A76 UPDATE

Kate Breen, A76 Representative -- [email protected]

November 22, 2002 -- Well here I go again starting out with a rant! I just got off the phone with the NAATS Regional Director in Western Pacific, Mike Stafford to see how the picketing was going in San Diego. He said that the PASS representation was great and very supportive of our efforts, and when I asked him how many of our bargaining unit members were there he told me 3. Himself (on crutches I might ad), Mike Puffer FacRep and the Assistant FacRep (sorry I forgot your name!) from San Diego AFSS. I guess everyone else was working all day at SAN AFSS that they couldn�t lend a hand and help us try and save OUR jobs. For those of you who had legitimate excuses (someone was dying) I apologize, for those that preferred to go shopping or sit on the couch watching a good movie they�ll be plenty of time for that if we lose this fight! This has been planned for a long time now and Mike Puffer did all he could do to get people out to help, why the apathy?

Now for Southern Region, the Southern Regional Director Dave Hoover got things together kind of last minute for the Miami picketing today. He didn�t find out about the picketing until Monday morning and got things together and drove down there to participate with our brothers and sisters from PASS. He again said PASS had a good turn out and that there were about 3 of them from NAATS there, it was last minute but I was hoping more folks from MIA AFSS would show their support.

To the folks who helped out today and in the past few weeks thank you for the help, especially the folks out at LAN AFSS who have been out a couple of times already and who helped me put together the package to get out to you all. Thank you also to the folks in Alaska who have been very strong supporters through picketing and legislative support, we all need to be working together.

There is more picketing scheduled for the day before Thanksgiving at several locations throughout the US, please take just a few hours of your day to show support. I�ll beg if I have to, but I�m just not there yet!

Now for the update, there have been no meetings this week or last week at FAA headquarters surrounding A-76 or the A-76 MOU. I don�t think we�ll see anything happen now until the first week of December. The draft update is out and our contractors have reviewed it and gave their opinion on how it may affect us, it should be on the web page shortly.

A couple of things that I have questions on and am looking for the answers are:

1. There is a section in Appendix B-A. Limitations and Criteria- 1.a Deviations-It talks about being able to get a waiver from the timeframes (12 months) if the competition is particularly complex. I do believe that ours is complex, I just don�t know what they mean by the start date. If it is the start date in August it does us no good, if they mean the start date is from when this goes into affect we may have something. I�m working on an answer, it may come from the meeting with the head of OPM on 12/4/02 I�ll keep you informed.

2. The other thing is the new definition of "inherently governmental" I am going to put together something on that for Wally to take to the hill to show that we are now and should be always considered "inherently governmental". When that�s done I�ll get it out to you all.

I�ve been given a great deal of material from another union who has been through the fight of A-76 many, many times so I�ll be busy reading this weekend. If there is anything of interest to you all, I�ll get it out to you as concise as possible so I don�t put you to sleep.

Can I tell you that I have a pit in my stomach over this A-76 fight and cannot stress enough if we don�t ALL pitch in and help now, later maybe too late. If you don�t know what to do ask your FacRep, if your FacRep is stagnant, go to your Regional Director.

Good luck to all of those folks who will be picketing next Wednesday, I�ll be at BDL in CT with my brothers and sisters from BDR AFSS. For those traveling next week, be safe and have a wonderful holiday with your families and friends.

November 25, 2002 -- After spending the weekend reading some of the documents provided to us from AFGE and the A-76 studies done with DOD, I thought I would put out another quick update on some of the findings. There was really nothing earth shattering in the documents, here are some of the findings.

1. Looking at the GAO report dated 2/23/99 they looked at the number of "outsourcing competitions" completed between October 1995 and March 1998.

2. There we 53 competitions held and only 10 were appealed, of the 10 appeals, one was thrown out for a process error and out of the other 9 only 1 was successful and it overturned a competition from the MEO winning to the MEO losing to a private contractor due to the government in-house estimate not including all relevant costs. Half of the appeals were filed by the government and the other half by private sector firms, it was split down the middle.

3. The private sector won about 60 percent of the competitions, which was up from 50 percent prior to 1995.

4. The average time to complete the competitions was 18-30 months compared to an average of 51 months prior to 1995. They now want to do it in 12 months!

5. The estimated savings achieved were mainly due to doing the jobs with fewer personnel.

6. Of the 53 competitions, 43 involved single functions such as (grounds maintenance, storage, warehousing). The other 10 involved multiple functions such as (base operating support, shelf stocking, receiving, and storage at commissaries). This is were I have a problem with the message Jack Nimmo sent out saying our study would have to be done in 12 months from the date of announcement in August 2002. The new circular states that "At competition announcement (start date), the official in charge may waive the timeframes required to complete a competition, if the competition is particularly complex, and issue a revised completion date, with notification to the Deputy Director for Management, OMB." I do believe that our PWS will be just a little more complex than someone mowing grass or stocking shelves, but that�s just me! The thing I have to nail down here is the start date, I should have that answer by the end of next week. Monday I�m attending a class on the changes to the circular, Tuesday we meet with out contractors and then Wednesday I�ll be attending a briefing with Wally at OPM on the changes.

7. Here is the best part, when talking about the magnitude of savings from competitions, "the data is too limited at this point to reach any conclusions about trends. At the same time, the services are inconsistent in how they calculate savings. Also, while initial savings estimates may sometimes be understated, changes do occur in outsourcing contracts, sometimes fairly soon after contracts are awarded, which can reduce the magnitude of savings expected over time."

8. Problems implementing, this example caught my eye! It had to do with an aircraft maintenance operation at Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma. "Full implementation of the aircraft maintenance most efficient organization had to be extended 17 months-from December 1996 to April 1998-due to a delay in being able to recruit enough personnel for the work. During this transition, the Air Force had to arrange for some of the maintenance work to be done by other organizations. In addition, while this transition was going on, the Air Force consolidated its personnel function into one location, which caused further delays in hiring." Can anyone out there tell me which other organizations could do the work of flight service controllers if the FAA/contractor can�t hire enough people to do the work? I guess the work just doesn�t get done!

Well that�s about it for now, as I get more information, I�ll pass it along. Next week hopefully will shed a lot more light on this new circular and my next task is breaking down the definition of "inherently governmental" because I honestly believe that�s where we ultimately need to be. When that�s complete I�ll forward it out, as always, any questions let me know.
 

   PROBLEMATIC PRIVATIZATION

President Bush's push to privatize a major part of the federal government's workforce would move many jobs away from public accountability.

Associated Press, December 1, 2002

A month after federal employees lost some of their colleagues to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on Washington, President Bush talked of a new respect for government workers. "(It�s) due partly to the surge of national pride that has swept our country since the terrorist attacks," he told employees, "but it�s also because of how you�ve performed your jobs, particularly during the last month.

A year later, with the mid-term elections behind him, the president is ready to unload as many as 850,000 of them.

What Bush as proposed is a sweeping historic privatization of federal government. Hw would take work that is done by almost half the government�s civilian work force and turn it over to private business, and his motives are far from clear. He says he wants to save tax money, but his ambitious contract quota and his freewheeling financial analysis suggest otherwise.

What models of federal contracting does the president seek to emulate? The $2.69 self-locking nut the Defense Department bought from its contractor for $2,185.50? The 30 contractors that were identified by the Project on Government Oversight as having been fined $3.4-billion for federal violations while continuing to keep government contracts worth more than $100-billion? The four corporations that last year raked in $2.7-billion in federal contracts while using Panama and Bermuda as their headquarters to avoid paying U.S. taxes? The 5-cent washer the military bought for $182.13?

Private contracting can indeed save the government money in some circumstances, and should be pursued when it does. But the determination of potential savings is elusive at best. Sometimes the private company simply plans to use fewer and less experienced employees, which inevitably translates into a lower quality service. Often the private employees are not provided with health or pension benefits.

The long-term danger is that the award of a contract eliminates all future competition -- public or private. The private company simply pours campaign contributions into the hands of its government providers and ends up holding a monopoly franchise over which the government has little control.

The stakes are high, which is why honest financial assessments of each private contract are essential and why even some of Bush�s privatization allies are feeling uneasy.

U.S. Rep. Tom Davis, R-VA, chairman of the Government Reform Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy, opened a hearing last year by challenging what at that time was a mere 10 percent quota on privatization. "I am alarmed by the (president�s) recent directive," he said. "No justification for these percentages has been offered to date. I remain unconvinced that arbitrarily assigning federal agencies target figures is the best means to ensure cost-savings in the government."

What must Davis think now?

The rush to eliminate federal jobs may help President Bush pretend in 2004 he has shrunk the size of government. But, absent true financial savings, all he will have accomplished is to increase the size of what scholar Paul Light calls the "shadow government." Light estimates the federal government employs 1.8-million civilians, yet contracts for roughly 4-million private workers. The main difference is that one group is directly answerable, and the other is not.
 

    LIAISON UPDATES

AFSSVS

Stephen Glowacki, Technical Representative

The AFSS Voice Switch Program has broken new ground. As a review: a contract was awarded originally to Northrup Gruman back in late summer of this year. However, Administrator Blakey ordered that this contract was to be cancelled, as per ODRA�s (Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition) recommendation, and a new contract awarded to Frequentis. Northrup Gruman then filed legal action with the Court of Claims in DC protesting this landmark decision by the Administrator. The problem is that their legal action actually questions the FAA�s jurisdictional authority to make this type of decision, the AMS (Acquisition Management System) process and ODRA�s decision and role in the process. Not to speak for NG or their motivations, but it�s important to note that Frequentis is a foreign-based company attempting to acquire a major telecommunications contract with the US Federal Government. You do the numbers.

At present, the FAA is preparing to brief the ATS Management Review Board regarding the business decision for the program. What this means is that the FAA has to justify the decision to have this program to an outside group whose membership is made up of national non-federal business leaders (e.g. the Martha Stewarts of the world). This justification largely focuses on the cost-benefits of the program relating to lifecycle issues (how long the program will be in existence) and how it will impact current costs (staffing, operational), etc. By the way, all programs costing more than $100M must get approval from this ATS Board.
The good news is that the Air Traffic side of the house that represents the "users" has reiterated resoundingly that the program is needed. The Acquisition side of the house is generically responsible for answering this need and acquiring the product. It is now in their lap to follow through with the ATS board with the intention of continuing with the program. So, we�re at the point of waiting for mid-December when the Board meets and their resulting decisions.

