lockheed will probably knows by now or Monday. That may seem like a bit of a delay, but a few controllers didn’t have to report in for their first shift until as late as the 7th, and some of those might have decided not to show up and simply stay retired.

A couple controllers have reported their numbers independently, though:

- Bangor, ME 29 (2/1) / 16 (10/4)
- Burlington, VT 33 / 13
- Princeton, MN 43 / 39

It should be noted that Princeton is a Legacy facility (not to be closed) while Bangor and Burlington will be shut down within 18 months.

We will re-visit the numbers as they become available.

It should be noted that few, if any, controllers were on leave this week. Part of the deal for signing up with Lockheed was to report on October 4th or your first scheduled day back. As people get back to taking their time off, the situation will change, but it’s certain that the facilities were ‘ultimate staffed’ this week.

First Impressions

2005-10-05T19:50:00.000-07:00

Pilot complaints about the new system were heard on the first day. In our facility, they were very displeased with Lockheed’s Offloading Contingency Plan that ships calls from some stations to others (we wonder if the AOPA is getting calls from these pilots, or even if they would acknowledge them if they did). These pilots asked for and received the direct 866 number to their ‘home’ station.

This is a possible hole on the Lockheed offloading plan for the next 6 months to a year; pilots can defeat it by directly dialing the station they want.

It’s the End of the World As We Know It.

2005-10-04T19:50:00.000-07:00

As of 12:01am this morning, Flight Services is longer with the FAA, but now under the management of Lockheed Martin. Not a happy day at all for those of us who provide the services to pilots every day. Technology is not what makes the system work, but the controllers themselves with their experience, knowledge, and dedication to aviation safety. New web sites or bells and whistles accomplish nothing without the people that work with them. We’ve been run over in a bad way, and can only hope that sometime in the future, corrections will be forthcoming.

Marion’s Poodles – Act 5

2005-10-02T19:59:00.000-07:00

As the clock is ticking down to the end of federally run Flight Service stations, AOPA President Phil Boyer has continued his uncritical cheerleading of the contract. His last missive is dated September 22 and is not surprising; he repeats the same old misleading information as well as presenting some new contradictions.

We’ve decided to break with our blogging tradition and respond to Mr. Boyer point-by-point on the highlights of his article. New readers might want to peruse the following earlier posts, since much of Mr. Boyer’s flawed observations are dealt with there first:

- With a Tangled Skein (parts 1 and 2) – 7/26, 28
- A Damning Report – 8/3
- Mythical Metrics – 8/11
- The Breaking Dawn – 8/13
- The Coming Lockheed-AOPA Conflict – 8/15
- Rude Awakening – 10/1

The ‘Marion’s Poodles’ series makes for good background as well.

"AOPA has been in virtually constant discussions with Lockheed Martin as it
moves toward the initial FSS transition on October 4," said AOPA President
Phil Boyer.

It’s too bad neither AOPA or Lockheed ever spoke to the controllers, and we never understood why not. Mr. Boyer constantly said that the FAA had mismanaged Flight Service into the ground while praising the professionalism of the controllers. We could have given them lots of useful assistance if only they would have consented to talk, but for some reason they didn’t want to…

"We want to ensure that there will be no service glitches for pilots."
About 1,900 of the current 2,000 FSS employees have accepted job offers from Lockheed Martin...

Here Mr. Boyer departs from his previous orthodoxy. He last stated that 600 AFSS employees would be gone by the changeover date, leaving only 1,400 controllers in the service (1600 by our count, using a base of 2200). This new position places him at odds with Lockheed, whose call offloading plan bemoans the “decimated” staffing of Flight Service. We can’t help wondering about the effectiveness (or even existence) of those “constant discussions with Lockheed” that Mr. Boyer keeps bragging about.

... which means that even the familiar voices giving your preflight weather briefings will stay the same.
If you obtain a preflight briefing on October 3 and another one the next day,
there will be no difference. The same specialists, at the same locations, at the
same phone numbers and radio frequencies will be providing the same services as
today — only as Lockheed employees.

Lockheed’s call offloading contingency plan (mentioned Friday) that will be implemented on Tuesday tells a different story. Calls from many area codes will be transferred partially or totally to other stations. If a pilot’s ‘home’ station has longer hold times, they will find themselves talking to controllers at other facilities. Some pilots are already facing this situation. Again, if Mr. Boyer is in constant contact and discussion with Lockheed, why doesn't he already have this information?

But the consolidation of these facilities should not impact the level of service pilots receive.

Mr. Boyer has no possible way of knowing this.

Lockheed has a 60-day transition plan in place, which includes a 30-day gradual transition of some employees to the new facilities and 30 days of overlapping services from the new and previous locations.

The Lockheed Contingency plan is based on the conclusion that staffing is already too thin, and doesn’t even account for a number of retirement-eligible controllers that have signed up with Lockheed but have stated that they simply will not show up on October 4th. These two factors leave no room for overlap.

"AOPA asked for aggressive performance requirements to ensure that your telephone and radio calls to FSS would be answered quickly," Boyer said. "Lockheed must meet these customer service standards, so you should notice improved service as the FS21 technology is integrated."

As we’ve pointed out before, this was a pre-determined part and of the original A-76 concept. AOPA’s “asking” was a non-sequitor, akin to a witch doctor asking the sun to rise.

After the 18-month transition is complete, pilots' telephone calls must be answered within 20 seconds and radio calls within 15 seconds . Flight plans must be processed in three minutes, and pireps must be processed within 30 seconds of receipt, 15 seconds if they are urgent.

We wonder if there’s a typo in there…we were under the impression that the contract called for radio calls to be answered in 5 seconds. But then, no one who has written about the contract has actually seen it.

As to the rest, see our posts ‘Mythical Metrics’ and ‘With a Tangled Skein: Part 2’ for a dissection of this claim.

And an annual customer satisfaction survey will be conducted so that Lockheed can make sure you are getting the best service possible.

Pilots, depending on group and survey, are already 80-90% satisfied with current services (see our post ‘With a Tangled Skein: Part 2'. We have no doubt that Mr. Boyer will crow loudly as some evidence of success any subsequent survey showing 75% or more satisfaction.

It is estimated that Lockheed's 10-year contract will actually save the government about $2.2 billion.

Calculated savings are already down to a maximum of $1.7 billion, and as low as $1.2 billion according to the GAO (see ‘A Damning Report’). These revised numbers were public knowledge long before his article was written. Mr. Boyer has no excuse for not knowing about this.

Count on costs to go higher as well. Lockheed’s contingency plan calls for the possibility of additional controllers, exceeding the original target of 1000. The FAA continues to ask Lockheed for contract additions. These are always much more expensive than if they are contained in the initial contract and will reduce projected savings further and faster.

Another GAO report shows that these savings do nothing to allay the possibility of user fees or other privatization that AOPA opposes (see ‘The Breaking Dawn’).

To allow briefers to devote even more time to serving you, whether you are on the ground or in the air, Lockheed has discontinued some services that do not pertain to GA briefings. For example, FSS will no longer have to respond to media requests for historic weather data; it will no longer coordinate the military's ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) flight information; and it will no longer provide information from aviation publications to nonpilots.

"Lockheed discontinued only the nonpilot services that FSS had been providing," Boyer said. "Pilot services, like distributing notams, will continue as before."

These are meaningless statements. How many of the 2200 controllers affected by this contract have actually done any of the discontinued services in Mr. Boyer's list, let alone on a daily basis? We’ve never done any of these things, although a few controllers may very well have on occasion. But to assert that the above activities, even when done, constitute any reason for long hold times is absurd. Quite frankly, Mr. Boyer is making it up; he has no idea how much time is actually spent doing these things.

NOTAMs are part of a standard brief, part of the 7110.10 rules that any contractor would have had to comply with. Of course they will continue.

And let’s be honest; aviation information can still be received by non-pilots; all they have to do is make the pretense of being a pilot, something very easy to do (for example, make up a call sign or claim ‘rental’ status).

Mr. Boyer does, however, gloss over the fact that some services, while not time consuming, will be missed. Instructors calling to check up on the progress of their students will be turned away. Real pilots may be surprised to learn that they as well will be denied some published information.

Our position remains unchanged since our posts listed at the top of this one; that pilot contacts are likely to be longer due to 'cover your rear' concerns, and with a slashed workforce of diluted expertise and promised metrics (not yet fully revealed), Mr. Boyer’s dream of cheap, fast, personal, local, expert service is not likely to be realized. One or more of those will have to give.

