Potential Cost Savings Associated 
				With The
			     NATCA/FAA CBA
				And
			Compensation MOU(1/11/00)

Reduction of Supervisors:

Agreement has been reached in conjunction with NATCA/FAA Principal MOU (paragraph 2) that establishes a move toward a ratio of 10 controllers to one supervisor.Actual on board (AOB) operational supervisors as of 9-30-98 
totaled 2060. FY 2000FAA Appropriation language has deferred further 
reduction of operational supervisors forFY 2000. However, based on the 
parties agreement, FY 1999 has resulted in a reductionof 93 operational supervisors from 2060 (9/30/98) to 1967 (9/30/99).

The following analysis will show the actual cost savings associated with the reduction of 93 operational supervisors during the life of the CBA. (Note: We
will calculate an offset for the additional cost associated with Controller  in Charge compensation as soon as we have more data.) In addition, the analysis assumes that the supervisor reduction will be resumed in FY 2001 and be completed by the end of FY 2003.

15,000 BUE's/2060 supervisors equals a controller to supervisor ratio of 7.28 to 1. At the beginning of FY 1999, a ratio of 10 to 1 would reduce the number of supervisors to 1,500, or by a total of 560. In addition the analysis includes a calculation of the cost avoidance associated with maintaining the controller to supervisor ratio at 10 to 1 whent he number of BUE's is increased by 2% for both FY 2002 and FY 2003. The increase in the current controller to supervisor ratio will be implemented through attrition of supervisory personnel. Also, since the supervisory staff will be increased in FY 2002 and 2003 in connection with the 2% BUE increase in each of those years, the net reduction in supervisors will be 499 not 560.

In order to calculate the average PC&B for an operational supervisor, we took the average PC&B for bargaining unit employees and increased this cost by 12%. The average supervisory PC&B ranges from 1O% to 14% above the average BUE PC&B, as determined by the agency pay bands for FY 1999. We selected the mid point of that range and increased the average BUE PC&B cost by 12% to determine the operational supervisor FY 1999 average PC&B.

ATX indicates the number of supervisors AOB on 9/30/99 was 1967. It is assumed that the remaining reduction of 406 supervisors will be prorated over FY 
2001, FY 2002, and FY 2003.

It should be noted that the actual time frame for the reduction of operational supervisors has not been set. In actuality the bulk of the reduction could be delayed to the last year of the contract. However, a delay will produce a smaller savings than the amount represented below.


Average Op Supervisor PC&B Calculation FY 99:

Average BUE PC&B 10/l/98= $96,000 (total PC&B / number of BUE'S)
Average Op Supervisor PC&B 10/1/98 = $96,000 x 1.12= $107,520
Average Op Sup PC&B 1/3/99 = $107,520 x 1.0368 (January OSI) = $111,477
Average Op Sup PC&B 8/4/99 = $111,477 x 1.016 (August OSI/SCI) = $113,261
	a) $107,520 x 3 months = $322,560
	b) $111,477 x 7 months = $780,339
	c) $113,261 x 2 months = $226,522
FY 99 Average Op Sup PC&B = $1,329,421/12 = $110,785

1) 93 Op Sup's / 2 = 46.5 Op Sup's (the loss of 93 Op Sup's is prorated over thee ntire year)
2) 46.5 Op Sup's x $110,785 = $5,151,503


FY99 Total Op Sup PC&B Savings = $5,153,503


FY 00

	Average Op Supervisor PC&B 10/l/99 = $113,261 x 1.0613 = $120,204
	Average Op Sup PC&B 1/00 = $120,214x1.048 (January OSI)=125,974
	Average Op Sup PC&B 7/00 = $125,974 x0.016 (July OSI/SCI)=$127,990
		a) $120,204 x 3 months = $360,612
		b) $125,974 x 6 months = $755,844
		c) $127,990 x 3 months = $383,970

