GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Legal battle over FAA outsourcing decision begins

• 47507
  

  The REST of the story is finally coming out, that the FAA had a group of workers that had as their mission in part the job of KEEPING AFSS EMPLOYEES FROM THEIR FEDERAL PENSIONS.

  The imlications are incredible here.

  govexec.com reader Posted March 30, 2008 12:56 AM
• 9209
  

  Skeptical,

  Your ability to make ad hominem attacks knows no limits! Do you realize that Rep. Charles Taylor, R-N.C., opposes outsourcing? Or that NAATS top lobbyist was Chet Lott, the son of someone named Trent Lott?

  A-76 isn't a Republican or Democrat issue. Both parties want to downsize government, even if it ends up costing taxpayers more, so they can brag about it (a la Clinton).

  I gotta hand it to you though Skeptical, you are consistent: You never let facts get in the way of your argument.

  Art Posted April 12, 2005 4:04 PM
• 9155
  

  The one thing missing in Lockheed's proposal and the FAA's projected cost-savings is a good dose of reality. How believable a bid is Lockheed's, undercutting the MEO by $160 million over 10 years? During this period Lockheed will be operating 5 times as many facilities (20 to 4) as the MEO proposed, have more employees (1000 vs 944) while paying the same wages (DOL ruling), how is this possible? Throw in the fact that Lockheed will be installing an unproven network system (from a company that failed with the SUA-ISE certification) as its backbone system and the potential for cost overruns is huge! They presently have no specialists to man their non-existent equipment, in their yet to be located hub buildings yet the technical team's analysis reads like Bill Gates' report card. This savings that the FAA is parading out for the public doesn't pass the smell test! I guess the FAA believes there are enough un-informed and confused voters out there (like the Jacksonville elitist) that they can slip this corporate gift under their nose.

  Thanks for the oppourtunity to vent, AX

  Bob Posted April 8, 2005 2:32 AM
• 9141
  

  Here we go again..It's bad enough that New York State Governor Pataki wants to sell our entire turnpike system to private contractors. Now the FAA (the tombstone agency)is preoccupied with dismembering flight service jobs. I guess the best way to get a good American job is to move to another country! As a recent convert to the e-mail world, I've started to send my messages to every legislator on important issues. Maybe it will make a difference. Not taking any action will certainly result in 'business as usual'for the companies who want to wreck our civil service system in the name of the global economy.

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 7, 2005 7:18 AM
• 8882
  

  Ms. Gruber's article states that "The contractor has guaranteed all of the roughly 2,300 remaining government employees jobs at salary and benefits levels comparable, if not better, than at the FAA."

  Ms. Gruber has just quoted the Lockheed/FAA propaganda verbatim. The fact is hundreds of AFSS employees who are working at Stations scheduled for closure are only guaranteed employment for as long as it takes Lockheed to shut them down. They've stated that closures will begin in 6 months. I wouldn't consider six months employment while they dismantle my facility much of a job.

  As for the guarantee of salary and benefits, also misleading at best. For example, my position as Supervisor is not guaranteed, and if not selected as a Supervisor I will be paid as a controller (though Lockheed is very vague at what rate of pay that will be.)

  So, I have no guarantee of a job beyond six months, at a rate of pay "to be determined".

  Whether or not contracting out government services is a good idea or not, I grow weary of hearing the FAA/Lockheed quoted on what a wonderful deal this is for the AFSS employees when the fact is for quite a few employees it's a bad deal all around.

  AFSS Supervisor Posted March 20, 2005 5:19 PM
• 8868
  

  Every Automated Flight Service Station manager was awarded a $10-15K bonus at their conference two weeks ago. Ms. Blakey justified the bonus to compensate the managers for the turmoil the A-76 process had on their home lives. Specialists obviously have no home life. Maybe the bonus was for losing the competition to Lockheed Martin?

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 18, 2005 11:12 AM
• 8860
  

  Skeptical, you have been swamped with the Bush doctrine for too long. Take a breath and look around at the reality of what is going on. You know the problems but can't recognize them as ones created by the Bush administration. One of these days it will be you that is on the outside looking in and then it will be different because it is you getting the shaft.

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 18, 2005 7:40 AM
• 8858
  

  Skeptical, all 4 were partially and some totally correct however the 5th reason is that the private sector realizes what a gold mine it is to have a contract with the gov, so their practice is to bid low, win the award then jack costs up later, I have no idea how long you have worked for the gov. or even if you do but that's the way things operate.....gov employees do it better and cheaper in the long run, private sector starts low but costs the taxpayer more in the end, don't be so skeptical of the federal workforce !

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 17, 2005 8:21 PM
• 8842
  

  Anybody even begin to wonder why there is such a discrepancy between how many civil service workers are required versus how many private sector workers are going to handle it?

  I know, I know - the radical leftists among us will claim:

  1) It's all Bush and Rove's fault, or
  2) It's a plot against the federal workforce, or
  3) Big business is trying to take the nation down, or
  4) The Republican party is Union-busting, or etc. etc etc.

  Maybe we should just come up with a numerical code for the usual rants. Then you can simply post a number and not waste your valuable time typing...

  Skeptical Posted March 17, 2005 7:45 AM
• 8834
  

  What the previous person said might be true, but the important thing is that the high level people that already have enough time for retirement will likely keep their jobs, overseeing the contractors, and perhaps even get bonuses for all the truckloads of money they have saved the government! (yes, that was sarcasm)

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 16, 2005 3:25 PM
• 8830
  

  Lockheed Martin IS NOT OFFERING JOBS to all employees! ONLY 1900!!! They will determine if the employee is qualified and then decide if they will offer a job. Furthermore, WITHIN 18 MONTHS 900 JOBS WILL BE ELIMINATED BRINGING THE ACTUAL JOB OFFERS TO ONLY 1000. "OVER 1500 HUNDRED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WILL BE ON THE STREETS WHILE LOSING THEIR RETIREMENT BENEFITS!!!!!

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 16, 2005 12:26 PM