In conjunction with this, we�ve been asked to initiate "high level" discussions on the topic of Offloading. There�s no pretending or hiding the wide range of impacts that this can have on our option and the NAS infrastructure. Let me emphasize that this is at the very initial stages and is anticipated to include many meetings between NAATS and the FAA eventually at all levels. My impression is that much of this initial effort will focus on philosophies, principles, etc. I truly don�t know how things will proceed considering the variables, but I will keep you informed as much as possible as things occur. This is just a heads up to all.

ARS Report

Jim Perkins, ARS Liaison -- [email protected]

NOTAM Short Term Solution

NSTS is continuing to move along at it�s slowed pace. Scott Malon and I spent a couple of days in mid November with the software programmers at the tech center, reviewing their progress. While it appears that there is still work to be done, the progress since our last visit was encouraging. A lot of work has been completed improving the operating speed and incorporating all of the M1FC commands. I did express concerns about the stability of the software, however John Niediewski advised us that that he will have the software completed and "hardened" by November 27th and ready to turn over to ACB for there "shakedown" testing.

We have also been talking with the program office about the issue of operating speed. In addition to the software improvements, John Niediewski has stated that there needs to be a modification to the hardware design. It seems after several conversations involving NAATS and ATP the program office maybe starting to understand how crucial the quick return of NOTAMs is to a pilot briefing and that slowed response times could be a "show-stopper". Hopefully this will lead to the changes we need being put into place prior to going to the test sites.

An issue has also arisen involving acknowledgement procedures, which I will let Scott talk about.

The NSTS Article 9 briefing has been scheduled for December 5th, so hopefully we can finally get to the field-testing by early spring.

AFSS IDS

The program office is beginning to work on some preliminary human factors reports on how flight service would use an IDS and what the setup would look like. It seems to me that this is a waste of effort with ACE-IDS and IDS4 already out there. But they say it has to be done as part of the AMS process. So in that vane we will be visiting field facilities to look at their IDS content. After that is complete, the plan is to build a prototype for NAATS to look at and make changes as necessary. For anyone familiar with the process used on the Voice Switch program, this will be a similar early user involvement effort. The facilities that the program office has advised me they would like to visit are: STL, SEA, MIV, RNO and RIU. I will be in contact with the appropriate FacReps and Regional Directors as these trips are scheduled.

Graphic Area Forecast

The National Weather Service is continuing to work on the development of a Graphical Area Forecast. The NWS is planning to run a test from mid January to mid February to see if they can in fact produce an accurate graphical product, on a three-hour schedule as they have proposed. We (NAATS) have been asked to be involved in this effort by testing the usability of this product for briefing purposes. ARS-100 is coordinating the FAA/NAATS portion of this test. I have briefed Bill Dolan on the plan and as soon as I know more (when, where and how many people) I will be talking to Wally and the board about NAATS participants.

As always if anyone has any questions or comments (this is your future equipment that is being developed) feel free to pass them on to me at [email protected]. I would also like to wish everyone a Safe and Happy Holiday Season.

ARU Report

Art Finnegan, ARU Liaison -- [email protected]

I am new as the ARU Liaison for NAATS and I am in the process of learning how the FAA develops products that are used in the air traffic field. In doing so it is necessary to understand the ample bureaucracy that accompanies these efforts and I thought that as a practical matter it might help someone working in a field facility understand why some of their co-workers are asked to work on different projects such as OASIS and Voice Switch, to serve as Technical Liaisons, and why it takes the time it does to see a product reach the field.

In April 1996 the FAA introduced the Acquisition Management System (AMS) which was designed to increase the quality of a product while reducing the time and cost of delivery to the user. NAATS along with NATCA and PASS participate in all phases of a product's lifecycle within the AMS through their Technical Liaisons. NAATS Technical Liaisons include ATP (procedures), ATS (requirements), ARU (weather), ARQ (research), Voice Switch, and OASIS.

The AMS while advertised as simple, efficient, and effective may very well be an improvement over the previous procurement system however it is still large in scope and complex. The following is an extremely simplified overview of the AMS. There four major areas of the AMS that the Unions are involved in. They are:

1. Mission Analysis.

   • Determine a valid mission need

   • Estimate resources required

   • Assess criticality & time frame

   • Prioritize among competing needs

   • Prepare mission needs statement

2. Investment Analysis.

   • Prepare initial requirements document

   • Identify/analyze alternative solutions

   • Assess affordability

   • Prepare investment analysis report

3. Solution Implementation.

   • Plan, obtain, deploy solution

     • Plan -- develop acquisition strategy paper and integrated program plan

     • Obtain -- execute acquisition strategy and program plan

     • Deploy -- installation, checkout, integration, certification, dual operations, removal, and disposal of obsolete equipment

4. In-Service Management.

   • Manage evolutionary product development

   • Monitor operational performance

   • Recognize obsolescence

   • Realize new valid mission need (return to beginning/repeat cycle)

During the AMS Cycle all phases are managed by and all major product and in-service decisions are made by the Joint Resources Council (JRC). The JRC consists of FAA Acquisition Executive (ARA-1), Associate Administrators of Lines of Business, Asst. Admin. for System Safety, Asst. Admin. For Policy, Planning & Intl. Aviation, Chief Financial Officer, and Legal Council.

If anyone would like to view the FAA�s Statement of Guidance for Union involvement in the AMS it is actually easy to read while fairly comprehensive and available at:

 http://fast.faa.gov/toolsets/UnionGuidance/unionguide.htm.

ATP Report

Scott Malon, ATP Liaison -- [email protected]

NOTAMs

� POCC (AF) Involvement in NOTAMs

There has been some information circulating regarding a planned POCC (Pacific Operations Control Center) "takeover" of our responsibilities surrounding NOTAMs. I have not heard of a set plan for this, however, I am aware of some of the issues that might have generated this information.

First, the _OCCs have been active in changing some methods/practices of NOTAM handling as early as 03/01 (Central Region). Additionally, the POCC has hosted meetings in 08/02 (Northwest, Pacific, and Alaskan Region), with NAATS in attendance, proposing other changes in how AFSS interacts with the _OCCs. With regard to the POCC meeting, it is my understanding that nothing has changed procedurally as a result of the efforts of the workgroup. MOU language was apparently drafted, but never went far enough in the process to involve NAATS.

It is my understanding that the _OCCs had initiated some interest in sending NAVAID outage NOTAMs directly into the CNS (Consolidated NOTAM System), formatted within a template available at each respective OCC. Some of this interest came as a result of what they considered confusion when coordinating NOTAM information with the AFSSs. Their terminology/identifiers were, in effect, different than what we required for NOTAM composition. Additionally, some discussion on procedures occurred within the Multi-Domain NOTAMs workgroup. AF was expressing some issues/concerns that addressed their impact. What finally was discussed was that the _OCCs wanted the capability to send a message to the AFSS responsible for the NOTAM, presumably , containing the information in proper format. We, upon receipt, would proceed with our requirements to issue the NOTAM. This would, in theory, eliminate any need to tie up AFSS/OCC employees on the phone.

If anyone has information on any Regional activity that proposes anything different, please forward this information to me at [email protected]. Meanwhile, I�ll keep a close watch on this issue.

� NSTS / Multi-Domain NOTAM Solution

One of the procedural issues being addressed right now involves what the AFSS role should be when a Tower/TRACON employee has not acknowledged a NOTAM sent via "new automation." Current parameters allow a sent NOTAM to remain unacknowledged on the Tower/TRACON NOTAM Client for ten (10) minutes. After that time, a message is sent back to the AFSS, triggering the need to manually call the respective facility to ensure a positive receipt of the NOTAM.

Automating NOTAM delivery was a mandate passed down from the Administrator level, initiated as a result of problems identified within the AT system (i.e. Important NOTAM information received on a ATCT fax machine within a locked ATM office during non-administrative hours). AFSS procedures were never identified as a problem -- our role in NOTAM dissemination has always been considered satisfactory. The benefit of automation to the Tower/TRACON facilities is the elimination of the "phone operator/stenographer" role upon receipt of an AFSS call. Additionally, it removes a level of potential error in the translation, as the automation "pushes" the exact NOTAM language to the Tower/TRACON NOTAM Client.

Our position is this. The structure of the Tower/TRACON NOTAM Client apparently has enough safeguards in place to ensure/guarantee delivery of a NOTAM to the client display. Because of this, while we would welcome the duties of manual dissemination (current method) in the event of an equipment/system outage, we do not support the need for AFSS Controllers to give what is, in effect, a "reminder" call to a Tower/TRACON, informing them of the need to "press the Enter button" on their functioning NOTAM Client. This call would occur after several audible/visual alerts were given.

This matter is being addressed by both NAATS and NATCA, involving the respective program directors. I will update this issue as it progresses.

SUAISE2

The follow-up CHI effort is now scheduled for the week of December 8th, at the ATCSCC. This should give the team the opportunity to evaluate the changes required to address issues identified in their initial visit (late October). I have been informed that almost all of those items identified have been addressed, with only 1 or 2 in need of discussion. Once the software is deemed �user-accepted�, testing will occur ensuring a stable system, followed by field deployment.

AC 00-62, "INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS OF AVIATION WEATHER AND NOTAMS"

Despite our opinion letter opposing the initiative (submitted in March �02), the Agency approved Advisory Circular 00-62 on November 1st, giving a blanket "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" to all Internet sites given the coveted Qualified Internet Communications Provider (QICP). This Agency �blessing� gives no credibility to the accuracy of the data itself (i.e. yesterday�s weather chart, last month�s runway closure), only to the providers� ability to operate a reliable, accessible, and secure website, within the parameters set forth in the Circular.

ATX Report

Beth Gerrits, ATX Liaison -- [email protected]

FAM Trips

A little good news for the membership is on the Familiarization Flight Program. The airlines and the pilot�s associations have found and agreed to a secure database information system that will provide positive confirmation of our identification at the gates. The TSA must now approve the resumption of Familiarization Flights based on their security interests. Their ruling is expected within the next few weeks. It will not be referred to as the FAM program anymore as FAM now stands for Federal Air Marshall and we definitely don�t want to be confused with them. Work at removing that term from your vocabulary. A new name hasn�t been decided on and we may just use the full title of the program. The rules are not expected to change and the paperwork will be the same. Your current ID will be used as well. The software program will only confirm who you are and where you work. So as soon as the TSA approves the FAA is ready to utilize the program. I will pass along as many details as I can since we may know more than the gate agents on how this will work.
We are still working at dividing up the 98 new hires between the regions. No agreement on this issue yet. An Academy class started Nov. 20, 2002 with 14 new hires in it. The next class will start Jan. 8, 2003 and will also have space for 14 new employees.