FY 00 Average Op Sup PC&B = $1,500,426/12 = $125,036

1) 93 Op Sup's (FY99)
2) 93 Op Sup's x $125,036 = $11,628,348


FYOO Total Op Sup PC&B Savings = $11,628,348

FY 01
	Average Op Sup PC&B 10/l/00 = $127,990 x 1.046 = $133,878
	Average Op Sup PC&B 1/01=133,878 x 1.03 (January OSI)= $137,894
	Average Op Sup PC&B 7/01 = $137,894 x 1.016 (July OSI/SCI)=$140,100
		a) $133,878 x 3 months = $401,634
		b) $137,894 x 6 months = $827,364
		c) $l4O,lOOx3months=$420,300

FY 01
	Average Op Sup PC&B = S1,649,298 / 12 = $137,442

1) 93 Op Sup's + 155 Op Sup's / 2 = 170.5 Op Sup's
2) 170.5 Op Sup's x $137,442 = $23,433,861

FYOI Total Op Sup PC&B Savings = $23,433,861

FY 02
	Average Op Sup PC&B 10/1/01 = $140,100
	Average Op Sup PC&B 1/02 = S140,100x1.03 (January OSI) $144,303
	Average Op Sup PC&B 7/02 = $144,303 x 1.016 (July OSUSCI) = $146,612
		a) $l4O,lOOx3months=$420,300
		b) $144,303x6months=$865,818
		c) $146,612 x 3 months = $439,836
FY 02 Average Op Sup PC&B = $1,725,954/12 = $143,830


1) 93 OpSup's+155 OpSup's+156/2 OpSup's=326 OpSup's
2) 300 additional BUE's (2% increase) requires 30 supervisors at a 10 to 1 ratio
3) 3O OpSup's/2 = l5 OpSup's
4) Net reduction = 326 - 15  311 Op Sup's
5) 311 Op Sup's x $143,830    $44,731,130

FY 02 Total Op Sup PC&B Savings = $44,731,130


FY 03
	Average Op Sup PC&B 10/1/02 = 146,612
	Average Op Sup PC&B 1/03 = $146,612 x 1.03 (January OSI) = $151,010 	Average Op Sup PC&B 7/03 = $151,010 x 1.016 (July OSI/SCI) = $153,426
		a) $146,612 x 3 months = $439,836
		b) $l5l,OlOx6months=$906,060
		c) $153,426 x 3 months = $460,278
FY 03 Average Op Sup PC&B = $1,806,174 / 12 = $150,515

	1) 93 Op Sup's +155 Op Sup's + 156 Op Sup's + 156 Op Sup's / 2 = 482 	OpSup's
	2) 606 additional BUE's (2% increase) requires 61 Op Sup's at a 10 to 	1 ratio
	3) 30 Op Sup's + 31 Op Sup's / 2 = 45.5 Op Sup's
	4) Net reduction = 482 - 45.5  436.5
	5) 436.5 Op Sup's x $150,515    $65,699,797

FY 03 Total Op Sup PC&B Savings       $65,699,797

Annualized savings at the end of FY 03: 560 - net increase of 61 Op Sup's 499 OpSup's; 499 Op Sup's x $153,426 = $76,559,574


Op Sup's Cost Avoidance:

FY 02
	1) FY 98 controller to Op Sup ratio = 7.28 to 1
	2) 15,300 BUE's (2% increase) @ 7.28 ratio = 2102 Op Sup's
	3) 2102 Op Sup's - 2060 Op Sup's = 42 Op Sup's avoided hiring
	4) 42 Op Sup's x $143,830 = $6,040,860

FY 02 Op Sup Cost Avoidance = $6,040,860

FY 03
	1) FY 98 controller to Op Sup ratio = 7.28 to 1
	2) 15,606 BUE's (2% increase) @ 7.28 ratio = 2144 Op Sup's
	3) 2144 Op Sup's - 2060 Op Sup's = 84 Op Sup's avoided hiring
	4) 84 OpSup's x $150,515 ='$12,643,260