Muscle Flexing

2005-10-02T19:04:00.000-07:00

We understand that one Flight Service station had a somewhat unusually long hold time for pre-flight services on Friday. One or more of the pilots in the queue apparently called the AOPA, taking to heart President Phil Boyer’s admonition that he could contact the right people to straighten things out post haste!

Mr. Boyer (or at least someone in his organization), eager to throw some weight around, indeed called Lockheed Martin who in turn called the Flight Service in question demanding an explanation. All this in spite of the fact Lockheed doesn’t take over until next Tuesday.

We do like to keep things on the diplomatic side, but can’t help thinking of a few choice words had we answered the phone.

Rude Awakening

2005-10-01T07:33:00.000-07:00

Lockheed Martin has distributed a National Offloading Contingency Plan to all Flight Service stations. What it contains is illuminating. Not because of any surprise to the controllers (on the contrary, it’s quite old news of the kind we’ve talked about in this blog), but what it reveals about Lockheed’s knowledge of the service it will soon inherit. The root of the problem can be found in the plan’s introduction:

“…[AFSS] staffing has been decimated by the FAA as a result of their desire to allow as [sic] many Flight Service specialists to “bid out”, transfer, IPP [internal placement program], retire or simply quit.”

Gee…the FAA did “allow” controllers to “retire or simply quit.” Exactly what did Lockheed expect? Recalcitrant workers chained to their positions, forbidden to leave? Pardon our sarcasm, but the above statement not only stretches credulity, but shows an total lack of preparation (even denial or naiveté) on personnel issues for the 10/4 takeover. What did the FAA say that led Lockheed to believe that they would inherit a passel of stations staffed to the gills with willing workers just waiting to be fired or have their retirement benefits yanked out from under them? Hasn’t anyone from Lockheed read the NAATS legal pleadings or web site (or even this blog)? Time after time over the summer it was explained to Lockheed representatives visiting the stations that hundreds of controllers were doing everything they could to find other work in the federal government.

We dearly hope (and that it can be subsequently proven) the FAA promised or otherwise implied to Lockheed that they would deliver the workforce needed to fulfill the contract. Here’s why:

We’ve mentioned 3350.2c, the FAA directive that sets the ground rules for a Reduction in Force (RIF) caused by a contracting-out such as that now experienced by the Flight Service controllers. Let’s take a look at a very relevant section:

7. GUIDELINES.

a. When the number of employees in any organization or occupation must be reduced, management shall 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.

b. Separation of employees by RIF shall take place only after all reasonable alternative actions have failed to solve the surplus problem. The RIF procedure shall be conducted in a fair and equitable manner without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, marital status, political affiliation, physical handicap, participation or non-participation in a labor organization, personal favoritism, or sexual orientation. When conducting a RIF, the provisions of this order shall be used, in conjunction with, FPM Supplement 351-1, Reduction in Force, Departmental guidance, and union agreements, if applicable.

c. Some of the alternatives to conducting a RIF are: attrition, hiring freeze, promotion freeze, separation of employees on time-limited appointments and other noncompeting employees; reimbursable details, encouragement of voluntary LWOP or change from full-time to part-time work schedule, or furlough rather than separation (only if it is likely that the employee can be recalled to work within a year).

The meaning is so simple we wonder how Lockheed missed it: The FAA’s first responsibility is not to keep the workforce in place for the contractor, but to do everything reasonable (up to and including a "hiring freeze") to make sure the workforce is not dislocated from the FAA. Not only must the FAA “…allow…specialists to ‘bid out’, transfer, IPP…”, the FAA is required by law to make sure these things happen. Truth be told, the opposite has actually occurred and Lockheed is getting a bigger workforce than they should, but that’s another topic for another day.

Upshot: If it can be shown that the FAA told Lockheed Martin that they would deliver an in-place workforce, or the FAA otherwise did not follow directive 3350.2c, the law has been broken. We’ve said before that a lawsuit in this matter is anticipated. The Lockheed statement in their contingency plan is another bit of evidence in support of such a suit. The desired outcome of a favorable ruling could range from enhanced or required employment opportunities for controllers shepherded to Lockheed, up to and including monetary damages to make up for lost benefits.

Oh…one other detail…since “staffing has been decimated,” what does this mean for AOPA President Phil Boyer’s vision of seamless continuity? We’ll cover that delicious topic in short order.

MIV Lives!

2005-09-30T21:39:00.000-07:00

At 2pm today, Millville AFSS re-opened for business, albeit for a limited engagement, and many services will not return at all. Here is the scoop as we understand it:

- MIV will be doing airport advisories only until a mobile tower can be moved on-site, in about three weeks.
- About that same time, in-flight communications will be restored.
- Pre-flight services will not be restored.

All the above is predicated on getting the appropriate equipment in place, of course. Air-to-ground communication without a weather database is pretty useless…

As for the controllers, all five who were unable to move to different jobs with the FAA or Lockheed Martin were re-hired. It remains to be seen how quickly MIV will be shut down, though. Lockheed might move them to the head of the line, but this is better than the pre-existing alternative.

Injunction Denied

2005-09-30T21:35:00.000-07:00

Today Judge Kennedy ruled against Flight Service controllers on an injunction to put the Lockheed contract on hold until a case on age discrimination could be heard and ruled upon. This was the last legal hurdle before the contract would go into effect at 12:01am next Tuesday morning.

We have always been dubious about this discrimination strategy and are not surprised (see ‘Injunction Function’ on 9/8/05). The text of the ruling can be found here.

Update: We've put a link to the decision in the last sentance (10/01).

What Were They Thinking...

2005-09-29T19:55:00.000-07:00

Never let it be said that the FAA doesn’t go the extra mile. To help compensate AFSS controllers for the lost careers, pensions, and denial of employment rights, Jim Washington, the FAA’s Vice President of Flight Service, has done a remarkable thing. We’ll let him tell you in his own words from a memorandum dated 9/27/05:

During the past 85 years, the Flight Service option has met the challenges of an
evolving aviation environment. From supporting the inception of airline operations, to meeting the ever changing demands of general and business aviation, Flight Service personnel have been a part of the entire growth of American aviation history, as depicted on the Flight Service History website*.

The Flight Service family is evolving yet another time, and will expand on the proud
legacy that you have provided the flying public for over 85 years. In recognition of
your dedication to quality service, it is my privilege to present each of you with a
commemorative poster that illustrates the profession that you represent.

I salute you all!

Needless to say, the controllers are viewing this ‘salute’ as something very different than Mr. Washington has written of, and from what we hear thus far are ‘saluting’ back in kind. The probability that any of those posters are put on any controller’s wall seems less than winning the power ball this week.

Pilot’s Plaint

2005-09-28T16:31:00.000-07:00

Many who make liberal use Flight Service have not been fooled by AOPA President Phil Boyer's pitch to contract out and consolidate AFSSs. Here is one letter from a very upset AOPA member (PDF file). We’re very certain that there are more, and are grateful for their support.

From 'Controllers' to ‘Call Centers’

2005-09-27T17:39:00.000-07:00

We’ve heard that Lockheed Martin has hired an outside contractor to set the schedules for the Flight Service Stations starting sometime next year. The company is Aspect Communications (currently being merged with Concerto Software).

Details are sketchy and subject to change. But up until now, scheduling has been accomplished at the local level where the controllers and staff have first-hand knowledge of not only the kind of unique services the area pilots need, but changing the schedule to match seasonal and daily differences. Apparently this is another part of providing Flight Services that LM does not understand; local expertise and effects on scheduling. So now another inexperienced company with zero ATC knowledge is brought in to dictate to the experienced professional how their job will be done.

One by-product of such a management style is faster turn-over of personnel, as high as 14% annually in some ‘call center’ industries (and these don’t even involve decisions that can effect life and limb). This runs counter to the vision of AOPA President Phil Boyer who repeatedly has told his membership that quality of personnel will not decrease with the LM takeover, but will most likely increase. Keep in mind that many of the 1000 controllers left over from the slash-n-burn consolidation will be FAA retirees who will feel they are able to leave on a moments notice. Almost all Flight Service controllers have over 15 years of experience; a large share have more than 20. Imagine how rapidly the level of experience will decline with a turnover rate of one-in-seven, with green controllers rapidly put in place. If we are correct about their intentions, and LM continues this apparent 'dissing' of controllers, expect the turnover rate to go higher, with average years of experience declining to below 10 within three years, and a downward trend firmly in place.

