September (Q4) 2019

Thought experiment: is it possible to file a grievance against the NCEPT?

Example: your current facility (lv 5 ) can release 2 people. A facility you bid for (lv 8 ) shows 1 available category 1 selection. When the list is published the level 8 has no selections and your level 5 only released 1 person.

I understand they can reject category 2 all day everyday, but can they openly go against their own selection rules and reject a category 1?

Purely hypothetical situation, of course...
Before this ncept, yes. With the new "we can do what we want, dynamic desicions, not normally, yadda yadda" no.
 
Thought experiment: is it possible to file a grievance against the NCEPT?

Example: your current facility (lv 5 ) can release 2 people. A facility you bid for (lv 8 ) shows 1 available category 1 selection. When the list is published the level 8 has no selections and your level 5 only released 1 person.

I understand they can reject category 2 all day everyday, but can they openly go against their own selection rules and reject a category 1?

Purely hypothetical situation, of course...

With all the variables and that they don’t have to actually account for their decisions, no I don’t think there is an avenue for grievance.

The facility priority and vacancy list didn’t account for the new over 85% numbers they were trialing not the 30% trainee ratio (I don’t think).

Also the one person released was a CAT 1, while a second would most likely have been CAT 2 if released at all. And losing the second might have dropped below that magic number. Low level facilities have fewer controllers so each one has a much higher % assigned to them.

And it could just be “dynamic decisions”. DFW got one instead of three. Charlotte got none instead of one. Etc.
 
And they negotiated for themselves and what the FAA wants, they did nothing for the majority. They are co-managing

Doesn't make sense. What do you mean negotiated for themselves? How does restricting movement benefit them? People are understandably frustrated and just trying to blame someone.

I don't disagree with the stance against what NATCA has agreed to. But I also don't agree that quitting the union is the right response. I wonder how many of the keyboard warriors have spoken to their RVP about how they feel directly and on a regular basis.

I do have concerns though that NATCA has went too far into collaboration with the agency. I am absolutely sure NCEPT and the Training Initiative were purely the agency's ideas in which the union has steered them into a more favorable direction for the workforce. However, were we better off outright opposing terrible ideas instead of meeting in the middle and still working with shitty ideas?

Great question, I wonder about this with a lot of stuff we negotiate. I do think original NCEPT was a good change though. More transparency, clear rules, clear timelines, and more people moving.

It doesn't. The point is you should stay in your lane and work your way up if you want to have the highest chance of success both for yourself and the agency. But that's just not the way its done anymore.

Stay in your lane? So because when you got hired and the agency decided you were a great fit for a 5 tower, you can't go to the center by your home town? But the new hire can? Or are you gonna say there's an exemption for transfers across lines of business? But then why is a center guy qualified for a 12 tower just cuz he got hired into en route, vs the other guy who's been grinding at a 5 tower?
 
Just curious why won't the Agency send tower or tracon controllers back to OKC if they get picked up for a center? I just find it interesting they will send a person to RTF and TSEW but not enroute class.
 
Just curious why won't the Agency send tower or tracon controllers back to OKC if they get picked up for a center? I just find it interesting they will send a person to RTF and TSEW but not enroute class.

They have to go through D-school when they get here which is basically doing the acadamy again.
 
True. Neither of those 3 facilities are anywhere close to leveling up after taking on full extra Tracons. Its pretty amazing. I think there is a natural assumption that if you assume gigantic airspace and close down TRACONs, it is inevitable you'd reap some benefit from that. Has not been the case for those 3. I'm still shocked about AZO, I blindly assumed theyd be an easy 8.

I am part of the CLE consolidation. We are very aware of the AZO issues and we didn't not want to replicate them. It's early but things are going smoothly. I agree that the legacy controllers are getting shafted with the mediocre bonuses but I feel very confident that CLE will upgrade to a 9.
 
I am part of the CLE consolidation. We are very aware of the AZO issues and we didn't not want to replicate them. It's early but things are going smoothly. I agree that the legacy controllers are getting shafted with the mediocre bonuses but I feel very confident that CLE will upgrade to a 9.
About as confident as Houston or Miami Center going to a 12?
 
I am part of the CLE consolidation. We are very aware of the AZO issues and we didn't not want to replicate them. It's early but things are going smoothly. I agree that the legacy controllers are getting shafted with the mediocre bonuses but I feel very confident that CLE will upgrade to a 9.

Lol CLE "legacy." Mediocre is such an understatement in regard to bonuses though. There's basically no incentive for a someone to certify on (what was) MFD and CAK, that is already a CLE CPC.

About as confident as Houston or Miami Center going to a 12?

I think it's a double-edge sword. Some people want the way traffic is counted to change. However, if it were to change, it might affect us controllers in a negative fashion. So it could be good, but it might be terrible.

Obviously, NATCA would have to be involved in that, but based on the way they "negotiated" NCEPT, I'm not confident.

It's a shame that a lot of Z controllers getting affected negatively though.
 
I think it's a double-edge sword. Some people want the way traffic is counted to change. However, if it were to change, it might affect us controllers in a negative fashion. So it could be good, but it might be terrible.

Obviously, NATCA would have to be involved in that, but based on the way they "negotiated" NCEPT, I'm not confident.

It's a shame that a lot of Z controllers getting affected negatively though.
But if the intent is to balance pay with traffic worked it should be. ZHU and ZMA should go to 12, ZDV to 11. ZBW should be a 10, but doesn’t Mr. Dynamic Decisions work there? So that will never happen
 
Not only lowering it to a 10, but what about them opening things up for a 9 center, ZSE and ZAN maybe as some of the slower centers.
 
About as confident as Houston or Miami Center going to a 12?
But if the intent is to balance pay with traffic worked it should be. ZHU and ZMA should go to 12, ZDV to 11. ZBW should be a 10, but doesn’t Mr. Dynamic Decisions work there? So that will never happen

Kinda like how JFK, LGA, and EWR are all the same level no matter what?

But maybe the way Zs are counted just need to be changed. IMO, they should all be 12s. Maybe except Guam and San Juan.
 
Traffic count isn’t everything. I’ve been at ZME and ZTL. ZTL certainly works a lot more traffic but it’s also structured. I don’t think being “busy” at either facility is different - you’re just “busy” more minutes per hour at ZTL than at ZME.
 
Back
Top Bottom