FY 03 Op Sup Cost Avoidance = $12,643,260


Elimination of Compressed and Maxi-flex Schedules:

The 1998 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) specified the elimination of Compressed and Maxi-flex schedules for facilities that operate 24 hours a day. Even though the implementation of the CBA was effective September 15,1998, the AWS provision wasn't phased out in many facilities until the second fiscal quarter (January,February and March).
The Metrics Team has been tasked with identifying any cost savings and/or productivity gains associated with this provision of the CBA. In analyzing the data provided by FAA Payroll and Human Resources, we have applied one technique to measure cost savings derived from premium pay, and one to measure cost savings derived from productivity gains.

The first measurement technique considers the difference in premium pay earnings for those employees who were on a compressed or maxi-flex schedule in FY 98 and subsequently changed to a regular or flexible schedule with the implementation of the CBA.

Employees on a compressed or maxi-flex schedule earn additional hours of premium pay (particularly holiday and Sunday premium) than employees on a flexible or regular schedule. The data provided indicates that the savings realized are determined by the amount of BUE's assigned to compressed or maxi-flex schedules. Although the savings identified with this technique are not large, they do indicate continual and compounded savings each fiscal year.


The second measurement technique considers the productivity lost with compressed and maxi-flex schedules, and quantifies the cost savings related to the productivity gains associated with the implementation of the AWS provision of the CBA. Fluctuations associated with air traffic activity result in differing levels of required resources. Employees scheduled to work five (5) days per week contribute more effectively to the operation than those who work four (4) days per week since resources can be scheduled to meet varying air traffic demands.

More shifts per week provide greater productivity and efficiency than more hours per shift since the higher proportion of the BUE's time is available during peak traffic periods and less of their time is scheduled during low traffic activity. More shifts per week enable managers the flexibility to spread out resources through BUE scheduling to meet peak traffic demands, providing efficient and productive service to the users of the airspace system.

The cost savings associated with more shifts (i.e., the result of a more efficient use of their work hours) can be derived from the reduction of low productivity periods and increasing exposure to peak traffic periods more often. Employees assigned a compressed or maxi-flex schedule work fewer shifts per work year than employees do on a regular schedule. BUE's assigned a regular or flexible schedule provide greater flexibility to the employer by allowing more options for schedules that meet the needs of air traffic activity.

Regular and flexible schedules provide an optimum balance of controller resources,whereas compressed and maxi-flex schedules more often than not, provide an inefficient allocation of controller resources resulting in lost productivity.

BUE's on compressed and maxi-flex schedules during 1998 = 5928 (CUPS data;attached)

2087 scheduled work hours in a year 
2087 / 8 hr work days = 261 shifts 
2087 / 10hr work days = 209 shifts

BUE's assigned a 10 hr schedule are available 4/5ths (80%) of the shifts that BUE'sassigned 8-hour schedules.

Based on the number of hours used and earned (CUPS) BUE's on an 8hr schedule use 33 shifts of combined annual and sick leave per year, leaving (261 - 33) 228 work shifts.  BUE's on 10 hr schedules use 4/5ths (80% or 26 shifts) of the number of shifts for annual and sick leave that BUE's on an 8hr schedule use. This leaves (209 - 26) 183 work shifts. The difference in shifts between a 10-hr workday and an 8hr workday (228 - 183)equates to 45 shifts. 45 work shifts x 8-hr workday equates to 360 work hours.

