NCEPT debate thread

[16gtiguy]

How can you say that when people do just fine at OGG and ITO? Maui certainly isn't any cheaper and I'd still rather be on Oahu making 150 than the big island making 90...

The outer islands are defiantly cheaper when it comes to housing, everything else is pretty much on par with all the islands.

So it was an exaggeration that it’s poverty level but I live paycheck to paycheck and well over half my income goes to housing and I can’t even afford to send my 3 year old to preschool. Now everyone’s financial situation is different, if you are single and have room mates you can live well, but if your a family that wants a house and a “yard” you need a second income to do it.

 

[Maintainvfr]

Your use of punctuation doesn't win the argument. Controllers shouldn't be paying for the FAA not staffing adequately and NATCA shouldn't be abetting them.

No but you ignoring it doesn't win the argument either? When you take the job you agree to work where they need you. I'm not saying it's good to get stuck somewhere but there's tons of movement in the system right now which means more staffing at the hard to fill places.

I can tell you as someone who used to work at an extremely high COL low level tower, making who gets to leave first in first out based on time at the facility is the only system that won't leave certain people feeling like they've been cheated. Meaning, if you're able to release someone you take the controller who's been there the longest who wants to go somewhere less than 100% staffed and you let them go.

If you were to sit all the controllers at my old tower down I guarantee you that this is the system they would agree on. It might not work for bigger places but bigger places don't have 100% of the CPC's and 100% of the trainees with active ERR's on file (well, maybe N90 is up there)

You can't base a program on a select few facilities, you have to consider how it affects the entire NAS.

 

[Maintainvfr]

Yet, the five hardships, in the last year, aren’t trying to accomplish the same thing as people taking supervisor positions?!? Hmmm

I don't think anyone here supports fake news hardships.

 

[Dontbotherme]

I don't think anyone here supports fake news hardships.

Yet more and more people are doing them and screwing everyone else in the NCEPT process. I’ve seen more BS hardships in the last two years than the prior 7+ years of my career.

 

[Maintainvfr]

Yet more and more people are doing them and screwing everyone else in the NCEPT process. I’ve seen more BS hardships in the last two years than the prior 7+ years of my career.

Yeah, I agree that it's happening and I also agree it's bullshit.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Yeah, I agree that it's happening and I also agree it's bullshit.

And who exactly are you to judge the validity of someone’s hardship?

 

[Maintainvfr]

And who exactly are you to judge the validity of someone’s hardship?

Haven't you heard baby? I'm the hardship police ???

Did I suggest we shut down the hardship program? Nope. Did I say "Hey guy! That hardship isn't valid!"? Sure didn't!

Or are you suggesting every hardship is valid?

 

[Maintainvfr]

As for you guys saying we can't blame those people hardshipping whether it's legitimate or not, we absolutely can. A lot of the problems that you guys are frustrated with are made more difficult by hardships that aren't legitimate.

 

[Dolan]

And who exactly are you to judge the validity of someone’s hardship?

And who is the FAA to judge it? If I can provide full documentation for a hardship that got approved, including why it's frivolous and full documentation for one that was denied and why it was actually legit do they lose their right to be the judge? Nope

 

[ehmeye]

And who is the FAA to judge it? If I can provide full documentation for a hardship that got approved, including why it's frivolous and full documentation for one that was denied and why it was actually legit do they lose their right to be the judge? Nope

They are the duly appointed judges, according to the CBA. They have access to the documentation process. Only folks in here are ones with an agenda to name hardships "frivolous" with nothing to back it up.

 

[Maintainvfr]

They are the duly appointed judges, according to the CBA. They have access to the documentation process. Only folks in here are ones with an agenda to name hardships "frivolous" with nothing to back it up.

Nobody is pointing out a harship and saying this one is frivolous and that one isn't, so I'm not sure what you want us to provide. I'm also pretty sure there's folks in here from all over the spectrum, some of us don't even have an agenda, but the sweeping generalizations are fun to read as usual.

Again, are you suggesting that there are not and have been no illegitimate hardships?

 

[Dolan]

They are the duly appointed judges, according to the CBA. They have access to the documentation process. Only folks in here are ones with an agenda to name hardships "frivolous" with nothing to back it up.

It doesn't matter who the judges are my dude. I can show you hardships that are objectively more valid than others where the more valid one is dismissed and the BS one is honored. There is no hard set of rules that the FAA needs to abide by. They are allowed to honor/dismiss hardships at will for any reason they want.

If we had the ability to file lawsuits over hardship validity and my lawyer has the full documentation of a BS hardship that got approved and the one I'm trying to push through that got denied, with medical recommendations and all, you'd better believe any jury will side with me. The FAA is a taxpayer funded government entity and you have to treat people fairly.

The point is that that isn't how the process works at all. The judgement process used by the FAA is clearly not objective. Saying that they are these benevolent judges who let the honest people through and filter out the people gaming the system is a crock of shit.

 

[ehmeye]

It doesn't matter who the judges are my dude. I can show you hardships that are objectively more valid than others where the more valid one is dismissed and the BS one is honored. There is no hard set of rules that the FAA needs to abide by. They are allowed to honor/dismiss hardships at will for any reason they want.

If we had the ability to file lawsuits over hardship validity and my lawyer has the full documentation of a BS hardship that got approved and the one I'm trying to push through that got denied, with medical recommendations and all, you'd better believe any jury will side with me. The FAA is a taxpayer funded government entity and you have to treat people fairly.

