FAA considering old commercial space for facility consolidation

As someone that was around for the ZAU fire there should be more centers, not fewer. Look how disruptive losing ZAU was. Having several neighboring Zs is what saved the NAS. If ZMP, ZOB, ZID, ZKC were collocated with us... good fucking luck

One obvious addition would be Las Vegas - could take some ZOA/ZLA/ZAB airspace and reduce the need for so many CPCs at those hard-to-staff expensive-ass facilities.
 
RalphBeast said:
As someone that was around for the ZAU fire there should be more centers, not fewer. Look how disruptive losing ZAU was. Having several neighboring Zs is what saved the NAS. If ZMP, ZOB, ZID, ZKC were collocated with us... good fucking luck

One obvious addition would be Las Vegas - could take some ZOA/ZLA/ZAB airspace and reduce the need for so many CPCs at those hard-to-staff expensive-ass facilities.
Click to expand...
Then consolidate them vertically not laterally. Tracons into centers. Give everyone level 12.
 
32andBelow said:
Then consolidate them vertically not laterally. Tracons into centers. Give everyone level 12.
Click to expand...
C90 being unaffected played a big role in keeping operations going at a minimal level in the early days.

Combining a bunch of tinkeytoy approaches into one facility? Fine.

Might even be better if some of the difficult up-downs became tower-only and had a separate TRACON handle approach control.
 
RalphBeast said:
As someone that was around for the ZAU fire there should be more centers, not fewer. Look how disruptive losing ZAU was. Having several neighboring Zs is what saved the NAS. If ZMP, ZOB, ZID, ZKC were collocated with us... good fucking luck

One obvious addition would be Las Vegas - could take some ZOA/ZLA/ZAB airspace and reduce the need for so many CPCs at those hard-to-staff expensive-ass facilities.
Click to expand...
What about more fire extinguisher elms tho
 
32andBelow said:
Then consolidate them vertically not laterally. Tracons into centers. Give everyone level 12.
Click to expand...
Rumor is they've been exploring putting ZOA into the NCT building. It's kinda bathing to me having all of that under one roof and susceptible to a clogged toilet in a facility rhat already has bad plumbing.
 
Shikaka said:
Rumor is they've been exploring putting ZOA into the NCT building. It's kinda bathing to me having all of that under one roof and susceptible to a clogged toilet in a facility rhat already has bad plumbing.
Click to expand...
Thats a great move notwithstanding. They can’t staff ZOA bc of Bay Area COL. No one new can really afford it there. ZOA has the most hardships out followed by ZNY I think. It’s skewed by the size of the overall manning but if if that’s hardships how many wash, withdraw, quit etc. it’s the same story at ZNY. If they were to relocate the center to like white plains or somewhere like that, that would make a huge improvement in their ability to get people to happily go there.

ZOA does some interesting stuff but living in Oakland is a hard no for most . if they are going to move the Z’s, they can at least try to move some of the worst to more affordable locales.
 
Bandit117 said:
Thats a great move notwithstanding. They can’t staff ZOA bc of Bay Area COL. No one new can really afford it there. ZOA has the most hardships out followed by ZNY I think. It’s skewed by the size of the overall manning but if if that’s hardships how many wash, withdraw, quit etc. it’s the same story at ZNY. If they were to relocate the center to like white plains or somewhere like that, that would make a huge improvement in their ability to get people to happily go there.

ZOA does some interesting stuff but living in Oakland is a hard no for most . if they are going to move the Z’s, they can at least try to move some of the worst to more affordable locales.
Click to expand...
NCT just had a priority bid because they're short staffed.
 
Bandit117 said:
Thats a great move notwithstanding. They can’t staff ZOA bc of Bay Area COL. No one new can really afford it there. ZOA has the most hardships out followed by ZNY I think. It’s skewed by the size of the overall manning but if if that’s hardships how many wash, withdraw, quit etc. it’s the same story at ZNY. If they were to relocate the center to like white plains or somewhere like that, that would make a huge improvement in their ability to get people to happily go there.