BUE's assigned a 10 hr schedule are as productive for 8hrs of the assigned shift as BUE'sassigned an 8hr schedule. BUE's are exposed to traffic (based on estimated available data) for 1/3d of the 2 remaining hours of a 10hr shift. To identify the number of  non-productive hours that result from a l0 hr shift,identify the Extra hours associated with 10hr work day = 183 shifts x 2hrs / 3 = 139 hrs
376 less 139 = 237 net gain in work hours from conversion to 8hr-work day
237 work hours x 5928 BUE's = 1,404,936 gain in productive work hours

FY 99

Annual salary for 5928 BUE's = $379,655,000
Annual hours for 5928 BUE's = 12,371,736
Average hourly wage for 5928 BUE's = $30.69

BUE Total Base Pay annualized at end of FY 1998 (i.e. 9/30/98) = $937,335,806
Increase in BUE Base Pay on 10/1/98 = $70,000,000 or 7.47%

$30.69 x 1.0747 = $32.98 x 3 (months in effect) = $98.94
$32.98 xl.0368 (1/99 OSI increase) = $34.19 x 7 (months in effect) = $239.33
$34.19 x 1.016 (8/99 SCI increase) = $34.74 x 2 (months in effect) = $69.48
$98.94 + $239.33 + $69.48 = $407.75 / 12 = $33.98
Average PC&B cost for BUE = 40%; $33.98 x 1.4 (40% roll-up) = $47.57
1,404,936 hours per year / 12 = 117,078 hours per month
117,078 x 3 = 351,234 (elimination of AWS effective 1/3/99)
1,404,936 - 351,234 = 1,053,702 hours
1,053,702 x $47.57 = $50,410,024

Value of Productivity Gains in PC&B for BUE's in FY1999: $50,410,024


FY 00

Total BUE Base Salary 10/1/98 = $1,007,335,806
Total BUE Base Salary 1/99 = $1,007,335,806 x 1.0368 = $1,044,405,763
Total BUE Base Salary 8/99 = $1,044,405,763 x 1.0 1 6 = $1,061,116,255
Increase in BUE Base Salary on 10/l/99    1,061,116,255 + $65,000,000$1,126,115,255 or 6.13%

Average hourly rate 9/30/99 = $34.74
Average hourly rate 10/1/99 = $34.74 x 1.0613 = $36.87 x 3 (months in effect) $110.61
Average hourly rate 1/00 = $36.87 x 1.048 (est.) = $38.64 x 6 = $231.84
Average hourly rate 7/00 = $38.64 x 1.016 = $39.26 x 3 = $117.78
$110.61 + $231.84 + $117.78 = $460.23 / 12 = $38.35
Average PC&B cost for BUE = 40%; $38.35 x 1.4 (40% roll-up) = $53.69


Value of Productivity Gains in PC&B for BUE's in FY 2000: $75,431,013 (1,404,936 x $53.69  $75,431,013)

FY 01

Total BUE Base Salary 10/l/99 = $1,126,116,255
Total BUE Base Salary 1/00 = $1,126,116,255 x 1.048 (est.) = 1,180,169,835
Total BUE Base Salary 7/00 = $1,180,169,835 x 1.016 = $1,199,052,552
Increase in BUE PC&B on 10/l/00 = $1,199,052,552 + $55,000,000 = $1,254,052,552 or 4.6%

Average hourly rate 9/30/00 = $39.26
Average hourly rate 10/l/00 = $39.26 x 1.046 = $41.07 x 3 (months in effect) =$123.21
Average hourly rate 1/01 = $41.07 x 1.03 (est.) = $42.30 x 6 = $253.80
Average hourly rate 7/01 = $42.30 x 1.0 1 6 = $42.98 x 3 1 28.94$123.21 + $253.80 + $128.94 = $505.95 / 12 + $42.16
Average PC&B cost for BUE = 40%; $42.16 x 1.4 (40% roll-up) = $59.02
Value of Productivity Gains in PC&B for BUE's in FY 2001: $82,919,322 (1,404,936 x $59.02 = $82,919,322)

FY 02

Average hourly rate 9/30/01 = $42.98 x 3 (months in effect) = $128.94
Average hourly rate 1/1/02 = $42.98 x 1.03 (est.) = $44.27 x 6 = $265.62
Average hourly rate 7/02 = $44.27 x 1.016 = $44.98 x 3 = $134.94
$128.94 + $265.62 + $134.94 @ $529.50 / 12 = $44.13
Average PC&B cost for BUE = 40%; $44.13 x 1.4 (40% roll-up) = $61.78

