4th quarter 2017
- Thread starter MJ
- Start date
corn4ahead
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 665
The projected national average is going to raise significantly. Meaning less people eligible.
breakaway2000
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 1,693
They pulled data from 2010-2014. The reason they gave was the amount of people hired during FY2015 that are still in training. It appears the 3 year 'lead time' will continue moving forward.
In terms of your first question, people that are 2.2 years away from mandatory retirement will be counted on your retirement estimate and your projected % will go up as each trainee and inbound is counted as .737 of a person instead of .687.
breakaway2000
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 1,693
From 2010-2014. 3 certified and 9 washed out. Unreal.
SugarFoot1
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 475
Does running it once mean just for us to see then they will run the ppt again on aug 21?
I'd say no shot they space out PPT updates to quarterly. My facility got hit pretty hard. We only dropped a little in training success rate but currently missed the natl avg by .2 proj and now we'll be miles away. This just makes me hate those shitty shitty washouts even more. Idiots.
EDIT: my mistake, PPT still referred to as PPT
EDIT: my mistake, PPT still referred to as PPT
Last edited:
SugarFoot1
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 475
They have to run it more than once. If they ran it the month after ncept only, a ton of facilities would be pissed if guys checked out but wasn't counted until after the ncept met
It's hard to argue against this change. They're just making it more accurate. We really have to get them to detach the requirement for release from the proj natl avg though. They should freeze it at 90%.
Another drawback to this change is now those difficult facility's projected numbers are no longer subsidized by other like type facilities. So if you're good enough to checkout at a place that's hard enough to have a lot of washouts you're totally screwed for ever going anywhere.
Better off in the NEST and try and get SAN where the trainees count 100% of a CPC pffffffffffffff.
Another drawback to this change is now those difficult facility's projected numbers are no longer subsidized by other like type facilities. So if you're good enough to checkout at a place that's hard enough to have a lot of washouts you're totally screwed for ever going anywhere.
Better off in the NEST and try and get SAN where the trainees count 100% of a CPC pffffffffffffff.
corn4ahead
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 665
90% no way! Needs to be locked in at like 80 or 85.
They'll never go for that. It's ~88 currently for projected. The AOB has remained steady around ~82. But the projected has been slowly climbing and if they meet their hiring goals the requirements for allowed movement within the system will just continue to tighten. I would assume increased movement is a shared goal.
FAR is close to that ratio, I don't know the exact numbers though. Unacceptable for a 6 up/down.
corn4ahead
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 665
Lol!!!! This is the most poorly executed "goal" I could think of. Even it was shared, the only thing that's being looked at is the movement itself. It's all a numbers game with no regard to merit, seniority, etc.
corn4ahead
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 665
Rumor has it that P80 is extremely complex. Lots of MVAs. Crazy wind shifts on final regularly. Etc.
rugbydog11
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 616
I just visited. It was a super interesting facility that I would love to work at. All the controllers seemed cool and laid back.
- Messages
- 3,175
Would someone kindly post this email, I can't seem to find it anywhere.
rugbydog11
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 616
Background
The Priority Placement Tool (PPT) uses current staffing at a facility, and future modeling, to determine a facilities short and long-term need based on their ratio of CPC’s to targeted CPC’s.
Challenge
Currently within the PPT both Training Time and Success Rate are based on all employees that on-boarded into facilities from calendar year 2009-2012.
The Training Time is based on grouped averages of like type/level facilities for terminal, while all the enroute facilities receive 3 years with the exception of ZSU (2 years), and ZUA (1 year). Training time is important in that it drives the numbers for Projected Retirements and Other Losses, if two facilities had the same target, a facility that has a 1-year training time will have a significantly lower Projected Retirements and Other Losses number than a facility with a 3-year training time.
Training Success Rate for terminal facilities are also based on grouped like type/level facilities, while enroute facilities are calculated using their individual facility success rate.
Tower
Levels 4-6
Levels 7-9
Levels 10-12
Approach
Levels 4-6
Levels 7-9
Levels 10-12
Tower/Approach
Levels 5-6
Levels 7-9
Levels 10-12; HCF
Current Averaging Revision
An analysis was conducted to determine the best data set to be used for updating the Time to Certify and Training Success Rate within the PPT.
The timeline considered was for any employee that on-boarded at the facility between FY 2010-2014. In an attempt to get the most recent data, an analysis of employees still in training was conducted and it was determined that a large percentage of employees that have on-boarded in FY 2015 and later were still in training, so FY 2014 would be the last year considered.
It was determined that 5 years’ worth of data would be used to allow the majority of facilities to have at least 10 data points or more for their success rate. When considering FY 2012-2014 (3 years), 110 facilities did not have 10 data points, when using FY 2010-2014 (5 years), only 18 facilities did not have 10 data points for their success rate. In the case of those facilities with less than 10, their type and specific level facility average was used, there was NO GROUPING of levels, i.e. Levels 4-6.
