CRWG

I don’t think it means those numbers won’t one day be used, it means it’s another step in the process. The goal at NIW according to the email was to secure legislation making the FAA use those new numbers, that was not going to happen in less than a week. At least we know what the numbers are now.
The administrator was briefed on these numbers on Jan 31... but then again he is quitting because he wants to spend more time with his family
 
Staffing wasn't a factor. When we had 13 CPCs, we had 4 or 5 on a shift running 2 hours on, 2 off. I guess the could've collaborated and said they would like to split off ground and fd/cd if staffing wasn't a factor and gotten the crwg number up to 30. The point being there was no accountability in verifying the needs of these facilities if you can have 2 identical facilities arrive at 2 wildly different crwg numbers.

And yes, CIC is part of the job to "when necessary, supplement the supervisory staff." It's not meant to be built into the target numbers to staff a standalone CIC for the whole day. We were more than capable of working CIC and our 2 planes on the scope concurrently.
It’s not CIC it’s the watch desk. Watch desk is a position that is open whenever the facility is open. It might be/should be worked by a sup but it is still a position.

Natca in Washington barely even gets to meet with congress people. I loved all the photos with staffers and I love how our people were way overdressed compared to the staffers that looked casual and normal.
Staffers were “underdressed” because the house was on recess. The senate side was in session and in suits/business formal attire.

When the bosses are away it’s dress down days.

And what were they lobbying for? Not a new contract that’s for sure
Well we don’t lobby for contracts we negotiate them….
 
Lol did you see the email just sent our? Yes the FAA published new CRWG as a part of the CWP but only as an appendix because the FAA does not intend to use the numbers to increase hiring. 🤣 You can't make this up.
Yep Rich and Santa get to own this. They never should have had us lobbying congress if the the final numbers hadn't been negotiated and agreed on.

On the flip side, the secretary of transportation is in the room saying how the FAA needs to use the CRWG numbers. WHY IN THE HELL DOES HE NOT ORDER THE FAA TO USE THE CWRG NUMBERS. If the dickheads at the FAA fight back. FIRE THEM. He is literally their boss.
 
Yep Rich and Santa get to own this. They never should have had us lobbying congress if the the final numbers hadn't been negotiated and agreed on.

On the flip side, the secretary of transportation is in the room saying how the FAA needs to use the CRWG numbers. WHY IN THE HELL DOES HE NOT ORDER THE FAA TO USE THE CWRG NUMBERS. If the dickheads at the FAA fight back. FIRE THEM. He is literally their boss.

Money doesn't magically appear just because the FAA made up some numbers. You still have to make the case to congress.
 
Money doesn't magically appear just because the FAA made up some numbers. You still have to make the case to congress.
Agreed. But presenting our needed numbers as the CRWG number, shows congress we need a lot more people than what the finance number shows, hopefully encouraging a higher authorization number, and subsequently a high appropriated number.
 
Yep Rich and Santa get to own this. They never should have had us lobbying congress if the the final numbers hadn't been negotiated and agreed on.

On the flip side, the secretary of transportation is in the room saying how the FAA needs to use the CRWG numbers. WHY IN THE HELL DOES HE NOT ORDER THE FAA TO USE THE CWRG NUMBERS. If the dickheads at the FAA fight back. FIRE THEM. He is literally their boss.
Secretary Pete is the perfect confluence of McKinsey neoliberalism and institutional learned helplessness. 💭s & 🙏s
 
Yep Rich and Santa get to own this. They never should have had us lobbying congress if the the final numbers hadn't been negotiated and agreed on.

On the flip side, the secretary of transportation is in the room saying how the FAA needs to use the CRWG numbers. WHY IN THE HELL DOES HE NOT ORDER THE FAA TO USE THE CWRG NUMBERS. If the dickheads at the FAA fight back. FIRE THEM. He is literally their boss.
If AFN is committed to escalating systemic risk exposure and staffing TMIs that eat into the users bottom line then congress is the only hope to fix it. Of course NiW should be about staffing.
 
You guys do not want the CRWG numbers. It’s just going to have negative consequences and no positive ones
The loudest among us seem to think working more than 40 hours a week and having to stay up past bedtime makes this the hardest job in the world so ridiculously unachievable staffing numbers here we come.
 
