Social actions at air navigation service provider skeyes (Belgium) - possible air traffic disruptions

[Poiu]

On the main page is an article about a near collision in South America, the ATCO immediately blames the high workload.
During peak times in Brussels, the stress in the voice of some ATCOs is clearly recognisable, I honestly think we should not put more pressure on them in order to cover up management mistakes from the past.
The solution for the future is more ATCOs who work less for less money in order to have sufficient people available to do extra work for extra money should the need arise.

[mvg]

On the main page is an article about a near collision in South America, the ATCO immediately blames the high workload.
During peak times in Brussels, the stress in the voice of some ATCOs is clearly recognisable, I honestly think we should not put more pressure on them in order to cover up management mistakes from the past.
The solution for the future is more ATCOs who work less for less money in order to have sufficient people available to do extra work for extra money should the need arise.

You might think about deleting that one as it has nothing to do in this thread and nobody has ever thought about paying controllers less.
There are incidents and there will always be incidents everywhere in the world, whatever the amount of controllers. And there will be more if you pay them less as the job will be even less attractive.
After an incident there is always a long investigation to find what went wrong and what needs to be changed. Conclusions can’t be made without knowing the whole story and that story is probably 100 times longer than that video.

[Phoenixx]

this management will have to leave

To illustrate at least that someone is still reading: yes that seems very obvious. But it is not going to happen unless a strong arm government decides. Which is obviously nowhere in sight.

The thing is that the public thinks ATCO's are the bad guys.
I just can't imagine politicians bashing the skeyes management instead of ATCO's before the elections... sadly.

Or after for that matter.
Best case scenario he is replaced in silence and in that case my guess is they will put someone with loads of experience there and a very clear set of instructions.
Worst case they support him all the way and for another term, but then still I would like to see a politician publicly declare he is willing to break Belgian and European laws and Belgian state rules to maximize operational continuity and potentially jeapordize safety.

Regarding the salary, that is something often mentioned by outsiders. "Cut salary in half and double the number of staff, problem solved".
Like mvg said, you could have 200 Atcos on position, aviation would still create stress situations unexpectedly and these are the ones you need to be able to handle. 199 colleagues extra wouldn't be able to help. One good one yes.
Unforeseen conflicts, sudden difficult increase in workload , unusual situations, emergencies...
Salary is irrelevant here indeed, 2000 or 6000, even though some people will take their stress it in the voice, the key is that an atco has to have the mental and physical capabilities and space to do what is needed and what's expected of him or her. Support the pilot in every and any way possible and do whatever is in their power to help them and get them to where they want to go safely.
That is the very core essense of our job that is sometimes forgotten. Not by pilots (thankfully), but by nearly everybody else, including our own management and politicians.

[jan_olieslagers]

The thing is that the public thinks ATCO's are the bad guys.

I'm not so sure there. As pointed out before, there have already been critical remarks from (regional) politicians. With elections approaching fast, messrs. Bellot and Michel cannot keep up their silence - Mr Bellot might well be leaving politics anyway, but Mr. Michel needs every possible opportunity for scoring. He has one here, I cannot imagine he'll not make use of it. Except if there's more to this than meets the eye...

[jan_olieslagers]

Well, there is at least the Wallonian government suspending payments to Skeyes: I cannot but read that as a blame on the Skeyes management.

https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2019/04/19 ... ersleider/

[sn26567]

Well, there is at least the Wallonian government suspending payments to Skeyes: I cannot but read that as a blame on the Skeyes management.

https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2019/04/19 ... ersleider/

Also in English: https://www.aviation24.be/air-traffic-c ... nt-reacts/

And when Minister Bellot says that the skeyes monopoly is in jeopardy, that also sounds like a blame on the management:

https://www.aviation24.be/airports/lieg ... er-skeyes/

[Phoenixx]

The thing is that the public thinks ATCO's are the bad guys.

I'm not so sure there. As pointed out before, there have already been critical remarks from (regional) politicians. With elections approaching fast, messrs. Bellot and Michel cannot keep up their silence - Mr Bellot might well be leaving politics anyway, but Mr. Michel needs every possible opportunity for scoring. He has one here, I cannot imagine he'll not make use of it. Except if there's more to this than meets the eye...

Critics against skeyes, yes, but people only see ATCO's and not their managements.
Or do you have examples where management is "blamed"?

Not that I don't believe you, of course, but I personally haven't seen anything in that direction.

Max has a very good point. The public opinion is influenced to a point where everybody will turn against us.
The articles in the press tonight and tomorrow: skeyes air traffic controllers call (fake) sick, force air space closures, but the Germans are here to save the day and prevent their evil strike plans.
Germans controlling aircrafts through German airspace to the Belgian border are now saving the Belgian day -or night- (I'm not kidding, I actually read this)

Very few are aware of the actual situation, and the longer this continues, the more unpopular their opinion will become.
And while some politicians call out skeyes, they are also calling out the air traffic controllers by threatening their status (appointed government worker). To be honest, I wouldn't mind swapping to the private sector if it meant correct working conditions by now.
And honestly many of my colleagues share the same idea.