With this latest development it’s difficult not to conclude that LM looks at Flight Service controllers as script readers, not professionals providing ATC services. This bodes ill for pilots who expect a level of individualized (let alone improved) interpretive service, and reinforces the concern that controllers will have to meet ‘quotas’ or face disciplinary action (see our 8/15 post ‘The Coming Lockheed – AOPA Conflict’) . In our personal experience, quality and customer satisfaction suffers when a service is managed by such a mentality. For the good of the service and safety of the pilots, we hope we are wrong.

ATC Zero in Jersey – The End?

2005-09-26T09:04:00.000-07:00

It’s pretty much official. Millville AFSS will not re-open, except for a remote possibility of air-to-ground communications for a short period of time. You can read a local news item about it here.

The Millville controllers are finding themselves having to make some sudden tough choices. This makes even worse the existing insult-to-injury situation caused by the FAA. It’s bad enough that the agency cut off their careers, then refused to follow established law by placing the controllers in other positions for which they’re eligible; they must now uproot and move within two weeks (at their own expense) or lose six to eighteen months income that was previously promised.

Running out the clock.

2005-09-24T10:53:00.000-07:00

Some time next week, or the week after, the Senate will consider the Transportation, Treasury, Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill (TTHUD) on the floor. Amendments will be offered, hopefully one that will delay the Lockheed Martin AFSS contract for a year. This will allow Congress to get a first look at the plan before it actually goes into effect. Remember, no one has seen this contract aside from a select few in Lockheed Martin and the FAA, both of whom have a large vested interest in this contract.

However, there’s little chance that the bill will be voted on, sent to conference committee, re-voted, and signed by the President before the October 4th change-over just 10 days away. By that time, it will be a moot issue; the FAA will have beaten Flight Services (caveat: the judge who heard the controller’s request for an injunction to halt the transition based on an age discrimination complaint has yet to rule. See our post ‘Injunction Function’ dated 9/8).

Despite the steep odds, action is still possible. We know that there are pilots out there who are as uncomfortable with the Lockheed contract as the controllers are, and we ask for their help. The amendment mentioned above is authored by Senator Tim Johnson (R-SD) and is identical to a successful amendment passed earlier this year in the house (see our post of July 20th, ‘A Surprise in the House’). Fax, e-mail or call your Senator and ask him to contact Mr. Johnson’s office and offer support for the amendment. Jamie Uken is his aide who is working this issue. If you can, include a personal story of how Flight Service has enhanced the safety of your flying experience.

You can find contact information for the Senators from your state here.

The Congressional Circus

2005-09-20T21:28:00.000-07:00

An Air Traffic Controller from Georgia has been writing his senator, Saxby Chambliss on the imminent loss of Flight Service Stations to the Lockheed-Martin contract. The letters specifically ask the Senator to support S. 776, a bill that would make Flight Service an ‘inherently governmental’ function (i.e. not subject to outsourcing). Like too many others, the Senator’s response is hilarious:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the outsourcing of
maintenance jobs by American airline carriers. It is good to hear
from you.

The safety and vitality of our airline industry were issues of the
highest importance to lawmakers here in Washington, D.C., long before the
attacks on September 11, 2001. Since then, however, the airlines
have come under considerable economic strain, and the government has tried
to institute policies aimed at alleviating this crisis while ensuring the
security of air travel. American jobs in the airline industry have
also felt the affects of these trends, especially in Georgia.
Airlines across the country are laying off employees and furloughing
pilots and flight crews at unheard of rates. The financial bailouts
and heightened role of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
are just a few examples.

Someone needs to ask the Senator who it is that reads and responds to his mail.

ATC Zero in Jersey- Part 2

2005-09-16T13:35:00.000-07:00

We mentioned in our post ‘ATC Zero in Jersey’ the loss of Millville Flight Service Station (MIV) due to a roof collapse. There was a hope that the station would be up and running in as little as two weeks. Those hopes have now faded; expect MIV to be closed for good.

The first indication was a scheduled meeting to discuss the future of the building and its tenants, including MIV. The Delaware River Bay Authority scheduled a meeting with an FAA representative, John Harris, on the 7th. Mr. Harris did not show up.

A Delaware pilot group asked the FAA to expedite the re-opening of MIV, only to be told that the FAA considers the facility closed permanently. Lockheed agrees.

One recent crash has lead to some questions over the lack of services.

Injunction Function

2005-09-08T08:12:00.000-07:00

Last Thursday there was a hearing in D.C. The issue at hand was an injunction filed by Flight Service controller union NAATS to stop the Lockheed contract from taking effect until their age discrimination complaint can be heard and ruled on in court. The charge is that the contracting out adversely impacts controllers based on their age; a large portion are over 40 (the threshold for such complaints) and many will suffer major financial damage through total loss of retirement benefits just before becoming eligible to claim them. The decision on whether or not to grant the injunction should he handed down this week. NAATS president Kate Breen is optimistic about the outcome.

We, on the other hand, are skeptical that this will be a successful venture. As we understand it, an injunction can only be issued under very particular circumstances: 1) plaintiff (NAATS) shows a good chance of prevailing on the merits in court. 2) no other person will be harmed by the delay. There are other tests, but let’s look at these two.

In the first case, NAATS can only win a discrimination suit on court if age is substantially the only apparent factor driving the outsourcing decision. But while the FAA has publicly put forth the ‘aging workforce’ argument up front, they’ve also listed a number of other reasons to contract out FSS, such as inherent inefficiencies, and old technology and infrastructure. To the second point, it can be argued that Lockheed, who has invested a lot of money in this contract, could suffer financially if there is a delay. It has been reported that one of the NAATS witnesses stated that the controllers will be hurt, not exclusively, but worse than Lockheed.

Some who attended the injunction hearing are heartened by the fact that the judge took the apparently unusual step of allowing NAATS to present witnesses as well as a power point presentation (normally it's just two lawyers talking). We’re not so sure this is a good sign. The judge could simply have been closing all possible doors to an appeal, knowing from the pre-hearing briefs that NAATS stood very little chance.

A caveat to all the above; we are speculating in an area where we have no expertise, and hope that we are very wrong.

Help for Katrina’s Victims

2005-09-05T21:31:00.000-07:00

The blogosphere is a marvelous place. This past weekend a ‘blog-a-thon’ was held to raise money over the weekend, and they’ve hit the $1,000,000 mark. We were unable to make the proper connection with the host blog, Truth Laid Bear, and take part, so allow us to take a moment and have our say now.

We Flight Service Controllers have had to deal with a lot this past year and half of us are facing substantial losses at the hands of the FAA. But even those of us who will be turned to the street starting in 7 months will still have our homes, families, and lives intact. The same cannot be said for the victims of Katrina, which may turn out to be the largest natural disaster in our country’s history. They don’t know where their families are. They may, in fact, be gone. They have lost not only jobs but also the means to find one. Their homes may be simply looted or completely destroyed.

We don’t have the gift of inspirational prose that others posses, so please excuse us if we quote Winston Churchill: “We have not journeyed across the centuries, across the oceans, across the mountains, across the prairies, because we are made of sugar candy.”

Blogger Austin Bay adds the following: “There's no America out there except America to respond to it. We've got to do it ourselves.”

If you haven’t made a contribution to Katrina relief yet, please do so now. We’d like to suggest the following fast responders:

Samaritan’s Purse

Operation Katrina Soldiers Relief Fund (run by Soldiers Angels)

Mercy Corps

World Vision

In the heart of New Orleans is a church that, by all reports, is deeply connected to the surrounding community. They will be good stewards of any check you can send:

Canal Street Presbyterian Church
4302 Canal St.
New Orleans, LA 70119

Or you can use their Paypal link here.

If you’re connected to a church, consider adopting Canal or one of the other churches in the Katrina affected areas You can find lists and links to other lists on Hugh Hewitt’s blog.

Dozens of additional charities can be found here. Please find your favorite and make a donation.

Thank you!

The Lies of Ventris Gibson

2005-08-30T00:35:00.000-07:00

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).

ATC Zero in Jersey

2005-08-27T22:03:00.000-07:00

Millville (MIV) Flight Service in New Jersey suffered a roof collapse this past week. Thankfully no one was injured, but the future status of the operation is in question. One authority asserts that the building will be open again in two weeks. Another says that it may not be ready until sometime after the Lockheed Martin contract begins. If the latter is true what happens to the controllers? MIV is one of the stations that will close sometime within the first 18 months of the contract. Will the controllers be transferred to another facility, held over on administrative leave or simply let go immediately instead of 6-18 months down the road? Temporary facilities are possible and have been done before, but for now, if you’re in New Jersey or one of the surrounding states whose Flight Service is filling the gap, the system might be a bit slow for a while.