Value of Productivity Gains in PC&B for BUE's in FY 2002: $86,796,946 (1,404,936 x $61.78 = $86,796,946)


FY 03

Average hourly rate 9/30/02 = $44.98 x 3 (months in effect) = $134.94
Average hourly rate 1/1/03 = $44.98 x 1.03 (est.) = $46.33 x 6 = $277.98
Average hourly rate 7/02 = $46.33 x 1.016 = $47.07 x 3 = $141.21
$134.94 + $277.98 + $ 141.21 = $554.13 / 12 = $46.18
Average PC&B cost for BUE = 40%; $46-18 x 1.4 (40% roll-up) = $64.65

Value of Productivity Gains in PC&B for BUE's in FY 2003: $90,829,112 (1,404,936 x $64.65 = $90,829,112)


Annualized Value of Productivity Gains in PC&B for BUE's in FY2003:
$92,582,471 (1,404,936 x $47.07 x 1.4 [40% roll-up] $92,582,471)


Ceiling of 15,000 Bargaining Unit Employees:

An agreement has been reached in conjunction with NATCA/FAA Principal MOU(paragraph 1) that establishes a baseline of 15,000 BUE's for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001. The Agency's approved budget for FY 1999 authorized PC&B for 15,245 BUE'S. Therefore, the reduction of 245 BUE's budgeted for FY 99 constitutes a cost savings in each year for the life of the agreement.

The FAA withdrew the FY 2000 budget request for 15,495 BUE's based on the NATCA/FAA agreement. The elimination of the additional 250 BUE's proposed for FY2000 constitutes a cost avoidance.

The following analysis identifies the annual cost savings associated with the 245 BUE's over the life of the agreement (through FY 03). In addition, considering that the agency's intention to request funding for an additional 250 BUE's for FY 00 and beyond, we quantified the additional cost avoidance gained by not hiring those additional employees.

FY 99
Average BUE PC&B 10/l/98= $96,000 (total PC&B / number of BUE'S)
Average BUE PC&B 1/3/99= $96,000 x 1.0368 (January OSI) = $99,533
Average BUE PC&B 8/4/99 = $99,5 3 3 x 1. 0 1 6 (August OSI/SCI) = $101,125
	d) $96,000 x 3 months = $288,000
	e) $99,533 x 7 months = $696,731
	f) $101,125 x 2 months = $202,250
	g) FY 99 Average BUE PC&B = $1,186,981 / 12 = $98,915

245 / 2 = 122.5 x $98,915 = $12,117,175 (Assume that the addition of 245 BUE's is prorated over the entire year)

Total PC&B BUE Cost Savings for FY 99 = $12,117,087


FY 00
Average BUE PC&B 10-1-99 = $101,125 x 1.0613 (October raise) = $107,324
Average BUE PC&B 1-3-00 = $107,324 x 1.048 (January OSI) = $112,476
Average BUE PC&B 7-5-00 = $1 12,476 x 1.016 (July OSI/SCI) = $114,276
	a) $107,324 x 3 months = $321,972
	b) $112,476 x 6 months = $674,856
	c) $114,276 x 3 months = $342,828
	d) Total = $1,339,656 / 12 = $111,638

245 BUE's x $111,63 8 = $27,351,310
250 BUE's / 2 = 125 BUE's x $111,638 $13,954,750 (cost avoidance)


Total PC&B BUE Cost Savings for FY 00 = $27,351,310
Total Cost Avoidance for FY 00 = $13,954,750

FY 01

Average BUE PC&B 10-1-00 = $114,276 x 1.046 (October raise) = 119,533
Average BUE PC&B 1-3-01 = $119,533 x 1.03 (January OSI) = $123,119
Average BUE PC&B 7-7-01 = $123,119 x 1.0 1 6 (July OSI/SCI) = $125,089
	a) $119,533 x 3 months = $358,599
	b) $123,119 x 6 months = $738,714
	c) $125,089 x 3 months = $375,267
	d) Total BUE PC&B = $1,472,580 / 12 = $122,715

