Canadian Politics Today
Beyond Canada => The World => Topic started by: Michael Hardner on March 30, 2018, 07:33:25 am
-
Very long GQ piece, and the best part is the way it describes union-management relations:
https://www.gq.com/story/faa-traffic-air-airlines-new-york-la-guardia?printable=true
-
Interesting article from nine years ago. Wonder if anything has changed.
-
Most crowded airspace? I though O'Hare used to claim that, and these days Atlanta seems to brag. I used to like LaGuardia until Trump killed the Eastern Shuttle. It was the only airport I ever saw Airforce One at, and no it wasn't a 747 it was a VC-137C (707 variant). I flew out of National in Washington far more than LaGuardia but Airforce One flew out of Andrews and not National.
Interesting about Reagan's mass firing coming back to haunt them 30 years later when all the new kids reach retirement age.
-
With the close proximity of La Guardia, Kennedy and Newark and the need to co-ordinate their traffic, it could be the busiest airspace. The FAA has never been able to maintain a good relationship with controllers.
-
Interesting article from nine years ago. Wonder if anything has changed.
Good catch. I didn't notice the date.
-
Good catch. I didn't notice the date.
Still, a good article and I really wonder if anything is changed. Controllers in major US centres work in a really intense environment and I was always impressed with them whenever I operated into places like O'hare or La Guardia. You really had to pay attention because things happened fast and they didn't have time to lead you around by the nose and repeat stuff. It's too bad such highly motivated people often have to work in such toxic environments.
-
It's too bad such highly motivated people often have to work in such toxic environments.
Odd that a large organization like government has such badly managed areas along side the well-managed ones.
-
Odd that a large organization like government has such badly managed areas along side the well-managed ones.
From the article, it seems like the less management is involved, the happier people are, while doing the job at least as well.
The tower controllers seemed to be a pretty happy bunch while the guys stuck in the centre were not happy at all.
-
Yes, because there is no trust between management and union. They should have the union hire managers as well, and simply mandate key performance indicators for safety, cost and so on.
-
Yes, because there is no trust between management and union. They should have the union hire managers as well, and simply mandate key performance indicators for safety, cost and so on.
All these people joined for basically the same reasons and they all had the same training but the huge differences in job satisfaction says to me, the problem is at the top. Unions become militant for a reason and when that union is in house and not part of a bigger entity, you have to look hard at management.
-
Unions become militant for a reason and when that union is in house and not part of a bigger entity, you have to look hard at management.
Sure but it's not an either/or situation either. Those at the top of both sides have an entrenched interest against co-operation of any kind.
-
Sure but it's not an either/or situation either. Those at the top of both sides have an entrenched interest against co-operation of any kind.
My experience with in house pilot unions is that they generally try and work with the companies to solve problems, but they weren't government entities. It's interesting that we haven't seen this kind of friction within a unionized Nav Canada which is a privately run non profit. I don't see controllers as a particularly militant bunch. They didn't join just because it was a good union job. Somewhere things have gone south with this outfit and it seems to be cronic. not only with this union but PATCO which preceded it and Reagan dissolved.