April (Q2) 2019

Spoke with fac rep today at enroute facility. He said there will not be another selection panel until October or November now. They are going to bi-annual panels now rather than quarterly.
Not great...
 
It really doesnt make a difference...it allows facilities more time to be Cat 1 or 2 which is probably the upside of a longer time between panels, the selections will most likely be along the same average. The academy flow is still coming in to 7s and below at the normal pace.
 
during his campaign, the head of NCEPT read a cue card that said he will be transparent:

 
It really doesnt make a difference...it allows facilities more time to be Cat 1 or 2 which is probably the upside of a longer time between panels, the selections will most likely be along the same average. The academy flow is still coming in to 7s and below at the normal pace.
Who knows if that will be the only change though. Remember that statistic on the NCEPT page that tracked how many people were successful when transferring over 3 levels? Maybe there will be a cap now. Maybe the projected staffing % to release will have to be 90 instead of 85%. Maybe managers will have much more discretion and the ability to straight up refuse a transfer if one bitter FLM at that person’s facility gave them a bad reference because the transferee would them be making more then the level 6 FLM.

By renegotiating the MOU anything can happen. I’m not saying it will be terrible or that nightmare scenarios will happen, I’m glad they are renegotiating as I thought the first deal sucked (and years of data now proves it did). I’m just saying the only change won’t be that panels are every 6 months instead of two, there will be a lot more too it.
 
It really doesnt make a difference...it allows facilities more time to be Cat 1 or 2 which is probably the upside of a longer time between panels, the selections will most likely be along the same average. The academy flow is still coming in to 7s and below at the normal pace.

It hurts facilities who have a bunch of people retiring. Now there is no small window between a new CPC certifying and someone retiring. On top of a 2 year avg training time, and not getting Academy people.
 
Maybe managers will have much more discretion and the ability to straight up refuse a transfer if one bitter FLM at that person’s facility gave them a bad reference because the transferee would them be making more then the level 6 FLM.


THIS. Management wants to be able to have it arbitrary and subjective so they can screen out the "bad apples"... IE, make it political. Which would be just like it was before. Which was BS. Shame on NATCA for flipping the script in the 11th hour at the table and leaving people high and dry.
 
It hurts facilities who have a bunch of people retiring. Now there is no small window between a new CPC certifying and someone retiring. On top of a 2 year avg training time, and not getting Academy people.

Retirements are factored in based upon training cycles. A 2 year training cycle has retirements factored into your outbounds.

FightingIrish2012 it never hurts to consider the worst case scenario. At the same time the success rates of NCEPT I would say warrant a cap on level increases. The idea behind it is the movement of controllers, not trainees headed to the NEST. I understand everyone wants to go certain places and the FAA in general sucks huevos at doing that but if you have two people wanting to go somewhere, why are we wasting time on the 5,6,7 that took the chance at a 11 or 12 versus the guy who has a better chance jumping a few levels?

Then the washout goes 61 to another low level facility which could have been offered to an academy grad or direct hire. People are retarded with some of the places they are willing to go just to get closer to home or wherever.
 
why are we wasting time on the 5,6,7 that took the chance at a 11 or 12 versus the guy who has a better chance jumping a few levels?

It could be argued that a low level tower only CPC can be very successful at a high level tower only vs a CPC that's only been at a Center their entire career. Why should I be punished for trying to stay with what I know and make money at the same time.
 
Retirements are factored in based upon training cycles. A 2 year training cycle has retirements factored into your outbounds.

FightingIrish2012 it never hurts to consider the worst case scenario. At the same time the success rates of NCEPT I would say warrant a cap on level increases. The idea behind it is the movement of controllers, not trainees headed to the NEST. I understand everyone wants to go certain places and the FAA in general sucks huevos at doing that but if you have two people wanting to go somewhere, why are we wasting time on the 5,6,7 that took the chance at a 11 or 12 versus the guy who has a better chance jumping a few levels?

Then the washout goes 61 to another low level facility which could have been offered to an academy grad or direct hire. People are retarded with some of the places they are willing to go just to get closer to home or wherever.
Facility Pay Level can be completely irrelevant in certain circumstances.
 
Move78 In certain circumstances my father wouldn't beat me with a pair of jumper cables. In general, facility pay levels are a good indicator of difficulty available within a facility since they're based off a complexity index.

It could be argued that a low level tower only CPC can be very successful at a high level tower only vs a CPC that's only been at a Center their entire career. Why should I be punished for trying to stay with what I know and make money at the same time.

Of course that can be argued, and of course a level 4 tower dude may be capable of working ORD/ATL. But how would you weigh the chances of the level 4 tower guy versus say an 8 up/down or someone who has experience working more traffic.

