When nobody was looking…
Posted by Paul Cox on January 26th, 2009
…or, more properly, when everyone was looking at something else, the FAA and Lockheed Martin were busily screwing over more people.
On January 20th, as the entire nation was readying for the inauguration of President Obama, dozens of folks were getting handed pink slips from their employer, Lockheed Martin. LM, as many of our readers know, holds the contract to provide Flight Service Station services to the FAA.
When LM took over that contract, a couple thousand flight service station folks went from working for the FAA to working for Lockheed. Those that were eligible were able to take retirements from the government and collect the pensions that they had earned, but many were not. They were out of luck. Congress passed a provision where if someone was within two years of retirement, they could stay on with the FAA (and hence save that retirement), but if you were further away than that, you were screwed.
Lockheed had said, in the contract, that they figured by the end of the transition from FAA to LM they would need around 1,400 FSS specialists. LM further figured that eventually they’d wind up with around 1,000 FSS specialists (thanks to newer technology that’s all they thought they’d need.)
But in October of 2007, the DOT Inspector General’s office testified to Congress that LM had screwed that up pretty badly, and that they only had 842 specialists on board as of September 1, 2007. The FAA supposedly tried (but not too hard!) to get Lockheed to increase the staffing. From the record of testimony:
…On September 7th, FAA sent a letter to Lockheed, requesting a plan of action and milestones so that FAA could better monitor Lockheed’s implementation of the staffing requirements.
(Oooh… “request” a plan of action. Why not DEMAND that Lockheed get things going the way the FAA was paying for?)
Lockheed assured the FAA and Congress that they would correct that situation and get more folks hired and trained.
Liars. They’re liars, because they don’t give a rip about actually performing; they just want to make a profit.
In the past few weeks and months, Lockheed has been offering BUYOUTS for their FSS employees. Current staffing is under 800! Does that sound like they’re trying to improve staffing?
What’s more, the IG scorched the FAA’s role in all of this as well. Don’t think for a second that the agency’s leaders don’t know what’s going on; in fact, as the IG pointed out, the FAA is directly responsible for ensuring that the FSS contract and services are handled correctly:
An important point, Mr. Chairman, is that as a result of the outsourcing, FAA’s responsibility over flight service stations has changed from a provider of services to an oversight role of contracted operations. Although the Agency has outsourced the day-to-day operations of its flight services, it is still ultimately responsible for the services that these facilities provide to general aviation users of the National Airspace System. Therefore, FAA needs effective controls in place over its contractor to ensure that the quality of services is maintained and that the estimated savings are achieved.
from the IG’s testimony, on page 4
Some of the testimony that Congress heard on this issue is pretty pathetic. Here’s an example (for the FAA, it’s James Washington, a vice president in the Air Traffic Organization):
Mr. COSTELLO. You heard, Mr. Washington, the Inspector General testify that in certain aspects of the contract, that the FAA has not provided proper oversight. I want your comment. Would you agree with that?
Are there areas that if you could go back and do it over again, specifically, what would you do better regarding oversight?
Mr. WASHINGTON. Yes, Mr. Chairman, in the context of lessons learned, we have absolutely stepped into a very complex oversight responsibility which, I might add, combines the fact that FAA retains ultimate responsibility for assurance of safety in the system. The difference here is that we rely on the service provider and
Lockheed Martin who actually owns and operates that system to provide both the equipment and the appropriate trained expertise in terms of people to provide that quality of service which the customers expect.In our oversight experience, we have discovered some lessons learned in two particular categories, and one of those happens to be the testing routines that lead up to the actual implementation or the operational use of new automation which is relied on by specialists in order to provide briefings to pilots. The level of detail that is associated with that testing routine prior to operational use is what the FAA would apply a greater level of rigor around than what occurred in the recent transition.
Another specific area of lessons learned is related to staffing. In that discussion, I would suggest that it is a combination of the total number of operational staff specialists who are available in the system in addition to the availability by a facility to address specific demands on the system and address the more complex airspace situations around the national airspace.
So the availability of specialists while training is going on on a new automation platform is where we would apply greater oversight and advice than what may have been exchanged between the FAA and Lockheed Martin.
