NCEPT debate thread

Shout-out to this dude who went in for JNU. Nobody ever really believes the density during summer...


Besides that, I have literally nothing of value to add to this conversation. Carry on.
Checking on ATADS, JNU is a high 6 or very low 7 during the months of may-august
 
There should be a limit on the number of ERRs you're able to submit - say, 5 - to prevent people putting in for everything under the sun and only where they truly want to be. Then, with the reduced ERRs, send new/direct hires only to facilities that no one has ERR'd to. If no CPC wants to go there, send new/direct hires there; not where a CPC wants to go.

New hires put in the first shitty year or two where no one wants to be, then can go anywhere due to the constant stream of inbounds.

4 level cap so anyone can get to the top within 2 moves if they want. 4 -> 8 -> 12
 
There should be a limit on the number of ERRs you're able to submit - say, 5 - to prevent people putting in for everything under the sun and only where they truly want to be. Then, with the reduced ERRs, send new/direct hires only to facilities that no one has ERR'd to. If no CPC wants to go there, send new/direct hires there; not where a CPC wants to go.

I don't see that happening. First, it doesn't help the FAA at all. If somebody is willing to move somewhere in their own dime and it fills the staffing at another place, why would the FAA care?

Second, for most people, moving is some sort of career progression. If your at a 4 and move to an up/down that isn't really where you want to be, you've still just expanded your skills and made yourself more marketable to the dream facility wherever it may be.

That 12 tower most likely isn't going to select you from your shitty 4 tower only. But with 7 up/down it's a lot more likely.

If somebody is willing to move from one crap place to another over and over to climb the ladder, why should they be told it isn't allowed? There's a very small group of people who would be harmed doing that. And it's not the FAA or NATCA
 
There should be a limit on the number of ERRs you're able to submit - say, 5 - to prevent people putting in for everything under the sun and only where they truly want to be. Then, with the reduced ERRs, send new/direct hires only to facilities that no one has ERR'd to. If no CPC wants to go there, send new/direct hires there; not where a CPC wants to go.

New hires put in the first shitty year or two where no one wants to be, then can go anywhere due to the constant stream of inbounds.

4 level cap so anyone can get to the top within 2 moves if they want. 4 -> 8 -> 12
Some good ideas in here. Certainly filling vacancies, that are requested by CPCs, with new hires, is an issue that's not going to go away quietly.
Seems like only shot at a cap is if it's pushed for by the agency to save money. Meaning too many are washing and it's deemed a waste of time and resources.
Also people that spam high priority facilities around the country are beneficial to staffing nationally. So I doubt you see a change there. For example, If you restrict ERRs to 5 they're less likely to get 8 people to bid EWR and the formula says EWR needs 8 bodies today.
 
Also people that spam high priority facilities around the country are beneficial to staffing nationally. So I doubt you see a change there. For example, If you restrict ERRs to 5 they're less likely to get 8 people to bid EWR and the formula says EWR needs 8 bodies today.

If that's the game someone is playing they'll just keep swapping out ERRs to maintain their position in the highest priority. It can still be done, but it'll be more work.
 
I don't see that happening. First, it doesn't help the FAA at all. If somebody is willing to move somewhere in their own dime and it fills the staffing at another place, why would the FAA care?

Second, for most people, moving is some sort of career progression. If your at a 4 and move to an up/down that isn't really where you want to be, you've still just expanded your skills and made yourself more marketable to the dream facility wherever it may be.

That 12 tower most likely isn't going to select you from your shitty 4 tower only. But with 7 up/down it's a lot more likely.

If somebody is willing to move from one crap place to another over and over to climb the ladder, why should they be told it isn't allowed? There's a very small group of people who would be harmed doing that. And it's not the FAA or NATCA

I think I'm misunderstanding your reasoning why it couldn't happen.

There's a 4 level transfer cap for ERRing CPCs, but not to new/direct hires. Say there's a level 8/9 that no CPCs want to go to for some reason; new/direct hires would be sent there.

Each transfer is still potential career progression. If you're a CPC at a 4, you can submit (whatever max #) ERRs to facilities as high as level 8 to better qualify and prepare yourself for a 12. And if someone wants to do that in *15* transfers or whatever, they're welcome to do it.
 
If that's the game someone is playing they'll just keep swapping out ERRs to maintain their position in the highest priority. It can still be done, but it'll be more work.
The NCEPT solution to "solve" that problem is not letting people know what the actual priorities or vacancies are before people put in paperwork. If they actually treated the workforce like rational fkn adults and gave them all the information they needed to make the best decision, there would be no need for gamesmanship.
 