245 BUE's x $122,715 = $30,065,175 (cost savings)
250 BUE's x $122,715 = $30,678,750 (cost avoidance)


Total PC&B BUF, Cost Savings for FY 01 = $30,065,175
Total Cost Avoidance for FY 01 = $30,678,750

FY 02
Average BUE PC&B 10-1-01 = $125,089
Average BUE PC&B 1-1-02 = $125,089 x 1.03 (January OSI) = $128,842
Average BUE PC&B 7-1-02 = $128,842 x 1.0 1 6 (July OSI/SCI) = $130,903
	a) $125,089 x 3 months = $375,267
	b) $128,842 x 6 months = $773,052
	c) $130,903 x 3 months = $392,709
	d) Total BUE PC&B = $1,541,028 / 12 = $128,419

The Principal Pay Agreement provides for a 2% increase to BUE staffing 15,000 x 1.02 = 15,300

The increase of 300 BUE's offsets the reduction of 245 BUE's funded in the FY 99 budget, and creates an additional cost of 55 BUE'S.
55 BUE's x $128,419 = $7,063,045

If the 2% increase in BUE's were applied to the 15,495 proposed in FY 00 Budget request, it would total 15,805 and require an additional increase of 310 BUE'S, or 10 BUE's more than the actual increase of 300.

250 BUE's x $128,419 = $32,104,750 (cost avoidance) 
10 BUE's x $12 8,419 = $1,204,190 (cost avoidance)
Total cost avoidance = $33,388,940

An additional cost of 55 BUE's x $128,419   $7,063,045 
Total cost avoidance  $33,388,940


FY 03

Average BUE PC&B 10-1-02 = $130,903
Average BUE PC&B 1-1-03 = $130,903 x 1.03 (January OSI) = $134,830
Average BUE PC&B 7-1-03 = $134,830 x 1.016 (July OSI/SCI) = $136,987
	a) $130,903 x 3 months = $392,709
	b) $134,830 x 6 months = $808,980
	c) $136,987 x 3 months = $410,961
	d) Total BUE PC&B = $1,612,650 / 12 = $134,388

The Principal Pay Agreement provides for a 2% increase to BUE staffing15,300 x 1.02 = 15,606
Assume the same 2% increase to BUE staffing would have applied to the 15,805 
15,805 x 1.02 = 16,121
Difference = 116,121 - 15,606 = 515
The increase of 606 BUE's offsets the 245 BUE's funded in the FY 99 budget, andcreates an additional cost of 361 BUE'S.
361 BUE's x $134,388 = $48,514,068

Assume the same 2% increase in BUE's were applied to 15,805 BUE'S, the total of 16,121 would require an additional increase of 626 BUE'S, or 20 BUE's more than the actual increase of 606

250 BUE's x $134,388 = $33,597,000 (cost avoidance)
10 BUE's (FY 02) + 10 BUE's (FY03) x $134,388 = $2,687,760 (cost avoidance) Total cost avoidance = $36,284,760

An additional cost of 361 BUE's x $134,388 = $48,514,068
Total cost avoidance = $36,284,760


Reduction of 74 Staff Support Specialists:

Agreement has been reached in conjunction with Article 17 of the NATCA/FAA collective bargaining agreement that there will be a reduction of 74 staff support specialists FTE's over the life of the CBA.

These employees will be phased out through attrition (return to bargaining unit as BUE's leave the FAA) over the course of the next four- (4) years (life of the CBA). The total continuing annual cost savings to the agency at the end of year five will equal $10,137,038.

