LATCC Watch Managers on the way out?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: The Dome commute area
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LATCC Watch Managers on the way out?
Canteen talk this morning of a cull of SATCOs starting with the W/Ms; supposedly they have to sort out the order of departure amongst themselves? Anyone have any gen??
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ATC
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What utter nonsense. In fact, the WM’s are likely to be given more authority especially if as expected, vast swaths of the support side of NATS are indeed contracted out. One could well imagine them being overall business managers, their business ensuring their watch runs totally smoothly and therefore maximising total movements.
Why would the AG want to cull them?
Why would the AG want to cull them?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cos they cost the organisation approaching £70k a year and contribute precious little!!.
I reckon they could do the job with 2x 0800-1700 "ops" managers.Do we really need 10 watch managers at LATCC just because there's a 2" wall between the 2 ops rooms?
I reckon they could do the job with 2x 0800-1700 "ops" managers.Do we really need 10 watch managers at LATCC just because there's a 2" wall between the 2 ops rooms?
The idea certainly makes sense. It appears that the WM is essentially an overpaid non-job. They don't have the authority to make any decisions without reference upwards to the DGM or sideways to the ORO, and how often are they actually around? It seems their main function is passing down the bad news from above - few copies of a newsletter would be far more cost effective.
And why do we need two DGMs? Surely a GM and then ten Watch Supervisors below would make better sense (and save enough money to re-instate sandwiches at those watch briefings that always are scheduled for lunchtime!).
And why do we need two DGMs? Surely a GM and then ten Watch Supervisors below would make better sense (and save enough money to re-instate sandwiches at those watch briefings that always are scheduled for lunchtime!).
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The girls love it but they always think I'm exaggerating!!
No, seriously, should that make a real difference. Each room only requires 2 "ops managers"- or whatever you wish to call them, to run the place. With the watch supervisors responsible for the day to day running of the watch, much of the present desk tasks eg. A/L farmed out to the ORO (God help us), they will then have more time to devote to the operation. The present WMs seem to have achieved precious little when it comes to resolving staffing issues etc. as they just don't have the authority to do anything themselves. No good having managers if they don't have the mandate to manage.
[ 03 September 2001: Message edited by: 250 kts ]
No, seriously, should that make a real difference. Each room only requires 2 "ops managers"- or whatever you wish to call them, to run the place. With the watch supervisors responsible for the day to day running of the watch, much of the present desk tasks eg. A/L farmed out to the ORO (God help us), they will then have more time to devote to the operation. The present WMs seem to have achieved precious little when it comes to resolving staffing issues etc. as they just don't have the authority to do anything themselves. No good having managers if they don't have the mandate to manage.
[ 03 September 2001: Message edited by: 250 kts ]
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: London
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There has been a suggestion of combining ATC WMs with Eng WMs, so that you have one operational Manager overseeing everything. Systems currently have 1 wm per 2 watches...
"Cash is King"
"Cash is King"