ZOA does some interesting stuff but living in Oakland is a hard no for most . if they are going to move the Z’s, they can at least try to move some of the worst to more affordable locales.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah it'd be great for the ZOA guys, no argument there.

Just the concept of putting vital facilities together like that makes no sense, where's the redundancy for safety?

blarg said:
NCT just had a priority bid because they're short staffed.
Click to expand...
Honestly it's a country club, not aure why more people dont want to be there.
 
Shikaka said:
Oh yeah it'd be great for the ZOA guys, no argument there.

Just the concept of putting vital facilities together like that makes no sense, where's the redundancy for safety?
Click to expand...
At the end of the day i don’t think they have enough money for both.

When the existing centers were planned, id be curious about the underlying reasons for the devious at the time. Choices were made that were the result of a combination of redundancy as well as the technical limitations of the day and I’m curious what the exact mix was. How much was it technical vs redundant. Bc An analog phone system was the bleeding edge of technology back then, now we obviously have advanced in many areas.

blarg said:
NCT just had a priority bid because they're short staffed.
Click to expand...
True. What high level place isn’t these days? ZMP comes to mind, but that seems to be kinda it.

Your dollars go further in Sacramento vs Oakland tho. Maybe not a lot further bc it’s still California but still.
 
Bandit117 said:
At the end of the day i don’t think they have enough money for both.

When the existing centers were planned, id be curious about the underlying reasons for the devious at the time. Choices were made that were the result of a combination of redundancy as well as the technical limitations of the day and I’m curious what the exact mix was. How much was it technical vs redundant. Bc An analog phone system was the bleeding edge of technology back then, now we obviously have advanced in many areas.
Click to expand...
even if they had amazing perfect technology back then, zero chance they would cluster the Zs any more than they did. national security was a bfd, US was in the height of the cold war where a nuclear attack wasn't out of the realm, you can even see that the centers were placed well outside of downtowns/heavy population centers. highway system was built to mobilize troops and military equipment. schools had fallout shelters. different times my man. The Z placement is actually a great design that has withstood the test of time IMO, and I would actually add a few more Zs rather than combined them up.

Another thing the FAA should do is create a few more consolidated tracons to absolve shithole low level up/downs from having to do approach control. that would substantially reduce the amount of people that would be needed at these hellhole facilities, would decrease checkout time, increase success rates, and ideally get some movement going. plus create some higher level tracon positions in more desireable areas.
 
RalphBeast said:
even if they had amazing perfect technology back then, zero chance they would cluster the Zs any more than they did. national security was a bfd, US was in the height of the cold war where a nuclear attack wasn't out of the realm, you can even see that the centers were placed well outside of downtowns/heavy population centers. highway system was built to mobilize troops and military equipment. schools had fallout shelters. different times my man. The Z placement is actually a great design that has withstood the test of time IMO, and I would actually add a few more Zs rather than combined them up.

Another thing the FAA should do is create a few more consolidated tracons to absolve shithole low level up/downs from having to do approach control. that would substantially reduce the amount of people that would be needed at these hellhole facilities, would decrease checkout time, increase success rates, and ideally get some movement going. plus create some higher level tracon positions in more desireable areas.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree, more centers would help them be more reactive to local conditions and probably help staffing better as well by opening up more options. I think the issue is money.

Consolidated tracons are definitely a good idea but the warning is the AZO project. I think it was GRR(7) AZO(6) LAN(6) and FNT MBS and MKG (5s). They were promised by everyone and their mom to be a 9 and ended up as a middle of the road 8, buoyed only by the sheer volume of their airspace in the traffic count formula, under the current complexity calculations. All consolidation that in the end makes one level 8, and a bunch of 4/5 towers is kind of a let down. People made the move to AZO on the promise of being at a 9. The traffic count stuff goes back to the late 90s and desperately needs revisions. The NAS is a different place now and places aren’t getting the credit they deserve. There also should probably be a level 13, given the wide gulf in 12s.

When they happen, Consolidated tracons should all strive to be a 9 at least to make sense for the workforce. Maybe put language in the contract stipulating that consolidated tracons of 4 or more facilities will be a 9, like how having a tracon makes you a 5 no matter what. Creating more low level 4s and 5s is just another form of a stealth pay cut.
 