FY 99 

Average BUE PC&B 10/l/98= $96,000 (total PC&B / number of BUE'S)
Average BUE PC&B 1/3/99= $96,000 x 1.0368 (January OSI) = $99,533
Average BUE PC&B 8/4/99 $99,533 x 1.0 1 6 (August OSI/SCI) $101,125
	a) $96,000 x 3 months = $288,000
	b) $99,533 x 7 months = $696,731
	c) $101,125x2 months=$202,250
	d) FY99 Average BUE PC&B=$1,186,981/12=$98,915

BUE PC&B Savings Generated in FY 99 = $0

FY 00

Average BUE PC&B 10- 1 -99 = $101,125 x 1.0613 (October raise) = $107,324 Average BUE PC&B 1-3-00 = $107,324 x 1.048 (January OSI) = $112,476
Average BUE PC&B 7-5-00 = $112,476 x 1.0 1 6 (July OSI/SCI) =$114,276
	a) $107,324 x 3 months = $321,972
	b) $112,476 x 6 months = $674,856
	c) $114,276 x 3 months = $342,828
	d) FY 99 Average BUE PC&B = $1,339,656 / 12 = $111,638

18 / 2 = 9 BUE's (Assume that the loss of 18 BUE's are prorated over the entire	year)
9 BUE's x $111,638 = $1,004,742


BUE PC&B Savings generated in FY 00: $1,004,742


FY 01

Average BUE PC&B 10-1-00 = $114,276 x 1.046 (October raise) = $119,533 
Average BUE PC&B 1-3-01 = $119,533 x 1.03 (January OST) = $123,119
Average BUE PC&B 7-7-01 = $123,119 x 1.0 1 6 (July OSI/SCI) = $125,089
	a) $119,533 x 3 months = $358,599	
	b) $123,119 x 6 months = $738,714
	c) $125,089 x 3 months = $375,267
	d) FY 99 Average BUE PC&B = $1,472,580 / 12 = $122,715

18 BUE's (FYOO) + 18 BUE's / 2 (FYO1) = 27 BUE's
27 BUE's x $122,715 = $3,313,305

BUE PC&B Savings Generated in FY 01: $3,313,305


FY 02

Average BUE PC&B 10-1-01 = $125,089
Average BUE PC&B 1-1-02 = $125,089 x 1.03 (January OSI) = $128,842
Average BUE PC&B 7-1-02 = $128,842 x 1.016 (July OSI/SCI) =$130,903
	e) $125,089 x 3 months = $375,267
	f) $128,842 x 6 months = $773,052
	g) $130,903 x 3 months = $392,709
	h) Total BUE PC&B =$1,541,028 /12 =$128,419

36 BUE's (FYOO, FYO1) + 19 BUE's / 2 (FY02) = 45.5 BUE's
45.5 BUE's x $128,419 = $5,843,065

BUE PC&B Savings Generated in FY 02.- $5,843,065


FY 03

Average BUE PC&B 10-1-02 = $130,903
Average BUE PC&B 1-1-03 = $130,903 x 1.03 (January OSI) = $134,830
Average BUE PC&B 7-1-03 = $134,830 x 1.016 (July OSI/SCI) = $136,987
	e) $130,903 x 3 months = $392,709
	f) $134,830 x 6 months = $808,980
	g) $136,987 x 3 months = $410,961
	h) Total BUE PC&B=$1,612,650/12=$134,388

55 BUE's (FYOO, FY01, FY02) + 19 BUE's / 2 (FY03) = 64.5 BUE's
64.5 x $134,338 = $8,668,026

BUE PC&B Savings Generated in FY 03: $8,668,026


Annualized Savings at the end of FY03: 74 x $136,987 $10,137,038



Recaptured Non-FLSA Overtime (Payment):

As initiated by the passage of HR2002, and implemented through Article 38, the FAA and the NATCA jointly agreed to the forfeiture of overtime funds previously expended to the individual air traffic controller for non-FLSA overtime worked in one 24-hour period exceeding 8-hours. The FAA payroll recovery in this area for full FY99 is $3.5 million,and we estimate further savings for FYOO in the amount of $3.7 million and increasing,due to the gradual increase in base pay of the individual air traffic controller.

