Talk:Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968)/Archive 1

Updating current PATCO unions
Based on a conversation at User talk:Bookandcoffee I'm going to further split this article. This article will remain as the article on the defunct PATCO union that was disbanded by Reagan in 1981. There are two current PATCO trade unions today: At this writing the second of these two unions does not have a separate article, but is included in with the 1968 - 1981. I am going to start an article for that union, and provide a link from this article to both of the other articles.
 * Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (AFSCME)
 * Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (2003)

The following is a portion of the conversation about this issue:

I think both sides of this issue can stipulate to the following:

-Prior to 1981 PATCO was the sole representative of the nation’s federally employed air traffic controllers.

-Following the August 3, 1981 strike, PATCO was decertified in the fall of 1981.

- July 1987 the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) was certified as the sole representatives of the nation’s federally employed air traffic controllers.

-About 1993 the FAA privatized a number of air traffic control towers.

-PATCO/FPD was established circa 1996 to represent the privatized air traffic controllers.

-Ron Taylor was an active member of PATCO/FPD from inception to some time in 2003 when he separated himself from PATCO/FPD.

-March 29, 2004 Mr. Taylor applied for (and was granted) the PATCO logo trademark. --Bookandcoffee 16:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, there's a start to it. The new article is started, and there is a section in this article that leads into both other articles.--Bookandcoffee 04:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger_proposal
I've also added this merger proposal here. There's not enough material in either of the spin-off unions to warrant three separate pages, and none of the three pages even indicates why there's three separate unions. Please work out your differences and keep this down to one article. Torc2 00:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there are three different pages because there are three different unions. The first union named Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968) was formed in 1968 and was shut down in 1981 following the well known strike. The second union Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (AFSCME) was formed, as the note above mentions, in 1996. It is not the same union. A third union, Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (2003) was apparently formed around 2003 when there was a split between members of the AFSCME union. Both current unions are distinct legally registered unions, so it makes very little sense to lump them together. They are indeed stub articles for the moment, however, give them a bit of time.--Bookandcoffee 08:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Additional detail concerning the creation of the two current unions has recently be added to the Talk:Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (2003) page.--Bookandcoffee 14:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's still not sufficient to warrant three separate articles. You've got three unions all sharing the same name and serving essentially the same purpose.  The distinction between the three is minor enough that people looking for information about PATCO will benefit much more from a single page that clearly explains and contextualizes the relationship between each sect rather than from having to navigate through three articles and figuring out why each exists.  Both current unions claim some line of legitimacy from the original union, so why separate them from the original?  It will be far more beneficial to Wiki users to have this all covered in one article. Torc2 19:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunate that people have chosen to use the same name several times as it does confuse matters - however these are not sects in any sense of the word. I agree that there is a need to explain the relationship between the three, as the "Current PATCO labor unions" attempts to do. However, to say that the distinction is minor is untrue. The 1968 PATCO labor union no longer exists. It is an historical entity. I'm unsure how both separate active unions can be categorized as a minor distinction from a union with which they were never affiliated (claims to the contrary notwithstanding :). To hope that the history and ongoing information of two separate entities can be easily combined in one article seems very problematic to me.--Bookandcoffee 20:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Although the original union was decertified after the strike, the group of workers it represented didn't vanish. I think if you asked the members of the two new organizations, they'd each consider themselves as the true heirs of the original union --(at least, they keep editing all three articles as such)-- and I think to a degree, both have some legitimate claim as such, so it seems kind of inaccurate to say they're three totally distinct entities.  If they really were totally separate unions representing different people, there wouldn't be such animosity.
 * I guess I just don't see any benefit to separating these off, and see no harm in keeping them together. The bulk of the information in the two newer articles will be the details of why the split occurred, which will need to be repeated in all three articles anyway.  Torc2 19:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As one who was actually researching this union, I can honestly say I could have saved a lot of click time had they been one article, since it seems evident to me that all three originate, in one way or another, with the 1968 creation of the PATCO union.[flatbroke4ever] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatbroke4ever (talk • contribs) 07:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the Registered PATCO trademark Logo should be used as the legal standard for establishing this matter. It is very clear that PATCO is an independent union established in 96, and not affiliated with anyone. The logo as shown on your AFSCME page is not the one used by the strikers in 81 and has no history attached to it. Most strikers still belong to the PATCO Registered union. Lets not change history just because someone is using the same name. You need a basis to establish history of the PATCO from old to now, and the Logo shows that without question.