One of MIV’s controllers, ‘RK’, left the following comment under the previous post:

Do you have an opinion on the catastrophic closure of MIV AFSS? It seems that
the traffic that is being sent to other stations is really causing havoc!!!
Could this be what we'll be in for when LM closes the so called "Leprosy
Stations"?

(Note: the term ‘leprosy station’ is an inside joke referring to the 38 FSSs that will close under the contract as opposed to the 17 ‘legacy stations’ that will remain open)

We find it hard to view the two situations as analogous. One is a catastrophic failure occurring in a moment, while the other is a planned event scheduled to occur over months. Still, RK’s point is not to be lightly dismissed. Flight Service areas tend to be unique in few or many ways. Even making operations and methodologies uniform over all stations won’t erase these variables. We discussed before how we expect pilot contacts in general to become longer and more involved (Mythical Metrics, 8/11). Keeping all this in mind, RK’s question can address two different aspects of the same problem: planned consolidation vs. a sudden loss of a facility.

An accurate answer to the first situation isn’t easy to come by. Since the contract is still under seal we have no way of knowing how Lockheed will operate Flight Service; what will the 'local' areas be? Will controllers be trained in non-contiguous areas? What services will the legacy stations provide? We are still convinced that Lockheed does not understand the nature of the service they are about to start providing. This is not entirely their fault since they’ve relied mostly on the FAA bureaucracy to fill them in. But it does explain why they seem to think Flight Service is the aviation equivalent of home computer tech support, with little difference between the expectations of pilots in New England vs. Texas, or Indiana vs. Washington. The 18 month consolidation will probably be smooth from a hardware standpoint. In terms of the software, service and pilot satisfaction however, even the AOPA has gone from “…all I can say is ‘wow’” to “…there may be some service glitches...” during the change-over.

Second, should one of the 20 end-state facilities be taken out of commission, how will it affect services (for comparison it should be mentioned that MIV is the 12th busiest FSS among the 61 in the nation)? Remember that there will be less than half the controllers than exist now. And if a disabled facility’s controllers constitute a relatively large portion of those available to service a particular area, how will the promised metrics be maintained?

Again, the answer lies in the still sealed contract. It would not be surprising if there were a clause that releases Lockheed from the metrics should some ‘act of God’ take a station off-line. But even given that the controllers serving a particular area will likely be spread out among at least three facilities (and we would guess more), there’s little doubt that pilots will notice delays in service. But it probably will not be of the same magnitude that they’re currently experiencing in and around New Jersey.

The Scrooge Effect

2005-08-26T08:32:00.000-07:00

It’s conventional wisdom that corporations are less ‘compassionate’ or ‘caring,’ (choose your favorite adjective) than the government when it comes how they treat people. But in the game of ‘industrial relations’ within the current outsourcing of Flight Service, you might say that the score is Lockheed Martin 2, FAA 0 (although if possible, the FAA would have a rather large negative score).

First of all, as discussed previously, LM originally offered to carry the controllers as contracted federal employees for up to two years so those close to earning their federal retirement could become vested rather than lose everything. But the FAA flatly refused to explore any kind of accommodation.

Within the last couple of weeks a new wrinkle developed within the retirement issue. Some background first: Federal employees are allowed to use annual leave (vacation time) to reach retirement. In other words, if you wanted to retire in a month and had a month of unused vacation time, you could go on vacation and have your retirement effective at the end of that month without having to report back to work.

The LM/FAA agreement calls for all employees to be fired by the government on October 3rd. In order to be hired by Lockheed under the contracted terms of employment, the controller must report to LM for work on the 4th, or whatever their next scheduled workday would be. A few controllers very close to being retirement eligible have enough vacation time on the books to reach their annuity after October 3rd. But they also want to continue working as controllers with LM while 'on vacation' from the FAA. The FAA refused this arrangement saying there would be a ‘conflict of interest’ if an employee of an agency were being paid by both the agency and a contractor of that same agency. Controllers rightly asked what possible conflict would exist since the job they were doing no longer existed within the agency. But the FAA remained unmoved.

Lockheed, to their credit, has unilaterally come to the rescue. They will allow controllers to enter the contract late if by doing so they will become vested in their annuity through use of their unused vacation time.

Controllers are, of course, grateful. But this should not have been a difficulty in the first place. The FAA seems to have a steadfast policy of avoiding any act that might help any controllers reach their retirement. This in itself is not a matter of concern for pilots, but it does highlight the mindset of those who will be monitoring the contract.

Senate Update

2005-08-17T20:31:00.000-07:00

We last talked about the Senate’s possible action regarding a one-year delay in our 7/22 post entitled ‘Tyson Bites’. At the time things looked very bleak. However, the situation has improved a bit for favorable Senate action that would result in a one-year delay for the Lockheed-Martin take-over of Flight Services; support seems to have increased.

The bill (Transportation, Treasury, Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations, or TTHUD) will be debated on the floor in early September, followed quickly by a conference committee. The amendment being offered is identical in wording to that passed by the House earlier this year. Historically, if House and Senate language in a particular section is identical, it is not subject to conference. How true this holds currently is something we can’t say. In any event, this may be the final opportunity for pilots to support the controllers who have served them for so long by contacting their Senators and asking that they support the Tim Johnson (R-SD) amendment to the Transportation appropriations bill. You can find contact information here.

Marion’s Poodles – Act 4

2005-08-16T21:25:00.000-07:00

Earlier we touched on this article in AOPA’ web site (see ‘Marion’s Poodles – Act 2’) and promised to look at it again.

This time we want to concentrate on a couple additional comments by AOPA president Phil Boyer who more and more talks like someone who wishes not to make sense. Specifically he says the following about a proposed one-year delay in the contract:

Lockheed-Martin's bid keeps 20 facilities in place with 1,000 employees, while
the FAA's in-house bid would build three new facilities and keep only 966
employees… With no funding for outsourcing, services would have to be provided
by federal employees. Unfortunately, there aren't enough federal employees to do
the job. The FAA estimates that more than 600 FSS employees will have
voluntarily retired or quit by the time the measure could take effect.

Now let’s see if we can decipher Mr. Boyer’s main points:

1) Reducing the number of controllers from 2200 to 1000 is acceptable, but dropping an additional 34 (for a total of 966) is not.

2) 600 fewer employees on October 4th is ok if Lockheed Martin takes over, but not if the Federal Government continues to provide service for up to a year more.

3) Three facilities instead of 20.

Mr. Boyer calls the above scenarios “grim.” His objections are ‘res ipse loquitur’ absurd, but let’s address them anyway.

To the first point, if there is no discernable problem in a 54.5% reduction in the controller workforce, why should a 56% reduction become a harbinger of doom? We would think the first 1200 controllers shown out the door would raise eyebrows, not the following 34.

Second, if 600 fewer controllers would be a problem for the FAA, why would they not be missed with LM at the helm, especially given that there will be no facility or equipment changes during the first six months of the contract?

An additional note…that 600 person guesstimate has little basis. Given the FAA’s heavy-handed tactics in keeping the workforce temporarily in place, we’re not likely to see that sudden a drop in personnel by October 4th. While many hundreds of new controllers are hired off the street, only about 150 current, experienced controllers have found work outside of Flight Service and will be leaving no matter what. What’s left of the ‘600’ are those who plan on retiring rather than work for LM. Should a delay mean that the FAA continues to provide Flight Services past October 4th, expect many of those retirement applications to be quickly withdrawn.

Finally, let’s look at the number of facilities, 20 for LM, 3 for the FAA in-house bid. It should be made known that LM has not guaranteed that the 17 ‘legacy’ stations will remain after three years. In fact they’re quite adamant about keeping their options, not the stations, open. It has yet to be explained why Mr. Boyer prefers any given number of stations. We can’t help but get the impression that the answer is simply, as always, “Because the FAA told me so.”

The Coming Lockheed – AOPA Conflict

2005-08-15T22:45:00.000-07:00

Ted Sturm is in charge of Lockheed Martin’s Human Resources department. His comments to one air traffic controller included words to the effect that there would be some sort of ‘performance expectation’ in terms of 'numbers productivity' that if missed could result in release from service.

If some form of ‘quota’ is indeed implemented, the impact on pilot briefing will not be good news for pilots. Should controllers feel that they have to ‘keep numbers up’, the unintended consequence is predictable; a bias toward completing contacts in rapid fashion.