The NCEPT solution to "solve" that problem is not letting people know what the actual priorities or vacancies are before people put in paperwork. If they actually treated the workforce like rational fkn adults and gave them all the information they needed to make the best decision, there would be no need for gamesmanship.

Right, but NCEPT putting out the list and vacancies advertises that facility and gets people who just want out of their current place to consider it. I wouldn't be surprised if when a facility is posted in the top 20 it sees a significant boost in ERRs.
 
Right, but NCEPT putting out the list and vacancies advertises that facility and gets people who just want out of their current place to consider it. I wouldn't be surprised if when a facility is posted in the top 20 it sees a significant boost in ERRs.
Yes it definitely does. But that's a good thing if you're considering staffing nationally. You have to look at it from that point of view. NAS staffing is more important than an individual's situation. They want more interest in high priority facilities. That's what priority means.
 
Yes it definitely does. But that's a good thing if you're considering staffing nationally. You have to look at it from that point of view. NAS staffing is more important than an individual's situation. They want more interest in high priority facilities. That's what priority means.

Ya, that should stay the way it is.
 
Right, but NCEPT putting out the list and vacancies advertises that facility and gets people who just want out of their current place to consider it. I wouldn't be surprised if when a facility is posted in the top 20 it sees a significant boost in ERRs.

Obviously the goal of NCEPT is to fill vacancies and staffing shortages at what their decision lense criteria deem the neediest facilities. To me, idc if someone whores themself out to every top 20 facility, so long as they accept whatever offer they receive.
 
Obviously the goal of NCEPT is to fill vacancies and staffing shortages at what their decision lense criteria deem the neediest facilities. To me, idc if someone whores themself out to every top 20 facility, so long as they accept whatever offer they receive.
The only reason I think there should be a cap to the number of facilities you can submit for is to protect the FAA only sending new/direct hires to facilities with no ERRs. If they agreed to only send new hires to facilities with no ERRs, one person could be a wise guy and submit for everything as a screw you to the FAA. Only allowing 5/8/10 SHOULD protect for that.
 
The NCEPT solution to "solve" that problem is not letting people know what the actual priorities or vacancies are before people put in paperwork. If they actually treated the workforce like rational fkn adults and gave them all the information they needed to make the best decision, there would be no need for gamesmanship.

Agreed. If there was more transparency, open discussion, and an unceasingly flow of communication on openings people would not game the system. However I would speculate by trying to adhere to the current model, it also has the intention of driving people towards "Career Progression," so that the FAA can staff management ranks again by allowing people that would otherwise not be able to leave, a chance to get to where they want for a price.
 
The only reason I think there should be a cap to the number of facilities you can submit for is to protect the FAA only sending new/direct hires to facilities with no ERRs. If they agreed to only send new hires to facilities with no ERRs, one person could be a wise guy and submit for everything as a screw you to the FAA. Only allowing 5/8/10 SHOULD protect for that.
I understand your train of thought and the premise behind it, but there's a difference between sending new/direct hires to needy facilities... And sending them to facilities with no ERRs. NCEPT, imo, gives "first dibs" to ERRs. People also don't just move for location. People move for facility type, facility pay, etc. I will applaud the FAA for creating a system where now nearly every academy grad goes to a low level facility. That alleviates a majority of the gripe and ensures those low level facilities consistently have staffing. "But what about the 7s 8s and 9s no one can ever get out of?" Look at the terminal placement list and see that a majority of those prev exp hires are filling the gaps. Personally, the first thing I would change about NCEPT is the process to fill out an ERR going online. It's asinine that I have to submit a 15 page fax to give HR information they already have. Additionally, I wish all the possible gains were readily available, where someone from a facility that could release could simply logon to cedar/etc and select an open vacancy. Yes, I realize that is way too fairytales/unicorns delusional to ask for, but would help those who will never get a specific location they may want, in lieu of having to bid out to those top 20 facilities.
 
The only reason I think there should be a cap to the number of facilities you can submit for is to protect the FAA only sending new/direct hires to facilities with no ERRs. If they agreed to only send new hires to facilities with no ERRs, one person could be a wise guy and submit for everything as a screw you to the FAA. Only allowing 5/8/10 SHOULD protect for that.