my two cents --PBI158 10:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The registration of a logo proves nothing. Cases can be, and are, made for both groups claiming the name and the heritage. All the logo registration shows is that somebody was quick enough to claim the logo before anyone else did. -- Orange Mike 18:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing quick about all of this. The PATCO Logo was bought by the co founder of PATCO (Jack Maher) back in 1982 when PATCO was in bankruptcy. It was registered by the same person (owner) with the Patent office later. The Co founder of PATCO is a member of the independent union. There were two Co Founders of PATCO Mr Maher and Mike Rock. Mr Rock passed away a few years ago. That is the beginning and true history of PATCO from 68-now. If you need additional proof or facts on the history of PATCO and orthese two individuals please advise. Not changing history,just protecting the facts as happened in history. --PBI158 21:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the next year qualifies as "quick". As you say, the guy bought it; management or some random stranger could have bought it. The mere purchase of an asset in bankruptcy shows nothing about heritage. Nobody is denying that some of the folks involved in the independent group were members of the original. So were some of the people in the other, AFSCME-affiliated group. We are merely discussing whether one or three articles would be better for this reference work. This is not a venue for arguing over who is the "true heir" to the brave strikers of '81. -- Orange Mike 23:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I’m not arguing over the heir of anything just adding discussion as requested on the front page of the site. If the History of PATCO is to be done then all the facts should be included such as;

PATCO was charted in 1996 as an independent autonomous organization. PATCO affiliated with FPD/AHPE,NUHHCE, AFSCME, AFL_CIO, and disafilliated from them in 2003. This fact cannot be overlooked or pushed aside to favor the AFL-CIO. Disaffiliations between unions happen all the time, and if memory serves me correct even AFSCME pulled away from AFGE years ago, NATCA with MEBA, and Teamsters with AFL-CIO.

My point is that PATCO is a stand alone independent labor union that flies the same colors that your site shows on the main site for the beginning of PATCO. Since you have shown respect to the logo on the front page, the same courtesy should continue as PATCO moves forward as an independent.

Follow the roots and facts of PATCO .....

--PBI158 12:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You are clearly pushing a strong POV here, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedic project. Our job is to impartially report the positions of the two groups, both of which derive from the original group. -- Orange Mike 14:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Presenting facts that can be backed up,documented and "verifiable" are not POV's. You don't have to take anyones word for anything, but to remain neutral you must verify from all sources available. The old saying "Trust but Verify" applies to many situations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.173.221.186 (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Union POV
PATCO didn't "think" it could sabotage air transport, causing it to grind to a halt. It intended to reduce the number of air traffic controllers to a minimum, where it "knew" that these controllers would be replaced by trained managers, and planes would be grounded in some cases. This wasn't sabotage, merely PATCO's effort to bring the problems of controller stress, out of date equipment, and pressure by airlines to increase takeoffs and landings to the public attention.

This was no different from the airlines raising prices or reducing service. In fact, PATCO's strike, even if it had continued, would have caused far less inconvenience than the slow-motion brutalization of coach class passengers by airlines in pursuit of profit.

The issue was represented almost exclusively from the POV of the frequently flying public.

As a result of Reagan's grandstanding, which had more to do with proving his anti-union "toughness", controllers today continue to struggle with stress and outdated equipment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.35.205 (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure you can blame Reagan for current stress levels and equipment 3 Presidents and 26 years later....and 26 yearly budget cycles later. 69.217.169.97 (talk) 11:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't solely blame it on Reagan, but the system has never recovered completely from the strike, and is unlikely to do so in the near future. Most of the "interim" measures used to deal with the strike have become permanent.  Certain skills (i.e. holding large numbers of aircraft) have been lost, the average experience level is very low, even at major facilities.  A large percentage of the workforce is eligible to retire, due to the hiring binge of the 1980's (to replace the strikers), but no seasoned controllers are there to replace them because instead of continuing hiring, the FAA severely curtailed hiring in the 90's and early 2000's, which would have smoothed out the peaks and valleys of controller replacement.  The strike and subsequent events were handled horribly by both union and government officials.Srilm (talk) 06:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Legacy section NPOV tag
I've inserted an tag in the Legacy section.