This would run afoul of the vision that AOPA’s Mr. Boyer has for future service. As mentioned earlier, more data, interactive briefing and diluted area knowledge will tend to increase the amount of time it takes to work a given pilot contact. If this occurs (as we expect it will), LM will move to keep individual contacts short and sweet.

But Mr. Boyer is of the impression that if AOPA isn’t satisfied with performance, LM will respond quickly and decisively. So if pilot contacts become rushed to meet LM’s productivity requirements, Mr. Boyer can be expected to give Lockheed Martin a call. When the two worlds collide, who will win?

A number of possibilities exist; It could be that Mr. Sturm hasn’t gotten the word about the promises to APOA. Or, in his meeting with LM where Mr. Boyer states that his team asked “all the tough questions," maybe this one didn’t cross their minds.

Most likely, the real answer is based in the fact that neither LM or Mr. Boyer understand the business of providing Flight Service products to pilots. Should goals conflict, only one of them can win. Mr. Boyer may believe he’ll have leverage enough to steer things his way, but it will be Lockheed Martin in the drivers seat.

Blog Adjustment

2005-08-14T21:59:00.000-07:00

We've altered the 'comment' setting to that a reader does not have to register to post a comment.

Cognitive Dissonance

2005-08-14T10:41:00.000-07:00

AOPA president Phil Boyer doesn’t think much of the FAA’s ability to provide Flight Services. As he says here, “...the FAA was unable to effectively modernize the current system…”. In essence, the FAA could do little, if anything, right. This sentiment is repeated in many AOPA articles. In many ways he is quite correct.

The FAA is now painting a verbal picture of the FSS contract for Mr. Boyer that he can’t seem to praise enough. If he has expressed any reservations about the upcoming changes to Flight Service we have yet to read about it.

To Mr. Boyer’s thinking, the FAA can’t run Flight Service to save its life but they will be flawless when it comes to making sure someone completely inexperienced in the field will do things properly.

The Breaking Dawn

2005-08-13T07:23:00.000-07:00

The AOPA may just be getting a glimmer of what the FAA has planned for aviation.

There’s an interesting GAO report floating around with the rather unwieldy title of “Characteristics and Performance of Selected International Air Navigation Service Providers and Lessons Learned from Their Commercialization”. The link provided opens a PDF file. Open it, then word search for the term ‘fee’.

You will now see what has raised AOPA eyebrows; numerous mentions of fee-for-service. The GAO report seems to be paving the way for a commercialized ATC system including towers and centers, likely to result in greater general aviation fees. Couple this report with the current out-sourcing of Flight Service, the GAO report we referenced earlier, and the intent seems clear; the eventual outsourcing or commercialization of all ATC functions.

FSS controllers have been trying to explain this to AOPA for some time; the FSS contract to Lockheed Martin is the ‘gateway’ to other such contracts in ATC. It has been rumored that the FAA would like to be out of the ATC business by 2025, and LM people have been heard saying quite directly that, given the groundwork already in place for the FSS contract, it wouldn’t take much additional work to contract and operate the centers and tower approach controls.

That level of contracting faces significant political resistance from both Capitol Hill and the AOPA, who have sworn to resist any out-sourcing of these services. It will have to be done piecemeal. Expect it to start with the level 5 towers in about two, maybe three years. Then the FAA will work up the chain through levels 6 and higher until all that is left are the towers with associated approach controls (TRACONs). Once that point is reached the FAA will boast about how safe and efficient the contract system is, muting any objections.

Mr. Boyer has been penny-wise and pound-foolish. His lackey-like acceptance of the FSS contract will be a major stepping stone to the fees he fears most.

Mythical Metrics

2005-08-11T02:33:00.000-07:00

One thing that pilots have been told over and over about the Lockheed Martin contract is that response times when contacting Flight Service will drop dramatically via a guaranteed 20-second answer to a phone call. Most pilots are already aware that fast responses are the norm, and the 20-second metric is rhetoric, meaning little in reality.

So let’s examine the telephone response time that can be expected. We at Flight Service Sigmet would like to point out a few hurdles that might get in the way of achieving that metric; some expected, some not.

1 – Slashed workforce. The number of controllers will be reduced from about 2200 to 1000. Now there’s no doubt that some efficiencies are to be had from the present system, but such an immediate, radical reduction is overkill when dealing with an untested system by a company who doesn’t understand the service they’re about to start providing.

2 – Increased data. This will lengthen briefing times in two forms. First, there’s the data itself. Understandably, pilots want as much data as possible. The more that can be accessed, the more that is wanted. In our experience pilots will always ask for a bit more than is available with current equipment and data. When something comes along to provide that extra capability, pilots take it and ask for a bit more. This is to be expected. But providing that ‘extra’ takes time.

Secondly, we must consider that each controller will be working with much larger areas. As we showed in a previous post, this will dilute area knowledge and experience. The likely result will be more double-checking on the part of the controller, further adding to briefing time.

3 – “At-will” employment. Up until now, controllers could only be fired for a justifiable reason. However, this will change since Lockheed-Martin is an ‘at-will’ employer, able to fire anytime for any reason. It is safe to assume that controllers will believe that any cause of liability could jeopardize their career. Add this to the two ‘increased data’ factors above and you have another reason to expect longer brief times as controllers, even more so than now, brief in such a way as to ‘cover’ themselves.

4 - Interactive briefing. This means that the pilot, via a web link, is looking at the same graphics as the controller during a weather brief. AOPA president Phil Boyer touts this as his organization’s idea, proud to have it included in the final product. But if anything will increase briefing times, it is likely to be this. We’ve had experience briefing pilots who are looking at their own data sources. It tends to result in more, not fewer questions, as the pilot substitutes his judgment for that of the controller, or begins asking detailed questions about what he’s seeing. These are not unreasonable things for the pilot to do, but let’s be realistic on how this will affect the ’20 second’ metric.

To sum up; the number of controllers will be cut in half, while a number of new factors will tend to increase briefing times. Someone is going to have to explain how this will add up to reduced ‘on hold’ times.

Bait and Switch

2005-08-10T08:14:00.000-07:00

There’s a Flight Service controller I’ll call 'David’. At one time he was a Full-Performance Level (FPL) controller at Jacksonville Center. He is also a military veteran. He has been trying to return to Jacksonville to finish his ATC career and earn his retirement.

Jacksonville won’t have him. Instead, they’re hiring new people off the street, forcing him to stay in Flight Service so he can be fired by the FAA, stripped of his annuity, and forced into Lockheed Martin.

David is not alone. Word has filtered down through channels more friendly to Flight Service (or simply appalled at what’s being done to the controllers) that this is based on an edict from on high; when it comes to general openings for controllers in towers and centers, no FSS controller need apply.

The FAA and AOPA repeat ad nauseam that their main concern is the best and safest service for the pilots. I wonder how David’s situation fits into that rhetoric?

Marion's Poodles - Act 3

2005-08-08T09:43:00.000-07:00

Our friends at AOPA seem intent on continuing to entertain us with their attempts at cheerleading Lockheed Martin as Heir Apparent to the nation’s Flight Service Stations.

The latest installment appeared on August 5th. You can read the whole thing here.

The first thing we noticed is the now familiar repetition of old, disproved excuses for supporting the contract; 20 minute wait times, $550 million per year cost, undocumented (thus far) metrics that are little or no improvement over the current system.

There are a couple new wrinkles to the arguments; they are weak attempts, and false as well. Contrary to Mr. Boyer’s assertion, FSSs can indeed measure hold times and abandon rates. Any controller that has walked by a supervisor desk and viewed the call monitor screen or printed out the end-of-day traffic log knows this (further proof that AOPA is only repeating what the FAA tells them without talking at all to the controllers actually doing the work).

But the article also represents an apparent change of heart for the AOPA on how this will effect controllers. For the first time we can remember (and we confess that we haven’t read everything written by Mr. Boyer and the AOPA on the matter), there is an grudging admission that there will be some significant difficulty for the controllers themselves. Andy Cebula (Government and Tech VP) and Mr. Boyer soft-peddle the issue and avoid the real problem facing controllers (more fully, but still not completely, covered in our post ‘On a Pale Horse’). While still a tap-dance around the hard facts of the matter, we must admit that this is a small step in the right direction, a far cry from parroting the inaccuracy that the contract will “protect the employees.”