Staffing wasn't a factor. When we had 13 CPCs, we had 4 or 5 on a shift running 2 hours on, 2 off. I guess the could've collaborated and said they would like to split off ground and fd/cd if staffing wasn't a factor and gotten the crwg number up to 30. The point being there was no accountability in verifying the needs of these facilities if you can have 2 identical facilities arrive at 2 wildly different crwg numbers.

And yes, CIC is part of the job to "when necessary, supplement the supervisory staff." It's not meant to be built into the target numbers to staff a standalone CIC for the whole day. We were more than capable of working CIC and our 2 planes on the scope concurrently.
You do know that no other position shall be combined to local control is an actual thing right?
 
You guys that want to transfer don't want CRWG numbers.* Those at the facilities they want to be at for life do.
I don’t want to transfer. But I want people above me to transfer or just get to go to where they want to be. We already aren’t 100% staffed. If they FAA wants to increasing hiring they’ll do it or they won’t. This spreadsheet will only ensure the negative aspect
 
Money doesn't magically appear just because the FAA made up some numbers. You still have to make the case to congress.
They better figure something out. Gonna be a lot of pissed off controllers when the faa is following the crwg numbers and they aren’t hiring to reach those numbers. An entire generation of controllers just got screwed on their hopes of a transfer.
 
I don’t want to transfer. But I want people above me to transfer or just get to go to where they want to be. We already aren’t 100% staffed. If they FAA wants to increasing hiring they’ll do it or they won’t. This spreadsheet will only ensure the negative aspect
You think the FAA would’ve increased their hiring goals over the next 5 years without pressure? This your first day?
 
You think the FAA would’ve increased their hiring goals over the next 5 years without pressure? This your first day?
The pressure doesn’t have to be a spreadsheet. Idk why anyone thinks this spreadsheet will make them open a second academy. Maybe natca and the FAA shouldn’t have shut down training for 2 years. Covid trainees are finally starting to certify so maybe they should relax a minute
 
Lol did you see the email just sent our? Yes the FAA published new CRWG as a part of the CWP but only as an appendix because the FAA does not intend to use the numbers to increase hiring. 🤣 You can't make this up.
Yeah, that was weaponized copium. But it gets worse.

They have had these numbers for months, and they slow walked them, saying that “they will be out soon” with no timeline.

We have find out what our Union is negotiating for from a random FAA report. Now our Union leaders are trying to walk it back, saying these numbers won’t take effect unless the faa funds it.

It’s utterly embarrassing, it’s disrespectful to the membership, it’s a politically weak and limp wristed reply, just when I thought I couldn’t be any more ashamed to be a member they go and sink to a new low of what is either blatant disregard for the rank and file or “weaponized autism” levels of incompetence at the top.
 
Last edited:
You do know that no other position shall be combined to local control is an actual thing right?
Well then someone better tell my old facility because we worked FD/CD, GC, LC, and CIC all combined up to local while either by ourselves or while combined up as a tracab for training on radar for longer than anyone at that facility can remember, regardless of how busy it was or what time of day it was (it was very slow 99% of the time). It was perfectly safe. It would've been perfectly safe to combine radar to LC too 90% of the time but they wouldn't let us go that far. You can't staff that facility if you aren't allowed to work it all combined.

It’s not CIC it’s the watch desk. Watch desk is a position that is open whenever the facility is open. It might be/should be worked by a sup but it is still a position.
Thank you for the input Rich. That still doesn't explain why our CRWG number was 61% higher than our neighbors, despite being nearly identical facilities in every way. Do they not have to staff a watch desk with controllers? Why not? How could such a thorough validation of the survey miss that?
 
Last edited:
I love the old "we have always done it this way, so it can't be wrong " approach.

Just because nothing goes wrong doesn't mean it's correct or safe. A lot of our job should be simple, easy, and routine. That way when shit hits the fan, we have enough resources to handle it effectively and create the best possible outcome. When you're combined up with LC and CIC it's unreasonable for you to effectively make phone calls to airport police and fire, the DEN, adjacent facilities, airline dispatch, etc. while providing appropriate service to aircraft.
 
Back
Top Bottom