The following doc was filed by the FAA in response to recent
statements by NATCA. It makes for interesting reading...
FAA Statement
Once again, John Carr's
blog, Mainbang.com, contains many misleading or false statements
about the FAA's analysis of controller pay. Given the agency's
experience with the 1998 contract - - which NATCA promised would
cost $200 million over three years actually cost more than five
times that amount, $1.1 billion over the same time - - it's
critical that our stakeholders understand the actual facts
here.
The real ones are as follows:
How much of our budget truly goes to controller
compensation?
Contrary to Mr. Carr's assertions, the FAA has never claimed
that 85% of our total budget goes to NATCA. Labor costs currently
represent 74 percent of our operating budget. There is a big
difference between the total budget and our operating budget, which
Carr purposely fails to mention. It is this difference that drives
his flawed analysis. The truth is that NATCA's $2.4 billion payroll
expense accounts for 42 % of all of the FAA's spending on
personnel, compensation and benefits ("PC&B"), which totaled
$5.7 billion last year, whereas controllers represent just 31% of
our workforce.
John Carr claims we can save $543 million through retirements
without changing the current contract. Is this true?
No. In fact, if the
current contract continues, NATCA's payroll expense will balloon
another $856 million over the next 5 years, even with expected
retirements. Mr. Carr's calculation is disingenuous, at best. He
claims, "controller salaries start at around $16,000," implying
that we could save tens of thousands of dollars with each new hire.
That's wrong; the figure he uses is for trainees at the FAA
training academy who don't even control traffic. On aver-age,
certified controllers earn in salary alone more than $55,000 in
their first year and by fourth year, between $110,000 and $133,000
depending on location. And that's before premium pay, much less
benefit pay. The implication that seniority explains the constant
rise in controller compensation since 1998 is wrong as well. The
average age of a NATCA controller has increased by the same amount
over those years as the average age of the rest of the FAA employee
population.
What really caused the huge 75% increase in controller pay
since 1998?
Mr. Carr asserts that "government-wide" and "statutory locality"
increases explain the controller pay hikes since 1998. Again, we're
not quite sure where he gets his figures. But here's what we do
know: The rest of the FAA workforce, which received pay raises
equal to or greater than civil servants under the general schedule,
saw their total pay increase by 49% over the same time period.
NATCA's special pay plan, which linked big pay raises to facility
traffic counts, combined with a contract that requires we increase
their salaries above the government-wide average each and every
year, caused a 75% increase in controller pay since 1998.
Is NATCA genuinely in favor of pay-for-performance?
The "mainbang" article
boasts that the current agreement has a strong "pay for
performance" element. According to Carr (pictured, right), that's
why we should accept the "status quo." But when Mr. Carr grudgingly
agreed to add a modest performance element to the contract two
years ago, here's what he told NATCA members in his weekly
update:
"[T]o think that we protected pay and benefits for
another two years is a tremendous victory for our union. And the
fact that the vaunted 'pay for performance' plan--the linchpin of
the new Administrator--the pride of the Department-- is limited to
a measly 0.8% of additional pay is such thievery we should all pick
up our pay checks with a mask and a gun. And a big, sh**-eating
grin."