I would also add that we increased our level of surveillance and executive level of contract oversight when it became apparent that problems were arising in the system which exceeded the expectations of both Lockheed and the FAA.
(emphasis added)
Let’s break down those boldfaced portions of Mr Washington’s testimony, shall we?
First he talks about a lesson the FAA learned- that they need to pay attention and be sure that full and complete testing is done on new automation systems prior to their implementation.
Um, folks… this isn’t news. This guy is claiming that the Federal Aviation Administration ONLY NOW figured that out? That you need to vigorously and completely test automation that’s going to be used in the business of air traffic control? That’s like some kind of bad joke- most of us in the FAA (and hell, most of the general public) probably could have told you that in, oh, 1960 or so!
What he’s really saying is this: “We figured Lockheed knew what they were doing, because they said they did. Then it turned out they cut corners on testing the new automation, so when they started using it, it sucked and didn’t work, but at that point it was too late so everyone was stuck with it. Boy, we’re not going to take their word for it anymore- we’re going to make them test that stuff next time!”
Then he says that the FAA has learned that… gosh, you need to be sure you have enough people working in the right places to provide services. Again… this is news to the FAA? Who the hell are these people?
Finally, Mr Washington closes up with a promise that the FAA has increased its oversight of Lockheed Martin.
Well, Mr Washington, if that’s the case, why is the FAA allowing Lockheed to actually buy out employees and get them to retire early when it seems everyone agrees that there aren’t enough in the system already? Why is Lockheed firing employees in a mad rush right before President Obama takes office?
In fact, Congressman Larson (from my state of Washington) tried to pin down Lockheed Martin on exactly how many people they were going to staff with:
Mr. LARSEN. Just to summarize, paraphrase, that is, what I heard is you are going to staff up to a number. It is going to be around 1,000, but it will be more focused on the performance level required.
Your attrition rate is about 150 folks per year. You are anticipating about 150 folks per year based on an 1,000 base.
Mr. CIPRIANO. Yes, sir.
Again… if Lockheed needs more people, and they’re around 840 in September of 2007, and they think they’re going to lose 100 to 150 or so each year for retirement… then why are they offering buyout packages for early retirement and firing people for union activity?
Simple: Money. They were in a mad rush to get it done prior to Obama taking office because they knew that things were going to change.
And there’s one more, very important thing to remember here: The FAA claimed it was going to be providing more oversight. In fact, the reality is that the FAA knew perfectly well what was going on. Lockheed wouldn’t make moves like that without knowing that either the FAA wasn’t watching (in which case the FAA guys that claimed to be providing more oversight were lying) or, more likely, with the tacit approval of the FAA.
I hope Congress holds more hearings on this issue and I hope they’re paying attention, and I hope someone in the FAA gets canned for doing such a terrible job.
Oh yeah, one more thing… from the FAA’s “mission statement”, the last two items:
- Integrity is our character. We do the right thing, even when no one is looking.
- People are our strength. We treat people as we want to be treated.
Yep, unless it’s time to turn a blind eye to our contractor firing people, in which case we let the contractor treat them crappy and we hope nobody is looking, too.
January 26th, 2009 at 6:43 am
Good Post as usual Paul. One other point to make though. The FAA’s contract with Lockmart stipulates that phone calls will be answered in a certain amount of time and that radio calls will be answered in less than 5 seconds. If the FAA simply held its contractor to the contract, the staffing issue would be glaring FAA in the face. Also of note, reading the Administrator’s fact book, flight service calls haved dropped by more than 50%. I believe that fuel prices for general aviation may have played some part in that, but in large part I believe that using tools such as Duats and Flightplan.com increased because of the long wait times and unfamiliar briefers. Who can blame them? I had a local pilot tell me he called the 800 Wx brief number and started on Flightplan.com at the same time. Before a briefer ever answered, he had filed his flightplan, and received a thorough weather brief all along his route complete with radar images from Intellicast’s pilot weather service. While these options were available when FAA did the briefings, the level of interest in them was rather low. Now that FAA has destroyed this service and its employee’s lives, they want to stick it in them yet one more time. Watch out lower level towers, they are just getting started.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Controllers don’t use Lockmart FSS near as much as they use to. I never call them to input flight plans(do it myself) and actually don’t even bother to call them when we close at night. Why bother. Pilots often say they don’t call them anymore as most of the time, no one answers or they get the wrong info. Total government welfare for Lockheed Martin. Isn’t Lynn Cheney(Dick’s wife) on the board of directors?
