FAA Re-Authorization Bill S1300 !

[Fox Xray]

All future and current ATC's need to follow the link and ask their Senators to vote yes for S1300. This is the Senate version of S1300 FAA re-authorization that contains the NATCA language to eliminate the FAA's imposed work rules, return us retro to the green book, and back to the table for a FAIR contract...

Go to http://www.unionvoice.org/natca/join and sign up ...

For more info:

AIRPORT JOURNALS: S. 1300 Needs Your Support
By Robert B. Schultz, Attorney at Law

S. 1300, currently stalled in the U.S. Senate, would provide fair and binding arbitration to the pay and work rules dispute between the FAA and air traffic controllers.

If you've followed the dispute between air traffic controllers and the FAA, you may be concerned about the effects this dispute may have on flight safety. If so, your concerns are well founded. I know because I worked for the FAA in air traffic control in 1982 after President Reagan fired the striking PATCO controllers. From what I'm told, working conditions and controller/supervisor relations are worse now than they were then.

On Labor Day weekend 2006, the FAA unilaterally imposed new ATC work rules and conditions after the breakdown of collective bargaining. They can do that under the 1996 FAA Reauthorization Act. That law, codified into the Federal Aviation Act as 49 U.S.C. § 106(l)(1) and §40122(a), authorized the FAA to "fix (controller) compensation . as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the (FAA). In fixing compensation and benefits ., the [FAA] shall not engage in any type of bargaining, except to the extent provided for in section 40122(a)."

Section 40122(a) says, "(1) In developing and making changes to the personnel management system, the (FAA) shall negotiate with the exclusive bargaining representatives of (FAA) employees. . (2) If the (FAA) does not reach an agreement under paragraph (1) with the exclusive bargaining representatives, the services of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service shall be used to attempt to reach such agreement. If the services of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service do not lead to an agreement, the (FAA's) proposed change to the personnel management system shall not take effect until 60 days have elapsed after the (FAA) has transmitted the proposed change, along with the objections of the exclusive bargaining representatives to the change, and the reasons for such objections, to Congress."

NATCA, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, currently represents air traffic controllers. By law, the FAA must negotiate with NATCA. But no law requires the FAA to negotiate in good faith. After the FAA makes a show of negotiations, it's required to submit its dispute to a federal mediation service. But mediation, by definition, isn't binding on either party; it's just negotiation with the assistance of a supposedly neutral third party. So after the FAA has made a show of mediating the dispute, it needed only to submit its proposed work rule and compensation changes to Congress and wait 60 days for the changes to take effect. That's exactly what happened in 2006.

NATCA pointed out that "several key parts of the imposed work rules have real and potentially dangerous consequences for the safety and efficiency of the air traffic control system." These include pay freezes and pay cuts for veteran controllers, which remove any financial incentive to continue working past retirement eligibility date. The large block of controllers hired in 1982 after the controller strike are now reaching retirement age. In fact, one in four controllers nationwide reached their eligibility date by the end of 2007. The FAA underestimated its controller retirement forecast to Congress in 2005 by 36 percent and isn't prepared for a spike in retirements due to the imposed work rules. Indeed, the new rules, which imposed a 30 percent average wage cut for new controllers, has made it harder for the FAA to recruit and hire its much-needed next generation. The new rules, barring sick leave for rest and eliminating the former mandatory break after two hours on position, promise overworked and fatigued controllers.
Last September 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a new FAA Reauthorization Bill (H.R. 2881). Among other things, it rewrites paragraph (2) of Section 40122(a) above as follows: "(A)(2) If the (FAA) does not reach an agreement under paragraph (1) . the (FAA) and the bargaining representative (i) shall use the services of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to attempt to reach such agreement . [or] (ii) may by mutual agreement adopt alternative procedures for the resolution of disputes or impasses arising in the negotiation of the collective-bargaining agreement. (B) If the services of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service . do not lead to an agreement, the (FAA) and the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees . shall submit their issues in controversy to the Federal Service Impasses Panel. The panel shall assist the parties in resolving the impasse by asserting jurisdiction and ordering binding arbitration by a private arbitration board consisting of three members."

Note that this House bill eliminates the illusory step of submitting the work rules to Congress. If all else fails, it provides for fair and binding arbitration.

Of this bill, NATCA said: "Today's 267-151 vote approves sending NATCA and the FAA back to the negotiating table to finish work on a contract, nearly 18 months after the FAA pulled the plug on talks and declared an impasse after having not budged one cent from its original 2006 contract offer, knowing full well that it would be able to impose its terms. That it did on Sept. 3, 2006, a day that began a free fall in the number of experienced controllers not seen since the PATCO strike and firings in 1981. . According to the latest FAA figures available, just 11,467 experienced controllers are left in the country. That's an 11-year low and more than 1,100 fewer than were working on 9/11, despite rising traffic volume that's sped by 9/11 levels at many airports and radar facilities and has left Americans completely frustrated and angered by a record number of flight delays."

