Curious WSJ Article

Take a few moments to read this article for the Wall Street Journal and see what you think.

Air-Traffic Controllers Ratify Labor Pact

I found a couple of things about it to be...well...curious.

”The pact marks a big win for one of the government's highest-profile employee unions, which has had a rocky relationship with successive administrations.“

First, a couple of my operating assumptions. The Wall Street Journal has a reputation as a solid news source (even if their editorial board is whacky.) Having said that, everyone (including me) assumes that Rupert Murdoch will destroy that reputation. In other words, I’m suspicious of anything from the WSJ now so perhaps I’m just being paranoid.

Having said that, I don’t consider this new contract a “big win”. If you’ll remember, I said this on August 17th.

”But getting back to the contract, did NATCA win or lose ? Or was it a draw ? For the issue that NATCA fought the hardest over -- defeating the “B scale” for new hires -- it looks like a win. If you look to the future though, it looks like a loss. Prior to the imposed work rules, controller pay maxed out at $144k. Now, with the arbitration award, the maximum is $114k. (That’s a generalization but it’s as close as I can get in 5,000 words or less.)

It’s hard to think of a $30,000-a-year hit -- especially after a 3 year fight -- as a win. I’m sure -- at first glance -- many in the American public will think it’s a win for themselves. Perhaps it is. If the FAA can still attract the talent it needs -- talent with the proper dedication to safety -- then it will be a win. Or, it could be the beginning of a trend that is a “recipe for an accident”.“

I’m a Labor guy. I’d love to call it a “big win” for NATCA. But I just don’t see it. I see a spilt decision. Which makes me wonder why this reporter (Christopher Conkey) sees it as a “big win”. Or, maybe, calls it a big win would be more appropriate.

And then there’s the last, little blurb. He’s quoting Pat Forrey (President of NATCA) and it goes like this:

”...and keep the current system safe and efficient while we transition" to a new air-traffic control system. “

It all sounded familiar but -- at the same time -- off. You may remember I directed you to the NATCA press release about the subject.

”... and keep the current system safe and efficient while we transition to the Next Generation Air Transportation System.”“

(emphasis added to both quotes)

I can’t explain the difference. I can think of reasonable explanations. But as my readers know, there’s a world of difference in the NATCA president talking about the NGATS and a “new air-traffic control system”. I even submit that many of my readers can appreciate the subtlety between saying “NextGen” and “Next Generation Air Transportation System”.

“NextGen” is commonly thought of as ADS-B and other projects on the near horizon.

“Next Generation Air Transportation System“ (despite being where the buzzword “NextGen” comes from) is a much grander concept. Kind of like an internet system for the air with everybody and everything (weather, schedules, positions, runway configurations) are connected over an integrated information system.

(Side note: Check the note on the Wikipedia entry about NGATS: “This article is written like an advertisement. “. You’ve got to love it.)

I’m probably being paranoid. But the difference is curious.

Don Brown
September 25, 2009