TimShady
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 174
Only 13 eligible, we can select 3. If anyone remains we can get up to an additional 3 using the staff to 100% rule.
3rd Quarter 2017
- Thread starter MJ
- Start date
Only 13 eligible, we can select 3. If anyone remains we can get up to an additional 3 using the staff to 100% rule.
Kyle Heyman
Member
- Messages
- 18
Maybe it's not up yet because there are so many names to type since they approved everyone
- Messages
- 3
- Facility
- PNS Pensacola Tower
Sat in on the FacRep telcon today. There was an error with ncept. Some people weren't being put on ranking lists if their facility would go below the national average. The meeting today will be to address that issue. They are either going to move forward with what they have or delay a week and fix it. I'll notify you all when a decision has been made.
- Messages
- 3
- Facility
- PNS Pensacola Tower
That was what our facrep put out today on why no word on selections yet. Hope we hear soon
breakaway2000
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 1,693
I don't think I can take another week of this...
CaptainObvious
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 2,246
Big surprise, they half assed a quick change to a bullshit procedure.
Is there any insight on the "collaboratively determined percentages"? I know there is quite a few facilities like mine that is within 1% of the average, but they are not rounding up anymore or correct? So are they allowing a small percentage difference to have more movement with the program?
Otherwise this will be story of ERR life; just short of releasing someone and with ever possible future checkout is someone already signed up to be out the door either grandfathered ERR, NEST, retirement, etc...
Otherwise this will be story of ERR life; just short of releasing someone and with ever possible future checkout is someone already signed up to be out the door either grandfathered ERR, NEST, retirement, etc...
breakaway2000
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 1,693
I'm curious as to what really happened. For instance, were ATMs simply not ranking people that would have the 1 year release or were a handful of people just left off the manager's ranking list. I'm just curious because...
1. Everyone on our list came from a facility that could only release 1 aka they'd drop below the national average.
2. As a facility that could drop below the national average, we were on the manager's ranking list for other facilities.
3. Facilities like LEX that weren't eligible on the first PPT, but became eligible on the final PPT were included on lists.
Just...weird...
1. Everyone on our list came from a facility that could only release 1 aka they'd drop below the national average.
2. As a facility that could drop below the national average, we were on the manager's ranking list for other facilities.
3. Facilities like LEX that weren't eligible on the first PPT, but became eligible on the final PPT were included on lists.
Just...weird...
- Messages
- 3
- Facility
- PNS Pensacola Tower
Yeah seems to be a new "issue" each panel like they making this up as they go.
How many people would actually be affected by the 'drop below the national avg' rule. I would think they would have to redo all the lists because the agency would be opening themselves to some pretty serious grievances if they just go with what they have. If someone was eligible but knowingly not considered that would be pretty egregious
I completely understand what you're saying, but what are we actually grieving? We are grieving a decision by our union? What are we looking for as a solution
corn4ahead
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 699
Wouldn't this mean that facilities would be able to release more people too?
I get what you are saying too, but say hypothetically if I were eligible to be considered under this new rule and weren't, I would be looking into any legal recourse I could.
LadyLuck777
Active Member
- Messages
- 79
Is it that those people aren't "eligible", or they weren't "ranked" (my guess is by the manager)? Am I not understanding this?
- Messages
- 3,263
an actual lottery system would be more efficient
against the wall and see what happens.
They changed rules without changing the criteria in their systems. It happens to me sometimes when I update formulas and databases and such, but I'm smart enough to test beforehand to make sure it actually works. When you're in control of peoples careers it's easier to just throw
against the wall and see what happens.
Last edited:
It sounds like some eligible people's names weren't put in front of ATM's to be ranked.
so if you took legal action...the result would be make sure you're included on the next panel in 3 months which is what will happen anyways? Considering NATCA has so much pull in career advancement with this process I would think it would NOT be a good idea to go after the union legally and have your name blackballed. I understand your frustration and I guess I'm playing devil's advocate but I'm not sure what good could come out of legal action against our union.
rugbydog11
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 639
you may not be on the next one, based on our numbers, we magically got 3 releases because of 3 people still on board CPC that are retiring or have already gone just days after the PPT. we may be eligible to release 0 next panel with these shotgun rules and numbers. our projected number may still be high but 13 trainees will do that, if none of them cpc before the next panel, it means nothing.
- Messages
- 253
- Facility
- ZTL Atlanta Center
Our facility is like this as well. 1 release eligible and would drop below national average yet I still made it on a few lists
Again, hypothetically, and none of this impacts me personally.
Say your facility has a couple unexpected retirements and a few people lose medicals and now your facility is no longer eligible. Now the ship and sailed and you are stuck.