Unfortunately, the bill's stalled in the Senate—not over the proposed arbitration provision, but rather over funding issues (S. 1300). Meanwhile, the situation worsens. According to a recent NATCA press statement, "The nation's air traffic controllers, faced with a 10 percent loss of their workforce in the last year, a record pace of new losses this year and worsening stress and fatigue levels that have drawn the critical eye of two major government watchdogs, are declaring a staffing emergency in four key areas of the country with some of the busiest airspace in the world: Atlanta, Chicago, New York and Southern California. A staffing emergency means that controllers do not have enough trained and experienced personnel on the ground to safely handle the volume of traffic in the air and at major airports."

S. 1300, which has the support of virtually the entire aviation community, needs your support as well.

[NSTiG8]

i signed up and e-mailed my state officials as well as federal officials, i wonder if they will read it.

This is important.

[Edward]

Originally Posted by NSTiG8

i signed up and e-mailed my state officials as well as federal officials, i wonder if they will read it.

This is important.

I just did the same...hope this doesn't fall upon deaf ears (blind eyes).

[JKoffler44]

I just got my e-mail about this and filled it out. I am also sending it to everyone I can think of.

[Beehive]

May I suggest you folks also print the letter, sign it and mail it to your senator(s).

[nathanw]

I called my senate offices too. You can go to senate.gov and look up their phone numbers.

[GlideSlope]

This is not good for those of us also in flight training. $25 per flight(user fee), this is going to have to be re-worked....

[GlideSlope]

Also, wouldn't some controllers at low level facilities be let go due to the very low traffic($25 user fee)?

[GlideSlope]

Ok, screw it never mind....(Turbine A/C only)

[ajcowing]

Really? Passage of S1300 could threaten the jobs of controllers at low level facilities? I'm going to a level 5 tower, so I find that unsettling....

[R10]

Boy, I guess we should be hoping for this to get stalled for another year until we check out, huh? I don't foresee there being a major problem. From what I can tell, they have the same staff level there as they will when/if this passes. They biggest thing that will help you and I out is the military. Just over half the traffic there is GA, and I would guess that they would still remain due to spraying operations and such. 20% is military and 20% commercial.

The company I work for supplies the private FBO on the field there, and I know that they go through about 30,000 gallons of jet and 16,000 avgas per month. Those numbers are bigger than you would think some place that small would use.

[R10]

Not good news today:
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/...3_FORTUNE5.htm

Damn Republicans!!
Damn Democrats!!

[queeno]

SOS,DD

[SoonerATC]

Damn, what was the vote last week for then? I thought that vote was to limit debate?

[Justin538]

I think they vote to bring it to a vote on whether they'll vote for it.

They vote it out of the committee. They ruin the bill with amendments (seriously, highway amendments on an aviation bill?) Can't remember the last time I saw a 747 taking 95...

Then after the bill is royaly effed up, Dip#### Reid, excuse me, Sen. Reid then uses parliamentary tricks, like parlor tricks, and makes it so that this bill will never be bi-partisan. (essentially dooming it).

They then vote to limit debate. In the old days, they would actually filibuster (talk for hours until they give up on the bill). Now, they just threaten a filibuster, and use the cloture vote as a way of defending against it.

Since the bill is so messed up, none of the republican wanted to limit debate. As much as I want this bill to go through, I can't argue with their requests, they're legitimate.

So the vote to go vote on it fails with 49-42. For a cloture vote you need 60 votes.

They will now extend the last reauthorization because there isn't one senator who will suck it up and allow a good piece of legislation go through without their own "project" on it.

This is why you don't vote for d-bags.

[SQuirell88]

Here is a detailed list on how our senators voted:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote...-115&sort=vote

I have to blame the Democrats for this failed attempt to help fix the FAA. Everyone was for this bill until the special interest Charles Schumar crap for NYC got put into it. I hope the next time Schumar goes to fly that our controllers let him sit on the tarmac for 6 hrs at JFK, maybe he will change his vote then.

Putting the safety of the air behind a rail line for NYC, no excuse.

[tilli5285]

It wouldn't have mattered if the vote went through either way. Dubya would have vetoed anything that had the FAA going back to the negotiating table with natca. It included other provisions he would veto as well. Here is the link: http://www.c-span.org/Content/PDF/saphr2881s.pdf ... Should Shumer have added the rail line provisions into a aviation bill? No way and there were other special interest additives from other senators as well. I am from NY and have to defend the senator because he has done great things for NY. Blaming one person for a bill is a little ridiculous. How bout the pro-airline republicans and democrats who were for a $25 user fee for GA IFR flights. If it were only for corporate jets, I would be for it, but being an instrument pilot, it wouldn't be fair to me or other GA pilots. We already pay enough in fuel taxes. Hopefully a democrat gets into office in January. At least the dems are pro-union. There is no doubt in my mind they would not veto a bill pushed through the senate that involved faa-natca negotiations. Mccain wants to privatize ATC. I am not for ample government involvement but I feel aviation is an industry that must be governed with the most attentive authority. By the way, I am an independent who votes both right and left so please don't think i am a dem trying to start a debate.