Time to Certify
Time to Certify was determined by averaging the “Years to Complete” for those employees who had on-boarded between FY 2010-2014 and had Completed Training.
The following facilities had less than 10 data points to compute their time to certify, their specific facility type and specific Facility Pay Level average was used in the analysis.
Success Rate
Success Rate was determined by dividing the number of employees that successfully completed training by the number of employees that attempted certification.
The following facilities had less than 10 data points, their specific facility type and specific Facility Pay Level average was used in the analysis.
Comparisons
Appendix A (attached ) contains a comparison of each individual facility as it is represented currently in the PPT compared to each facility when calculated using the training data obtained on March 22nd, 2017 and the above process. NOTE: This data WILL change in the next run of the PPT on June 26-30th. This is for information ONLY.
Implementation
June 26 – June 30, 2017 – Release of July PPT usingupdated time to certify and success rates based on the most recent obtainable AJI data from the NTD.
***Future updates will be done quarterly on months following the NCEPT. Additional years for employee onboarding (2015, 2016) will be rolled in based on percentages of those still in training.
If you have any questions, please contact Dean Iacopelli (NEA RVP) at [email protected], Andrew LeBovidge (NSW RVP) at[email protected], or Michael Robicheau (NNE RVP) at[email protected].
The Priority Placement Tool (PPT) uses current staffing at a facility, and future modeling, to determine a facilities short and long-term need based on their ratio of CPC’s to targeted CPC’s.
Challenge
Currently within the PPT both Training Time and Success Rate are based on all employees that on-boarded into facilities from calendar year 2009-2012.
The Training Time is based on grouped averages of like type/level facilities for terminal, while all the enroute facilities receive 3 years with the exception of ZSU (2 years), and ZUA (1 year). Training time is important in that it drives the numbers for Projected Retirements and Other Losses, if two facilities had the same target, a facility that has a 1-year training time will have a significantly lower Projected Retirements and Other Losses number than a facility with a 3-year training time.
Training Success Rate for terminal facilities are also based on grouped like type/level facilities, while enroute facilities are calculated using their individual facility success rate.
Tower
Levels 4-6
Levels 7-9
Levels 10-12
Approach
Levels 4-6
Levels 7-9
Levels 10-12
Tower/Approach
Levels 5-6
Levels 7-9
Levels 10-12; HCF
Current Averaging Revision
An analysis was conducted to determine the best data set to be used for updating the Time to Certify and Training Success Rate within the PPT.
The timeline considered was for any employee that on-boarded at the facility between FY 2010-2014. In an attempt to get the most recent data, an analysis of employees still in training was conducted and it was determined that a large percentage of employees that have on-boarded in FY 2015 and later were still in training, so FY 2014 would be the last year considered.
It was determined that 5 years’ worth of data would be used to allow the majority of facilities to have at least 10 data points or more for their success rate. When considering FY 2012-2014 (3 years), 110 facilities did not have 10 data points, when using FY 2010-2014 (5 years), only 18 facilities did not have 10 data points for their success rate. In the case of those facilities with less than 10, their type and specific level facility average was used, there was NO GROUPING of levels, i.e. Levels 4-6.
Time to Certify
Time to Certify was determined by averaging the “Years to Complete” for those employees who had on-boarded between FY 2010-2014 and had Completed Training.
The following facilities had less than 10 data points to compute their time to certify, their specific facility type and specific Facility Pay Level average was used in the analysis.
Success Rate
Success Rate was determined by dividing the number of employees that successfully completed training by the number of employees that attempted certification.
The following facilities had less than 10 data points, their specific facility type and specific Facility Pay Level average was used in the analysis.
Comparisons
Appendix A (attached ) contains a comparison of each individual facility as it is represented currently in the PPT compared to each facility when calculated using the training data obtained on March 22nd, 2017 and the above process. NOTE: This data WILL change in the next run of the PPT on June 26-30th. This is for information ONLY.
Implementation
June 26 – June 30, 2017 – Release of July PPT usingupdated time to certify and success rates based on the most recent obtainable AJI data from the NTD.
***Future updates will be done quarterly on months following the NCEPT. Additional years for employee onboarding (2015, 2016) will be rolled in based on percentages of those still in training.
If you have any questions, please contact Dean Iacopelli (NEA RVP) at [email protected], Andrew LeBovidge (NSW RVP) at[email protected], or Michael Robicheau (NNE RVP) at[email protected].
rugbydog11
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 616
The grids didn't seem to copy and paste well...
rugbydog11
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 616
Appendix a