There were two MOUs signed in November. One is for the Performance Management System (PMS) and the other is on Cru-X. Bill Dolan will explain these in more detail.

I am actively assisting Kate Breen in researching data to address the OMB A-76 and will be joining Leesburg AFSS in picketing activities at IAD before Thanksgiving.

I hope you had a Happy and Safe Thanksgiving and that the upcoming holidays are pleasant as well.

FSOSC Report

Tim DeGrazio & Patsy Rowe FSOSC Liaisons

The Flight Service Operations Support Center (FSOSC) completed testing of the TODS (TFR Operations Display System) and signed off on it in September. We then moved on to conclude the mandated monitor test. As you can see from the photo, there was no comparison. Although since we are only allowed to make suggestions we don�t know what will actually be delivered to the field. The flat-panel Dell 19" monitor is also the one that NAATS has requested for the NOTAM Short Term Solution (NSTS) project. (Almost makes you think we liaisons talk to each other, doesn�t it?)

Speaking of getting the equipment out, ATP-320 told us in September that the computers for initial deployment had already been ordered. Then in early October he said he was mistaken. Then they decided the computers would have to be competitively bid out. Then they decided they wouldn�t. Then they decided they didn�t have any funds. Then they decided to use appropriations from another project. Then they decided those appropriations couldn�t be used for this project. Then they decided they could. Then they realized they were using the wrong appropriations. Then they realized they were using the right appropriations in the beginning. Then we went ballistic and beat the shi... sorry, just a favorite fantasy intruding for a moment.

As November, the funds have been appropriated. The computers for the facilities will not have to be competitively bid. This means every Flight Service Station should receive two computers for operations linked to a T-1 line shortly. (Your definition of �shortly� and the FAA�s definition of �shortly� are probably not quite the same.)

We have been operating, temporarily, out of a one-person cubicle in the ATA (cartography) shop for the past 5 months. ATA decided that temporarily ended November 13th. Originally we were to be assigned to the Washington Operations Communication Center, previously known as the Situation Room, on the 10th floor. Of course nothing management does ever runs smoothly. After knowing about our eventual relocation to the 10th floor for 4 months, they just discovered that a top-secret clearance is required to work in the WOC. Since it costs $3800 per person and normally takes a year to acquire a top-secret clearance they have decided we are not going to work in the WOC. So the bottom line is, once again we are homeless! ATP-1 has assured the NAATS ATP Liaison they will have a location for us shortly. (Refer to the previous mention of �shortly� above.)

Although it is tempting to just throw our hands in the air and walk away, that would only result in the field having one less briefing tool. You can be sure that AOPA will continue pressuring the FAA until a Graphical TFR product is made available to the pilot. Only with NAATS continuing to pressure them will the field ever receive the same product.

You have probably heard rumors about lots of other Graphical TFR products. We continue to evaluate every product that we hear about. Although most of them have some limited usefulness none approach the capabilities of the TFR Operations Display System (TODS). Along with being the only program that accurately portrays every TFR, it is the only program that uses FSS Controllers to verify the info. It has a National picture that shows all TFRs or you can select a specific TFR. There are no set views, so you can start on a world map and zoom it down to the street level. Yes, you can even see the street you live on. There are also lots of additional features. Like a decode/encode tool that you don�t have to have the correct spelling to use. If you don�t know where it is, it will locate it on the map for you. It has route tools, airport information blocks, seven different map overlays, Victor and Jet routes, International Colored routes, holding patterns, and the list goes on and on. We will cover more of the features in future articles.

We look forward to the equipment making it to you. In the meantime, if you having any questions please call us at (202) 267-9303. That�s assuming the FAA lets us keep our phone!
 

  ENERGY'S RECORD IN PRIVATIZATION IS CALLED DISMAL

New York Times, November 24, 2002

WASHINGTON -- When the Bush administration announced this month that in intended to turn about half of the federal government�s civilian jobs over to contractors, some officials at the Department of Energy reacted with rueful shakes of the head.

Since it was founded 35 years ago, the department has relied on contractors for almost everything it does. More than 90 percent of its budget is paid to 100,000 outside workers.

Next month, the Energy Department will field the first employees whose job is to supervise the contractors� work because, it has a dismal record of contract management. The department�s experience serves as a sobering counterpoint to the White House proposal.

In particular, an internal Energy Department report this year concluded the agency�s largest program, which pays contractors to clean up the waste left by the nation�s nuclear weapons programs, has been fundamentally mismanaged since its founding 13 years ago, and much of the $60-billion is has spent over that time was wasted.

The internal report�s denunciation of agency practices and its prescriptions for changes echoed findings by outside auditors dating to 1990 -- conclusions that are repeated in reports by auditors published in September/October of this month.

What astonished agency employees, officials said, was that the department had finally acknowledged its problems. The office in question is the department�s Environmental Management Program, formed in 1989 to clean up the radioactive waste left from Cold War nuclear development programs at 114 sites nationwide. For years it has been criticized for cost overruns and delays projected to last decades.

In one of the Energy Department�s most infamous examples, which is far from unique, it began a program in 1985 to clean radioactive waste from 34-million gallons of liquids in storage in South Carolina. The project was to take three years and cost $32-million. Fourteen years later the department abandoned the project, saying it was unworkable because of mismanagement. By then, $500-million had been spent.

Jessie Roberson, assistant secretary of energy for environmental management, said: "I have been embarrassed by our lack of progress. We owe the taxpayers more."

Roberson and the department�s other leaders say they are addressing the problems. The agency says it is scrutinizing contracts more closely and training 200 people to be project supervisors. Today, no one at the department actively supervises multibillion-dollar cleanup projects that are let out to contractors.

This month, department leaders also made public a plan to shorten the time by which contractors will have cleaned up the radioactive sites nationwide -- to 2030 from 2070. Roberson, who has been with the agency or one of its contractors for 21 years, acknowledges that most administrations come in with "plans for some new initiative or program to fix the problems."

Since 1990, the General Accounting Office has classified the Energy Department�s contract management as "high risk." It is one of just six agencies whose procurement practices were judged dysfunctional.

In the Clinton and Bush administrations, the Office of Management and Budget has described the department as among the dozen or so most troubled.

A General Accounting Office audit published in September found that, even as agency officials spoke of change and reform, problems were worsening.
 

  QUALIFIED INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS PROVIDER

Ward Simpson, GA Summit Representative

The FAA�s Advisory Circular, AC NO. 00-62, was issued November 1st with the subject being "Internet Communications Of Aviation Weather and NOTAMs." The Circular explains how companies can be a source of aviation weather for a civil aviation user. These companies will be called Qualified Internet Communications Providers (QICPs).

Bill Dolan (Chief Negotiator), Art Finnegan (ARU Liaison), Scott Malon (ATP Liaison) and myself (GA Summit Rep) are all aware of the circular, and of course frustrated. Bill has been working with Art who has been in contact with Dave Whatley, the affected Staff Director in ARS. Whatley said this bulletin only pertains to the security of the Internet connection itself. The Internet connection is supposed to be free from any outside source changing, altering or deleting the information being passed from the Internet Provider, and not about sanctioning the �quality and currency" of the information being passed on to the user (pilot). Bill has been trying to get in contact with Mr. Whatley to see if they will issue a statement explaining this further. I have talked with Bill, and as of this time, Mr. Whatley has not returned his calls.

I spoke with Melissa Bailey, AOPA Vice President of Air Traffic, Regulatory and Certification Policy, concerning the AOPA article on their web site dated November 1st. The article starts out saying, "Thanks in part to the efforts of AOPA..." and goes on to explain how now the pilots can... "legally use flight information from the numerous aviation Web sites available to plan a flight, as long as the Web site has gone through the QICP process. Until now, only information from a flight service center or DUATS vendor was considered valid." I told her we were not quite sure how AOPA has determined it is legal to use this information and with whom the liability lies. She stated that the liability has always been with the pilot and the decision he or she makes after receiving a weather briefing as to whether or not to go ahead with the flight. I stated the final decision has always been with the pilot, however, only when receiving a briefing from flight service or DUATS, the agency�s approved vendor source, because the FAA insures the accuracy of this data. The advisory circular states that the QICP means the FAA is only approving the provider�s servers and communication interface as meeting the provisions of the Advisor Circular and not approving the quality of data.

It further states that the FAA strongly encourages that an approved QICP display a warning label on its Internet site that addresses this issue. The recommended language is as follows:

This Qualified Internet Communication Provider�s (QICP) servers and communication interfaces are approved by the FAA as secure, reliable, and assessable in accordance with AC 00-62.

1. This QICP does not ensure the quality and currency of the information transmitted to you.

2. You the user, assume the entire risk related to the information and its use.

  CHIEF NEGOTIATOR�S CORNER

Bill Dolan, NAATS Chief Negotiator -- [email protected]

We have two new MOUs to discuss this month. We have signed agreements with the Agency on the new Performance Management System (PMS) and on the use of CRU-X. The MOUs are included in this newsletter.

PMS
The Agency�s Performance Management System was jointly developed by a subgroup of the National Labor Management Council. Our representative on this work group was New England Regional Coordinator, Tom Halligan.

The implementation of PMS and the details surrounding it will be developed by a national work group as specified in Sections 1 and 2 of the MOU. Section 2a. provides for employee orientation and training on the new system and Section 2e. provides for regional implementation teams to provide any necessary guidance and information to facilities. The size and makeup of the regional teams will be determined by the national group.

For details regarding PMS you can find it on the web at: http://www.faa.gov/ahr/pms/index.cfm

CRU-X

We finally have an agreement regarding this program. The purpose of CRU-X is to allow the Agency to breakdown the different tasks being performed by its employees and enable it to figure out where they spend their money and what all the different areas of the Agency actually cost. It is part of a new cost accounting system which, on paper (if it works), will bring the Agency into compliance with congressional directives.

This is a rather long MOU and I�ll just touch on the highlights. Please take the time to read the entire MOU and forward any questions to your director.

#3. "Existing personnel policies, practices, and matters affecting working conditions not expressly contained in this MOU will not change."

Regarding the use of CRU-X: If management wants to do something not specified it in this MOU, they cannot do it with out further negotiation at the national level.

#4. Identifies what data will be kept in the Cru-Support portion of CRU-X.

#5. Talks about "sign-in/out" requirements, "on-duty" list, and, the supervisor/CIC responsibilities in these areas.

#6. Local scheduling programs must be approved by the Program Office before they may be used in CRU-X.

#7. Employees shall be coded as performing their primary LDR activity code (yy0100 -- ATC Duties) for all CruOps time except when performing another duty specifically listed in Appendix A of the MOU.