Bandit117 said:
I don’t disagree, more centers would help them be more reactive to local conditions and probably help staffing better as well by opening up more options. I think the issue is money.

Consolidated tracons are definitely a good idea but the warning is the AZO project. I think it was GRR(7) AZO(6) LAN(6) and FNT MBS and MKG (5s). They were promised by everyone and their mom to be a 9 and ended up as a middle of the road 8, buoyed only by the sheer volume of their airspace in the traffic count formula, under the current complexity calculations. All consolidation that in the end makes one level 8, and a bunch of 4/5 towers is kind of a let down. People made the move to AZO on the promise of being at a 9. The traffic count stuff goes back to the late 90s and desperately needs revisions. The NAS is a different place now and places aren’t getting the credit they deserve. There also should probably be a level 13, given the wide gulf in 12s.

When they happen, Consolidated tracons should all strive to be a 9 at least to make sense for the workforce. Maybe put language in the contract stipulating that consolidated tracons of 4 or more facilities will be a 9, like how having a tracon makes you a 5 no matter what. Creating more low level 4s and 5s is just another form of a stealth pay cut.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the complexity index needs to changed for the upcoming VFR seperation standards. They should be counted on par with IFR traffic.
 
Bandit117 said:
I don’t disagree, more centers would help them be more reactive to local conditions and probably help staffing better as well by opening up more options. I think the issue is money.

Consolidated tracons are definitely a good idea but the warning is the AZO project. I think it was GRR(7) AZO(6) LAN(6) and FNT MBS and MKG (5s). They were promised by everyone and their mom to be a 9 and ended up as a middle of the road 8, buoyed only by the sheer volume of their airspace in the traffic count formula, under the current complexity calculations. All consolidation that in the end makes one level 8, and a bunch of 4/5 towers is kind of a let down. People made the move to AZO on the promise of being at a 9. The traffic count stuff goes back to the late 90s and desperately needs revisions. The NAS is a different place now and places aren’t getting the credit they deserve. There also should probably be a level 13, given the wide gulf in 12s.

When they happen, Consolidated tracons should all strive to be a 9 at least to make sense for the workforce. Maybe put language in the contract stipulating that consolidated tracons of 4 or more facilities will be a 9, like how having a tracon makes you a 5 no matter what. Creating more low level 4s and 5s is just another form of a stealth pay cut.
Click to expand...
We were also told we would be a level 8 within 3 months of consolidation. That never happened. And then when we did hit level 8 numbers, they delayed our upgrade because Covid hit and there was the slightest downtick in our traffic but we were still above the level 7 max for 3 months required for upgrade. Took over 12 months to get back to that and we never got back paid for that even though we never fell below the level 8 buffer.
 
Shikaka said:
Not to mention the complexity index needs to changed for the upcoming VFR seperation standards. They should be counted on par with IFR traffic.
Click to expand...
VFR calculations in general needs to be reviewed. When DVT, FFZ, and SFB are working as much, or more, tower traffic as level 11-12 core 30 airports but not getting paid anywhere near they do, that’s a problem. There should be some kind of operation count threshold that triggers a multiplier in addition to the usual crossing runways/airspace multiplier.

This is the top facilities by total tower ops YTD 2026 per ATADS, to illustrate my point:

IMG_5743.jpeg
 

Similar threads

MJ
FAA Releases Bold, New Air Traffic Controller Hiring Plan
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
7K
+TSRA
T
P
ATC Staffing Stability- Reform Proposals from a Veteran Controller
3 4 5
Replies
87
Views
10K
HiFlier
H
A
If I ran the FAA How I could fix the Training/Staffing Problem
5 6 7
Replies
137
Views
21K
KP-ATC
K
G
Hiring Bid FAA-ATO-25-ALLSRCE-94224
Replies
9
Views
3K
GulfBravoPapa
G
G
Hiring Bid FAA-ATO-25-PUBNOT-94234
Replies
0
Views
1K
GulfBravoPapa
G
Back
Top Bottom