But Messrs Boyer and Cebula still can’t resist a couple opportunities to mistake assertion for fact. The article ends with Mr. Boyer’s contention that "In a recent AOPA survey, the overwhelming majority of our members told us that they would be satisfied with the government contracting out FSS services." The AOPA webmaster knows how to use links. He (or she) uses them quite often. Curious that they are not utilized here for the benefit of the reader. But we have noted before (see Marion's Poodles - Act 1) that pilots are quite satisfied now.

Secondly, Mr. Cebula states that “…rumors pilots are hearing are just plain wrong." What these rumors are he doesn’t say. The article only says “One accusation is that AOPA has not supported the FSS employees in their concerns for job losses or the need to relocate.” Mr. Boyer’s response to this is that such concerns are not part of AOPA’s job. That is not a denial, but a justification of position. True, that is not AOPA’s job, and we at Flight Service Sigmet do not disagree. But we do wonder why Mr. Boyer continues to misrepresent our performance as controllers, and misinforms his membership over his knowledge of the contract and how it will negatively impact those who serve them.

The Blind Leading The Blind

2005-08-05T22:01:00.000-07:00

When reflecting on the contract awarded to Lockheed Martin it is always wise to remember that the people who wrote it or are celebrating it have little or no experience with what FSSs actually do.

This was demonstrated recently when FAA Administrator Marion Blakey attended the EAA gathering at Oshkosh, Wisconsin. When asked why flight plans in and out of the D.C. ADIZ could not be filed by DUATS, her response was "That’s the first I’ve heard about that."

The reason pilots must go through Flight Service, of course, is all the post 9/11 hoops that must be jumped through to get into or out of the ADIZ. One would think that the Administrator would at least be up-to-date on security measures around that most sensitive of areas, our nations capitol. Apparently that would be too much to ask.

Marion’s Poodles – Act 2

2005-08-04T14:22:00.000-07:00

An example of the bad reportage we’ve come to expect from the AOPA is this article entitled “House bill could terminate flight service station modernization.” While typical of the ‘target rich environment’ of inaccuracy that the AOPA has displayed recently over the A-76 process, it’s the blue side-bar on the right that we draw your attention to today.

There is so much that is wrong in so little space that it’s difficult to know where to begin. But let’s start with AOPA president Phil Boyer’s first quote as he addresses the impact of the House bill;

"Everything that AOPA has worked for — improved services, performance
guarantees, Internet access to briefings, and $2.2 billion in cost savings over
the next decade — would be lost,"

This is a curious statement to make about a mere delay in a contract that is still under seal. No one outside of the Lockheed Martin bid team and the selection committee knows what’s in the contract (we’ve covered this before in our post entitled "With a Tangled Skein: Part 1"). Add to this that none of the other contract bids for the job are fully known either.

He then gets histrionic by saying “…GA pilots could expect to receive worse service at a higher cost, potentially compromising safety…” How can this be? Mr. Boyer doesn’t say. Probably because there is no reason to believe this is so.

Instead of posturing, let’s speak from knowledge. Should the House bill as amended become law, it means, at worst, current FSSs would function as is for no more than one year. On or before October 1, 2006, one of three things would take place: 1) the bid to LM would be reviewed and honored, 2) the bid would be awarded to the MEO, or 3) the contract would re-bid. Does any of these outcomes merit the dire warnings of Mr. Boyer?

On the other hand, there are definite reasons for the delay. As it stands now, no one is going to know what the contract contains until September. By then it will be too late for Congress to exercise its oversight powers to object to any significant flaws. Does this matter? Remember that this is the largest, most technical non-defense outsourcing ever done. The FAA is buying a yet-to-be-built, untested Flight Service system. Think of the military contracting for planes that have never flown…

As said before, this particular AOPA page is a target-rich environment. We’ll visit it again sometime soon. But as we read more and more from Mr. Boyer, the assertion that he is merely a third party advocate who wants the best for pilots seems less and less plausible.

A Damning Report – The Incredible Disappearing Savings

2005-08-03T21:12:00.000-07:00

It is conventional contracting wisdom that actual savings never reach projections. Contracting Flight Service to Lockheed Martin was supposed to result in savings of $2.2 billion over ten years. But within a couple months, that figure fell to $1.7 billion. The GAO has recently issued a report that reduces the savings even further to $1.2 billion.

Projected savings from the contract has fallen by over 40%, even before the contract has begun. And the FAA has yet to add the expected additional services to the contract.

You can read the full report here, but allow us to point out some highlights:

- 80% of the savings won’t accrue until 2011 and beyond. This means that only $241 million in savings is going to be realized in the first five years of the contract, about $48 million per year.

- Two reports in 1997 indicated that $80 million in annual savings could have resulted from a consolidation of the nine regional offices. The FAA never acted on these recommendations (although a few changes have begun).

Here we have support for what controllers have been saying all along; when it comes to what is wrong with the current ATC system, it’s not so much the bottom of the organization where the service is provided to the public, but mid- and upper-level management structures. Yet in very Dilbert-like fashion, the bottom is where the FAA has chosen to start fixing things.

The report has other disappointing words for Mr. Boyer of the AOPA, who seems to think that the FSS contract is a significant step in producing the savings needed to protect his pet FAA projects and agenda, current and proposed, from being examined for ‘efficiencies.’ Particularly, keeping the fee-for-service concept deep under lock and key. According to the report, the FSS contract to LM and other lesser measures to date “…do little to constrain cost growth and materially improve [FAA Air Traffic] operations funding outlook over the next 5 years.”

Should the report become a roadmap for ATC, the implications are immense; for the FAA to reach a financially responsible position, action will have to be taken that could materially and negatively impact general aviation. Such adoption seems more likely than similar reports that emerged in the past since we now have in place an FAA executive team that seems most willing to move in such directions.

We will continue to peruse and revisit the report, posting on additional points of interest.

Marion’s Poodles – Act 1

2005-08-02T21:12:00.000-07:00

This blog has reached an executive editorial decision; AOPA president Phil Boyer and his staff shall henceforth be known as Marion’s Poodles. They can flip, yip and do tricks on command with the best of the show puppies.

Today’s example involves Andy Cebula, AOPA’s senior VP of government and technical affairs who seems to hold FSSs and the controllers who work there in low esteem. He recently stated “Regardless of who provides the service, pilots need and deserve much better than what they’re getting now.”

Contrary to Mr. Cebula’s assertion, (and as mentioned in a earlier post), pilots seem quite satisfied with the service they’re getting. A study titled “Importance and Satisfaction of Flight Service” showed that 85% of IFR and 82% of VFR pilots were satisfied with FSS services. The conclusion stated that “Clearly, today’s flight service system is delivering items that are highly important and a level of service that produces highly satisfied customers.”

And who conducted this survey? It was done by Quantum Market Research at the request of that very same AOPA. It appears that not only are the AOPA executives disconnected from their own research, they are also very disconnected from the flying public they insist that they’re representing.

“A lie can fly halfway around the world..."

2005-08-01T21:21:00.000-07:00

"...while the truth is still doing the checklist” – (with apologies to Mark Twain.)

The latest to parrot the FAA line on the Flight Service contract is the conservative Heritage Foundation. You can read their comments here. Note that they are identical to what the AOPA has said, as well as Congressman Knollenberg during floor debate in the House, as well as anyplace else the discussion occurs. This leads one to conclude that the FAA is playing the same three-note samba for all it’s worth (safety, savings, controller-friendly) because they have nothing else.

Of course, all this constant repeating of the same phrases can lead to over-use, especially as more and more people realize the promises are empty. That creates a rhetorical opening than can be leveraged to great advantage.

However, NAATS (the controller’s union) has been unforgivably slow to take on the public relations challenge, attempting to slog through this fight without a ‘rapid response team’ to rush the counter arguments whenever this verbal charade pops up. But the rank-and-file controllers may be helping to take up the slack. Already a number of e-mails have been sent to the Heritage Foundation web site where their story appeared. I expect more in the next couple of days. We’ll be watching to see if an addendum is published.

UPDATE: It turns out that the web site on which the article appeared is not associated with the Heritage Foundation, although the article’s author is indeed that organization’s President, Mr. Ed Feulner. The web site itself, theconservativevoice.com, is a sole proprietorship run by one Nathan Tabor, a fine fellow, judging by our e-mail exchanges. I apologize to the reader and him for any confusion.

Tact 101

2005-07-29T10:03:00.000-07:00

Joanne Kansier is the director of the FAA’s Office of Competitive Outsourcing. She is responsible for managing the process that resulted in Flight Service being contracted out to Lockheed Martin. She recently stated that the transfer of FSS on October 4th would be a “tremendous victory for us all.”

