This policy was included for review at the Marrakech 2000 conference.

The policy to be reviewed is on Page 4121 paragraph 2.2.1. and is as follows:

This policy was adopted in Brussels in 1979 and was from W.P. 49 entitled “Draft Convention for the Profession of Air Traffic Controllers”. It was intended for presentation to the ILO Committee of Experts. The wording is verbatim from paragraph 3.8.1 of W.P.49 except for the inclusion of the words “directly concerned with executive air traffic controller matters”. There is no explanation in the Professional Manual as to why these words were added. It is thought probable that Committee C added them at conference.

A review of this policy was thought necessary in the light of:

• The commercialisation of ATS providers and the rapid disappearance of public service models of administration;
• The separation of provider and regulatory functions.

In deciding whether the policy statement is still valid in a commercialised ATS industry, it may be useful to compare other types of commercialised industry.

Motor Industry

• CEO and administrative staff unlikely to have worked on the production line;
• Heads of departments likely to be relevant professionals such as engineers and sales staff;
• Board members likely to be accountants, lawyers and managers of widely different experience.
• Product is a safe car.

Airline Industry

• CEO and senior managers unlikely to have been pilots or flight attendants;
• Heads of critical departments such as Flight Operations and Engineering almost certain to be pilots and engineers. Not so certain in Flight Attendant area;
• Safety regulator likely to appoint a Chief Pilot responsible to the regulator for safety;
• Board similar to motor industry.
• Product safe air travel.

Another interesting comparison is the defence forces. Commonly the chiefs of each force are always serving officers and always of the fighting variety. Eg. Pilot, Seaman Officer, Infantry Officer. They are often administered by civilian defence departments and have a politician responsible for their actions and readiness. This arrangement could be likened to the Board of Directors of a commercial firm.

It is probably the view of most of us that in a commercialised environment an ATS provider is most closely related to an airline. Indeed, where competition for ATS provision is allowed the administration of the two types of business by the safety regulator is quite similar.

• The product is safe flight;
• The business requirement is to be efficient and generate “profit” for the stakeholders. (This “profit” takes different forms dependent on the commercialised model being used.)

Like an airline or the military we cannot afford not to deliver our product:

• The airline would go out of business;
• The military would lose the war.

Using the business models quoted it seems that for an enterprise to succeed:

• The delivery of the service should be the responsibility of people who know the intimate detail of the process;
• Those who have a strategic knowledge of business conditions, legal requirements and political imperatives best manage the overall direction of the business.

Air traffic controllers very rarely have the kind of background and training that equips them to sit on a Board. However, other business models suggest that they are the best people to run the service delivery side of the enterprise. In the case of an ATS provider this would require them to be air traffic controllers. Competent non-ATS staff such as human resource manager and accountants should assist them.

While considering this item it was noted that the policy being studied had now become more of an issue for the section marked 2.6 “Privatisation/Commercialisation”, but that this section in itself was too restrictive in it’s content. SC4 would like to re-name the section 2.2. “Management/controller relationship”, as 2.2. “Management of ATS Providers”. Move the policies contained in 2.6 to 2.2, and move the current 2.2.2 and 2.2.3. to section 2.4. “ATS Systems.” The remainder of the “Social and Labour Aspects” will require re-numbering.

SC4 interprets the Brussels ’79 policy to still be valid in the commercialised environment.

The airline and motor industry structures show comparisons where relevant professionals manage service delivery within the organization.

The airline industry is considered the closest in structure to a commercialised ATS provider. SC4 argues that the word “executive” be removed from the policy.

SC4 argues that the position of Chief Air Traffic Controller should be established in commercialised ATS providers.

Sections of Social & Labour Aspects need to be re-organised.

The policy at Page 4121 paragraph 2.2.1. entitled Management/Controller Relationships be amended as follows:

Remove the word “executive”.

The section 2.2. : “ Management/Controller Relationship ” be re-named:

2.2 “ Management of ATS Providers ”

Paragraph 2.2.2. and 2.2.3. be moved to section 2.4. “ATC Systems” and inserted as 2.4.9. and 2.4.10.

New paragraph 2.2.2. be inserted:

“ Where ATS providers are controlled by senior management who do not have experience as senior Air Traffic Controllers then the position of Chief Air Traffic Controller shall be created. The Chief Air Traffic Controller shall be an experienced senior air traffic controller and shall be answerable for, amongst other things, the safety of the air traffic control system. The Chief Air Traffic Controller shall report directly to the Chief Executive Officer of the ATS provider and to the head of the regulatory organization.”

Paragraphs 2.6.1 to 2.6.4. be moved to section 2.2. and inserted as 2.2.3. to 2.2.7.

Section 2.6. Privatisation/Commercialisation be deleted.

This working paper be added to the Professional Manual to record that the policy was reviewed in Geneva 2001.

IFATCA Manual.

IFATCA Professional Manual.