I wholeheartedly agree with the logic behind your proposal, but not so much the execution. Being at a smaller facility, it definitely sucks to sit around, uneligible to be released for years because each person is worth 5-10%. And when your one shot every few years finally comes along, the higher level facilities you want to ERR to aren't picking anyone up because they've been picking up half a dozen direct hires every year. I don't think there should be a problem with peppering the top 50 on the priority list as long as that person accepts the ERR once they're selected. It's a natural progression; the longer you are stuck, the more open you become to working at more facilities just to get out and move on. But the people ERR'ing and turning them down multiple times, that's some evil BS.

I think a simpler solution would be:
-Limit declining an ERR to once during a certain time period (two eligible panels in a row, two panels in a 12-month span, whatever)
-After declining the second ERR, no longer eligible to file an ERR for a certain time period (a year, two years, whatever)
-Place direct hires and academy graduates at facilities with no inbound ERR's submitted.
-Place direct hires and academy graduates at facilities with outbound ERR's, up to however many CPC's have ERR's in*.
-Once the direct hire or academy graduate walks in the door at a facility with an outbound ERR, the CPC is given a release date equal to the average training time*.
-If the trainee certifies in less time than the average training time, the CPC can move their date up to anytime between certification and their original release date.
-All facilities can accept ERR's up to 100% staffing number.
-*(Since trainee's in most instances do not equate to 1 CPC due to washouts, there will have to be more than one new hire sent to the facility per CPC with ERR's in. Basically multiply the new hire's by the success rate and round up obviously to get the number of trainees to send.)

There's easy movement so people won't be as desperate to get out. Blocking others by declining every panel will be taken out. CPC's leaving the lower level facilities and being back filled with new hires is mostly assumed, but the same thing works for downward movement. CPC's leaving lower level facilities would just be filled with CPC's ERR'ing down from higher level facilities first over the new hires. The only problem is it'll never be considered because nation wide staffing won't necessarily be helped short term with all the guaranteed movement. The system kind of assumes your present staffing now is ok which obviously isn't the case in a lot of places. In a perfect world, it would work great. In the real world, giving all 130 CPC's at N90 a 2.08 year release date just because they brought in 300 ERR's/new hires isn't going to fly. The FAA would have to hire thousands of people like right now.
 
There should be a limit on the number of ERRs you're able to submit - say, 5 - to prevent people putting in for everything under the sun and only where they truly want to be. Then, with the reduced ERRs, send new/direct hires only to facilities that no one has ERR'd to. If no CPC wants to go there, send new/direct hires there; not where a CPC wants to go.

New hires put in the first shitty year or two where no one wants to be, then can go anywhere due to the constant stream of inbounds.

4 level cap so anyone can get to the top within 2 moves if they want. 4 -> 8 -> 12


In addition to those reasons listed above, there are a lot of legitimate reasons why someone will put in 10, 15, 20 ERR's. For instance, one guy on our list put in upwards of 20 ERR's to get closer to his kid after not being able to hardship.
 
In addition to those reasons listed above, there are a lot of legitimate reasons why someone will put in 10, 15, 20 ERR's. For instance, one guy on our list put in upwards of 20 ERR's to get closer to his kid after not being able to hardship.
If everyone was limited to only 5 ERRs, he would have a way better chance of getting one of the 5 closest facilities because there would be fewer people on those lists.
 
Everyone complaining about the NCEPT system, remember it is an election year for us as a Union, this is the time to voice the discontent AND ask constructive questions and to the candidates running and where they stand.
 
Updates in terms of the future of the NCEPT...

1. Although not directly tied to the NCEPT, they are looking to change CPC reinstatement from 6 months to 1 year.

2. They are working to adjust and tighten up the timelines in order provide a panel where...
A) Facility Priority List is Locked
B) ERR Submission Deadlines occurs after
C) Priority Placement Tool is locked
D) Panel occurs with the original Facility Priority List.

They said they are very close in getting this to happen. They tightened down the deadlines for the agency (HR uploads, Manager's Ranking List, etc) in order to make this a possibility. It's a huge step in fairness and once implemented, you'll no longer have to wait for the random roll of the dice facility adjustment prior to the panel

3. They are not close to changing the rules to staff 10-12's to 100% projected. If it ever happens it will not be a piecemeal approach (Ex. 10's staffed to 100% projected, then 11's or 10-12's staffed to 95% projected). If it occurs, they will all be staffed to 100% together. If I was a betting man, if the FAA continues to meet their hiring goals, we'll eventually hit a 100% projected national average and it will occur naturally.

4. Although far off, the N90 local bid has set a precedent that may be copied for these hard to staff lower level facilities. There are many facilities where the vast majority of the workforce has ERR's out. By hiring locally, they can increase the likelihood of retention at hard to staff lower level facilities.
 
Back
Top Bottom