Renew Slate Book 2026???

[CoffeeIV]

Hope to transfer under NCEPT doesn’t exist at many places. CPCs at my low level shit hole have given up on NCEPT because it will never work unless staffing magically goes above 85% overnight. We spend a year + training, only to have CPCs and DEVs quit to go contract and go back home, accept a DOD/supe bid or say “fuck it this place sucks and I don’t want to be here anymore” and straight up quit. It’s one step forward and two steps back with the current process. Why keep paperwork up to date when it’s going to take 8+ years to release 1 controller IF and only IF no one else leaves. By the time the 85% number comes around some dumb article in the slate book will help me and everyone else who’s been stuck be number one to lateral transfer to another shit hole. So nobody really wins and everyone suffers.

So initially I was going to say most of you just apply for places youll never get to but I started looking and really it's a mix of issues with the BUE having unrealistic expectations and NCEPT simply failing in some areas.

I made a table of the top 27 facilities by ERRs inbound to see what facilities were most in demand. 27 being the number because I only selected 10 rows for the table so it is what it is:

Facility	Projected Staffing	ERRs Inbound	Gains to target		Facility	Projected Staffing	ERRs Inbound	Gains to target		Facility	Projected Staffing	ERRs Inbound	Gains to target
DFW	81.5%	81	13		D01	85.1%	41	17		ZTL	82.6%	33	83
DEN	111%	78	5		TPA	95.5%	41	4		SCT	74.7%	32	84
CLT	84%	72	13		ZFW	83.9%	41	62		ZOB	81.8%	31	77
IAH	95.2%	60	27		D10	80.2%	40	27		ATL	88.8%	29	8
MCO	107.2%	46	0		DAL	82.3%	38	5		MSP	90.2%	28	4
PHX	92.7%	45	3		ZJX	83.3%	38	58		AUS	89.7%	27	7
PCT	83.5%	43	35		ZHU	83.7%	37	56		HOU	85.5%	27	4
F11	89.4%	42	7		ZDV	84.4%	34	47		ZBW	82.7%	26	50
I90	82.1%	42	20		SEA	84.3%	33	50		A80	68.2%	24	77

Issue 1: I believe any facility under 100% (highlighted % in red) should be exempt from the NCEPT staffing rules. These are all higher level facilities that for the most part have many people trying to go there and would have a better chance of checking out than an academy grad. Most are 10s or higher except for a few I believe. Maybe level 10+ is exempt from NCEPT 85% or whatever rule. The con to doing this, you're short staffing lower facilities on purpose. Short staffing all facilities some versus the lower by a lot and the higher by less.

Issue 2: Some facilities will simply never pick you up. ERRs inbound (highlighted in blue) shows that 17 of the top 29 sought after facilities simply have far more ERRs inbound than what gains to target will allow. The FAA isn't going to staff a facility 200% just because you want to go there.

 

[ATC123]

So initially I was going to say most of you just apply for places youll never get to but I started looking and really it's a mix of issues with the BUE having unrealistic expectations and NCEPT simply failing in some areas.

I made a table of the top 27 facilities by ERRs inbound to see what facilities were most in demand. 27 being the number because I only selected 10 rows for the table so it is what it is:

Facility	Projected Staffing	ERRs Inbound	Gains to target		Facility	Projected Staffing	ERRs Inbound	Gains to target		Facility	Projected Staffing	ERRs Inbound	Gains to target
DFW	81.5%	81	13		D01	85.1%	41	17		ZTL	82.6%	33	83
DEN	111%	78	5		TPA	95.5%	41	4		SCT	74.7%	32	84
CLT	84%	72	13		ZFW	83.9%	41	62		ZOB	81.8%	31	77
IAH	95.2%	60	27		D10	80.2%	40	27		ATL	88.8%	29	8
MCO	107.2%	46	0		DAL	82.3%	38	5		MSP	90.2%	28	4
PHX	92.7%	45	3		ZJX	83.3%	38	58		AUS	89.7%	27	7
PCT	83.5%	43	35		ZHU	83.7%	37	56		HOU	85.5%	27	4
F11	89.4%	42	7		ZDV	84.4%	34	47		ZBW	82.7%	26	50
I90	82.1%	42	20		SEA	84.3%	33	50		A80	68.2%	24	77

Issue 1: I believe any facility under 100% (highlighted % in red) should be exempt from the NCEPT staffing rules. These are all higher level facilities that for the most part have many people trying to go there and would have a better chance of checking out than an academy grad. Most are 10s or higher except for a few I believe. Maybe level 10+ is exempt from NCEPT 85% or whatever rule. The con to doing this, you're short staffing lower facilities on purpose. Short staffing all facilities some versus the lower by a lot and the higher by less.

