Have you ever watched a live air traffic report in real-time on TV or your computer? If you are like the Gorilla, you have probably seen the map of the U.S. in real-time, with all of those flights in air at the same time and said to yourself “wow, it’s unbelievable there aren’t more accidents!” It’s almost impossible to imagine the workload of the already taxed and exhausted air traffic controllers in America, and according to the union representing the nation’s 14,800 controllers, there is a “staffing emergency” with a major shortage of controllers.
So, how does this affect air travelers? Well it doesn’t take a genius to figure it out. Safety is potentially jeopardized when these controllers are exhausted and overworked, putting you, the traveler, at risk. ”The whole system is going to hell in a handbag, and it doesn’t seem that anybody cares,” said Patrick Forrey, president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. He also went on to say what the Gorilla already eluded to earlier; that a “major catastrophe” is just waiting to happen if things don’t change immediately. But FAA spokesperson, Laura Brown, disputes these claims, stating that they are “misleading.” She says that the FAA had anticipated the recent wave of retirements so they hired 1,815 new air traffic controllers last year, exceeding its projections. She says that the FAA exceeded its 2007 goal of having 14,874 new controllers, and is on target to have 14,961 by the end of this fiscal year.
However, Forrey, of the NATCA, says that because the FAA has been so slow to train and certify the new replacement workers, experienced controllers have been demoralized and fatigued and are leaving the work force in record numbers. To further complicate the problem, and as a result of the shortage, many new trainees are working in major metropolitan airports instead of smaller airports, as they normally would (scary!). Coincidentally, the NATCA’s contracts have been expired since 2005 and negotiations were stopped in 2006, so it begs the question: Are these claims by the NATCA simply a big “scare tactic” to get negotiations going again on their contracts? Forrey acknowledged that he wants the FAA back at the bargaining table, saying it would help stem the flow of experienced controllers, and would attract recently departed controllers back to work. Hmm. Interesting point! So is it hype or a real concern? Well, that is certainly for you to decide.
January 11th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Common in our modern day vocabulary are the terms, outrageous, incredible, unimaginable, etc. To accurately describe how incompetent our government, at every level is, one has to use this vocabulary. The FAA has had the issue of mass retirements and less experienced controllers on their radar screen for many years, but has chosen a micro approach to solve a problem that affects an aggregate of our nation in many ways ranging from national security to the national economy.
When one looks at the number operations versus the number of incidents or accidents, aviation safety fares well. It is not a result of happenstance, but of many layers brought forth by the many participants in the highly regulated, non regulated industry. Make no doubt about it; this makes it very expensive, but very worthwhile when we consider the alternative.
A by-product of the government’s incompetent management is loss productivity caused by increased delays resulting in millions of man hours lost while traveling. Fares also rise to cover increased fuel costs, labor costs and consumer related recovery costs (oversold flights, hotels provided due to cancellations, special ops., etc) as a result of air and ground delays.
The airports were built and paid for by the taxpayers. Utilization should be managed to best serve the traveling public that paid for it. In the Northeast there will be no ore airports built, hence utilization is paramount. When an airport like LGA that serves the most active business community in the world can only land a certain number of airplanes an hour (lets say 45/hour), should those 45 airplanes that land hold an average of 70 passengers each or 200 passengers each…3150 or 9000 passengers per hour landed. Each airplane or unit requires the same time or slot.
An increased utilization rate, more passengers per aircraft, would allow at least the same number of operations per hour and perhaps lend itself to reducing the number of operations, which would result in less opportunity for error among controllers.
The above is my opinion derived from over 20 years as a professional airline pilot