Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1797006
I don't see what the workload or comparison to a NATS role has got to do with it.

Employment in this country is a free market. They knew the salary and other terms on offer when they signed their contracts.

By all means withdraw your labour if you think you're being underpaid - that is your right. But if you really want the money available at NATS then my suggestion is to go and work for NATS! Your employer obviously doesn't feel that market forces compel it to match NATS salaries. If they were unable to fill the roles, perhaps they might.
RisePilot liked this
#1797022
Maxthelion wrote:
chevvron wrote:
GonzoEGLL wrote:
And the banding exercise didn't take into account all forms of complexity, such as movements outside CAS.

Working at Farnborough, I'm only too well aware of that; our Prospect rep was running in circles when we were put in Band 1 and tried to get it altered, but he was told by our new boss (ex Heathrow) 'the decision has been made and cannot be changed until the next review'; we felt totally shafted because LARS movement were not taken into account when deciding the station 'band'.



Crikey. Surely LARS work is at least 50% of your workload isn't it? I fly out of Frensham and I hear over the air far more coms between Farnborough and class G traffic/transits of D than I do interactions between you and bizjet traffic in/out of Farnborough.

According to our Prospect Rep, the union really sh@t on us there and raised no objection when the management people said they would only count airfield movements not transits.
With the introduction of LARS East and North, I would hope that this has been rectified since I retired.
#1810745
Flyingfemme wrote:Do any of the named airports actually have enough traffic to need ATC? I would have thought they could manage quite well without.

They have iap's so need controllers with APP ratings as well as ADV/ADI ratings.
#1810754
One should not need controllers because they have IAPs.
One should need controllers to (whether regulatory or user driven) provide separation between aircraft.

It's sad when people fly less and traffic volumes and density starts to drop off - airports can only hold out financially for so long before decide whether or not to renew their ATC service.

Centralisation / virtual towers makes sense from a joined up perspective but is understandably difficult for those with established roots who have to relocate.
#1810761
This has been simmering away in the news for the last couple of weeks or so.

Let's not overlook the fact HIAL is essentially Scottish Govt. and that these remote communities are in need of jobs. It's not quite the same as having a FTSE 100 company reporting to shareholders. :wink:
#1810763
Miscellaneous wrote:Let's not overlook the fact HIAL is essentially Scottish Govt. and that these remote communities are in need of jobs. It's not quite the same as having a FTSE 100 company reporting to shareholders. :wink:

It's not uncommon for government agencies to act as if they were companies on a free market. In my country, as soon as the government increases spending to universities, the government-owned company that owns most campuses usually increases the rent and sends the profits back to the "shareholder", i.e. another branch of the government. And the universities are not free to leave the campuses and rent locations elsewhere. And there are more examples.