April (Q2) 2019

FightingIrish2012 said:
But the training success rate for transfers has been about 60-65% only.
Click to expand...

I feel like that number needs to be broken down more.

How many people that were unsuccessful made too big a jump? Not everyone can work higher level traffic despite what we all like to believe.

The flip side of the coin is some of those people probably went to XXX facility because it was the only way they could get out or beat their coworkers selection...
 
Last edited:
jdatc said:
I feel like that number needs to be broken down more.

How many people that were unsuccessful made too big a jump? Not everyone can work higher level traffic despite what we all like to believe.

The flip side of the coin is some of those people probably went to XXX facility because it was the only way they could get out or beat their of workers selection...
Click to expand...
That number only counts the people who have fully certified, or washed out/withdrew. So yeah, most people who transferred through NCEPT are still in training and pending. So that number might change a lot, but as of now it’s been a low 60ish% rate for the transfers who have a final result.
 
Robertb said:
They still need to cap transfers to no more than 4 levels. You’d solve a lot of these issues with mid level facilities not being able to release people for years.
Click to expand...
The whole process needs to be overhauled. There are too many variables and unknowns about the process. People ask questions get answers and then the next month the standard has changed to something else. No continuity at all.
 
MJ said:
Moving targets are the best targets. It means you never have to be held accountable!
Click to expand...
Homsar said:
Wow. RIP NCEPT. Discretion is back, gone are the ways of pure number-based moves, which was the appeal of NCEPT in the first place.
Click to expand...
JNev said:
You really gotta love unannounced changes that do nothing but restrict more movement...
Click to expand...

Seriously, this is shady as hell. Although NCEPT could be frustrating in the past, at least the rules were known and followed.
 
ATCNOMAD said:
Not if they are trying to leave the facility before him
Click to expand...
Lol, the problem is facility staffed with lifers and academy hires. Very few people had experience with new ERR system. There is no "perfect" way to fill out the experience and request for promotion forms.

I would suggest the FAA/NATCA develop a simple online form fill, but some contractor that gets paid millions a year to add a comma to a text document probably has all the rights to stuff like that.

In any case, I got picked up. To all the people hating on NCEPT:

1) Transfer of facilities directed by humans will always be flawed. People need/want these transfers and there will always be a pull with staff.
2) Before staffing was the primary concern it was the wild west. How people from a lvl5 with 75% staffing went to a lvl9 at 120% is mind boggling.
3) If you need to leave your facility and your staffing sucks, find a dying mother or start studying for N90.
 
I heard from a FACREP that for this panel they essentially did not have a round 2. When they were looking at the selections for round 2 the majority of gaining facilities were better staffed than the losing facilities so they didn't grant those selections. As stated earlier they were also looking at the stages trainees were in and the overall amount of CPC-IT's to current CPC's. Im guessing the CPC-IT to CPC ratio is starting to get lopsided, and they are trying to figure out a way to balance the numbers.
 
So on another note, do we do a grievance if our staffing numbers are wrong and it resulted in a loss of a release?
 
Last edited:
Foogy said:
So on another note, do we do a grievance if our staffing numbers are wrong and it resulted in a loss of a release?
Click to expand...
Very interested to hear the answer to this, because I'm at a facility where I think they f'd up the staffing numbers prior to this panel where I got selected
 
And no one caught it prior to the selections? Might be out of luck if there should have been another selection...or if it was a selection that shouldn't have happened that might be left alone.
In the past they've made adjustments to the PPT, but it was before selections and made a note of it in their meeting minutes.
 
Well we have a .6 loss to retirement...but no one is within 5 years of retirment. Anyway I started asking the FLMs about it and they have no clue who the number represents. Figured since the .6 technically constitutes another person, and all we need was another person to be CAT2...then I might as well bitch about something legitimate.
 
Foogy said:
Well we have a .6 loss to retirement...but no one is within 5 years of retirment. Anyway I started asking the FLMs about it and they have no clue who the number represents. Figured since the .6 technically constitutes another person, and all we need was another person to be CAT2...then I might as well bitch about something legitimate.
Click to expand...
It's more than just retirement projections.
Q93. What data is utilized to determine the projected CPC levels?
A93. Known gains and losses are derived from the information contained in the Staffing Workbook as well as other factors including training attrition (derived from AJI (Technical Training)) and other projected attrition that is derived from ALA (Finance’s Office of Labor Analysis) modeling.

Q102. Does the attrition model take into account employees who have announced their retirement to the facility, but have not submitted official paperwork?
A102. Speculative retirements are not incorporated into the known losses portion of the Staffing Workbook data. However, projected CPC levels do factor in the ALA attrition projections which include, in part, expected retirements based upon facility demographics.

Controller Workforce Plan: Losses include retirements, promotions and transfers, resignations, removals, deaths, developmental attrition, and academy attrition.
 
Foogy said:
Well we have a .6 loss to retirement...but no one is within 5 years of retirment. Anyway I started asking the FLMs about it and they have no clue who the number represents. Figured since the .6 technically constitutes another person, and all we need was another person to be CAT2...then I might as well bitch about something legitimate.
Click to expand...
Same thing happened to us. Closest retirement is 10 years. We are 10/11 cpcs. We have 0.7 projected retirements. Our projected cpc number is 84.9. The answer I got from management Is they have no clue and to ask natca. Answer from natca Is “bean counters make that number, it’s unchangable”.
 
Stinger thanks for grabbing those.

axman did they tell you how to fix it for future reference at least. I don't see how it can't be fixed if it's wrong. We're at 82% and the .6 retirment is taking 3.9% from us.
 
Foogy said:
Stinger thanks for grabbing those.

axman did they tell you how to fix it for future reference at least. I don't see how it can't be fixed if it's wrong. We're at 82% and the .6 retirment is taking 3.9% from us.
Click to expand...
They did not. I’m still trying to figure that out. If anyone has any answers please chime in!
 
Foogy said:
Stinger thanks for grabbing those.

axman did they tell you how to fix it for future reference at least. I don't see how it can't be fixed if it's wrong. We're at 82% and the .6 retirment is taking 3.9% from us.
Click to expand...
Your .6 isn't a mistake in the ppt so there's nothing to grieve. You may disagree with the value buts it a formula for projected other losses that is calculated by finance. If staffing workbook data is wrong and it costs you a release you can get your RVP involved. I know a guy that was given a TOL and never posted as selected cuz the ppt was wrong and it wasnt fixed until after the draft and it cost us a release and it was determined that he would have been selected because that facility was a guaranteed selection (more picks than applicants).
 

Similar threads

C
November (Q1) 2024
5 6 7
Replies
125
Views
27K
Phanatical
P
P
May (Q3) 2023
25 26 27
Replies
526
Views
95K
jorgeluis161
J
A
February (Q2) 2024
25 26 27
Replies
524
Views
80K
dc2006
D
P
August (Q4) 2023
14 15 16
Replies
311
Views
58K
Mr. Mack
Mr. Mack
A
February (Q2) 2023
25 26 27
Replies
529
Views
100K
Sstarr1
S
Back
Top Bottom