I personally don't feel supported by any politician at the moment, both regional and national.
Silence indicates a certain level of tolerance or support (for the one in charge) while the public statements that have been made have not been to the CEO personally yet (and even if they supposedly were, they were not exactly clear). The political parties Involved are very much aware of the actual situation (even though management feeds them lies they can not prove), but are seemingly still waiting for a certain incentive. The situation is critical to aviation, but not to politics. We as air traffic controllers have given our signal, we do not want to strike again, we do not want more closures and flow measures. We want a resolution, a solution, we want peace and quiet. We get all the thrills we need on frequency, whenever we least expect it. And really, no passenger or pilot wants to have a distracted controller on frequency at that moment.

[Acid-drop]

https://www.lalibre.be/economie/libre-e ... 534790d3a5

Finally someone go to court with this mess !

[jan_olieslagers]

Yes, good to see some action that has the potential to be relevant. I wish them success!

But are they aiming at the right target? Isn't it the Belgian state who has - under ICAO ruling - to guarantee operation of public aerodromes, such as EBLG? Skeyes is only a contractor of theirs, I should think?

I am not well acquainted with legalese, but it would seem better to me to "attack" both Skeyes and the Belgian State.

[jan_olieslagers]

And, could someone help me understand "procédure en référé" as mentioned in the reference? Is it equivalent to Dutch "kortgeding"? If not, it will not make a change before the May elections. Except to increase political pressure, which I still think the way to go.

[Acid-drop]

And result already.
https://www.lalibre.be/economie/libre-e ... 6a5ad5eaaf

250.000 euro fine per HOUR if the service is not given

[jan_olieslagers]

Yeps, VRT says so too. Skeyes to pays indemnities if failing to deliver. So it was a "kortgeding" indeed.

And the indemnities amount to 250.000 euro per hour - that's not peanuts!

https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2019/04/26 ... kingen-di/

What is the next step? My source vrt.be mentions an "ultimate" proposal from the unions, without offering any details..? And announces a new "reconciliation meeting" on May 2nd. But what if Skeyes gets fined for a couple more 2 hour disruptions before May 2nd? How much is their working capital? Just imagine Belgocontrol ("trading as Skeyes") were to file for bankruptcy?

[Phoenixx]

Yeps, VRT says so too. Skeyes to pays indemnities if failing to deliver. So it was a "kortgeding" indeed.

And the indemnities amount to 250.000 euro per hour - that's not peanuts!

https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2019/04/26 ... kingen-di/

What is the next step? My source vrt.be mentions an "ultimate" proposal from the unions, without offering any details..? And announces a new "reconciliation meeting" on May 2nd. But what if Skeyes gets fined for a couple more 2 hour disruptions before May 2nd? How much is their working capital? Just imagine Belgocontrol ("trading as Skeyes") were to file for bankruptcy?

I edited this post to avoid misunderstandings

As agreed upon for the negotiations, the contents are classified.
What came into the public was leaked by management.
Honestly, I have 0 information on this final offer.

We are all very curious how they will approach this verdict.
They have quite a working capital so even if they had fines this weekend, there would be no 'major problem'.
But this verdict will undoubtably repeat itself, and they do not have the financial power to sustain that one for a few months..
So it is indeed time to bend or break and to solve this.

[Acid-drop]

If you're happy to let the whole system collapse, I'm happy to see you go with it. And then we can think of using a foreign service.
In the end we can thank all of you for this clarification.

[Phoenixx]

If you're happy to let the whole system collapse, I'm happy to see you go with it. And then we can think of using a foreign service.
In the end we can thank all of you for this clarification.

You still think we are taking a hostage here?
We have tried offering continuity, he is not intrested as long as it's not at the maximal capacity and that is something we simply can not offer anymore. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see you have a problem if you have to fill a 104 person roster with 75.
That leaves very little margin for all parties.
One air traffic controller taking another extra shift here does not solve anything structurally.
Im sure they will manage to avoid this closure and these fines (i hope they do), but what if a judge extends this for a year?
Is the ultimate solution here forcing everybody to work 12 days straight for another few years?
The 'system' was working on the goodwill of the shortstaffed units. We are in no way happy with any of this, and you might be confusing my surprise and my curiosity to how this will continue with enthusiasm or happiness(?) but please don't put these kind of conclusions in my mouth.

[mvg]

They are gonna have to accept that putting restrictions is the only way to have a continuous service. That should already have been put in place and accepted a long time ago.

