- Messages
- 87
- Facility
- A80 Atlanta Tracon
It will be interesting to see how many leave the union over this,especially at the big facilities. Maybe if/when the money dries up we will see something change.
Stinger
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 1,496
I've already been out for a few years.
mikejulietizrad
Member
- Messages
- 16
There are people that want to bring up the fact that the union negotiated pay raises for us all. Spare me. The true raise is that of CAREER PROGRESSION. That, with this horrendous ERR MOU, has been stolen from us. And why is that? Because for so many years the FAA dropped the ball on hiring. Now here we are in a staffing crisis. And what has the agency done? Stifled career progression for most of the workforce. It's also made many at my facility and around the nation feel absolutely hopeless and trapped. What a way to drive a group of people, who are naturally ambitious, crazy. There is hardly any movement and only at 4 times a year. It doesn't matter if you have the talent or not. What matters is that you're from a CAT 1 or 2 facility and then and only then will you have a chance to move up in your career. This is a horrible MOU and needs to be changed or revoked completely. And that needs to be done immediately. IMMEDIATELY.
- Messages
- 65
corn4ahead
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 662
New meeting minutes posted today from the last panel. It definitely mentions some changes but I am really confused how to interpret what exactly it means and to what degree it will affect the MOU.
bullittman68
Member
- Messages
- 8
Anyone know what the "Level Seven & Below (Staffing to 100%)" policy is? It is mentioned in the minutes.
I can't find it anywhere in the MOU or SOP.
I can't find it anywhere in the MOU or SOP.
- Messages
- 3,162
They are only staffing facilities enough to reach the projected national average. The entire design of the process falls apart using that. Staffing lower level facilities to their required staffing levels is their "fix". As far as I'm aware it's not being done in practice.
haha thanks. i do not currently meet the eligibility requirements
breakaway2000
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 1,693
Couldn't agree more, I'd estimate this process is costing me about 50k a year...Thats 2 careers worth of NATCA dues.
mikejulietizrad
Member
- Messages
- 16
What did this mean in the NCEPT minutes?
Changes to Facility “Exempt” Status
AJG-P21 Manager briefed the NCEPT on potential changes to the “Exempt” status for certain facilities to facilitate the movement of employees to higher level facilities. The NCEPT is considering the proposal and will advise before the next NCEPT selection meeting on concurrence.
Changes to Facility “Exempt” Status
AJG-P21 Manager briefed the NCEPT on potential changes to the “Exempt” status for certain facilities to facilitate the movement of employees to higher level facilities. The NCEPT is considering the proposal and will advise before the next NCEPT selection meeting on concurrence.
bullittman68
Member
- Messages
- 8
You started this rumor here a month ago and I was hoping it was legitimate. I think you answered your own question.
mikejulietizrad
Member
- Messages
- 16
Fair enough. I asked my rep what the status was on that. He said our RVP said this:
The agency is hesitant on going one below the national average with small facilities (which in my opinion is absolutely ridiculous) NATCA in turn informed them that they needed to do something because there is no career progression and things need to be changed. They then discussed over staffing small facilities above 100%. There still is no final decision on what change will be made to help us with career progression. This was all put out on the Eastern Region Rep TELCON.
Let me say this, if any of you guys believe in prayer, start praying hard for a change for the better and that things will improve. I've actually thought about quitting the union and it breaks my heart in a way.
bullittman68
Member
- Messages
- 8
IMHO, the minutes are written implying that small facilities will still let someone leave if they are Cat I or Cat II (Exempt).
It would be nice if they would "overstaff" smaller facilities as you mentioned, and that needs to happen. The smaller your staffing number is, the higher your chances of being "exempt" without anyone in the pipeline to get the AOB number high enough to actually release someone.
It seems that NATCA/FAA are finally realizing this, over a year after starting this nonsense.
It would be nice if they would "overstaff" smaller facilities as you mentioned, and that needs to happen. The smaller your staffing number is, the higher your chances of being "exempt" without anyone in the pipeline to get the AOB number high enough to actually release someone.
It seems that NATCA/FAA are finally realizing this, over a year after starting this nonsense.
corn4ahead
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 662
It's great to overstaff facilities but I'm pretty sure that was the plan all along. I heard anywhere from 110%-120%. That's all well and good but that doesn't solve anything. ESPECIALLY in the short term. So the one below thing AND the overstaffing, well then there would be progress.
ajmezz
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 858
I know it's a long stretch as every situation is different, but if they're talking about overstaffing lower level facilities, why not look at the # of dev's before each panel that are expected to certify within the next 3 or 6 months and make a determination to allow x amount of cpc's to transfer out. That way you keep a flow going to the higher level fac's and don't hinder staffing too abruptly at the losing fac.
corn4ahead
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 662
That's what I have been trying to say all along.
- Messages
- 3,162
They've been talking about this for a year now, when they realized the core concept completely failed at certain levels (which was entirely predictable, I might add). In person I've heard "we don't how we're going to fix this", and I believe it was mentioned at the convention as well, but I don't remember for certain.
So, they'll keep patching on "fixes" every time it fails. And because it is a fundamentally flawed process, it will keep failing, and the process will become a bloated mess that no one understands how it got to be so bad. Did anyone notice the "exceptions" mentioned in the minutes? 2 CPC's had different rules applied to them than the rest of the FAA. Constantly changing criteria, and not even applied uniformly.
Stinger
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 1,496
I'm curious about that. Those two controllers got selected for TEB. They let TEB use the "7 and under" rule to let them accept people that would take them above the national staffing average? (I'm not sure I fully get what that section was saying.)
Haven't other facilities been allowed people that will take them above the national average?
mikejulietizrad
Member
- Messages
- 16
Very interesting and unfair. Same with Supervisor bids getting waivers. Like I keep telling people at my facility and myself. Keep applying because the FAA could suddenly change their minds. I'm praying for everybody here. Be thankful for what you have, however, keep fighting what is wrong.
Stinger
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 1,496
Those aren't common from what I've seen. If the gaining supervisor staffing is more than your losing controller staffing, the waiver won't be approved.
breakaway2000
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 1,693
The sad part is they're incredibly common. In the last 5 months, 122 deviations have been approved, 85 have been disapproved. I have the monthly breakdown if anyone is interested. To me, this is absolutely disgusting. Considering CPC's outnumber FLM's by roughly 6 to 1. The ERR MOU has now created an unequal playing field. I do not have the total number of deviations from January-July of 2016 but if it was consistent with Aug-Dec, you're looking at a damn near 1:1 ratio of CPC's getting picked up through an ERR and CPC's leaving for management jobs.
1. CPC's electing to become FLM's are selected continuously throughout the year and are not tied to an every quarter scenario.
2. CPC's electing to become FLM's can be given deviations (and the stats above show the majority are granted the deviation) so they are not tied to the same staffing constraints as the rest of us.
3. The 122 number above only takes into account the deviations. Lets say you're a small level facility and can release one person at the next NCEPT, but ohh wait, before the next panel one of your CPC's get's selected to be an FLM. He immediately takes that available spot and your facility is now ineligible. Or... what if one controller wants to become an FLM so he continually puts in ERR's to top facilities in need to block anyone else from leaving, signs the TOL with no intention of going and continues to bid FLM jobs until he gets selected (that happened.)
4. Each CPC that becomes an FLM and is selected this way takes away a spot from a CPC down the line in the ERR process.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Resource
ERR Generator