Issue 2: Some facilities will simply never pick you up. ERRs inbound (highlighted in blue) shows that 17 of the top 29 sought after facilities simply have far more ERRs inbound than what gains to target will allow. The FAA isn't going to staff a facility 200% just because you want to go there.

Last NCEPT panel selected up to 100%, so just about any facility is open if you want to go there. The holdup is whether a facility can let you go. As far and hopeless as it seems, what is a viable solution to that. People on here bitch about staffing and 6day work weeks, how would they feel if someone got released dropping their facility to 75%? 70%? 65%? Where do you draw the line? It's currently at 85% which seems to be a reasonable threshold, but many say it should be lower...really?

I'm not (and will never be) an NCEPT apologist by any means, but a majority of the transfer "issues" that people choose to highlight are a product of the NAS-wide staffing shortages, not NCEPT. Can you reasonably expect the FAA to agree to a Transfer System that drops facility staffing health below an ability to staff it even with 6day workweeks?

 

[CoffeeIV]

Last NCEPT panel selected up to 100%, so just about any facility is open if you want to go there. The holdup is whether a facility can let you go. As far and hopeless as it seems, what is a viable solution to that. People on here bitch about staffing and 6day work weeks, how would they feel if someone got released dropping their facility to 75%? 70%? 65%? Where do you draw the line? It's currently at 85% which seems to be a reasonable threshold, but many say it should be lower...really?

I'm not (and will never be) an NCEPT apologist by any means, but a majority of the transfer "issues" that people choose to highlight are a product of the NAS-wide staffing shortages, not NCEPT. Can you reasonably expect the FAA to agree to a Transfer System that drops facility staffing health below an ability to staff it even with 6day workweeks?

That's kind of the issue. People that hate NCEPT would gladly screw their facility and be more than happy to drop them to 0% staffing if it meant they got what they wanted. There is no winning because the hiring process is fucked from the start and causes these issues. We obviously have plenty of people wanting to get to some of these 10-12s that are short staffed but cant because the FAA hasnt hired enough people to fill the lower levels and they placed people all over the country where they don't want to be.

Oh and hot take, most of the 7s and below with higher wash out rates than most 12s are probably shitty culturally and can't train.

 

[AB19]

The median wage nationwide is now 81k. You won’t generally be poor, with a few glaring exceptions in UHCOL areas on low level pay. But when they pay scale came out it was great, significantly above median which was like 40-50k at the time, but now it’s just kind ok. Not having pay raises tied to inflation has tarnished the allure, to say the least. It’s still a bit above average but still within a standard deviation now.

There are way easier ways to make 100k a year that’s for sure

All very fair points

 

[Raise when?]

All very fair points

Join the Razewen MVMT

 

[Move78]

Last NCEPT panel selected up to 100%, so just about any facility is open if you want to go there. The holdup is whether a facility can let you go. As far and hopeless as it seems, what is a viable solution to that. People on here bitch about staffing and 6day work weeks, how would they feel if someone got released dropping their facility to 75%? 70%? 65%? Where do you draw the line? It's currently at 85% which seems to be a reasonable threshold, but many say it should be lower...really?

I'm not (and will never be) an NCEPT apologist by any means, but a majority of the transfer "issues" that people choose to highlight are a product of the NAS-wide staffing shortages, not NCEPT. Can you reasonably expect the FAA to agree to a Transfer System that drops facility staffing health below an ability to staff it even with 6day workweeks?

Gotta draw it somewhere. Or not. But it would be bloodbath and NATCA also represents the controllers that would be screwed by free for all outbounds.

 

[Acquired Taste]

So initially I was going to say most of you just apply for places youll never get to but I started looking and really it's a mix of issues with the BUE having unrealistic expectations and NCEPT simply failing in some areas.

I made a table of the top 27 facilities by ERRs inbound to see what facilities were most in demand. 27 being the number because I only selected 10 rows for the table so it is what it is:

Facility	Projected Staffing	ERRs Inbound	Gains to target		Facility	Projected Staffing	ERRs Inbound	Gains to target		Facility	Projected Staffing	ERRs Inbound	Gains to target
DFW	81.5%	81	13		D01	85.1%	41	17		ZTL	82.6%	33	83
DEN	111%	78	5		TPA	95.5%	41	4		SCT	74.7%	32	84
CLT	84%	72	13		ZFW	83.9%	41	62		ZOB	81.8%	31	77
IAH	95.2%	60	27		D10	80.2%	40	27		ATL	88.8%	29	8
MCO	107.2%	46	0		DAL	82.3%	38	5		MSP	90.2%	28	4
PHX	92.7%	45	3		ZJX	83.3%	38	58		AUS	89.7%	27	7
PCT	83.5%	43	35		ZHU	83.7%	37	56		HOU	85.5%	27	4
F11	89.4%	42	7		ZDV	84.4%	34	47		ZBW	82.7%	26	50
I90	82.1%	42	20		SEA	84.3%	33	50		A80	68.2%	24	77

Issue 1: I believe any facility under 100% (highlighted % in red) should be exempt from the NCEPT staffing rules. These are all higher level facilities that for the most part have many people trying to go there and would have a better chance of checking out than an academy grad. Most are 10s or higher except for a few I believe. Maybe level 10+ is exempt from NCEPT 85% or whatever rule. The con to doing this, you're short staffing lower facilities on purpose. Short staffing all facilities some versus the lower by a lot and the higher by less.