 * The graph in the section comes from a study titled "Dropping the Ax: Illegal Firings During Union Election Campaigns, 1951-2007", and is not specific to PATCO. The data graphed is from Table 1, headed, "Illegal Firings During Union Election Campaigns, 1951-2007" &mdash; again, not specific to PATCO. The image is Figure 2 in the article, and titled there, "Probability that a Pro-Union Worker is Fired During a Union Election Campaign, 1951-2007" &mdash; not specific to PATCO.
 * The source cited in support of the image caption is not the source of the image. Rather, it is a Business Week article titled, "WHY AMERICA NEEDS UNIONS BUT NOT THE IIND [sic., read: KIND] IT HAS NOW" by Aaron Bernstein. I don't read BW and don't know about Bernstein, but the title sounds like an opinion piece and WP:V says, "Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece, the writer should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested...")." Also, the quoted phrase, "illegally firing thousands of workers for exercising their rights to organize", was speaking specifically of firings by U.S. industry and, AFAICS, had nothing whatever to do with PATCO.
 * The Greenspan quote is unbalanced, omitting the immediately following paragraph:

It looks to me as if this section needs more than a little shaping up in the NPOV area. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree the graph is not really relevant to the article, although the trend it illustrates is (ie significant increase in anti-union activities from the 1970s onwards). No objection to removing the graph, but would be worthwhile including some data about the wider environment of anti-unionism under Reagan (which is the point about the legacy of the dispute and the graph gives data related to that). Disagree about the "balance" on the Greenspan quote; the sentences above are just repetitions of neoclassical economics, and not about the PATCO dispute.  The Reagan administration was engaged in an open policy of busting a union, it was not as if there was any attempt to hide this.--Goldsztajn (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * NPOV tag removed and graph text moved here for reference.[[Image:Illegal Union Firing 1952 - 2007.svg|thumb|220px|Union firing increased during the [[Reagan administration]], which would later be known as "one of the most successful antiunion wars ever". ]]--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Digitization of PATCO archives
"The National Historic Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) has awarded a grant in the amount of $90,000.00 to Georgia State University Library to digitize portions of this controversial union’s records and make them available online. The PATCO records are already part of Georgia State’s Southern Labor Archives. Work on the project is expected to take approximately 20 months; at its completion, all scanned documentation (about 179,000 pages of text) will be searchable, for free. The project will begin in April 2011." --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

McCartin book
I removed a bit about a book by McCartin. Here's what it was:


 * Joseph McCartin, professor of history at Georgetown University has examined the strike and its impact on current American labor politics in his book Collision Course: Ronald Reagan, the Air Traffic Controllers, and the Strike that Changed America.


 * (Reference: Website about the book "Collision Course" October, 2011 audio interview: Collision Course about the the strike and impact on labor relations.)

I removed it not because I have any kind of good or bad opinion of the book but because this article is about the PATCO organization and the air-traffic controllers strike with Reagan's reaction and its long-reaching fallout. The article is not here to simply list books and authors. I feel that the best course is for the book to be used to improve the article, adding facts and analysis, citing passages of the book. Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath
What did the fired controllers do? What are the usual positions for an ex-controller?

Did the lack of experience affect flight safety? (I suppose there will be opposed views) --Error (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Employment was varied. Although Civil Service jobs were prohibited, enlistment in the military was allowed. A large portion of the strikers had been military controllers prior to being with the FAA. Some enlisted back into the military as controllers, had productive careers, and retired with a pension. Other occupations I'm aware of, were car salesman, armored car guard, railroad dispatcher, and some were able to gain employment in airline operation centers. There were stories of suicides and the like, but for the most part, the strikers moved on, and were successful in other walks of life. Albeit, many never matched their FAA salary again.

