RIF would have to be based on agency time not NATCA. And there's a lot more that goes into it as well such as: creditable military time, SCD date, veterans preference, Whole pile of S!?$. It's in the RIF handbook on the OPM website. It does mention being within the terms of collective bargaining but that wouldn't supersede OPM guidelines entirely.
The FAA staffing problem that NO ONE is talking about
- Thread starter Acquired Taste
- Start date
Acquired Taste
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 961
So does that mean the prior exp trainee that just got on virtually on boarded 2 months ago and has 6 years military service would be retained before say a 3 year CPC?
Haha hell no. That's where the collective bargaining would probably come into play. But it might bump a few developmentals in the centers who think they're safe since they've been there a couple years.
And should it get to where CPC's are vying for seniority over each other this would come into play. Imagine it would essentially fall into two pools. Trainees first, then if that's not enough onto CPC's. I only mention the RIF handbook cause it won't be as simple as just NATCA or agency seniority.
32andBelow
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 9,276
But how can you rif a CPC that has 1 year seniority over a trainee that has 4. You can’t.
Says who? Read the RIF handbook. You absolutely can. The parameters of the RIF action can simply state developmental only. Seniority don't mean s$&@ then.
Think I read your post backwards. No CPC is going to be RIF'd over a trainee. Trainees seniority won't even be a factor against a CPC. Only "possible" exception to that would be a CPC with negative performance evaluation. I'm saying that after getting through trainees if they still need blood than CPC seniority is not as straight forward as NATCA or agency seniority.
32andBelow
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 9,276
The good news is the faa is still actively hiring
Yeah, I don't think we are at risk currently but Delta is starting to pull back again and I think other airlines might follow suit given the recent flare ups and Cali going back into lockdown. RIF won't even be considered till closer to September. No government agency is going to make cuts to positions that are already funded. The "UCIS" or whatever the damn initials are is a way different beast. Their funding is similar to ours but definitely not identical. Plus that's a highly contested agency amongst politicians. No one can argue ATC being unnecessary..... Yet! Not even the privatization folks.
32andBelow
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 9,276
No one is going to be defunding atc or anything for that matter 1 month before an election.
You don't think a politician can sell reduced funding for ATC when airline traffic has fallen this drastically? Really? That's not even close to a hard sell.
32andBelow
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 9,276
Nope. 100% not on their radar and not even a big amount of money. They’d rather cut social security or Obamacare
Until you start considering longer term consequences of said reduced funding.
Wonder how overseas ATC is going to react when international travel returns to standard levels.
Oh shoot, I forgot... IF international travel ever returns to standard levels.
32andBelow
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 9,276
We also are the air traffic controllers for the military and national security and all that
Acquired Taste
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 961
Qantas just cut all of their international flights until March, 2021 so there's that...
Legit my brain interpreted this as a year and a half from now, and I still wasn't all that shocked. March next year though might make sense for them to figure out their safety bubble...from Aus to New Zealand, EU, etc. But I'd be pleasantly surprised if U.S got in on it even by September next year.
32andBelow
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 9,276
Pfzer is planning 100 million vaccine doses this year so is modern and Oxford as well. Sooooo who knows
because moving a 737 pilot from LAX to ORD takes a day. Moving a CPC from MDW to ZLA takes years.
I wouldn’t be so sure. I’d be shocked if the FAA found themselves immune to the budget cuts and as I believe you’ve pointed out- NATCA is pretty proud to note that we can easily run ATC with half the staff sitting at home.
how is it similar funding ? ATC comes out of the general fund or whatever it’s called - USCIS is apparently funding on a user fee based system which has run dry. Yes the FAA collects taxes on fuel and airline tickets but that doesn’t directly pay the paychecks of ATCS as I understand it.
Long term consequences? You do know that has NEVER been a real consideration of anyone in the oval or congress right? Let's not give them that much credit. Doesn't matter which side of the political coin you back.
OKbusyB
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 403
Easily run ATC for now.. Our area has had 8 people retire and 1 person CPC in the last year, and it’s just going to get worse.
Similar in that we generate money from actual users by means of taxes and user fees. Not identical cause it still has to get washed through congress before it gets to us. So.... Similar but not identical like I said. I suppose you could make an argument that there are user fees and taxes on all government agencies if you want to get technical but not in such a direct sense as what we have with the airlines.
Not on their radar? You don't think that our "boss" is sitting their telling her husband that she can single handedly trim a pile of money off the budget? You do know she's married to a "fiscal hawk" that RUNS the senate? Yeah!!! We are on the RADAR my friend. Wish it wasn't so but it is. McConnell is going to be pitching budget cuts left and right to pay for stimulus. I'm not saying that I want this to happen but I refuse to be naive about the players on the board and their respective positions about government spending and jobs. Republicans may be pro jobs jobs jobs but we are the exception to that stance. Government bad! Jobs good! Government jobs bad! Unless it's military or law enforcement. Then good!
- Messages
- 2,521
- Facility
- Command Center
As much as it pains me, I have to agree with AJ4240. Elaine Cho (someone correct my history if I am wrong) was part of the White Book as she was Secretary of Labour under George W. and to my best recollection when the Union and the Agency reached an impasse, she denied or threw out the appeal, thereby allowing the agency to impose working conditions. Full disclosure, I was in secondary school at the time but seeing as there is no overall NATCA history book to my knowledge most of this is just research.