A few questions on that matter:
How is capacity defined for an airport, for a tower position and for a sector (radar)?
How do you define the capacity with reduced staff? Or how has it been calculated?
For example for Brussels tower, from which moment would they have to put restrictions? From which moment (how many Atcos present) would they say: we close the airport). Same for CANAC sectors: is there a definition of maximum capacity? What is the calculation based on?

About that judgement that just came out and the fines in case of discontinued service: this can go in all directions. Anything could come out of that, from a total collapse until a full agreement of the Atcos requests. This is a very dangerous way forward but has the advantage that things are gonna have to move now.

[Phoenixx]

They are gonna have to accept that putting restrictions is the only way to have a continuous service. That should already have been put in place and accepted a long time ago.

A few questions on that matter:
How is capacity defined for an airport, for a tower position and for a sector (radar)?
How do you define the capacity with reduced staff? Or how has it been calculated?
For example for Brussels tower, from which moment would they have to put restrictions? From which moment (how many Atcos present) would they say: we close the airport). Same for CANAC sectors: is there a definition of maximum capacity? What is the calculation based on?

About that judgement that just came out and the fines in case of discontinued service: this can go in all directions. Anything could come out of that, from a total collapse until a full agreement of the Atcos requests. This is a very dangerous way forward but has the advantage that things are gonna have to move now.

This will sound ridiculous, but we have been wondering and asking the same thing for a long time.
There is a mentality in management that if they don't define (things like 'operational continuity' and minimum staffing among many others) or specify their target numbers and staff vs the actual staff available and the capacity that comes with it, it can not be used against them either.

There is a default maximum capacity per sector, and capacity reductions are up to the supervisors and flow managers best judgement.
How many aircrafts per hour an airport can handle safely (keeping space on the staff working capacity for unexpected situations) with a specific set of conditions is a variable.
Runway in use, weather, capacity of a specific adjacent sector, the specific staffing situation due to staggered shifts, ... (Just to name a few examples), make this all hard to turn into fixed procedures and while we do have a few guidelines and rules on the subject, there is no document stating 'the capacity of Brussels airport must reduce from x to y on a 2 person shortage during the early shift' for example.
We do have guidelines of the number of working positions to be used in case of staff shortages.
An airport closure is extremely rare during the day in Brussels (more staff, more flexibility and the option of spreading the effect throughout the shift and over the other atcos) but a one person shortage during a night shift could mean a closure of a few hours.
Don't forget that during these hours, there is still somebody monitoring the airspace and the frequencies, but single person active operations are simply not allowed.

While it is an option, total collapse seems unlikely to me, management will not just give up on everything because of a setback.
A full agreement on the atcos request is improbable too, the unions will not exploit this court decision to increase demands and suddenly avoid compromise.
The 'final offer' (this will not include all our demands) from the union side was presented before this decision was made public so is not influenced by this.

[mvg]

Very interesting, Phoenixx, thank you for the answer (which isn’t surprising).

The “capacity vs staff” is the main issue, if we look at whole picture because with a staff shortage like you have now, if the capacity is defined reasonably according to how many Atcos are present per shift, this is workable and understandable for everyone :
- Atcos will be protected (traffic not above a certain level which also means guaranteed breaks)
- you can reduce the manning by (for example) one Atcos in each unit per shift daily -> less rostered day for you
- Airlines will understand
I know it has been proposed to management to put restrictions and they refused but why don’t you, controllers, come up with YOUR figures, made by you as you are the professionals and must keep it safe at all times. Say: this is how we gonna work in such conditions (example two persons short on that sector so capacity will be such, for each position/sector u have in the company). Then tell Management (and the public and the airlines): this is our proposal, we assessed (by our experience) that it is safe and we will use it till we get something else (reasonable) from the management.

In your proposal you exclude closures: if there are only two persons for the whole ACC it’s only 5 (just an example) planes per hour. At least for the public, for the image of the job, for the customers, for your own protection, you bring a solution that is understanble, doable and not as extreme as a total closure.
And for example, if ACC east is short of staff, use the Liege corridor anyway (6 planes per hour between German ATC and Liege APP): that’s 6 planes less for the capacity of the east sector (and they can use that spared capacity for other traffic).

Just ideas and if they are silly, feel free to say!

[Phoenixx]

Very interesting, Phoenixx, thank you for the answer (which isn’t surprising).

The “capacity vs staff” is the main issue, if we look at whole picture because with a staff shortage like you have now, if the capacity is defined reasonably according to how many Atcos are present per shift, this is workable and understandable for everyone :
- Atcos will be protected (traffic not above a certain level which also means guaranteed breaks)
- you can reduce the manning by (for example) one Atcos in each unit per shift daily -> less rostered day for you
- Airlines will understand
I know it has been proposed to management to put restrictions and they refused but why don’t you, controllers, come up with YOUR figures, made by you as you are the professionals and must keep it safe at all times. Say: this is how we gonna work in such conditions (example two persons short on that sector so capacity will be such, for each position/sector u have in the company). Then tell Management (and the public and the airlines): this is our proposal, we assessed (by our experience) that it is safe and we will use it till we get something else (reasonable) from the management.