Issue 2: Some facilities will simply never pick you up. ERRs inbound (highlighted in blue) shows that 17 of the top 29 sought after facilities simply have far more ERRs inbound than what gains to target will allow. The FAA isn't going to staff a facility 200% just because you want to go there.

What so you mean they should be exempt from the ncept staffing rules?

Also, you have to think a lot of those inbound ERRs are overlapping. For example, maybe 30 people put in for both I90 and IAH. Pretty sure 27 Gains to target at IAH is wrong btw but still, you'd have to think that makes the demand not as crazy as it would seem and between ZHU, I90, and IAH, there is plenty of possible room for almost everyone who wants to get to Houston to be able to do so.

 

[CaptainObvious]

What so you mean they should be exempt from the ncept staffing rules?

Also, you have to think a lot of those inbound ERRs are overlapping. For example, maybe 30 people put in for both I90 and IAH. Pretty sure 27 Gains to target at IAH is wrong btw but still, you'd have to think that makes the demand not as crazy as it would seem and between ZHU, I90, and IAH, there is plenty of possible room for almost everyone who wants to get to Houston to be able to do so.

I think there’s some validity. 90-100% in Denver or Houston would be way more impactful to the NAS versus staffing Saginaw or wherever Mr. Tik Tok whiner works at 60%. Instead we go the opposite way and staff podunk shit holes to 100%

 

[Sassyquatch]

I'm to know what facility you're at. PM me if you feel like.

51 out of 58 Level 7's have released on NCEPT since 2021.

NCEPT is far from perfect, but there should be hope for you or light at the end of the tunnel. Do you have paperwork in that you keep up to date? Have you conversed with your NCEPT rep? I've found it's best to reach out and ask as many questions to try and figure out what might work for your situation.

I tried to PM you but it's not letting me. If you want to know still you can reach out

 

[CoffeeIV]

I think there’s some validity. 90-100% in Denver or Houston would be way more impactful to the NAS versus staffing Saginaw or wherever Mr. Tik Tok whiner works at 60%. Instead we go the opposite way and staff podunk shit holes to 100%

Some of those facilities shouldn't be 24hrs either. You have plenty of small up/downs open 24/7 for all of 5 flights between 12am - 6am. Only 2 controllers but 2 controllers but that's more than 10% of some of those facilities target they would gain if they stopped working mids.

 

[Fat Porrey]

Join the Razewen MVMT

 

[CoffeeIV]

Takes me back like 20 years ago when people made stuff like this on some turn based browser game. Hilarious.

 

[RomeoTangoRT]

Some of those facilities shouldn't be 24hrs either. You have plenty of small up/downs open 24/7 for all of 5 flights between 12am - 6am. Only 2 controllers but 2 controllers but that's more than 10% of some of those facilities target they would gain if they stopped working mids.

Rarely do I agree with you, but I’m here for this one. Don’t quote me on this but I thought I remember seeing it somewhere saying the threshold for adjusting hours was something like 3 ops/hr. I could be talking out my ass though.

When I was at Key West, we closed our radar at 10pm and relinquished control back to Miami. So in these facilities, someone is going to have to assume those ops. Would it affect their staffing? Would it be negligible? I’m not toooo familiar with procedures and management. But reducing facility hours to meet the necessary load honestly isn’t the worst idea I’ve seen on here.

 

[Phillyman2633]

I remember senior controllers were at ~$175,000 in 2011 towards the end of the red book.

Plug that into the Governments Inflation Calculator and that is nearly $245,000 in 2023 Bidenomics. So people should be happy the job pays less these days, just because there are other jobs that don’t pay as well?

Bottom line: This job doesn’t pay as well as it did 10, 15, 20 years ago.

It’s not a matter of opinion, these are facts. Why you guys are ok with that or choose to defend it…IDK?

For the MAGAs on here that like to dO tHeIr OwN rEsEaRcH, go here and plug in the name of someone from your facility who was capped out.

https://www.federalpay.org/employees

Then convert that to 2023 Bidenomics Dollars

CPI Inflation Calculator

Pay vs. Inflation

 

[RomeoTangoRT]

Rarely do I agree with you, but I’m here for this one. Don’t quote me on this but I thought I remember seeing it somewhere saying the threshold for adjusting hours was something like 3 ops/hr. I could be talking out my ass though.

