MATH/ National average

[bluegrass_gal]

Guyssss.... I'm so confused with the explanation of the national average. I apologize, but can someone walk me through it?

I'm looking at the MOU now and it says:
Category 2: CPC Current and Projected AOB > CPC AOB national average

I'm going to use my facility's numbers here... Our projected AOB is 92.4% so we are good there. We only have 18/26 but I would think 23 would be enough to get out, but if the average is 87.2% then we need 24. The MOU clearly says "CPC AOB national average" which seems to me would be 82.3%. The 87.2% would be the projected national average which takes into consideration much more than just the CPCs.

Please tell me what I'm misunderstanding. Thanks.

 

[breakaway2000]

Again thanks for clearing that up, the next question that is shared by many at my facility is in reference to the projected formula. Why, if it's such a crucial aspect of this process, is there no attempt to assign an accurate projected number? The training success rates that are used in the projected number are a laughing stock. It might as well be any random number. For example, they have the same percentage assigned to all 7-9 up/downs nationwide based on the samples from 2009-2012 like that average is in anyway representative of a specific facility in that group. And also 09-12 is way too far into the past.
So in this example my facility, which had a success rate of 100% from 09-12 is assigned ~69% in the projected formula. Therefore artificially dragging our number down.

Now you're starting to see the ins and outs of how awful this process is.

 

[bluegrass_gal]

For practical purposes, there are two national averages. One for current CPC and one for projected AOB. Both have to be one above to be able to release someone, so in your example, the 92.4% projected is above the 87.2% national average. Each release brings your CPC and projected CPC down 4% so you're good there. As far as current CPC% goes, you're currently at 18/26 or 69.2%. For one person to be released you're need to be at 23/26 (88.46%), which would drop you down to 84.2% which is still above the national average.

Ooooohh thank you very much! That makes me feel much more sane.

 

[breakaway2000]

Ooooohh thank you very much! That makes me feel much more sane.

Sorry tried to delete that comment in time. I believe the only average they use is the CPC national average as in the current CPC % and projected AOB% have to be one above the CPC national average to let someone go, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[breakaway2000]

Yeah, only CPC national average. Looking at last NCEPT, SLC was the only facility that had their projected AOB drop below the projected AOB average (but still above the CPC national average) and they could still let one person go.

 

[bluegrass_gal]

Okay soooo then the average is 82.3%?

 

[breakaway2000]

On the final Priority Placement Tool dated 2/24, I'm seeing 10,802 out of 12,895 for 83.8%, as always, someone correct me if I'm wrong.
EDIT: I apologize, temps are subtracted from current CPC so 10,614/12,895 - 82.3%

 

[bullittman68]

Yeah, only CPC national average. Looking at last NCEPT, SLC was the only facility that had their projected AOB drop below the projected AOB average (but still above the CPC national average) and they could still let one person go.

I believe this is incorrect. Using the December FPPT (supposedly the one they would have used in that panel), releasing one from SLC makes their CPC AOB 84.4%, which was above the CPC AOB of 82.3%. Good there.
Their projected number was 85.02%, which is within 0.2% of the 85.134% national projected average. Thus, they could release.

The following formula is used in column 'AC' of the FPPT, and leaves no question whether they use both averages or just CPC AOB.

=IF((AND((J8-1)/G8>0.9,(G8-(AH8+1))/G8>0.9)),"1",IF((AND((J8-1)/G8>$K$6,(G8-(AH8+1))/G8>$X$6)),"2","None"))

The first section, in bold, looks at the CPC AOB and the projected staffing after removing one person for selection, to see if the facility will be above 90% CPC AOB and above 90% projected. (Cat 1).

If not, the second section, in italic, looks to see if the facility would be above the CPC AOB national average and the national projected average after releasing one. (Cat 2).

If neither of the above are true, category "NONE" gets applied.

I don't know why there are pages of debate. If you read the documents here, it will answer a lot:

Facility Placement Plan

NCEPT - National Centralized ERR Placement Process

 

[breakaway2000]

I believe this is incorrect. Using the December FPPT (supposedly the one they would have used in that panel), releasing one from SLC makes their CPC AOB 84.4%, which was above the CPC AOB of 82.3%. Good there.
Their projected number was 85.02%, which is within 0.2% of the 85.134% national projected average. Thus, they could release.

The following formula is used in column 'AC' of the FPPT, and leaves no question whether they use both averages or just CPC AOB.

=IF((AND((J8-1)/G8>0.9,(G8-(AH8+1))/G8>0.9)),"1",IF((AND((J8-1)/G8>$K$6,(G8-(AH8+1))/G8>$X$6)),"2","None"))

The first section, in bold, looks at the CPC AOB and the projected staffing after removing one person for selection, to see if the facility will be above 90% CPC AOB and above 90% projected. (Cat 1).

If not, the second section, in italic, looks to see if the facility would be above the CPC AOB national average and the national projected average after releasing one. (Cat 2).

If neither of the above are true, category "NONE" gets applied.

I don't know why there are pages of debate. If you read the documents here, it will answer a lot:

Facility Placement Plan

NCEPT - National Centralized ERR Placement Process

Welp, when you're right you're right. Appreciate the info.

 

[MJ]

Also using the correct terminology will help with some of the confusion. There are two completely different numbers. AOB = Actual on Board. The number of actual CPC's working. Projected Staffing % is a formulated prediction (fancy way of saying a guess). There is no such thing as projected AOB.

 

[breakaway2000]

While what bullittman posted leaves zero debate as to how they're currently calculating eligible Cat 1 and Cat 2 facilities, I still believe, at the very least, it varies from what is written in the original MOU & SOP.

Category 2: CPC Current and Projected AOB > CPC Actual On Board national average: Release dates shall be within twelve (12) months of selection.

Q83. Has the "CPC AOB national average" been determined and how will this information be disseminated?

A83. The CPC AOB average is calculated approximately monthly, and fluctuates based on gains and losses in the intervening time between calculations. As of today the average is 85.54%. The intention is to be as transparent as possible with this information. ATMs and FacReps will have access to this data.

Every mention I've found in writing points toward a singular number. If anyone knows if they've updated it in writing somewhere, I'd be interested to see it.
I've always wondered how a grievance would fair based on how 3.5.3 is written...

3.5.3. No selections will be made from facilities that would cause the Current and Projected CPC Actual On-Board (AOB) for the losing facility to drop below the CPC AOB national average.

The way they've put it into practice should read or because if one or the other drops below the national average they put an exempt status on your facility.
Anyway... Here are all the facilities that are excluded on both points for this upcoming panel...
DAL
FNT
JNU
MKE
ROC
SAV
SCT
U90
ZAB
ZAU
ZDC
ZME
ZTL

At the very least, I'm simply curious who they would side with if someone from one of those facilities filed a grievance.

 

[bullittman68]

I agree, 3.5.3. was poorly written and inconsistent. There is a chance they are not following the PPT guidelines for release. If you read through the links I posted above, there is some crazy Microsoft Excel and Access database magic that happens during the panels, and we can't see how those formulas work. Maybe we'll know more next week.

 

[rugbydog11]

one of my trainees just told me "if you ain't grieving you ain't leaving"

 

[CaptainObvious]

Let's talk about the math where 61/314 facilities are cat I/II, and only around 15 of those are up/downs. Makes the pursuit of a radar ticket seem foolish now.

 

[breakaway2000]

Let's talk about the math where 61/314 facilities are cat I/II, and only around 15 of those are up/downs. Makes the pursuit of a radar ticket seem foolish now.

Exactly... where a radar ticket used to be the key that unlocks the FAA, it's now a gigantic burden you have to overcome to advance your career.