Watch out ATC’ers. Raytheon is the next Lockheed Martin. How many Raytheons guys do you see in your facility. Their foot is in the door!
January 26th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Besides all of the excellent points in the article and comments there is one other matter that is key to Lockheed/FAA’s actions (or inactions as the case may be) and that would be that the cost of any litigation (actual or anticipated) is far less that providing the services necessary to avoid such litigation.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Don’t hold your breath waiting for Congress to do anything. This is the same Congress from before the election. They have heard the testimony, received documentation and listened to Inspectors about how FAA management had falsified safety inspections and more. I guess Congress feels that it was enough to “allow” the ringleaders to retire to their “Safety related corporate jobs” while those employees who stood up are still out of a job or pigeon holed while the FAA lower level managers are still sitting comfortably at theirs.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Let us not forget how the FAA said that all AFSS’rs would have first crack at ATCT jobs. One by one they found other people, inlcuding new-hires, to fill those jobs. Pigeon hole, hell, I call it cornholing. With the staffing shortage you have out there, would you rather train someone who is familiar with the NAS?
January 26th, 2009 at 11:27 am
I went over to the local AFSS a couple of days ago to talk to my old friends and to take all the standby local RCO radios out of service for maintenance when the CIC told me that they didn’t have “Inflight” anymore. The Inflight position was moved to the Hub. No one told me. Also, the facility is now closed at 10PM till 5AM. You know who these people are? THEY are the ones who got aviation going again after the World Trade Center attacks. It was THIS group that stood poised to begin accepting flight plans once the clearance came to let ‘em fly. All the restrictions, all the confusion….who got the credit? Let’s just say they may have been the ONLY ones who didn’t give themselves a round of applause.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:48 am
On thing is for certain, by providing a frustrating experience to most pilots and poor service due to software glitches and long waits they have much fewer calls. An important service is now being ignored to the point of running it into the ground. If lockmart had their way I am sure they would have moved FSS to India so they could make even more money.
I like how they asked for more money to run the FSS because the FAA actually gave them incorrect pay data on how much it would actually cost. It is rather odd they asked for more money with more people and now they have the extra money they are letting them go…..
I do understand it does not take 4 years to train a FSS specialist but seriously, we used to work with people that actually knew the airspace and did not waste your time over and over again calling the wrong sectors for clearances. FSS is slower now because they have screwed too many pilots and flights are down in general. When it does come back there is no way they will be able to handle the increased workload.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
THROW THIS ON THE FIRE- In a Communique from Ron Petro (Head guy of LM Flight Service) to LM Flight Service Specialist dated Oct. 8, 2008 (at which point we were down to about 822 specialist), he stated:
“The Flight Service leadership group carefully evaluated the current staffing levels, traffic and facility cost associated with the flight plan areas covered by all of our sites. Based on these analysis, we have decided to close the following sites on February 1, 2009. 1) Albuquerque, NM, 2)Denver, CO, 3)Macon, GA, 4) Oakland, CA, 5) San Diego, CA. Our current levels are well above what we originally proposed. This combined with an overall decrease in general aviation traffic, has put us in an overstaffed postion.”
Later on in the communique, it goes on to a Q&A posting. These are verbatim as well:
“Q: How did we get overstaffed? Last year there seemed to be a concern of understaffing?”
“A: We anticipated that there would be more attrition. It has always been our plan to staff at strategically appropriate levels to provide service to pilots.”
“Q: How will pilots be impacted by this decision?”
“A: This transition will be seamless to pilots. If we thought that pilots would be adversely affected, we would not have made this decisiion.”
“Q: What is the business case for this decision?”
“A: This decison is contractually –not financially– based. The reason for the site closings and reduction in force will bring staffing to the level proposed to and accepted by the FAA when the contract was awarded to Lockheed Martin. We did not anticipate the decrease in traffic, not the did we anticipate the low attrition.”