#8. The "Available List" and "Duty List" have been re-designated the "On Duty" and "On Position" list.

#9. The last sentence has to do with possibly limiting the access level of CICs if the Supervisor access level would allow a CIC to access personal information of employee�s files. It has not been determined if this is the case and at the time this agreement was signed the Agency could not assure just what a supervisor will have access to.

The LOCAL ISSUES section specifies what the FacRep must negotiate surrounding the program.

#16. Important�.CRU-X use may not go beyond current levels until new dedicated servers have been installed at the facility.

#17. Each region will have 2 test sites to evaluate new versions of the software prior to nationwide release.

#18-20. NAATS will have a CRU-X national representative, a NAATS regional focal, and a NAATS facility subject matter expert to resolve all issues.

#21. Specifies that training is required for all CRU-X representatives and bargaining unit employees prior to use.

#22. Specifies that CRU-X data cannot be used to initiate disciplinary actions. It may be used as evidence in a disciplinary action.

Note: The MOUs described above follow this article. The first one covers PMS and the second one Cru-X. -- Editor

   FSDPS UPDATE

Don McLennan, ANM Regional Director

Final Stages of Implementation

It is November and we are on the last stages of implementation of the FSDPS National Transition Plan. There has been a lot of time, energy and support for these affected people on behalf of both management and the Union. From talking to all of those in the field it seems a good time for an update of where we were, where are we now, and where are we going.

In summer of 1998 eight people together formed a partnership group to address the future question of "what will happen to the FSDPS personnel with the implementation of OASIS?" They met several times over several months. There were four people from the Union (two of which were from FSDPS), and four from Management. They wrestled with many issues, questions, concerns, and philosophies. They published their report in October of 1998, adhering to the philosophy that the FSDPS personnel represented a valuable resource to the Agency with a tremendous knowledge of automation, which would be necessary for the successful implementation of OASIS. The final report became known as, what we call today, the "Implementation Plan."

New Position Created

The philosophy embraced by the work group trying to devise a plan to address the future of FSDPS personnel was predicated on two thoughts; one, these people had a necessary knowledge base of automation we didn�t want to lose and, two, how can we keep them employed in the field they most desire but get them into the necessary facilities where the work would be? A new position was created to address this dual concern. The Oasis Staff Support Specialist (OSS) position was developed to help implement and insure OASIS deployment, and maintenance, for a successful transition out of MIFC and guarantee the future of FSS Automation. Remember, the time frame we are talking about is summer to fall 1998, four years ago.

"Reverse RIF" Process

The plan went forth from this though knowing a single "fix" would never adequately satisfy over a hundred individual�s concerns. After determining that the action for the Agency to take was a "transfer of function" (as opposed to a RIF) there needed to be a determination of who gets what first. Since this needed to be handled exactly the same by all nine regions the final resolution was predicated on the ability of the Agency to utilize information already in place (EPMIS) that could produce seniority lists based on the same criteria in each region. The Human Resource Division�s support person to the workgroup identified the process that we have all become familiar with "Reverse RIF." This process is no more complicated than producing a RIF list based on the information in the computers and then turning it upside down. Under RIF rules the last person in is the first person out. Since we would be making job offers instead of reducing the workforce we needed to know who the most senior person was to insure they received the first offer of employment.

This process was administered at the regional level first. The regions made offers of employment to the FSDPS personnel within their regions. Many of the FSDPS personnel chose a facility assignment within the region rather than move at all or at least not out of the region. The goal of the plan was to insure everyone got at least one offer of employment somewhere. While I realize everyone wants a choice and we tried to make that happen, the reality was there were two people for every single job. To the workgroup it meant everyone must get an offer of employment unless the senior people grabbed all of the vacancies. I am not completely sure as of this writing but I believe that has happened.

The next step was to merge all of the regional "Reverse RIF" lists and develop one large, all encompassing national list. Bob Geranis in ATP-300 did the majority of the work and Kevin Kelley from the Boston FSDPS worked on behalf of the Union. Together a national list was formed and now the "Reverse RIF" was one stretching across the nation not only regions.

What happened next was the need to fill two facilities because of the nearing OASIS implementation date. The first was St. Louis and the second was Riverside. The process we followed was to call every single individual on the National list in order of seniority until we came to someone who would accept the offer of employment. St. Louis went within the first ten people I called but Riverside was another story. I managed to talk to just about everybody employed in the FSDPS option. Actually it was a real pleasure for me. Having worked this plan for four years it was very enjoyable to get to talk to so many who were so affected by it. My hat goes off to each and every one of you. You have made the Union and FAA very proud for the jobs you have done. I hope all works out well in the end for you. As of this writing Riverside is still up for grabs, but it is looking like it may not be filled through this process.

After canvassing for Riverside there will be one more round from top to bottom of the national list. There are still approximately 12-13 facilities with no identified OSS specialist. On the last round beginning with the first person, they will be offered any one of the remaining facilities. If they choose none the same offer will be made, in descending order, to the remaining people on the list. When someone accepts a job in one of the remaining facilities that facility will be eliminated from the available facilities list and the next person will be offered everything left except the facility the person above him or her selected. This will continue until all of the facilities are selected or we run out of names, whichever occurs first. If the latter occurs the popular thinking is these remaining facilities will be filled locally.

Option to Return to Parent Facility

So what happens in this game of musical chairs when the music stops and your still standing? There is always the option to return to your parent facility as an ATCS. If you are not co-located I believe there will have to be a paid move back. Maybe you want to try and secure some other type of employment within the Center and everybody supports you in that effort. You may also decide to wait out your facility closing and retire, or apply for discontinued service retirement. There is also severance pay for those so interested. Whatever it is you decide, just make sure you have a plan and if you want support or assistance be sure and ask early so there is time to help.

Questions to Ask

One question you may want to raise either within the Region or to your NAATS Regional Director: How is a vacancy filled that becomes open subsequent to the plans implementation, but prior to the selectee actually assuming their duties? Let me give you an example. During the regional round of filling the OSS vacancies I grabbed my local facility. However, before we ever get OASIS, I retire. Now how is that vacancy filled? Locally, within the region, does everybody get a shot at it even if they tentatively selected something else or is it a national bid? We are just not there yet but if anyone thinks this might happen the FSDPS steering committee should look at this and develop an answer for all of us to follow.

That is all I have for now. I would like to once again thank the men and women of the FSDPS family for making a successful implementation of this plan and sincerely wish all of you only the very best.

  FAA WORKERS PROTEST PRIVATIZATION PLAN

Steve Timko, Reno Gazette-Journal, 11/27/2002

Federal Aviation Administration workers who give pilots weather briefings and initiate searches when aircraft don�t arrive on time picketed Wednesday at Reno/Tahoe International Airport, protesting a proposal to privatize their service.

Thirty-five jobs or more could be lost in Reno if the federal government continues with a plan to farm out air traffic specialist jobs to a the lowest-bidding private contractor, said Valentine Pisarski, facility representative for the National Association of Air Traffic Specialists.

He said the federal government was putting cost savings over safety.

An FAA official could not be reached Wednesday for comment.

Under the plan, pilots who don�t fly commercially or for the military could have to deal with air traffic specialists in another state instead of at the local flight service station -- such as the one in Reno -- if the privatization goes through, Pisarski said.

"The question is, what kind of service are you going to get when the private contractor assumes the professionals� job," Pisarski said. "Our specialties and our expertise will be gone. They�ll be talking to someone over in a central location."

There are 61 flight service stations nationwide and his association is using informational pickets at a handful of stations at a time to raise awareness of the issue, Pisarski said.

The government already has privatized air traffic controller duties at smaller airports, he said.
 

  OVERVIEW OF A-76 AND ITS PROBLEMS

FedWeek, Nov. 6, 2002

Although most federal employees have heard the term "Circular A-76" and understand that it involves the government�s policy affecting privatization of federal jobs, misconceptions about what the policy does and doesn�t say are common. General Accounting Office chief David Walker recently testified before Congress on the policy and specifically about the issues identified by a special review panel that he headed and whose work finished earlier this year. Following are excerpts from his testimony.

Background

Since 1955, the executive branch has encouraged federal agencies to obtain commercially available goods and services from the private sector when the agencies determine that such action is cost-effective. OMB formalized the policy in its Circular A-76, issued in 1966. In 1979, OMB supplemented the circular with a handbook that included procedures for competitively determining whether commercial activities should be performed in-house, by another federal agency through an inter-service support agreement, or by the private sector. OMB has updated this handbook several times. Under A-76, commercial activities may be converted to or from contractor performance either by direct conversion or by cost comparison. Under direct conversion, specific conditions allow commercial activities to be moved from government or contract performance without a cost comparison study (e.g., for activities involving 10 or fewer civilians).

Generally, however, commercial functions are to be converted to or from contract performance by cost comparison, whereby the estimated cost of government performance of a commercial activity is compared with the cost of contractor performance in accordance with the principles and procedures set forth in Circular A-76 and the revised supplemental handbook.

"As part of this process, the government identifies the work to be performed (described in the performance work statement), prepares an in-house cost estimate on the basis of its most efficient organization, and compares it with the winning offer from the private sector. According to A-76 guidance, an activity should not be moved from one sector to the other (whether public to private or vice versa) unless doing so would save at least $10 million or 10 percent of the personnel costs of the in-house performance (whichever is less). OMB established this minimum cost differential to ensure that the government would not convert performance for marginal savings.

"The handbook also provides an administrative appeals process. An eligible appellant must submit an appeal to the agency in writing within 20 days of the date that all supporting documentation is made publicly available. Appeals are supposed to be adjudicated within 30 days after they are received. Private-sector offerors who believe that the agency has not complied with applicable procedures have additional avenues of appeal. They may file a bid protest with GAO or file an action in a court of competent jurisdiction.

"Circular A-76 requires agencies to maintain annual inventories of commercial activities performed in-house. A similar requirement was included in the Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act of 1998, which directs agencies to develop annual inventories of their positions that are not inherently governmental. The fiscal year 2001 inventory identified approximately 841,000 full-time equivalent commercial-type positions, of which approximately 413,000 were in the Department of Defense (DOD). DOD has been the leader among federal agencies in recent years in its use of OMB Circular A-76; the circular�s use by other agencies has been very limited.

"However, in 2001, OMB signaled its intention to direct greater use of the circular on a government-wide basis. In a March 9, 2001, memorandum, OMB directed agencies to take action in fiscal year 2002 to directly convert or complete public-private competitions of not less than 5 percent of the full-time equivalent positions listed in their FAIR Act inventories. Subsequent guidance expanded the requirement to 15 percent by fiscal year 2003, with the ultimate goal of competing at least 50 percent.