7232.5

a. Reduction in Hours of Operation. A facility is a candidate for reduced operating hours when its average hourly operations are 4 or fewer over a representative 90-day period. If the facility is operating 24 hours daily and a reduction is proposed, the average of 4 or fewer operations an hour should be for
5 or more consecutive hours over the 90-day representative period. Consider towers and approach control facilities individually. The existence of radar does not limit consideration. The hours of radar service need not match with the hours of tower service.


It’s a valid point. As staffing increases the larger facilties could pick up some of the work.

Aye I appreciate this. I’ve been (inactively) looking for this for a while as my facility averages like .5 ops an hour for our last 3 hours. If we reduced, we could work a 4/3 schedule but as it sits, we can’t. Preciate it!

 

[AB19]

We used to be open from 10pm-12am to talk to like four planes the rest of the night. Would have been so much easier to staff the place being open 6am-10pm than 6am-12am

 

[jfol]

Rarely do I agree with you, but I’m here for this one. Don’t quote me on this but I thought I remember seeing it somewhere saying the threshold for adjusting hours was something like 3 ops/hr. I could be talking out my ass though.

When I was at Key West, we closed our radar at 10pm and relinquished control back to Miami. So in these facilities, someone is going to have to assume those ops. Would it affect their staffing? Would it be negligible? I’m not toooo familiar with procedures and management. But reducing facility hours to meet the necessary load honestly isn’t the worst idea I’ve seen on here.

Giving the overlying airspace away for a mid shift with less than 1 op/hr won’t require any additional staffing on the receiving facility. But it will help the facility relinquishing the airspace. Two additional controllers on the board for staffing/training the next day would be huge. This seems like a fairly simple and viable solution that should be pushed for poorly staffed 24/7 shit holes that qualify.

 

[Acquired Taste]

Giving the overlying airspace away for a mid shift with less than 1 op/hr won’t require any additional staffing on the receiving facility. But it will help the facility relinquishing the airspace. Two additional controllers on the board for staffing/training the next day would be huge. This seems like a fairly simple and viable solution that should be pushed for poorly staffed 24/7 shit holes that qualify.

But you're trying to destroy good paying union jobs! If you made it so the low level shit holes that no one wants to be at required less people sitting around doing nothing all day, you're destroying hundreds of potential jobs that the FAA isn't going to ever fill anyway.

That's the unions line of thinking and why it will never happen.

 

[RomeoTangoRT]

Giving the overlying airspace away for a mid shift with less than 1 op/hr won’t require any additional staffing on the receiving facility. But it will help the facility relinquishing the airspace. Two additional controllers on the board for staffing/training the next day would be huge. This seems like a fairly simple and viable solution that should be pushed for poorly staffed 24/7 shit holes that qualify.

So obviously I work for an FCT. One of the reasons we’ve had to stay open later is we have some bullshit agreement with AAL that we’ll staff the facility for their seasonal 930pm flight. Rarely do I talk to a plane after about 7pm and if I do, it’s typically a medevac. Some American pilots (you know, the guys making like $400/hr) are so dramatic they don’t want to land at an airport who's tower isn’t open to say “cleared to land” for some ungodly reason. Like brother, you’re the only aircraft within 40 NM and fire and rescue stays til you land anyways.

But yeah, might be some hurdles but fuck ‘em. It helps us so much more being able to close earlier

But you're trying to destroy good paying union jobs! If you made it so the low level shit holes that no one wants to be at required less people sitting around doing nothing all day, you're destroying hundreds of potential jobs that the FAA isn't going to ever fill anyway.

That's the unions line of thinking and why it will never happen.

Such a bullshit train of thought. Really the mindset should be that you’re taking bodies and putting them where they’re needed. Filling the gap. Bringing the total number of required controllers down while maintaining the number of controllers you have only helps literally everybody.

 

[Acquired Taste]

Such a bullshit train of thought. Really the mindset should be that you’re taking bodies and putting them where they’re needed. Filling the gap. Bringing the total number of required controllers down while maintaining the number of controllers you have only helps literally everybody.

Preaching to the choir brother. I literally explored every possibility to get my old facilities number reduced. The lifers didn't like the idea because if we went from being open 18 hrs to 16 hrs, we'd lose the 10 hr shifts. But ultimately, the FAA doesn't care to do that because there will be backlash from the local airport management and the center. Natca doesn't want to reduce the number of bodies required. So they shake each other's hands and carry on business as usual. Meanwhile there's plenty of ambitious controllers at low level shit holes that would like to advance their careers and would stand to benefit from the cpc target being reduced so they could transfer somewhere they want to be and would be of much more use to the flying public.