That last Q&A is particularly interesting. Someone, whether it be the FAA or LM (maybe both), is LYING. The testimony to the IG indicated there should be more than 1000 and here they are complaining of being overstaffed at 820. So which is it; if they are overstaffed according to the contract, why didn’t the FAA of LM mention this to the IG last year?
Many of the long-time Flight Service Specialist that lost pensions and have now been laid off never had the chance to go to one of the HUBS. These HUBS are now partially staffed by the new hires. If there is a silver lining to this, it is the fact that this contract has become the “poster child” for not outsourcing inherently governmental functions. Anytime in the future some schlep politician brings it up, the outsourcing of Flight Service to Lockheed Martin will be the first reason mentioned for not doing it. In the meantime, the careers of over 2000 dedicated FS specialists lie in ruins proving the point. And of course the point is, government should NEVER outsource safety related functions to a for-profit entity.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
I still hear controllers, everyday, providing services to pilots that should be performed by Lockheed. The pilots by-pass FSS and call the sector directly ON THE PHONE or in the air on the frequency looking to pick up a pop-up IFR clearance and my fellow controllers keep doing it. They say “just trying to help the pilot out”. What they don’t seem to realize is that by doing this, they are helping Lockheed pull the wool over the eyes of government and taxpayers. Controllers are taking part in the firing of flight service specialists by allowing pilots to by-pass FSS. Controllers that do this think they are helping out the pilot but in reality they are providing a dis-service to pilots in the long run because as long as you keep doing flight service’s job, Lockheed will continue firing flight service specialists and degrading service. Lockheed wants nothing more than to take as few calls as possible and save millions by getting their contract money and not having to provide the service. You are helping Lockheed attain this goal by helping pilots by-pass FSS.
STOP PROVIDING SERVICES TO PILOTS THAT SHOULD BE PERFORMED BY FLIGHT SERVICE!!!!!!
January 26th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
P.S. My fellow controllers: Please stop telling pilots how to dial directly into a sector!!! Geez!
January 26th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
There were supposed to be quarterly reports issued to congress also. Out of sight out of mind. So far they are about 3 behind.
Hopefully the new hires will see through LMs underhanded tactics and vote the union in anyway. I hear there is supposed to be a new vote in the coming months. Lets see if LM starts its anti-union propaganda campaign on schedule.
What a mess.
January 26th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Mr. Ciprano and James Washington are OBVIOUSLY BOLD FACED LIARS TO CONGRESS.
January 26th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
I wonder if LM would have tried this if the first union vote was a success? I think not. Ron Petro keeps yacking about how we don’t need a “third party” involved in running Flight Service. No, we need a “third party” to keep LM from screwing the specialists!!!
January 26th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
P.S. I wonder if Petro even knows how bad the morale is because of LM’s actions or how screwed up Flight Service is? The more important question is if he even cares!!!!
January 26th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Screwing the specialists….?
they are not the only ones getting screwed.
How about screwing the TAXPAYERS, and CONGRESS.
These are FLAT OUT BOLD FACED (because Paul put them in bold type…not) LIES TO CONGRESS.
What people don’t realize is HOW DRASTIC THE CUTS ARE.
215 took the buyout, and then Lockheed said they were STILL overstaffed, so they fired 25 more, most of them LOUD UNION SUPPORTERS, SAFETY WHISTLEBLOWERS, and past FAA employees that were just shy of their retirements.
So, 240, from lets say 860.
That leaves about 620 or so (will Lockheed or the FAA even admit how many there are).
They are still getting paid to have 20 facilites (now 15) and 1000 people.
Direct question to the FAA.
HOW MANY FLIGHT SERVICE SPECIALISTS ARE THERE NOW? PLEASE EMAIL THAT QUESTION TO LYNNE.OSMUS@FAA.GOV.
OH, AND ASK YOUR CONGRESSMEN TOO.
January 26th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
LM should stay with systems like ERAM…..er…..never mind.
January 26th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Mr. LARSEN. Just to summarize, paraphrase, that is, what I heard is you are going to staff up to a number. It is going to be around 1,000, but it will be more focused on the performance level required.