"Although comprising a relatively small portion of the government�s overall service contracting activity, competitive sourcing under Circular A-76 has been the subject of much controversy because of concerns about the process raised both by the public and private sectors. Federal managers and others have been concerned about the organizational turbulence that typically follows the announcement of A- 76 studies. Government workers have been concerned about the impact of competition on their jobs, the opportunity for input into the process, and the lack of parity with industry offerors to protest A-76 decisions. Industry representatives have complained about unfairness in the process and the lack of a level playing field between the government and the private sector in accounting for costs. Concerns have also been raised about the adequacy of the oversight of subsequent performance, whether the work is being performed by the public or private sector."

The Commercial Activities Panel

"Amid these concerns over the A-76 process, the Congress enacted section 832 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. The act required the Comptroller General to convene a panel of experts to study the policies and procedures governing the transfer of commercial activities for the federal government from government to contactor personnel . . .

"The Panel heard frequent criticisms of the A-76 process. The Panel�s report noted that both federal employees and private firms complain that the A-76 competition process does not meet the principles� standard of a clear, transparent, and consistently applied process. For example, some Federal employees have complained that A-76 cost comparisons have included functions that were inherently governmental and should not have been subject to a cost comparison at all. While OMB guidance exists to help define what functions should be considered inherently governmental, the Panel's third principle recognized that making such determinations remains difficult. Also, others have expressed concern that some government officials in a position to affect contracting decisions may subsequently take positions with winning contractors. In this regard, various legislative provisions exist that place restrictions on former government employees taking positions with winning contractors. Time did not permit the Panel to explore the extent to which additional legislation may be needed in this area.

"In the Panel�s view, the most serious shortcoming of the A-76 process is that it has been stretched beyond its original purpose, which was to determine the low-cost provider of a defined set of services. Circular A-76 has not worked well as the basis for competitions that seek to identify the best provider in terms of quality, innovation, flexibility, and reliability. This is particularly true in today's environment, where solutions are increasingly driven by technology and may focus on more critical, complex, and interrelated services than previously studied under A-76. In the federal procurement system today, there is common recognition that a cost-only focus does not necessarily deliver the best quality or performance for the government or the taxpayers."

Thus, while cost is always a factor, and often the most important factor, it is not the only factor that may need to be considered. In this sense, the A-76 process may no longer be as effective a tool, since its principal focus is on cost.

"During its year-long study, the Panel identified several key characteristics of a successful sourcing policy. First, the Panel heard repeatedly about the importance of competition and its central role in fostering economy, efficiency, high performance, and continuous performance improvement. The means by which the government utilizes competition for sourcing its commercial functions was at the center of the Panel�s discussions and work. The Panel strongly supported a continued emphasis on competition as a means to improve economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of the government."

The Panel also believed that whenever the government is considering converting work from one sector to another, public-private competitions should be the norm. Direct conversions generally should occur only where the number of affected positions is so small that the costs of conducting a public-private competition clearly would outweigh any expected savings. Moreover, there should be adequate safeguards to ensure that activities, entities, or functions are not improperly separated to reduce the number of affected positions and avoid competition.

"A second theme consistently cited at the public hearings was the need for a broader approach to sourcing decisions, rather than an approach that relies on the use of arbitrary quotas or that is unduly constrained by personnel ceilings. Critical to adopting a broader perspective is having an enterprise-wide perspective on service contract expenditures, yet the federal government lacks timely and reliable information about exactly how, where, and for what purposes, in the aggregate, taxpayer dollars are spent for both in-house and contracted services. The Panel was consistently reminded about, and fully agrees with, the importance of ensuring accountability throughout the sourcing process, providing the workforce with adequate training and technical support in developing proposals for improving performance, and assisting those workers who may be adversely affected by sourcing decisions. Improved accountability extends to better monitoring of performance and results after competitions are completed- -regardless of the winner.

"Third, sourcing policy is inextricably linked to the government�s human capital policies. This linkage has many levels, each of which is important. It is particularly important that sourcing strategies support, not inhibit, the government�s efforts to attract, motivate, and retain a high-performing in-house workforce, as well as support its efforts to access and collaborate with high-performance, private-sector providers. Properly addressed, these policies should be complementary, not conflicting."

   FAA ADMINISTRATOR ANNOUNCES APPOINTMENTS TO TOP AGENCY POSTS

FAA Press Release

WASHINGTON, DC Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Administrator Marion C. Blakey today announced the following appointments by President George W. Bush to top agency posts.

Robert Sturgell is appointed Senior Counsel to the Administrator. Sturgell will advise the Administrator on policy and management issues, as well as on the agency's capital programs and modernization efforts. Sturgell joins Administrator Blakey from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) where he had served the former Safety Board Chairman as primary advisor and coordinator on the NTSB's recommendations, policy programs and other safety initiatives. Prior to joining the NTSB, Sturgell was a flight operations supervisor and line pilot for United Airlines. Sturgell is also an attorney and has practiced aviation law at the Washington, DC law firm Shaw Pittman. Sturgell, a Commander in the U.S. Naval Reserves is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and University of Virginia School of Law.

David Mandell is appointed Chief of Staff to the Administrator. Mandell acts as Administrator Blakey's primary aide and advisor in the management and administration of the agency. Mandell also serves as a key legal advisor to the Administrator on many legal issues including all procurement and acquisition disputes as well as civil penalty cases. He previously served Blakey as Special Counsel to the Chairman at the NTSB. Prior to the Safety Board, Mandell was an associate at the Philadelphia headquarters of the law firm Blank Rome where he practiced complex commercial litigation. Mandell is a graduate of Washington University and the Beasley School of Law at Temple University School of Law.

Greg Martin is appointed Assistant Administrator for Public Affairs. Martin is the FAA's chief spokesperson and is responsible for the strategic development and overall management of both the agency's external and internal communications programs, media relations and website. Martin previously oversaw strategic communications planning, speechwriting and advocacy efforts at the NTSB. Prior to joining the Safety Board, Martin was a corporate spokesperson for General Motors at the automaker's government relations office in Washington, DC. While at GM, he also managed communications activities for Saturn Corporation in Spring Hill, Tennessee. Martin's previous federal government service included serving as a civilian aide to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. Martin is a graduate of Mount Saint Mary's College, Emittsburg, Maryland.

David Balloff is appointed Assistant Administrator for Government and Industry Affairs. Balloff becomes the FAA's chief liaison to Congress as well as overseeing relationships with industry to promote and implement policies that will ensure the safety and enhance the capacity of the national airspace system. Balloff served in a similar position with Administrator Blakey at the NTSB. Before joining the Safety Board, Balloff was the longstanding transportation policy advisor and press secretary to Congressman and House Aviation Subcommittee Chairman John J. Duncan, Jr., having worked on the AIR-21 legislation and the Aviation Security Bill. Balloff is a graduate of the University of Oklahoma.

  WHY GOVERNMENT IS UNIQUELY QUALIFIED TO PROVIDE FLIGHT SERVICES

This is a list of talking points I hope will help NAATS address the A-76 study and help our FacReps and members when communicating with their elected representatives. I know if we put our minds to it we can come up with more ideas. If you have anything to add, forward it to Kate Breen or Wally.

-- Chuck Kuennen, RNO AFSS

1. NOTAMs: Flight Service controllers are trained to format and disseminate safety critical NOTAMS in a timely manner and accomplish the required coordination. Anyone who assumes these duties, including the FAA operational control centers (OCCs) will find it difficult to process NOTAMs (even though the OCCs are staffed by airway facility employees familiar with most of the equipment in the national airspace system). We are familiar with the many nuances of issuing NOTAMs, i.e., pointer NOTAMs, traffic management program alerts (TMPA). We coordinate with airport managers daily and are familiar with the personnel who are authorized to issue NOTAMs.

2. Interactive Briefings: GA representatives want the ability to call Flight Service and talk about weather products and alternate routings. Only highly trained and proficient pilot weather briefers, familiar with local topography and microclimates will be able to do this.

3. VFR Only Briefings: GA representatives want Flight Service to offer alternate routes to their pilots that are only able to make VFR flights and current weather makes VFR flight doubtful. Again, only highly trained and proficient pilot weather briefers, familiar with local topography and microclimates will be able to do this.

4. Training: No contractor can replace the training offered by the FAA Academy. They cannot provide the same level of initial training, on the job training for position/facility certification and proficiency training (supplemental, refresher, and remedial). This training is essential to maintain credible and professional weather briefers.

5. Quality Assurance: Only trained operational supervisors and managers are qualified to perform these duties. Flight Service management are trained at the FAA Academy and CMD. What contractor can afford to send their managers to schools with these qualifications?

6. No Strikes: Flight Service controllers cannot strike. There are many examples of failed contractors who cannot attract skilled and motivated workers when they take over services. Employees that stay on, become the nucleus to keep operations flowing. These employees are resentful of the "wage busting" that forced them out of their jobs and find their benefits and working conditions so lacking that they quit or strike. Refer to the current problems experienced by NavCanada.

7. National Security: The scope of flight service duties involve knowing and working with the entire aviation world. We deal with information every day that is security sensitive. We routinely provide service to military and law enforcement. We backup military base operations. Expand on this.

8. Equipment: Will a contractor be able to maintain or update the cost of equipment. That alone will be a huge factor in their success, a factor that has proven they cannot deliver the promised benefits. Add to that, the costs of back-up equipment.

9. Failed Level 1 VFR, Non-Federal Control Towers: We have heard through local AF personnel that they are surveying level 1 towers to get ready for government controllers to take over operations. We don�t know if this is because the contractors cannot provide the services or if it is a result of NATCA winning a lawsuit.

10. Liability: Government has assumed the liability for contracting out the level 1 VFR tower services because they know that a contractor our municipality cannot afford liability insurance. One or two lawsuits would end services.

11. First Contact: Flight Service is the glue that runs through the entire aviation community. We are the ones who receive the "first call" and must decide the proper coordination with air traffic control facilities, FAA maintenance, airport managers, FSDOs, FIFOs, regional offices, and pilots. When 911 occurred, we were the air traffic control facility providing services and information to the flying public after all flights were cancelled.

12. FAA Publications: Can a private contractor afford to maintain current FAA publications? Without current orders and publications a contractor is liable for using incorrect data.

13. ICAO: Is there anything here we can exploit?

14. Hidden Work: There will be "contractor creep" if all of the hidden work is not identified and quantified. In addition to the duties in FAA orders 7110.10, Flight Service; 7210.3,Facility Management; 7930.2, NOTAMS; and 8020.11, Aircraft Accident and Incident Notification Investigation and Reporting (these are the ones that I can think of) we are required to comply with SOPs, LOAs, contingency plans, and memos not published in the SOPs.

