You've likely seen the FAA Administrator's announcement concerning the fatigue mitigation changes. While not inherently negative, the issue lies in the unilateral nature of the announcement, which lacks collaboration. The Administrator views himself as a "regulator," asserting the authority to enact this change independently.

We had a regional telcon this evening to discuss this announcement and here are a couple of key points:

RVPs learned about this this morning and got notified of a call at 9PDT along with a 114-page fatigue study. Medical personnel and FAA officials were on the call. They talked about a controller questionnaire that was against the rattler. They asked for the questionnaire but most of the report was lost on 9/11. This questionnaire was done in 1999.

Fatigue mitigation has never been in the top 5 of focus items in the FAA. The FAA Adminstrator and Dean Iacopelli were in the meetings. The Adminstrator is adamant about using his authority to impose this on us. He was reminded of the contract in place and said he would try and do it anyway. He was reminded that summer traffic is coming, and he said this is happening regardless. The Agency is convinced they can just unilaterally use Article 7. 

There were a couple of people on the call also:

Joel Ortiz, Western Pacific RVP:

Last summer showed a rash of NTSB investigations. The common theme was staffing and fatigue. The FAA did a fatigue study that did not include controllers. NATCA told the FAA that, obviously, the rattler is not desirable but don’t have a lot of choices given the staffing levels. The FAA did all of this without collaboration and without debriefing NATCA afterward. They released everything 7 minutes before the national email blast. Collaboration has taken a massive hit over the last two years. This was under a union-endorsed administrator in a union-friendly administration.

Josh Waggener, Northwest Mountain ARVP:

They are still researching as to whether this is something they can even do. If so, the impact and implementation need to be worked out, too. It might be carried out in 90 days or it might be for next year’s schedule. There is also the possibility that the managers “won’t have the authority” to negotiate MOUs if this gets drawn out too long.

Eddie DeLisle, P80 FacRep:

Management can try to do whatever they want, but it is important to remember that it does not supersede the contract. Industry will be on our side because they are concerned about their bottom line. Collaboration is not dead. We decide when it’s dead.

Basically, nothing should be currently happening at the facility level. Our agreed-upon schedules are protected, and our bid leave is guaranteed. If you hear anything about a manager requiring schedule changes or anything of that nature, please let us know right away, and we will address it.

Amy

Comment