Your attrition rate is about 150 folks per year. You are anticipating about 150 folks per year based on an 1,000 base.
Mr. CIPRIANO. Yes, sir.
Wow. they are going to staff up to that number, focused on performance level.
Mark my words. Our facility lost 14 people. We are barely keeping up with calls now (the last few days have been one call after another), and this is really crappy, really cold weather this winter.
What is going to happen in the summer. Staffing just got cut by 30%.
AOPA. FAA. PILOTS. ARE YOU READY?
January 26th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Mr. James Washington, the top guy on the FAA side of this mess, to Congress…
I would also add that we increased our level of surveillance and executive level of contract oversight when it became apparent that problems were arising in the system which exceeded the expectations of both Lockheed and the FAA.
Maybe this is what he meant….
From Ron Petro, the top guy on the LM side of this mess, to employees…
March 14, 2008
Communique’ from Ron Petro to AFSS Specialists
“Hi everyone,
I know that I don’t have to tell you guys that from a system standpoint yesterday was very disappointing. The problem with the system turned out to be a memory issue or what the technical folks call a memory allocation/deallocation error. In any case it was finally resolved late yesterday. We have put a team in place ti do a complete bottom up review of the test system to understand how a problem like this could make it through test and not show up until we were in production.
At one point in the morning, it looked pretty gloomy. The service level was abysmal and we were getting pounded. By mid morning you folks had jumped in and brought things back under control. You did a superb job and I’m proud to be a part of a workforce that pulls together like you do. You demonstrated what a team is all about! You immediately went to back-up using all available tools to take care if the pilots. Many of you stayed over and others came in just to work during a difficult time.
We had every available person certified as a pilot weather briefer on position including QAS and PPS. As a result, we ended the day in pretty good shape. The service level yesterday was 80.3% with only a 4% abandon rate both of which are well within the APL goals. We actually received several compliments from pilots on your professionalism and attitude during what was a difficult and stressful period. The FAA did agree to suspend 2a evals during this period but not before you folks had several passes with very high scores. Also during this period wehad two individuals who passed their National Weather Service (NWS) evals. The word WOW just seems inadequate in describing what you folks did!”
So they evaluate the service, except when Lockheed asks them not too.
Sounds like the airlines.
January 26th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
I wonder if Phil Boyer is going to say “Wow” this summer when he’s on hold for a briefer?
January 26th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Dear Administrator Osmus,
Congratulations on your appointment.
I have some concerns about the FAA oversight on the recent Inauguration Day firing of 25 specialists at Lockheed Martin Flight Services. Lockheed is saying a few things that really raised some eyebrows.
One. That the FAA will look at us “favorably” for jobs.
Now, if Lockheed fired someone that is over 40, and is qualified (23 years or more experience in the job), and the FAA would look at them “favorably”, then why is Lockheed Martin firing them, and keeping younger new hires of little experience, AND why is the FAA going along with this. These are some of the employees that were just short of their retirements when the FAA fired them in 2005 when they were shipped over to Lockheed after being BLOCKED from jobs in the FAA.
Two. Lockheed is saying this is a REDUCTION IN FORCE, so these removals are to reduce staffing.
Jim Washington (FAA) and Mr. Cipriano (Lockheed) testified to Congress last year (my Congressmen will get a copy of your response here) that the FAA contract called for “about 1000″ people, and that the contract was way short. Also, it is my understanding that the contract called for 20 facilities, we are now down to 15.
If Lockheed was down to about 860 specialists, and they just had 215 take a buyout (heavy handed tactics led to many with threats of “you better take this buyout”), and another 25 get fired this week, does that mean we are down to about 620 people briefing pilots?
Seems way short of the 1,000 Congress was assured was the base number.
Also, I learned that Embry Riddle has been told by Lockheed to expect 25 openings, as told to me in an email from the person in charge of their careers division. How can these 25 Inauguration day firings be a REDUCTION IN FORCE if they are being replaced by younger lesser paid employees nearly immediately?