15. SAR Cooperation: Who will enforce authorities to cooperate with a contractor for local search and rescue efforts.

16. STAFF Work: Will a contractor be able to maintain a knowledgeable staff to provide training and all of the work they do, i.e., keep traffic records, training records, process accident investigations...

17. DUAT Vendors: Example of a contractor not providing required services. Currently drop flight plan information from their queues; that�s why they often have no information when we send out "requests for services." This information was offered recently when a Reno FPL inquired of one of the vendors.
 

   OPINION

The opinions expressed here are strictly those of the authors and in no way reflects the position of the Union or its elected or appointed officials or liaisons.

THE BLEEDING GOES ON

Charles Kuennen, RNO AFSS

Representatives of the aviation industry user groups, i.e., Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), Helicopter Association International (HAI), National Business Aircraft Association (NBAA), Small Aircraft Manufactures Association (SAMA) and representatives from the FAA held a weeklong "General Aviation Users Summit" in November of 1999. Their collective recommendation was for the FAA to improve Flight Service!

So far, the FAA is slow in making progress. Flight Service has seen very few of the proposed improvements deployed nationally. We are close to getting one very important enhancement: the Special Use Airspace Inflight Service Enhancement (SUASIE). Some facilities have been allowed to test and keep this equipment and it has already proven to be a real lifesaver for pilots on the ground and in the air. In consensus with our users, we have overhauled the use and application of the VNR statement that should be in the next publication of the 711.10. However, the most important equipment issue to Flight Service is the deployment of OASIS. In 1998, OASIS was one of the FAA�s "lead the fleet" systems. To date: we only have two facilities on-line, Seattle and Anderson AFSSs. How many times did the FAA assure (lie to) Congress that it was on schedule? Couple the delayed implementation of new procedures and equipment with the fact that the FAA has systematically reduced Flight Service staffing over the last four years and you begin to see how the FAA has allowed our customer base to erode.

It�s no secret, air traffic services look like a big juicy government contract to many in private industry. It�s a bad idea that won�t go away. The A-76 process is being overhauled; the new competition process is based on the "best value" procurement method. It�s a clever way of introducing more smoke and mirrors by allowing subjective non-cost factors to be considered. The new system allows officials the authority to award contracts to whomever they want; a bad thing for taxpayers and ultimately for general aviation safety. Past outsourcing decisions concerning hoped for cost savings have proved to be illusionary. We only have to look at what is happening to other countries air traffic systems, like Britain�s National Air Traffic Services that were criticized recently by Parliament for failing to provide the benefits promised. Even NavCanada, the often quoted "model" for privatization, is having problems.

The $15 per pilot contact that is quoted by AOPA did not come from any valid cost accounting system. AOPA also stated in their Air Traffic Services Brief, Oct 24, 2002, the driving factors for the FSS A76 study were the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the Inspector General (IG) reports. These reports recommended consolidation of FSSs in conjunction with OASIS deployment, citing significant cost savings. Where did the GAO and the IG get this information? I believe they were generated from the flawed cost savings scenarios published in the Nov 1997 FAA document "Development and Applications of Performance Metrics for the National Airspace System." I am familiar with this document. The economic assessments and quantified, avoided staffing costs are not detailed, quantifiable, substantiated or credible. How could anyone trust data that was obtained by conducting simulated briefings at the FAA Academy (December 1993), using the automated airman�s registry (not even part of OASIS) and other data retrieval not relevant to the current OASIS system? The group that put this document together, Operations Research and Analysis (ASD-430) claimed:

1) Improved graphical displays and features, notably overlay capabilities, and enhanced geopolitical background data would enable a 20 percent reduction in pilot briefing time;

2) Improved graphical workstations with more automated features and better interfaces would reduce the time required to draw, save, store, and transmit weather briefings by 50 percent.

Air traffic procedures was told in 1998 that better graphics would make briefings longer because Flight Service controllers still have to use their cognitive processes to paint a complete weather picture for the pilot. Hello--enhanced products give us that much more to talk about! Jeff Griffith even signed a letter stating that the automation benefits of OASIS were primarily informational. The FAA has evaluated briefings from Seattle AFSS and stated that pilot briefings are taking longer using OASIS equipment. This is just one example of the preposterous statements made in that document.

Much of what we do will be difficult to quantify. Services that are not factored into the original bid cause eroded cost savings through "contract creep." I fully expect contractors to "lowball" our services and later claim they need additional funds. I hope Flight Service will be allowed to show the hidden work that is in our facility standard operating procedures (SOPs), letters of agreement (LOAs), contingency plans, and facility memos not yet incorporated into an SOP.

There are many reasons why government is uniquely qualified to provide flight services. General aviation should be concerned about any contractor�s ability to attract a skilled and motivated workforce. It takes years for a journey person to completely understand weather, it�s causes and affects on aircraft. How will a private contractor provide quality training like the FAA Academy currently does? Will a contractor be committed to providing the same level of initial training, on the job training for position/facility certification, and proficiency training required to maintain a professional workforce? Who will provide quality assurance? These are just a couple of the essential functions that will become a whitewash or non-existent if contracted.

General aviation should know contractors will achieve cost savings mainly through personnel cuts and consolidation. The most significant benefit of having 61 automated stations, is the knowledge weather briefers have of their local flight plan area, i.e., NAVAIDs, airports, topography, and microclimates. General aviation summit representatives told the FAA they wanted Flight Service to provide alternate routes to "VFR only" pilots. The only way that is going to happen, is if briefers are familiar with the area. Sacrificing local area knowledge, in my opinion, will cause a significant degradation to safety of flight and an increase in aircraft accidents, incidents and fatalities.

Currently, Flight Service is a 24/7 operation; further staffing reductions will necessitate part timing, meaning loss of services to those who fly late at night or early morning. Who will assist life flights and law enforcement; business and charter pilots who have unexpected priorities; military operations where base operations have become part time; continue search and rescue efforts; or format and disseminate safety critical NOTAMs?

Hopefully, the A76 study won�t keep our regional 500s from spending the money to improve working conditions in our facilities. Our new Administrator walked into Cleveland Center in a recent visit and committed $650 thousand to fix their bathrooms (she has yet to visit an AFSS). Immediately after that, the FAA magically found money to authorize $500 thousand per ARTCC for general repairs. How much money could be saved by consolidating regional headquarters? How about consolidating functions like the legal staffs, medical staffs and payroll staffs? It�s not a new idea; they did consolidate the evaluation staffs a few years ago.

Morale problems are not new to the controllers in Flight Service. The FAA team that made all of those scurrilous statements during our pay mediation succeeded in alienating the entire Flight Service controller workforce, including supervisors and managers. In their minds we don�t belong in the "I" band with the tower controllers, but the non-controllers in the three maintenance operational control centers do; that�s absurd! I�m sure our managers thought they were managing air traffic control facilities, not Starbuck�s. Consider a few of the factors that influence a worker�s loyalty to a company: fairness at work, care and concern for employees, satisfaction with day-to-day activities, and trust in employees. Bottom line FAA, you can�t take away my pride in what I do, but you have taken away my trust in you, and your lawyers have taken away my respect for the Agency.

COMMITMENT

Elinormarie L. Morrissy, Editor

My original intent this month was to write a sarcastic piece decrying FAA management�s total disregard for Flight Service and suggesting that we begin to do our jobs like the "dirt bags" many in upper management apparently consider us to be. When I thought about it some more, I realized that such an article would only serve to vent my growing anger and frustration at our agency�s lack of common decency in their dealings with NAATS and the Flight Service option -- despite our bargaining unit�s demonstrated commitment to aviation safety.

Instead I�ve chosen to focus on my questions regarding A-76 along with my take on their answers. I invite both the bargaining unit and management to offer any other answers they might have.

First, does anyone really believe that contracting out governmental services actually saves the taxpayers any money? As the Energy Department article in this issue shows, contracting without proper oversight leads to waste -- massively expensive waste.

If it doesn�t save money, then why is it being put forth in the name governmental efficiency (i.e. cost savings)? In this time of looming deficits combined with continued pressure to further decrease revenues through tax cuts, moving payroll expenses out of the congressional budget process is a way, along with including the FAA and Social Security trust funds in the budgetary assets column, to make the deficit look smaller. It�s political smoke and mirrors, period.

If the FAA succeeds in contracting out Flight Service, where do they (or whomever wins the contract) think the employees are going to come from? From us, of course! But after those who are eligible to retire go, how many will be left? Current statistics suggest that as much as 50 percent of the Flight Service bargaining unit could retire now.

Where will new employees come from and where will they get their training? I doubt the Academy will continue its Flight Service training program for the contractor�s benefit. There aren�t a whole lot of people outside the FAA who do our job. Very few military personnel who do what we do. Airline dispatchers do part of our job and are paid much better than we. They would hardly be likely to sit still for the reduced pay and benefits of governmental contract employees.

Do those in middle management at the Regional Office level think their jobs will not be adversely impacted by a significant reduction in the federal workforce? This is the proverbial no brainer. Fewer employees to manage and support means fewer management and support staff will be needed.

Finally, questions I have no reasonable answer to. Perhaps someone from the administration or upper management will be kind enough to enlighten us. When did the FAA stop caring about the quality of services directly related to the safety of the National Airspace System? Has anyone looked beyond the process to examine the motivations and consequences of contracting out the national airspace system piece by piece? Has the FAA abandoned its commitment to quality service and the safety of flight for all its users -- and not just for the air carriers? Have we finally become the ultimate capitalist nation where everything, even public safety, is for sale?
 

 FEDERAL EMPLOYEE NEWS

Brought to you by FedWeek.com

BUSH BACKS 3.1 PERCENT RAISE

President Bush has formally proposed that general schedule employees receive a 3.1 percent raise in January, with the entire amount to be paid as an across-the-board raise and none as locality pay. Bush�s recommendation, in an order issued under federal pay law, disappointed advocates of a higher amount but came as no surprise, since the administration had allowed the 3.1 percent figure to become the "default" pay raise by its actions several months ago. While employee organizations and sympathetic members of Congress have been advocating a 4.1 percent raise in order to maintain parity with uniformed military personnel, the White House has been pushing for a lower amount-first 2.6 percent and since late summer, effectively 3.1 percent.

