Controller Workforce Plan 2024-2033

[ajmezz]

If that’s your argument why not contract out every facility in the NAS MAYBE the contractors will take better care of you then the FAA 😂 I just don’t think a lot of people understand what happens at contract facilities. You think you’re under staffed at a FAA facility contractors would have even less employees. It’s staying on position for easily 7hrs out of a 8hr shift if not more with mandatory overtime….positions can’t be split down because there’s nobody else there to help. All the while you’re making a fraction of what you make in the FAA with no pension and worse medical plans….anyone voting for future generations to endure that and expecting people to jump at the opportunity to be ATC is out of their mind but that’s just my thoughts having worked for both 🤷🏻‍♂️

But that alone time in the tower is so nice.. lol.

 

[BDUB]

But that alone time in the tower is so nice.. lol.

You’re not wrong until I gotta do all the unauthorized lazer paperwork while working traffic 😂

 

[SquawkHijack]

To make an apples to apples comparison of pay you've really got to add in the FAA pension because contract towers have none. 4.9% less per paycheck for people entering FERS, but 39% more pay later assuming you're retired for as long as you worked (25 years). So a contractor and an FAA employee both making 50/hr is more like 50 vs 70/hr.

Also government health insurance, life insurance, paid time off, time on position are all better with the FAA

It’s pretty dismal. But nothing saying contract towers couldn’t be a starting ground for the FAA.

 

[SquawkHijack]

We can just agree to disagree my guy. If you contract out facilities that is less jobs being offered within the agency. I get what you’re trying to say but there’s a set number of controllers needed to fill the FAA right now. If you start contracting out facilities that number shrinks. Now if you’re talking about increasing all of the 7 and above staffing numbers so jobs aren’t lost they’re just at a different facilities that’s a completely different argument.

I’ll just disagree, because if we gave those facilities up for the contractors and retained our employees then moved them elsewhere there’s nothing “less jobs” about that.

 

[Gauff]

I’ll just disagree, because if we gave those facilities up for the contractors and retained our employees then moved them elsewhere there’s nothing “less jobs” about that.

You have to look at it like all facilities are 100% staffed and say that's 15,000 controllers. If you contract out facilities that staff 2,000 controllers and move those controllers to other facilities, now you are overstaffed by 2,000 controllers. Through retirements and other losses you would get down to 13,000 controllers eventually which would be the 100% staffing number. So you lost 2,000 jobs.

If you want to say that they went contract and they weren't actually "lost", that should never be something a union should advocate. You just took a massive amount of jobs and decimated the earning potential and benefits of those jobs. Not to mention, like others said, the contractors would not staff the facilities anywhere close to where the FAA will...so less jobs


You're looking at it from not losing any current controllers jobs only due to where our staffing is currently, which isn't what people are talking about

 

[eltors0]

I’ll just disagree, because if we gave those facilities up for the contractors and retained our employees then moved them elsewhere there’s nothing “less jobs” about that.

What don’t you get about it? For example, Facility A has 5 on board and 10 as their target for staffing. Facility B has 5 on, needs 10. If they close or make facility A a contract facility and move them to B, it’s a net loss overall still as it’s a cut of over 10 federal jobs.

You’re on the right track though. Our infrastructure doesn’t match our current needs for the air traffic system. There are places that provide service that arguably unnecessary, and would be better utilized in a different environment. There are places that desperately need us as well that have limited services available.

 

[Soul_Controller]

I also don't think they stop at 4's and 5's. Eventually it's everything but the core 30 turned to FCT (with the approaches moved to consolidated TRACONs) if the ATO could get away with it. Politics is the only thing that slows it down.

 

[SquawkHijack]

You have to look at it like all facilities are 100% staffed and say that's 15,000 controllers. If you contract out facilities that staff 2,000 controllers and move those controllers to other facilities, now you are overstaffed by 2,000 controllers. Through retirements and other losses you would get down to 13,000 controllers eventually which would be the 100% staffing number. So you lost 2,000 jobs.

If you want to say that they went contract and they weren't actually "lost", that should never be something a union should advocate. You just took a massive amount of jobs and decimated the earning potential and benefits of those jobs. Not to mention, like others said, the contractors would not staff the facilities anywhere close to where the FAA will...so less jobs


You're looking at it from not losing any current controllers jobs only due to where our staffing is currently, which isn't what people are talking about

Or I could be realistic and assume that we will never be 100% staffed. Which would be nothing short of the truth, you all keep thinking the FAA actually gives a shit about our staffing issue and they don’t (hence the last 40 years). So why should we make decisions based on every facility being 100% staffed? Less facilities with the same amount of controllers would improve staffing would it not? Leaving level 4 and 5 facilities to contractors and keeping our employees would be no different than an 804.

 

[Mike Kilo]

Or I could be realistic and assume that we will never be 100% staffed. Which would be nothing short of the truth, you all keep thinking the FAA actually gives a shit about our staffing issue and they don’t (hence the last 40 years). So why should we make decisions based on every facility being 100% staffed? Less facilities with the same amount of controllers would improve staffing would it not?

As soon as those employees moved they would stop hiring that many people. It’s government you can’t attribute common sense to anything they do. And it would eventually get to where we are now after resignations, terminations and retirements.

 

[SquawkHijack]

As soon as those employees moved they would stop hiring that many people. It’s government you can’t attribute common sense to anything they do. And it would eventually get to where we are now after resignations, terminations and retirements.

I get what you’re saying, it just wouldn’t seem much different than now lol.

 

[Gauff]

I get what you’re saying, it just wouldn’t seem much different than now lol.

Pretty much... except for the loss of jobs

 

[KP-ATC]

It’s pretty dismal. But nothing saying contract towers couldn’t be a starting ground for the FAA.

All the contract towers I am familiar with require a CTO of prospective hires.

 

[SquawkHijack]

Pretty much... except for the loss of jobs

Loss of jobs for who exactly? A few prospective academy grads who wish to be in desolate low level towers?

I understand what you’re saying in that this would lower the over all ATC jobs within the FAA. But my question is what would be wrong with that? We have had a staffing issue the last ~40 years that the FAA clearly has no interest to effectively remedy. Hardly any of us want to be at those types of facilities and giving those facilities to the contractors (again, retaining and relocating the FAA controllers) would increase the national average quite a bit. It would also allow for a lot of movements. I guess I don’t understand how some less ATC jobs overall in the agency would be a bad thing. Because most of our workforce is represented by high level facilities and this staffing situation is not getting better any time soon, even with FAA Reauth.

 

[Ad1234]

You have to look at it like all facilities are 100% staffed and say that's 15,000 controllers. If you contract out facilities that staff 2,000 controllers and move those controllers to other facilities, now you are overstaffed by 2,000 controllers. Through retirements and other losses you would get down to 13,000 controllers eventually which would be the 100% staffing number. So you lost 2,000 jobs.

If you want to say that they went contract and they weren't actually "lost", that should never be something a union should advocate. You just took a massive amount of jobs and decimated the earning potential and benefits of those jobs. Not to mention, like others said, the contractors would not staff the facilities anywhere close to where the FAA will...so less jobs


You're looking at it from not losing any current controllers jobs only due to where our staffing is currently, which isn't what people are talking about

You could use the actual numbers since those numbers are very easily accessible.