I know you were not the Administrator during the Summer of 2006 and 2007, when Flight Service was a total failure, and so many pilots became tired of the service, and abandoned Flight Service. Your Office issues an Administrators’ Fact Book which clearly shows our traffic has been cut drastically.
I state right here and right now that I fear system backups and diminished safety this summer due to staffing shortages. We are just keeping up with the calls on many days this winter, and will be woefully short this summer. Many pilots may not call this summer, and fly with less knowledge and awareness then they should have had and could have had.
So here are my simple questions as I prepare for my EEO and SAFETY HOTLINE write up.
1. Did the FAA approve Lockheed cutting the staffing as far as it has?
2. How many Flight Service Specialists are now working for Lockheed?
3. How many are called for in the contract?
4. How many facilities did Lockheed agree to provide the American Public?
5. Does Lockheed still get paid the same when providing about 65% of the specialists and 75% of the facilities agreed to in the original contract?
6. Why would the FAA approve the firing of multiple Flight Service Specialists that are suing the FAA in an ADEA lawsuit for Age Discrimination, while Lockheed retains many younger employees?
I know that you are new in your position, and I hope you can appreciate the way the Flight Service employees have been treated in this debacle.
And I truly hope that as Congress and the Transportation Secretary take a “new look” at the acrimonious relationship that the FAA has had with its employees, that those employees that were treated the worst overall will be taken into consideration in these discussions (lost pensions late in career, not allowed to compete for tower jobs… I have plenty of proof I can provide on that issue).
Please take the time to address these grave concerns I have about the Flight Service program. I am trying to address some EEO concerns, and some safety concerns, as the FAA and Lockheed are letting the experience levels, and staffing levels drop to really low levels.
Thank you very much.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Get the guv’ment out of the FSS and ATC business. Let the airlines pay for and control it, like they used to in the good old days. Let the GA crowd pay for services, whoever may provide them. If no businesses emerge, oh well, no market I guess. But as a taxpayer, who doesn’t fly – I don’t want to pay for this BS. Based on the comments in this, and other ATC blogs, you guys are way overpaid. No business would ever pay what you guys make today. Get the guv’ment out of this and contract it out under military oversight; just like you guys want.
January 27th, 2009 at 12:10 am
MeAgain ,
Good luck trying to get that to someone that actually cares. Beehive Osmus is not the right person I can assure you that. If we do get someone in charge that cares anything about safety they might just run right back out the door screaming and never look back.
We have idiots like Krackhouse that shuffles management positions and calls it a day. There are hundreds of real and serious issues in the FAA but rather than taking care of ANY of them he is like a kid in the corner playing with his dolls he got from his happy meal. That tool is suppose to be the CEO and he is clueless. His first call to the workforce was he was “Going to get into the field and see the people” he has only met with other management as far as I know.
Serious guys if they don’t CLEAN HOUSE, we might still get a real contract, but I don’t expect much else to change. The Administrator takes his/her marching orders from the President and from the head of the DOT but when it comes to assessing the problems and attempting to fix any the Administrator has to trust the information fed to them from the upper level management. All of them are so painfully clueless and forgot what the truth really is. We always hit the “Metrics” and we al almost always doing a great job at making our budget (Rebaseline) meeting our deadlines (Rebaselined) You can’t do a bad job when you make up your “Metrics” AFTER the numbers come in. Staffing is on the mark, errors are on the mark, all projects are on time and on budget.
Staffing and hiring is doing great? Then how come I am working so much FORCED overtime? How come our leave slots where reduced to TWO for the entire summer? Why are other facilities doing the same? It can’t be both at the same time. Either we have enough people or we don’t.
All projects on time and on budget? ERAM is delayed nationwide (Because it does NOT work!) How can that be on time and on budget?
If you told someone on the street you know of a government agency that has over 45,000 employees and last year…..we had 100% of our projects on time and on budget, do you think they would laugh at you or believe you?
How come Marion Blakey is not in Jail? She started this trend of lying to Congress and anyone else that would listen to her cackle.
March 16th, 2010 at 8:50 am
??????? ?????? ????? ?? ??????????????? ??????????.
March 23rd, 2010 at 3:40 pm
? ????? ???-?? ????????, ?? ? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ????????