NATIONAL EMERGENCY CITED

President Bush�s "alternative" pay plan for 2003 general schedule raises follows the pattern set by the Clinton administration in denying the raises indicated for employees under the 1990 federal pay law that was designed to close the pay gap between federal and private sector salaries. That law allows a President to cite a national emergency or severe economic conditions to justify a raise lower than the figure indicated by that law-in the case of 2003 raises, the total would have to be more than 18 percent, on average, since the law has never been funded to the extent needed to make it operate as designed. Bush said in a letter to Congress that a national emergency has existed since September 11, 2001 and that paying the indicated raises would divert money from higher-priority items.

BUSH'S LETTER ON PAY

President Bush's "alternative" pay plan for 2003 general schedule raises follows the pattern set by the Clinton administration in denying the raises indicated for employees under the 1990 federal pay law that was designed to close the pay gap between federal and private sector salaries. That law allows a President to cite a national emergency or severe economic conditions to justify a raise lower than the figure indicated by that law-in the case of 2003 raises, the total would have to be more than 18 percent, on average, since the law has never been funded to the extent needed to make it operate as designed. Following is the text of Bush�s November 27 letter Congress.

I am transmitting an alternative plan for locality pay increases payable to civilian Federal employees covered by the General Schedule (GS) pay system in January 2003.

Under title 5, United States Code, civilian Federal employees covered by the GS pay system would receive a two-part pay increase in January 2003: (1) a 3.1 percent across-the-board increase in scheduled GS rates of basic pay linked to the part of the Employment Cost Index (ECI) that deals with changes in the wages and salaries of private industry workers, and (2) a locality pay increase based on Bureau of Labor Statistics salary surveys. For Federal employees covered by the locality pay system, the overall average pay increase would be about 18.6 percent.

For each part of the two-part pay increase, title 5, United States Code, authorizes me to implement an alternative pay plan if I view the adjustment that would otherwise take effect as inappropriate due to "national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare." For the reasons described below, I have determined that it would be appropriate to exercise my statutory alternative plan authority to limit the locality pay portion of the January 2003 GS pay increase.

A national emergency has existed since September 11, 2001. Full statutory civilian pay increases in 2003 would interfere with our Nation's ability to pursue the war on terrorism. They would cost about $13.6 billion in 2003 alone -- $11.2 billion more than the 2.6 percent overall Federal civilian pay increase I proposed in my 2003 Budget -- and would build in later years. Such cost increases would threaten our efforts against terrorism or force deep cuts in discretionary spending or Federal employment to stay within budget. Neither outcome is acceptable. Therefore, I have determined that a total pay increase of 3.1 percent would be appropriate for GS employees in January 2003.

Because 5 U.S.C. 5303 already mandates an across-the-board GS pay increase of 3.1 percent in January 2003, GS locality-based comparability payments under 5 U.S.C. 5304 must remain at current levels. While my Administration remains committed to the principle of adjusting civilian Federal pay rates in keeping with changes in local labor market rates, our national situation precludes granting larger pay increases to GS employees at this time.

Accordingly, I have determined that:

(1) Under the authority of section 5303(a) of title 5, United States Code, the pay rates for each statutory pay system will be increased by 3.1 percent, effective on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2003; and

(2) Under the authority of section 5304a of title 5, United States Code, locality-based comparability payments in the percentages set forth in the attached table will remain in effect in 2003.

Finally, the law requires that I include in this report an assessment of the impact of my decision on the Government's ability to recruit and retain well-qualified employees. I do not believe this decision will materially affect our ability to continue to attract and retain a quality Federal workforce. Inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, is at 2.1 percent, well below the 3.1 percent across-the-board pay increase already mandated by current law, and Federal quit rates are at an all-time low of 2.1 percent per year, well below the overall average quit rate in private enterprise. Should the need arise, the Government has many compensation tools, such as recruitment bonuses, retention allowances, and special salary rates, to maintain the high-quality workforce that serves our Nation so very well.

REPORT FINDS RANGE IN PAY GAPS

The Congressional Budget Office has reported that federal workers in certain professional and administrative jobs "tend to hold jobs that paid less than comparable jobs in private firms" and that the pay gap is more than 20 percent for 85 percent of those employees. However, CBO also found that about 30 percent of employees in selected technical and clerical occupations held jobs with salaries above those paid by private firms. In general, jobs in technical and clerical occupations showed much smaller differences in pay, with about three-quarters with salaries within 10 percent, plus or minus, of private sector levels, CBO said. The report didn't attempt a fully comprehensive comparison, focusing on 18 occupations in 17 localities involving about 50,000 employees. The comparison focused on the actual work performed, rather than on the titles and classification of the jobs.

CONSEQUENCES OF PAY GAP LISTED

As the budgeting arm of Congress, CBO�s views on federal pay can be influential on Capitol Hill. Said its report: "The consequences for the federal government of low pay for its employees may vary across jobs and agencies. In some cases, generous employee benefits, job security, and other conditions of federal employment may compensate for relatively lower salaries. In other cases, federal managers may be able to manipulate the pay grades of some jobs to obtain higher salaries for workers. Some evidence also suggests that relatively low federal salaries may result in an adjustment in the employees attracted to federal service, with the federal government on occasion having to accept employees with less experience and training than private firms would."

CBO DOESN'T RECOMMEND FUNDING PAY LAW

The CBO report is the latest installment in the running debate over the existence and size of the pay gap, on which the 1990 federal pay law calling for general parity between the federal and private sectors was based. CBO said that in light of its findings that some federal jobs are seriously underpaid while others are comparable or even superior to the private sector, even if the pay law were fully funded, "it would fail in its aim to provide federal pay that was comparable to pay for nonfederal jobs. Granting the same percentage raise to all workers in an area will result in above-market salaries for some occupational groups and below-market salaries for others." It added, though, the jobs that show the greatest pay disadvantage for federal workers make up an increasing share of the federal workforce. From 1985 through 2000, for example, federal employment in professional and administrative occupations rose from 41 percent to 56 percent of total federal civilian employment, the report said.

Regional Supplements

ALASKA REGION

CENTRAL REGION

Michael Terry, Director and Jerry Van Vacter, Coordinator

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from the Central Region Union Members

At the last quarterly meeting we expressed our dissatisfaction with FAA not getting the pay and contract done. With the latest news, who knows when we might have either one. It looks like 2003 will be a very busy year fighting the different battles. Now would be a good time to join the union and help us fight to save our jobs!

At the quarterly meeting, we were not pleased with the response to why FAA decommissioned one of our AFSS frequency. It boiled down to the fact that the approach control wanted to have one at that airport. If things don�t change, we will be filing a ULP on failure to bargain. In the meantime, FAA can�t find the money until possibly 2005 to put in one of the frequencies for Fort Dodge or Columbus to provide LAA. It makes me wonder why even put it in the 7110.10 handbook.

Paula Wisniewski, FacRep from FOD, talked with Congressman Leonard Boswell, reference the A76 study. Congressman Boswell, who is on the aviation subcommittee, indicated that he knew nothing about it. He is very interested in the study and is totally against privatization of the AFSS. He is making plans to visit the facility sometime in December.

The next quarterly meeting will be in Kansas City on March 6th and 7th. If you have anything you want brought up, pass it along to your FacRep.

Membership meeting will be on April 23rd and 24th in San Antonio. Jerry and I hope to see you there!

Charlie Holubeck should be reporting to Columbia the first part of December. Welcome aboard!

EASTERN REGION

GREAT LAKES REGION

NEW ENGLAND REGION

NORTHWEST MOUNTAIN REGION

Don McLennan, Director and Darrell Mounts, Coordinator

This month�s regional section from the Northwest Mountain Region is devoted exclusively to staffing issues. I know we are very busy, and almost preoccupied, with contract training and compensation issues but staffing has for years, and will continue to be, our singular, major long-term issue. I would just like to share some random thoughts from my perspective and then hopefully hear from some of you how you feel.

The FAA is playing national politics with a safety issue. This is unforgivable. I realize they do not know the role we play in aviation but that is symptomatic. As long as they don�t know what we do, why would they be concerned about critical staffing Issues? Did Administrator Garvey wrestle with this issue as part of resolving with NATCA their compensation increase request? Yes. Why? It is no more flagrant of a truth than national politics. Skewed as it may be, it goes something like this: "Since people in America only fly on commercial aircraft, and since NATCA employees only control commercial aircraft (a la "live traffic") the only people in America deserving of a raise are NATCA employees -- oh, and by the way we will also agree to their requested staffing figure of 15,000." Let that sink in for a minute. The Administrator has her hand on the political pulse of America and therefore can justify, at least in her own mind, this NATCA raise is the politically correct thing to do. There is so much warped and misguided thinking wrapped up in that statement, I wouldn�t embarrass the Agency by dragging it across the pages of this newsletter. But it does lead us to the question: Where is our support base?

The only voice that speaks on behalf of General Aviation (GA) that I am aware of is my group known as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA). I have been a member since I started flying again in the 90�s. They, nearly exclusively, take the GA issues to both the FAA and Congress on our behalf. They have, in the past, devoted space in their monthly magazine�s editorial to FSS issues. They. Of course, have issues beyond our scope but pilot weather briefing and VFR activity is a staple. So where are they on the FSS staffing issue? I can honestly say, I don�t know and this disappoints me. They may be very busy with this issue but if they are, I don�t see it. Have they gone to the FAA and had meetings where they expressed their concerns that part timing FSS services is imminent if the long standing staffing trend continues much longer? Have they demanded the FAA provided the services they feel they need? These issues are always intermingled with the staffing debacle.

What has working short staffed done to the quality of life within our buildings? Are you in a facility where you can�t even schedule the leave you want within prime time due to short staffing? There is virtually no more spot leave, blood leave or administrative leave let alone local familiarization trips. Have you had any training, other than the R&I, in years? What about the local Aviation Education program? I would be willing to bet it is nearly extinct. Lastly, when was the last time we had a tour group through one of our facilities??

One aspect of the whole "You�re as important as Center/Tower controllers" propaganda that has always baffled me is the criteria. Knowing that not all functions under a job title are identical across Agency lines. I reviewed our criteria to see how it was similar to our brothers and sisters in NATCA. We all have the following: medical qualifications, currency requirements, emergency services, operational error/deviation program, subject to de-certification, OGT, CIC, "over-the-shoulder" monitoring, phraseology requirements and we both talk to pilots. Granted we exclusively maintain the NOTAM system, transcribe broadcast messages, take weather observations, leave recorded HIWAS and yet we both talk to pilots; (I�m not sure why, in Center/Tower, they are "live", I guess the FAA thinks ours are dead) to assist them in any way they need. Although these both carry the Controller title, they are treated very differently.