FY99 savings of $3,500,000
FYOO savings of $3,700,000
FY01 savings of $3,900,000
FY02 savings of $4,100,000
FY03 savings of $4,300,000



Recaptured Double Sunday Premium (Payment):

As initiated by the passage of HR2002, and executed by MOU dated 22 May 1996, the FAA and the NATCA jointly agreed to the forfeiture of funds previously expended to the individual air traffic controller in the form of double Sunday premium compensation, i.e.,two full Sunday shift premiums paid when any hours of the second shift were worked again on the same Sunday. Since the collective bargaining agreement does not change the MOU, both parties have agreed to continue this practice. The FAA payroll recovery in this area for the pertinent six-month period In FY96 was S 1.2 million, based on actual savings to date. The FAA estimated savings for the full FY99 is $4.1 million, and we estimate further savings for FYOO in the amount of $4.3 million and increasing, due to the gradual increase in base pay of the individual air traffic controller.

FY99 savings of $4,100,000
FYOO savings of $4,300,000
FY01 savings of $4,500,000
FY02 savings of $4,700,000
FY03 savings of $4,900,000



Recaptured Shift Swap Differential (Payment):

As initiated by the passage of HR2002, and executed by MOU dated 22 May 1996, the FAA and the NATCA jointly agreed to the forfeiture of funds previously expended to the individual air traffic controller in the form of night differential earned, even in the event of a mutual shift-swap with another air traffic controller. Since the collective bargaining agreement does not change the MOU, both parties have agreed to continue this practice.The FAA payroll recovery in this area for the pertinent six-month period in FY96 is $1.6 million, based on actual savings to date. The FAA estimated savings for the full FY99 is $5.2 million, and we estimate further savings for FYOO in the amount of $5.4 million and increasing, due to the gradual increase in base pay of the individual air traffic controller.

FY99 savings of $5,200,000
FYOO savings of $5,400,000
FY01 savings of $5,600,000
FY02 savings of $5,800,000
FY03 savings of $6,000,000



			CBA Cost Savings and Avoidance
				FY99 through FY03
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
			Cost Savings (IN MLLIONS OF $)


CBA Changes	FY99	FY00	FY01	FY02	FY03	ACCRUCED SAVINGS

BUE Ceilings	12.12	27.35	30.07	-7.06	-48.51		13.97

Staff Special	0	1.01	3.31	5.84	8.67		18.83
Reduction (74)

Reduction of	5.15	11.63	23.43	44.73	65.7		150.64
OpSups

Recaptured	5.2	5.4	5.6	5.8	6.0		28.0
Shift/Swap
Differential

Recaptured 	4.1	4.3	4.5	4.7	4.9		22.50	
Double Sunday
Premium

Recaptured	3.5	3.7	3.9	4.1	4.3		19.50
Non- FSLA OT
_____________________________________________________________________________
Cost Savings 	30.07	53.39	70.81	58.11	41.06		253.44	
Total
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

				Cost Avoidance

Reduction of	0	0	0	6.04	12.64		18.68
OpSups

BUE Ceiling	0	13.95	30.68	33.39	36.28		114.30
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost	0	13.95	30.68	39.43	48.92		132.98	
Avoidance
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

			Value of Productivity Gains

Elimination of	50.41	75.43	82.92	86.80	90.83		286.39
Cmprssd/Mxflx Schedules
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
		
Total Savings,	80.48	142.77	184.41	184.34	180.81		772.81
Avoidance, and
Productivity 
Gains
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note:  The potential reductions, efficiencies, etc. (i.e. savings) have been distributed evenly over each of the five contract years.  To the extent the necessary actions take place faster than assumed, the savings will be greater in the early years.  Conversly, to the extent the necessary actions are delayed, the savings will also be dalayed.