The point is that that isn't how the process works at all. The judgement process used by the FAA is clearly not objective. Saying that they are these benevolent judges who let the honest people through and filter out the people gaming the system is a crock of shit.

What does "more valid" mean? It's a binary position, either valid or not.

 

[LEAD004]

I think we can all agree that there are some legit hardships and there are some BS hardships... if there are people on here that think there aren't people working the system... that's.... cute.

 

[Maintainvfr]

What does "more valid" mean? It's a binary position, either valid or not.

Let's say some guy put in a hardship from ZKC to the Texas area because they preferred the barbecue in Texas, and some girl put in a hardship from ZFW to a northern area because they were having heat strokes every week.

Mr. BBQ gets approved and the Ice Queen does not. Was hers not more valid, even though the FAA made it's ruling?

I'm not saying I'm the judge of what hardships are valid and which ones aren't. Our whole point is that the system isn't objective and that some that are manufactured are approved while others that are legitimately causing hardships to our brothers and sisters are getting denied. Saying people aren't gaming the system while other legitimate hardships are being denied though is just naive and incorrect. If you want to be the champion of bogus hardships nobody can stop you but that's a really weird position to take.

 

[MJ]

You guys are pretty much in agreement. Everyone knows the system is broke.

I think the takeaway should be: don't hate the player, hate the game.

 

[Dolan]

We might disagree about how much the union/agency/controllers are to blame though. In the old system, my coworker Joe's hardship didn't really affect me in a big way. Sure, if Joe leaves it might be harder for me to get leave or a crappy schedule might no longer have someone to work it that I now have to take. I might have to help train joe's trainees.

Now, Joe getting out on a BS hardship directly affects my career advancement prospects. It might keep me from having a valid ERR in at my dream facility that has a vacancy one in every 10 panels. Missing out on this move might cost me tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. It might keep me away from family, being able to afford a house, being able to afford to have kids, etc.

I saw how easy it was for Joe to get to his dream spot by filing a bogus hardship, so you better believe I'm going to attempt the same.

All thanks to the fact that NATCA is completely incompetent when it comes to forming policies that don't screw over its members.

 

[ehmeye]

Let's say some guy put in a hardship from ZKC to the Texas area because they preferred the barbecue in Texas, and some girl put in a hardship from ZFW to a northern area because they were having heat strokes every week.

Mr. BBQ gets approved and the Ice Queen does not. Was hers not more valid, even though the FAA made it's ruling?

I'm not saying I'm the judge of what hardships are valid and which ones aren't. Our whole point is that the system isn't objective and that some that are manufactured are approved while others that are legitimately causing hardships to our brothers and sisters are getting denied. Saying people aren't gaming the system while other legitimate hardships are being denied though is just naive and incorrect. If you want to be the champion of bogus hardships nobody can stop you but that's a really weird position to take.

Is barbecue preference a hardship-worthy case now? Did this person not have to show any evidence at all of an actual hardship? In your scenario, a person has been taken advantage of by an unscrupulous actor. That's not a "valid" hardship in anyone's reasoning. But hardships are not a transparent process to other controllers. We are not privy to facts, documents, or circumstances of someone else's situation and for good reason. Someone else's family life or health is not our business. So does the faceless person or persons at the region who makes these decisions know better than you or I? Sure. Do they differ from region to region? Most definitely. I'm sure you are correct in that there should be some sort of objective measure that validates a hardship even though one isn't in place now. To ensure that the process is being followed in good faith, and not as some misery competition between employees.

No one here has championed bogus hardships at the expense of people who have honest medical or family reasons. As someone who holds himself/herself as a paragon of maturity and honest debate, you should not misrepresent another's viewpoint. It's beneath you.

 

[ehmeye]

We might disagree about how much the union/agency/controllers are to blame though. In the old system, my coworker Joe's hardship didn't really affect me in a big way. Sure, if Joe leaves it might be harder for me to get leave or a crappy schedule might no longer have someone to work it that I now have to take. I might have to help train joe's trainees.

Now, Joe getting out on a BS hardship directly affects my career advancement prospects. It might keep me from having a valid ERR in at my dream facility that has a vacancy one in every 10 panels. Missing out on this move might cost me tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. It might keep me away from family, being able to afford a house, being able to afford to have kids, etc.

I saw how easy it was for Joe to get to his dream spot by filing a bogus hardship, so you better believe I'm going to attempt the same.

All thanks to the fact that NATCA is completely incompetent when it comes to forming policies that don't screw over its members.

I understand this sentiment fully. But if I KNOW for a fact that Joe is putting in a BS hardship and I say nothing? Then I'm complicit in his little scheme. If talking to the FACREP didn't get results, then the RVP would be getting calls; cause I'll be damned if someone's going to try to mess with my career while I sit by quietly.

 

[Stinger]

I understand this sentiment fully. But if I KNOW for a fact that Joe is putting in a BS hardship and I say nothing? Then I'm complicit in his little scheme. If talking to the FACREP didn't get results, then the RVP would be getting calls; cause I'll be damned if someone's going to try to mess with my career while I sit by quietly.

That's going to get you nowhere, but I totally support asking people about it and making waves with a broken process.
I've heard controllers say, "I know I can hardship for "XXXX reason" so I'll keep that in my pocket if I ever want to leave."