So where does the Agency want to go with this? What is the plan for FSS? I really don�t believe the FAA has one. I believe we get one Division Manager after another who has no idea (remote at best) what we do for the Agency (shame on them) and as such probably laments the fact that they even have to manage us. My guess would be that their attitude toward GA (other than IFR traffic) is one of appeasement. A necessary evil if you will. If things get tight they can always squeeze blood out of a turnip. I know it is not how the expression goes but someone needs to tell Air Traffic. Let me give you a concrete example. Casper AFSS in Wyoming has 21 bargaining unit members. Just about right to run the facility -- no fat, no fluff -- just right. Now temporarily promote one, two are picked up on Tower/Center bids and two retire. In the period of several months, do you think you can adapt a watch schedule that just took a 25% reduction in staffing? Don�t worry the FAA has a plan! See what I mean? Whatever happened to our need to be more businesslike? Some in Air Traffic would say that is exactly what is going on. Slimming down to get the workload in balance with the staffing. My concern is they have not addressed the intangibles of needing a little padding to account for people lost to bids and retirements -- something they can�t control. Wouldn�t business have a plan? Wouldn�t a business share it with customers and stakeholders? Wouldn�t a business share it with their employees for their thoughts and feelings -- the ones connecting, communicating and interacting with the customer? How else would you know your plan is any good? The only answer I come up with is mediocrity and arrogance!

Remember, not hearing differently from anyone, Congress assumes everything is running smoothly.

Best Wishes for a Wonderful Holiday!

DENVER AFSS LOCAL NEWS

John Dibble, FacRep

Greetings from the Mile High City!

Well, the elections here at Denver are over, and I am once again FacRep. It�s been 3 years since I stepped down and Darrell Mounts took over. Not much has changed. Being FacRep is still one of the most thankless tasks there is, yet at the same time, for someone who "wants to make a difference" it is a great place to be.
It is easy to sit back and complain, a little harder to step forward and become a supervisor. But to voluntarily put yourself in the middle, takes a little something else! I take my hat off to those FacReps who fight the battle year after year without any form of compensation. They are the individuals who make this Union what it is.

Working issues with management:

I am taking a little different tactic with negotiations with management here at Denver AFSS. After coming this close (holds up thumb and forefinger) to filing a failure-to-negotiate-in-good-faith charge, I decided to try something else: I will write Union 1 proposals on all issues I want to negotiate and have asked the ATM to do the same.

This serves several purposes:

1. It forces me to clarify exactly what I am negotiating for.
2. I post the proposal on the Union board for the members to see what I am after.
3. It provides a paper trail in case I need documentation.
4. It allows the ATM to determine if he wants to deal with the issue himself, or delegate the responsibility AND authority to his OM.

We will see how it goes.

The problem I had was, I would deal with the OM on operational issues, and get along fine until we crossed an issue where the ATM has a definite opinion. Then the OM would tell me "I�ll see if I can convince him". That was too close to "sending someone to the negotiating table without authority to negotiate". I have made it plain; I will not tolerate that. I speak for the bargaining unit at Denver AFSS and expect to deal with someone who has the authority to speak for management.

Another interesting point:

What does Article 34-05 say? I had always looked at it as protection against changes within 7 days (which it is). However, if you read it, it also protects against other shift changes by saying management will make every reasonable effort to avoid changes to the watch schedule. Think about that. Someone is off on extended sick leave... what efforts do your managers make to avoid changing other people�s shifts to cover? The changes and impact are negotiable.

Public Relations:

Great job to all the folks who picketed or will be picketing over the Thanksgiving weekend. I plan to be out myself at Denver International Airport and/or Denver Centennial. We need to keep the pressure on, and this is one way to do it.

Congratulations:

Rick Bigelow competing in the over 45 division of the Rocky Mountain Bodybuilding Championships on Nov 9 received third place honors and the trophy that accompanies that accomplishment.

This was Rick�s third time competing and first trophy finish. Rick is currently working at Denver AFSS where he has been assigned since 1994. Rick says he intends to continue competing in bodybuilding for at least 5 more years. Rick has only been bodybuilding for the last eight years, and the bodybuilding establishment considers this quite an accomplishment.

Congratulations and good luck from your fellow Union brothers goes out to Rick a Union member since he came into the Flight Service Option.

A message For Each Of Us:

Love all. Trust few. Always paddle your own canoe.

Aviation Safety is Our Business & Our Business is NOT For Sale!
 

SOUTHERN REGION

SOUTHWEST REGION

WESTERN-PACIFIC REGION

Mike Stafford, Director and Bob Stanco, Coordinator

The Director�s Cut

Our first go at informational picketing in the Western Pacific Region took place yesterday at San Diego Intl Airport. We joined forces with PASS, and picketed yesterday, as they had already arranged to picket on that date. I would say it was very successful from the standpoint of publicity alone. We got time on the local TV news and they actually told our story very accurately. We received print and photos in the local papers as well. It was nice to meet our brothers and sisters in PASS. I was pleasantly surprised at their level of commitment.

PASS is affiliated with AFL-CIO through PASS� affiliation with MEBA. The local AFL-CIO labor council Communications Director was there and kindly took our whole story as well as Pass�s. She disseminated this to all the local Congressman, TV, and other media outlets. They have a lot of clout in San Diego, and I was glad to see them so supportive of us. I think NAATS might want to look into a possible affiliation with the AFL-CIO as they seem to provide PASS with invaluable assistance, even just on the local level. I have a meeting with the AFL-CIO Labor Council of San Diego on Monday to ask them some questions about what it is they do, and what it costs. I intend to put it on the agenda for the next BOD meeting. We can�t have too many friends at a time like this.

On the down side: During the morning, we were represented by the SAN FacRep, Alternate, and myself -- that�s it. PASS had about 10-15 people there. In the afternoon, 2 more of our newer people showed up after work. My FacRep at OAK has been unable to get any volunteers for his picket. This is a pathetic level of apathy. Some feel this type of event is beneath them; others just aren�t worried enough about their jobs to show up. WAKE UP!!!!! If you didn�t read the newspaper last week concerning our beloved President�s idea to privatize half the Government workforce, then you need to need to come out of your coma. Your Union representatives alone can�t carry this off -- everyone needs to do their part.


HAWTHORNE AFSS NEWS

Scott Morrissy, HHR AFSS FacRep

On the Training Front

Kevin Bender is our newest FPL, having passed his check ride at Inflight at the end of October. Dave Graham is certified in Broadcast. He now joins Frank Cortes in competition for quality Inflight time. Victor Morales passed his Preflight check ride and now moves on to Broadcast. Alicia Davila has completed Flight Data and Coordinator and is now training on Preflight. It�s certainly a time to get in some quality weather briefing experience.

Incoming Personnel

Melanie Liden will be joining us from Oakland AFSS sometime around mid-January. Welcome! We also have 2 new hires from contract towers in the December Academy class. Best of luck to both.

Outgoing Personnel

Flight Watch Specialist C. Wayne Welde (CW) will unplug for the last time and retire on January 3rd to pursue his Masters Degree in Psychology and to enjoy some quality time with his lovely wife, Linda. Wayne came to HHR from the old Harrisburg FSS over 12 years ago. He�s been a great guy and likeable co-worker. We�ll all miss him.

Lori Collins will also be leaving us around the end of February to take a promotional assignment at the Weather Unit of the FAA Command Center in Herndon, VA.

Schedule

Bidding on the 2003 Schedule is done. The Prime Time Leave Schedule is still in its first of three rounds.

The Night Before Christmas

(Aviation-Style)

'Twas the night before Christmas, and out on the ramp,
Not an airplane was stirring, not even a Champ.
The aircraft were fastened to tie downs with care
In hopes that come morning; they all would be there.

The fuel trucks were nestled, all snug in their spots,
While peak gusts from three two zero reached 39 knots.
I sank behind the fuel desk, now finally caught up,
And settled down comfortably, resting my butt.

When over the radio there arose such a clatter,
I turned up the scanner to see what was the matter.
A voice clearly heard over static and snow,
Asked for clearance to land at the airport below.

He barked out his transmission so lively and quick,
I could have sworn that the call sign he used was "St. Nick".
Away to the window I flew like a flash,
Sure that it was only Horizon's late Dash.

Then he called his position, and there could be no denial,
"This is St. Nicholas One and I'm turning on final."
When what to my wondering eyes should appear,
A Rutan sleigh, with eight Rotax Reindeer.

Cleared for the ILS, down the glideslope he came,
As he passed all fixes, he called them by name:
"Now Ringo! Now Tolga! Now Trini and Bacun!
On Comet! On Cupid!" What pills was he takin'?

Those last couple of fixes left the controllers confused,
They called down to the office to give me the news.
The message they left was both urgent and dour:
"When Santa lands, have him please call the tower?"

He landed like silk, with the sled runners sparking,
Then I heard "Exit at Charlie," and "Taxi to parking."
He slowed to a taxi and exited Three-Two,
As he came down the taxiway the sleigh bells' jingle grew.

He stepped out of the sleigh, but before he could talk,
I had run out to him with my best set of chocks.
He was dressed all in fur, which was covered with frost
And his beard was all blackened from Rotax Reindeer exhaust.

His breath smelled like peppermint, gone slightly stale,
And he puffed on a pipe, but he didn't inhale.
His cheeks were all rosy and jiggled like jelly;
His boots were as black as a cropduster's belly.

He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old fool,
And he kindly informed me that he needed some fuel.
A wink of his eye and a twist of his toes,
Let me know he was desperate to powder his nose.

I spoke not a word, but went straight to my work,
And I filled up the sleigh, but I spilled like a jerk.
He came out of the restroom with a sigh of relief,
And then picked up a phone for a Flight Service brief.

And I thought as he silently scribed in his log,
That with Rudolph, he could land in an eighth-mile fog.
Next, he completed his pre-flight, from the front to the rear,
Then he put on his headset, and I heard him yell, "Clear!"

And laying a finger on his push-to-talk,
He called up the tower for his clearance and squawk.
"After departure fly heading three two zero," the tower called forth,
"And watch for a Luscombe inbound from the North."

Then I heard him proclaim, as he climbed thru the night,
"Merry Christmas to all! I have traffic in sight."


A HAPPY AND SAFE HOLIDAY SEASON TO ALL!!

NAATS News Editorial Policy

Nothing that is inflammatory or scurrilous, libelous, attacks members by name or which contains words or phrases that are in poor taste and likely to be unnecessarily offensive, should be printed in the NAATS News or Regional Supplements. Individual(s) views expressed in the newsletter do not necessarily reflect the position of the Union.