It will certainly be a victory for Ms. Kansier, who no doubt stands to reap a substantial bonus for her efforts (a Freedom of Information Act request on the amount is anticipated). Pilots have no reason to claim victory until they can compare service before and after LM finishes the change-over (about 20 months from now). Taxpayer rejoicing would be premature given that the anticipated 10-year savings of 2.2 billion is already down to about 1.5 billion even before the contract goes into effect (not to mention costly add-ons coming down the pike). At least half the controllers will, of course, suffer substantial losses, and her statement has caused no small amount of rage out in the field.

Ms. Kansier can be reached at joann.kansier@faa.gov.

With a Tangled Skein: Part 2

2005-07-28T20:11:00.000-07:00

Now let’s talk about those pilot response metrics that AOPA President Phil Boyer is fond of repeating, and let’s start with one overriding caveat; while one of his favorite phrases is “It’s in the contract,” Mr. Boyer doesn’t know what the contract actually says. He’s never seen it. No one has, outside of a small group in the FAA and the LM bid team. All Mr. Boyer can do is parrot whatever they tell him.

But let’s take the metric points (found here) one at a time.

1) “…pilots — the "customers" — must be satisfied with the ‘quality, timeliness, accuracy, customer service, and relevance of overall and specific services received.’” In case Mr. Boyer has forgotten AOPA’s own commissioned survey, pilots already are. You can find the survey here, but in a nutshell, pilots grouped by experience and qualifications are 80-90% satisfied with the quality and kinds of service provided by FSSs.

2) “[Phone] calls have to be answered within 20 seconds.” – While we don’t know exactly what the contract says, it’s safe to assume that either this is an average, or refers to a certain percentage of calls. Since no one knows the contract, we can’t be sure. But under either scenario, this metric as already largely met by existing FSSs.

One myth Mr. Boyer seems to have enjoyed creating is that pilots are routinely “…stuck on hold for 20 minutes trying to get a weather briefing…" The only place this might occur is when a pilot attempts to go into or out of the Washington D.C. ADIZ. The delay is not due to weather or equipment. Rather, security procedures required by the FAA and Homeland Defense make the process long and cumbersome. The remaining FSSs never experience such hold times, and may reach 5 minutes only under a combination of extreme circumstances.

One might also quibble with the phrase “have to be answered.” Does that mean actual contact with the controller who will provide the briefing, or entry into a service menu?

3) “…pilots are to receive service within 15 seconds of a radio call. Pireps must be processed within 30 seconds of receipt, 15 seconds if they are urgent.” I’m not sure how this is going to be possible to guarantee under the following common circumstances: multiple pilots call at once drowning each other out; improper call-ups that don’t include a frequency, location, or control facility trying to be reached. What if the In-flight specialist is coding a PIREP he just received and another call or two comes in? Does he finish the PIREP or service the pilot(s)? If the controller receives a second call prior to servicing a first call just received and tells the second one to ‘stand-by’, is the metric violated? Again, we must know what the contract says to determine how these circumstances will be dealt with.

4) “Flight service briefers must have "knowledge and skills specific to the flight plan areas that a given employee is servicing." In other words, they're supposed to know about unique local weather conditions, terrain, and airspace. They'll be tested.” Controllers already know these things and are tested. It is an insult for Mr. Boyer to suggest otherwise. What will be new is the loss of practical experience; how to interpret the effect of changing patterns on current conditions in a particular area. It takes a few seasons to gain an understanding of how all these things work together. This will be even more questionable if the controller’s three knowledge areas are not adjacent. Yet Mr. Boyer thinks he’ll have ‘experienced’ controllers skilled in dissimilar areas in a few months. This is a further indication that Mr. Boyer (and LM as well) simply does not understand the nature of this service. It’s not enough to know how to read a map or a weather report, which is what this metric (as stated) calls for.

These last two posts have been lengthy yet only begin to cover the topic of how things will change for pilots. These changes will not happen immediately, but there’s little doubt that Flight Service’s most important factor, the ability to interpret weather patterns, is going to be diluted.

With a Tangled Skein: Part 1

2005-07-26T07:42:00.000-07:00

(My answer to Garf on how FSS changes will affect pilots is a bit long. I’m going to split this into two posts)

I’ve covered Garf’s questions a bit on how staffing changes will affect the controllers. How will it affect the pilots? This is a more difficult question to answer, because no matter what the service question, the answer for now will always be the same: we don’t know. How Lockheed Martin will deliver services is still under seal, so we can only guess based on what they’ve told us about the controllers. It seems to be simply a matter of fate at this point.

Let’s take pre-flight calls. LM promises that calls will be routed to a briefer who’s familiar with the area in which the flight will take place. Currently, ‘area’ generally refers to the state that the FSS is in (for Flight Watch, the associated ARTCC airspace). What will the LM areas be? We don’t know. LM will have three geographical Service Areas, Western, Central and Eastern. The controllers have been told that they can becoming qualified in a maximum of three areas. This has lead to speculation that the ‘local areas’ are in fact one-third of the country each. A LM representative has been quoted to the effect that since all the information is built into the new data systems, learning these new areas will be real easy.

Let’s assume for a moment that all the above is true. The first thing that comes to mind is that there will be some ‘knowledge dilution’. Controllers will tell you that it takes some time to become familiar with regional weather patterns and effects. Imagine someone from Dayton, Ohio in short order suddenly becoming ‘experienced’ in Gulf States and New England weather phenomenon in different seasons. Neither pilot or controller should be comfortable with that.

Of course LM could be planning on a larger number of smaller areas. But the smaller the area, the more we can question the limit that each controller can know only three, as well as making it more difficult to meet the promised so-called ‘fast-answering’ metrics with less than half the workforce (more on this later).

The second thing that comes to mind (if the LM quote and assumptions are accurate) is that LM seems to believe that the FSS job is merely a matter of parroting data than tailoring information to pilots that takes into consideration changing weather conditions, inaccurate forecasts, etc. If so, the pilots become even less well-served by a controller work-force that does less for them.

AOPA president Phil Boyer has weighed in on how he expects FSS services to be vastly improved because of the new technologies and promised metrics for fast response to pre-flight and in-flight calls (you can see the full text of his comments here). Again, any of the five bidders for the contract would have accomplished this. But more importantly, Mr. Boyer can’t possibly be speaking from knowledge when he says these things.

Now I’m certain that LM showed Mr. Boyer some wonderful bells and whistles when they briefed him on the equipment they’ve created for FSS use, and there’s little doubt that what he saw is better than what most FSSs have now (aside from OASIS that is in a few stations). But this would be true of any of the five bidders. What we need to realize is that Mr. Boyer has no experience at all delivering air traffic services or using any such equipment to brief pilots. We should largely dismiss his “wow” comment as uninformed and inexpert.

Let us be clear; no Air Traffic Controller currently certified to provide flight services to pilots had input on the LM system or has seen it in action. In fact one could assert that Mr. Boyer saw little more than ‘vaporware’, an untested beta version of a system that has yet to be approved for use or even compatible with the current National Airspace System databases.

I’ll talk about the metrics in the next post.

Another Wolf at the Door

2005-07-23T09:58:00.000-07:00

Before I continue to answer Garf’s questions, I need to add a name to the ‘dramatis personae’…

If the FAA weren’t enough for Air Traffic Controllers to fight against, a surprising and strong voice has undercut Flight Service as well, and continues to do so; the president of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Mr. Phil Boyer. FSS exists to serve pilots, of course, and with over 400,000 members, AOPA is the largest pilot group in existence. When it comes to influence on issues in their sphere, they are right up there with the NRA and AARP. That the AOPA chose to press its own interests here is not at all surprising.

According to their official position on the A-76 process, what the AOPA cares most about is that the government provide free ATC services to pilots (no user fees). A secondary, but highly ranked, concern is that the FSS system be brought up-to-date in terms of technology.

Of course, any of the five bidders who might have won the contest would accomplish both these objectives. Yet Mr. Boyer is fighting tooth and nail against any move that might jeopardize Lockheed Martin’s position as the chosen provider. Why? Let’s assume that the FSS controller’s union, NAATS, is successful in getting the contract delayed or transferred to another bidder, presumably the MEO. How does this conflict with AOPA’s stated objectives? It doesn’t.