In your proposal you exclude closures: if there are only two persons for the whole ACC it’s only 5 (just an example) planes per hour. At least for the public, for the image of the job, for the customers, for your own protection, you bring a solution that is understanble, doable and not as extreme as a total closure.
And for example, if ACC east is short of staff, use the Liege corridor anyway (6 planes per hour between German ATC and Liege APP): that’s 6 planes less for the capacity of the east sector (and they can use that spared capacity for other traffic).

Just ideas and if they are silly, feel free to say!

Well activating the Liège corridor is decided by our highest operations manager, the Germans have to agree, and obviously Liège Tower needs to have sufficient staffing too.
This procedure is only possible in certain hours of the night and the capacity of 6 is subject to reduction too if needed. So that procedure covers Liège pretty well as a backup.
However, if both east and west would have a staffing problem in the night, Brussels airport is also affected and who is to stop the airport, Brussels Airlines Or DHL from doing what the cargo companies at Liège are doing now?
There is no corridor procedure for Brussels that I am aware of, zo that is one thing to keep in mind already.

Although I like your idea of coming up with our own numbers to guarantee continuity, there is a reason why we don't. Which is the same reason why management doesn't risk it either: responsibility.
In case of accident or incident, they will look at whoever contributed to the situation, wether that would be allowing (too) high traffic load, allowing single person operations, or creating a fatigue situation by working understaffed or too long.
For any procedure like this, you would need safety studies too.
In the other scenario, like it's happening now, the responsibility in case of a lawsuit (for example for delays)
An airport or airline could sue and they would simply forward it to the air traffic controllers for restricting the capacity 'on their own initiative'.
Also, which airport or sector do you give priority for a higher capacity if you have an extra controller available?
We heard plenty of times we are conspiring against Liège and Charleroi already at the advantage of Brussels or Flemish airports. (Which is obviously not true, but still)
These are very touchy subjects, and while we could use our best judgement, creating and using a new procedure (meaning it is a returning situation) of your own is very risky.
These are decisions management has to take because it is simply their job to make decisions keeping all variables in mind and then deal with possible consequences.
The CEO doesnt pick up a microphone in the night and we don't make policy or procedures.
We are more than willing to help, advise and share experience if needed or requested, but this really has to come from their side I'm afraid.

A simple but realistic example; Tower supervisors are being sued personally for selecting a specific runway configuration based on the weather conditions, pilot feedback, their knowledge and their best judgement,thereby deviating from the preferential system when it was still inside its theoretically acceptable parameters.
This is unfortunately the sad reality and not just a hypothetical example.

[mvg]

Hi Phoenixx,

About Liege corridor, whoever has to decide is it’s open, he is not gonna say “no” if it helps Liege staying open. I meant that that procedure could still be activated to lower restrictions on CANAC east for traffic to Brussels for example. If CANAC doesn’t have to take care of inbounds to Liege, that’s already a few aircrafts less. This only in case of serious shortage at ACC.

Indeed there is no corridor for Brussels but:
- it can easily be put in place via Brussels approach who controls till the Dutch border and could take traffic without using ACC (just an example). If traffic comes from Amsterdam FIR below FL75, there is almost even no need for a procedure: it happens daily and is a simple coordination by the Dutch straight with Brussels Approach. (It’s not nothing either but safety wise it’s simple).
About being suited because you give delays and letting the management do its job: well that’s one way to see things and we respect it but if YOU (controllers) take things in hands and come up with something workable on paper, you can also show your good will to everyone. And mostly to the airlines and the people flying. No airline will suit you for taking 10 planes an hour instead of closing the airspace. It’s only my opinion.
And as you pretend that your management is doing nothing, show them that you can do something. After all, experts (those who design procedures) are ex-controllers and they help you with this.

About new procedures and safety cases: in case of restrictions (in case there are x Atcos present, we accept x planes per hour -> better written than now and without closure) that is not necessary, procedures are not changed. Only the amount of traffic is. And BCAA can also be associated to the process so that they can see that it is very safe.
And if you are talking about BCAA (they review your safety cases), put them in the loop as well for the extra hours you have to work, the too many days you are rostered, and so on and so on. It is much more important for them to react on that than on flow restrictions which are deemed safe by professionals. BCAA is your regulator and it surprises me that they are not reacting to all your problems.
If rules are broken and safety is impaired due to fatigue (as an example) they have to know and react.

Thanks again for your input and let’s hope it all comes to an end soon