I am by no means saying it can't be done. I am suggesting that it is probably the least efficient way and a more efficient way is capping people into that mid level facility to acclimate.
 
Of course that can be argued, and of course a level 4 tower dude may be capable of working ORD/ATL. But how would you weigh the chances of the level 4 tower guy versus say an 8 up/down or someone who has experience working more traffic.

I am by no means saying it can't be done. I am suggesting that it is probably the least efficient way and a more efficient way is capping people into that mid level facility to acclimate.
What are you suggesting the cap should be?
 
What are you suggesting the cap should be?

I don't think their should be a level cap. I think their should be groupings. Similar to the complexity index used for payscales, 3 to 4 groupings with movement allowed laterally through the groups without skipping a group. A stepped development of controllers is in better interest of both the FAA and us. They want capable controllers to certify and we want a job working planes that pays better.

I think people pay for that in Japan

Idk about Japan but I got something similar in Subic Bay.
 
My old man told me some late 70s/early 80s pacific cruise stories that made my entire time in the military and college seem like a Disney movie.

Lmao the funniest thing about getting libo in places like that were the old ass American dudes living like kings around there with young ladies of the night. Same said for Thailand and Korea.
 
Retirements are factored in based upon training cycles. A 2 year training cycle has retirements factored into your outbounds.

FightingIrish2012 I understand everyone wants to go certain places and the FAA in general sucks huevos at doing that but if you have two people wanting to go somewhere, why are we wasting time on the 5,6,7 that took the chance at a 11 or 12 versus the guy who has a better chance jumping a few levels?

I understand your thinking and think there is logic in it.... but strongly disagree. I feel like the union should be advocating for its members to get "home" or to their desired facility, and not complicit in any scheme that limits that. We are big boys and girls who can sink or swim on our own merits or lack thereof at our desired transfer location. Some people obviously would be extremely out of their league going from a 5 to a 12, others it would be no problem at all. I hate to paint w broad brush and impose limitations on peoples careers. Many people at the "5, 6, & 7's" are only there because that is where the agency has sent them, with absolutely 0 bearing on their relative ability to control more complex air traffic. If there was a more nuanced argument like... those who had been unsuccessful at a higher level and are currently at the 5,6, or 7 based on that as their 2nd facility, that might make more sense. Even so, I would not want to discriminate against them either. People learn at different rates and in different ways. I have no business judging that or holding back their career. If NATCA does, then they are suckers for paying those dues to an entity that is directly working against their aspirations.
 
I understand your thinking and think there is logic in it.... but strongly disagree. I feel like the union should be advocating for its members to get "home" or to their desired facility, and not complicit in any scheme that limits that. We are big boys and girls who can sink or swim on our own merits or lack thereof at our desired transfer location. Some people obviously would be extremely out of their league going from a 5 to a 12, others it would be no problem at all. I hate to paint w broad brush and impose limitations on peoples careers. Many people at the "5, 6, & 7's" are only there because that is where the agency has sent them, with absolutely 0 bearing on their relative ability to control more complex air traffic. If there was a more nuanced argument like... those who had been unsuccessful at a higher level and are currently at the 5,6, or 7 based on that as their 2nd facility, that might make more sense. Even so, I would not want to discriminate against them either. People learn at different rates and in different ways. I have no business judging that or holding back their career. If NATCA does, then they are suckers for paying those dues to an entity that is directly working against their aspirations.

Oh I completely agree with that, but the FAA should aim to place people close to their desired area on initial facility assignment. Not during the NCEPT after already missing that opportunity. I would have loved PAE->BFI->SEA. Specifically for the NCEPT though, grouping facilities to require that incremental exposure would boost the success numbers vs the miserable ones showing now with the current process. Yeah we're all adults, but plenty of adults are fully capable of making retarded decisions, the FAA and Union shouldn't just cater to feelings but also our well being and by introducing the middle step to higher facilities it would increase BUE success rates.

Kind of like when mom would make us eat vegetables or do homework, just because we don't want to do it doesn't mean it's not for our best interest.
 
Oh I completely agree with that, but the FAA should aim to place people close to their desired area on initial facility assignment. Not during the NCEPT after already missing that opportunity.

I don't understand why NATCA hasn't fought for this already? its such an obvious no brainer. Almost like they are anti-Vaccers and only agree with fighting the disease once we are sick. Could eliminate 75%+ of this at the academy new hire level.

If you had got one of those (PAE, BFI, SEA) you might have been able to talk down ol' Richard "got a few Screws Loose" Russell. :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top Bottom