The first natural inclination is to assume that Mr. Boyer has some connection with LM; perhaps he or a relative is a shareholder. But Mr. Boyer attempted to rebuff that assertion here (although not very convincingly and with enough wiggle room to fit a 747; see the second to last paragraph). Maybe LM is, or has promised to be, a generous contributor to AOPA. Perhaps he has been expertly ‘stroked’ by the FAA, and the attention serves his ego. This would suit both sides. The FAA needs him; it is quite probable that should Mr. Boyer's have objected anywhere along the way, the politicians would have put a very fast stop to this process. And, as a side benefit to Mr. Boyer for his support of whatever the FAA does, they’ll include him in the ‘inner circle’ of decision-making (or so they would make it appear), giving him the opportunity to regale the AOPA membership with tales of his far-reaching influence.

Of course we can’t honestly say what is driving Mr. Boyer. We can only know that the basic question still exists…when it comes to the controllers trying to keep Flight Service in-house, what is the basis for Mr. Boyer’s exorcised objections? Why must Lockheed Martin get this contract and get it going on October 4th without fail? This is something only he can tell us, but I’m not holding my breath waiting for an honest answer.

Note: This blog’s first week may leave the impression that it’s meant to be little more than a ‘worker’s rant.’ That is not my intent and I apologize, but such has been the nature of events, and I’d like to examine things as they happen when possible. I’ll try to get back to the original purpose by continuing my answer to Garf with my next post.

Black Friday

2005-07-22T22:40:00.000-07:00

Boxes of RIFs began arriving at the stations on Thursday. Starting today, and one at a time, Air Traffic Controllers are being called into offices and handed the documents that will cut short their careers. Every one of them. It was the final tangible nail in the coffin. Your position is abolished. You are fired.

Some shrug; they were going to retire anyway. Some accept it as a matter of expected course. Others seethe. Atmospheres range from subdued to on-edge. Acrimony renews. Blame is heaped on Bush, Blakey, and Russ Chew (ATC COO). A few aim their wrath at fellow controllers who vote Republican.

A couple weeks ago a controller at the Macon FSS took a break from position, went into the restroom, and fell, dead. He leaves behind a wife and two children. Stress related to this process? How will we ever know…

When the award to Lockheed Martin was announced, Russ Chew made remarks that can be read here. Is it any wonder that FSS controllers are cynical and angry when the COO calls them “top flight professionals” who have “earned my respect and…esteem”, yet refuses to place them in positions for which they are eligible so they can complete their careers, then hires inexperienced people off-the-street instead?

With such duplicity that can be found within those who run the FAA, does anyone think there will be any concern about pilots?

Tyson Bites

2005-07-22T06:35:00.000-07:00

I've mentioned earlier the efforts this week to get the Senate's Transportation appropriations bill amended to delay the start of the FSS contract as the bill moved through committee. These efforts failed. Apparently a Republican sponsor could not be found in the sub-committee; Arlen Specter (R-PA) had earlier signaled a willingness to do so, but backed out. When the bill went to the full committee, no amendments of any kind were allowed.

While there is an opportunity for amendment in the full Senate when the bill comes to the floor, the chance of success is very slim.

A very black week indeed.

On a Pale Horse

2005-07-21T22:22:00.000-07:00

‘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.

…and a Right-Cross to the Jaw!

2005-07-20T21:28:00.000-07:00

While FSS controllers begin to stagger from the loss of the protest, the official Reduction-in-Force notices will start being presented to the controllers this week. This nasty one-two punch will send many reeling. Failure in the Senate would add a Tyson-like kiss on the ear. It’s a terrible thing to be told you’re not wanted; shoved out the door by your employer while he’s hiring the inexperienced off-the-street for jobs you want and are qualified to take.

So over the next few days, if the FSS controller you talk to seems a bit distracted or even angry, just remember that you’re probably talking to someone who has been given what might be called the proverbial ‘Enron Shaft,’ watching others crush their future while he or she stares at the carnage, with no recourse in sight. If you notice no change, chalk it up to the professionalism of the FSS crew.

The pilots, meanwhile, remain blissfully unaware…

A Left to the Gut…

2005-07-20T21:21:00.000-07:00

It was learned today that the FSS controller’s protest against the A-76 award to Lockheed Martin failed. The judge, in effect, opined that the process was fair, or at least not tarnished enough to challenge the outcome. His decision was handed to FAA Administrator Blakey about three weeks ago, and her much-delayed decision was handed to the interested parties tonight. Details will percolate out over the next few days.

No doubt a general gloom will spread through the FSSs over the next 24 hours. There was a hope that the general dismemberment of the controller’s futures could have been at least delayed for a time, perhaps long enough for a few more to save their retirements, but that hope is fading fast. Yes, there is still the possibility of the one-year delay as mentioned below in ‘A Surprise in the House,’ but given how Blakey timed the announcement of the protest failure, my feeling is that she’s heard what she needs from the Senate; there won’t be enough support there to give the controllers and pilots a favorable outcome.

A Surprise in the House

2005-07-20T09:21:00.000-07:00

On June 30th, Representative Bernie Sanders was successful in attaching an amendment to the Transportation funding bill on the House floor that would prohibit the FAA from spending any funds to outsource the nations Flight Service Stations. What this means is that Congress would have a chance to sit back and look at what the FAA hath wrought without their oversight. The surprise is how many Republicans (48) joined the Democrats in wanting to take a closer look at what is being done by an agency known for its traumatic failure in managing contracts.

Now the action moves to the Senate. A mark-up is expected this week in the Appropriations sub-committee that overlooks Transportation. From there it goes to full committee. If the 'year delay' language survives those two hurdles, it will face its toughest test in September when the House-Senate conference committee meets to iron out differences.

Resolutions favorable to Flight Service Stations and those who serve in or use them have been introduced before, but lost in conference. In 2003, the FAA Reauthorization bill passed the Senate, but with an amendment that would prohibit the outsourcing of ATC functions, including Flight Service. The favorable language was stripped out during the House-Senate conference.

The Story So Far...

2005-07-19T07:47:00.000-07:00

There are three ‘parts’ to the nation’s Air Traffic Control (ATC) system; en-route centers (ARTCC), towers (ATCT), and flight service stations (FSS). In December of 2003, FAA Administrator Marion Blakey announced that the FSS prong of ATC and its 2200+ air traffic controllers would be contracted out via a process known as A-76 (this actually wasn’t a true A-76 contest, but that’s a story for another time).

Over the course of the following year, a contract was written up, and five interested bidders qualified as viable contestants. One of these was the FAA itself, paired with Harris Corporation, and known as the ‘Most Efficient Organization’ (MEO) in A-76-speak (every government entity bidding in such a contest to keep its own work in-house is referred to as the MEO). The other four were private corporations. The winner, announced on February 1st, 2005, was Lockheed Martin. The take-over was eventually set for October 4th, 2005. As of that date, FSS services will no longer be provided by the government, but by Lockheed Martin.

Every A-76 contest allows for a protest period, which is usually taken advantage of by one or more of the losers. Since this was the largest, most complicated non-defense outsourcing ever done, a protest by one of the losing parties was considered a foregone conclusion. The question was what would happen if the MEO lost? Would the FAA in effect protest its own decision? In the end, the FAA’s Vice President for FSS, Jim Washington, did file a protest. So did Kate Breen, President of the FSS controller’s union, the National Association of Air Traffic Specialists (NAATS). This was a first; never before had employees been allowed to file their own protest. But that changed when the rules were revised in 2003 (more details can be found here). The Judge has since issued his opinion on the protest, which will remain under seal until Administrator Blakey declares her response and follow-up actions.

Upon the announcement of the award, NAATS also began lobbying on Capitol Hill for changes and delays, as well as pursuing legal challenges in the courts...

I’ve presented a rather sketchy version of events. Much detail has been left out, and as many questions may be created in the mind of the reader as answers that have been provided. Over the next week or two, I’ll touch on more of the specifics.

...and so it begins.

2005-07-18T22:07:00.000-07:00

Welcome to my blog!

The first question a reader of a blog must have answered is, of course, ‘What is this all about?’ Quite simply, this will be my attempt to explain to the world, particularly those interested in all things to do with aviation, the dire straits in which the nation’s Flight Service Stations find themselves. It is a very involved story that has evolved over a relatively short period of time, with a looming end in early October of this year (2005).

My goal is not to bore the reader with long diatribes. Instead, with a mix of historical perspectives and daily events, bring the reader up to speed with what is happening with the FAA’s contracting out one of the three branches of Air Traffic Control (ATC), the Flight Service Stations (FSS).

Please bear with me, as this is my first attempt at this sort of thing. As with most every blog I already visit myself, feedback, comments and questions are appreciated. I can be e-mailed at Skywise3@cs.com.

Now…Where to begin?