November 13, 2023

[VIA FACSIMILE]{.underline}

Mr. John S. Carr

President, National Air Traffic

Controllers Association

1325 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Carr:

Thank you for your letter of April 21, 2006. I agree with your sentiment
that a voluntary agreement would have been highly desirable, and
certainly that was my goal throughout the negotiation process. As you
know, although our teams agreed on most work rules during the nine
months of negotiation and four weeks of mediation, fundamental issues
separated the parties in the end and seemingly could not be resolved.
While it was never my desire to send our dispute to Congress, because
our statute requires impasses to be submitted to Congress, at this point
that is the appropriate forum to assess the reasonableness of both
sides' positions. This contract has profound implications for the FAA
budget and for the rest of the FAA's professional workforce, not to
mention the taxpayers.

Candidly, I think you have mischaracterized the final days of mediation.
Both sides [agreed]{.underline} with the federal mediation service that
we were at impasse. (You had issued a press release on March 31
announcing as much.) While you claim that we were making progress, in
fact, the "best and final" offer NATCA made to the agency was
[worse]{.underline} than your previous offer, while the agency offer
that NATCA rejected put another \$200 million on the table for the
benefit of our current controller workforce. To say I was disappointed
when we received your response would be an understatement.

At this late date, resuming collective bargaining makes little sense,
particularly while you are simultaneously seeking to change the impasse
procedure that Congress has rightly established. Our two sides are like
"ships passing in the night." Contrary to your claims of a "pay cut,"
the agency's proposal fully protects the existing salary and benefits of
the current workforce and over 80% of the premium pays. Our proposal
also guarantees annual locality increases and brings controllers into an
incentive-based pay structure, while at the same time establishing a
fair and competitive pay scale for our new hires. Your proposal takes a
very different course.

We never came close to an agreement for three primary reasons. First,
the union has rejected every one of our proposals for [meaningful
reduction in new hire pay bands]{.underline}, even though the agency's
proposal establishes a competitive pay scale under which the maximum
base pay for new hire controllers at our highest level facilities is
more than the maximum base pay of a GS-14. Second, NATCA has repeatedly
rejected the idea of performance-based compensation and insisted on
returning, after a three year hiatus, to the current system of
[guaranteed annual pay hikes]{.underline} regardless of agency or
individual performance. As you know, Congress gave the FAA personnel
reform and directed the FAA to become more performance-based.
Consequently, much of the agency's staff now receives pay increases not
as a guarantee, but rather as a result of their performance. We believe
the same performance pay principles that apply to other FAA employees
should apply to the controller workforce as well. Third, while we were
able to reach agreement on many non-economic issues, there were several
important work rule issues that we did not resolve. These work rules
fundamentally affect [management's ability to operate an efficient air
traffic system]{.underline}. Exhaustive negotiation over these three
issues yielded no real progress.

For more than nine months, NATCA has had the opportunity to address
these fundamental issues and to date has not done so. Even in your most
recent letter, you present no new proposal. Absent an about-face by
NATCA on these [core issues]{.underline}, I don't see how further
negotiations would produce anything more than costly delay. (Since
negotiation began last year, the current agreement has cost the
taxpayers an additional \$80 million in pay raises, widening the 42% gap
between controllers and the rest of the FAA workforce and putting
additional pressure on our budget.) Any contract that does not fully
address these fundamental issues will permanently disadvantage the
agency, which I cannot accept in good conscience.

Sincerely,

Marion C. Blakey

Administrator