The problem PATCO had was that they tooted their horn for months, if not years, leading up to the strike. This allowed the FAA to develop elaborate contingency plans to keep the system functioning in the event of the strike. The system was manned by management personnel, instructors from the FAA academy, and military controllers. Procedures were implemented that reduced traffic flow, but still provided a safe ATC system. PATCO was well aware of these plans, but the consensus was that the personnel the FAA planned to use, were incompetent to perform controller duties, and the ATC system would soon collapse. PATCO envisioned the FAA having no choice but to meet the unions demands, in order to keep the ATC system functioning. The union believed there would be a complete grounding of all air traffic. As it happened, the contingency plan worked, and the ATC system was back to normal over the course of a couple years time. Many of the ATC procedures implemented for the strike, were found to be beneficial, and are an integral part of ATC today. Eelb53 (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

One other thing I might add, is that PATCO thought that the various airline unions would honor their picket line, and not show up for work. That never happened. PATCO had little public support. Plus, the appearance of the strikers on picket lines, resembled that of a hippie reunion rather than a group of professionals.Eelb53 (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Established (though impractical) separation standards for aircraft.
Both airline pilots and air traffic controllers have participated in "by the book" slowdowns. That is the phrase that I'm most familiar with.

The term "established separation standards" is vague at best, and most likely misleads the reader. I believe the author was referring to "established separation standards" as being the most conservative interpretation and application of approved procedures. But, some well-established procedures, such as "hell, he'll never catch him" (HHNCH), were in common, "established" use throughout the 1970s and early 1980s when I was a controller. These procedures were NOT authorized in any manual. (A Cessna 150 that was waiting for a takeoff clearance behind a jet that had just lifted off from the runway could never overtake the jet, but HHNCH, though sometimes used, was not a form of legal separation.)

The term "by the book" is what pilots and controllers used in the 1960s, '70s, and early '80s, and it too is misleading for the average reader. I've heard people say, "Well, they should have been doing it 'by the book' all along. If they weren't doing it 'by the book' then just what the heck were they doing?"

The answer is that pilots and controllers were following the book most, if not all, the time; it's just which part of the book they followed that determined how fast traffic moved. When it comes to aviation regulations, the big print applies the restrictions, and the small print allows ways of getting around the restrictions.

Pilots can speed things up by accepting a visual approach to an airport; they don't have to fly an instrument approach. They can perform pre-takeoff checklists while taxiing out to the runway; they don't have to postpone the checks until they get out to the departure end of the runway.

For Air Traffic Controllers, the options to slow things down are almost limitless. Let's take vertical separation as an example.

A controller is supposed to maintain 1000 feet of vertical separation between aircraft.

Except, if one aircraft reports (or is observed with Mode C altitude readout) that it is leaving an assigned altitude, then another aircraft that is changing altitude in the same direction (up or down)as the first can be cleared to that altitude, even though 1000 feet of vertical separation may not be maintained during the climb or descent.

Except, in a non-radar environment, if the aircraft are separated by ten minutes, then the vertical separation doesn't apply.

Except, in an en-route radar environment, if the aircraft are separated by five nautical miles, then the vertical separation doesn't apply.

Except, in a terminal radar environment (where faster-turning and therefore more accurate airport surveillance radar is used) where the aircraft are within 30 miles of the radar antenna, then only three nautical miles of horizontal separation between the aircraft is required to negate the necessity of providing 1000 feet of vertical separation.

Except, in a terminal radar environment, if the aircraft are on diverging (by 15 degrees or more) courses (or assigned headings), then once the aircraft pass one another, the vertical separation requirements don't apply.

Except, in a terminal environment, an Air Traffic Controller in a control tower OR a pilot in one of the aircraft can apply Visual Separation between any two aircraft.

Conclusion: On a busy day at many airports, arrivals are sequenced for visual approaches, and visual separation is used for both arrivals and departures. If the pilots and controllers refuse to use visual approaches and visual separation, or controllers decide to ignore the many exceptions that are available to them, then things can slow down appreciably. It all depends on which part of the book that is being used that makes things different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyskerr (talk • contribs) 21:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

the numbers don't add up
It currently reads "Only 1,300 of the nearly 13,000 controllers returned to work" and "Reagan fired the 11,345 striking air traffic controllers who had ignored the order". So that's 12645 total they had at the start, not "nearly 13,000". Are there any sources listing exact numbers, instead of just saying "nearly" and rounding things up?  D r e a m Focus  01:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)