FightingIrish2012
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 2,028
1984 was a awesome year, no cell phones yet, Atari 2600, and the start of ultra violent action films like Robocop, Total Recall, etc....
TSo.. NCEPT was created under the pretense that it would help alleviate the pains of long, indefinite release dates, as well as somehow supposedly help with the shortage of controllers.
The possibility to transfer to another facility is based on the current and anticipated number of CPC’s. That, along with the ever-changing national average. “Too many” transfers have occurred and now too many CPC’s are in training.
The rumor above my post says that now, another acronym could be included in the process of how or when a controller can transfer. So they could now use both the number of CPC’s and CIC’s in determining how, when, and if a facility is eligible to release/accept new applicants.
My question is: Why stop there?
Why not include a multitude of other arbitrary factors into the Excel spreadsheet to expand the equation even further?
There must be 2 female controllers for every 3 male controllers. The number of warm bodies in the immediate vicinity of the facility must outweigh the number of cold bodies that left. Leap years, moon phases, religious beliefs..
To be continued.
NAtca national should be doing what they are trying to do, I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid and saying they are handling it the best, but id much rather someone in natca be a part of these decisions than no one at all, which it was, and which has lead us here.
I don't look at it like that at all. Think of any other job. If you worked in the public sector and applied for a position in another city with the same company (because that is basically was an ERR is) nobody besides management has any say in who is selected and when. The fact the the union has ANY input at all is above and beyond the public sector. I don't know what the fix is, but both staffing and training numbers need to be taken into account. Flooding facilities with trainees when they cannot keep up doesn't really help anyone. Yeah people get where they want to be but now we are paying them to literally do nothing while they sit around and wait for a class. They some how need to figure out a way to limit the number of trainees at a facility. The new problem is that this is a very individual facility decision. Perhaps we need to go back to the old method where a facility only pulls a list when they have room for more trainees but keep a national policy for release dates? Idk...It's not simply a matter of mere representation, it boils down to do we have adequate representation and the answer is no, we do not.
I don't look at it like that at all. Think of any other job. If you worked in the public sector and applied for a position in another city with the same company (because that is basically was an ERR is) nobody besides management has any say in who is selected and when. The fact the the union has ANY input at all is above and beyond the public sector. I don't know what the fix is, but both staffing and training numbers need to be taken into account. Flooding facilities with trainees when they cannot keep up doesn't really help anyone. Yeah people get where they want to be but now we are paying them to literally do nothing while they sit around and wait for a class. They some how need to figure out a way to limit the number of trainees at a facility. The new problem is that this is a very individual facility decision. Perhaps we need to go back to the old method where a facility only pulls a list when they have room for more trainees but keep a national policy for release dates? Idk...
I would personally be very happy with a system like this. If I were in management (shudder) I would want a say as to who shows up at my facility. The ranking mean next to nothing. I would also like to determine when they show up, within a prescribed amount of time. While I agree that both trainees and CPCs need to be considered, I think the amount of CPC's should be the determining factor if a facility is able to let someone go, and I think the amount of trainees should determine if they can pick someone up. It's not an easy fix, but I think we are all in agreement that the current set-up of NCEPT is not working and must be fixed.
I'm confused a little by all of your points. The ranking list is made by the ATM, so they do have a say. If they collaborate with the facrep/let them do it, that doesn't mean they don't get a say. It's their list.
They do currently get to decide when they show up, within a prescribed amount of time.
The amount of CPCs is a factor in whether they can let someone go, and the number of trainees is a factor on whether they can pick someone up. Thats what the projected number is for.
You're right, it's not an easy fix and that's why so many people have a problem with NCEPT. They're literally trying to fix all these things you said, but you have 300+ facilities and there's 0 process that pleases everyone
technically the list is who they would prefer. once that list gets narrowed down by releases from those same releasing facilities to higher priority facilities then their list becomes who is left. They have the ability to select that the requesting employee doesn't have enough/appropriate experience but natca certainly would have something to say if an employee from an 8 is denied a 12, just because they hear bad things about that person. I don't believe they just have the option to say, no.
While they do get to decide when they show up within the prescribed timeline, that timeline is not always appropriate for that specific facility based on when they can take those trainees during that specific timeline. This also speaks to your next point, the number of trainees impacts the projected number and its assuming not all of them will check out, according to historical data from over 3 years ago. They overload facilities with more trainees than they can handle and more actual bodies than they need creating a staffing imbalance.
why shouldn't that be taken into consideration? the problem is, not all management collaborates with the local facrep to help figure this out and not all facreps are willing to listen regardless. maybe more people would get to go in the round 2 selections because the agency doesn't overload the top facilities with trainees that wont make it and that they cant handle.
I'm not sorry saying this but the ncept is the closest thing to what movement should look like when facilities are staffed correctly. but now you've got union people blasting out errs and blocking people and playing the game for themselves, filling out bull hardships, local facreps and ATMs not holding management and their constituents accountable to provide proper training and staffing on a daily basis, you've got management screwing up staffing work book, or not understanding the rules, out of date training orders and bad SOPs, toxic cultures at many facilities all leading to a poorly educated workforce about all of this with little interest in understanding the big picture.
I completely disagree. NCEPT ignores the most important thing that should dictate releases in my opinion, and that's time spent at the facility. I don't care if you're a dirtbag or a lousy controller - if you've done your time somewhere you should be given the opportunity to try and succeed where you'd like to move. Guess what? If you're a piece of shit when you get there your ass is getting washed out anyway. The very reason that certain people become so toxic is that they feel the transfer process screws them over and always will. Allowing managers OR facreps to not give people a chance to certify because they dislike them personally is completely insane.I'm not sorry saying this but the ncept is the closest thing to what movement should look like when facilities are staffed correctly
If you're a selecting facility you want control over who you get and for it to be based on what you want it to be based on. You're never gonna get them to buy off of the mentality that the piece of shit employee that no one wants should get release priority for time served.I completely disagree. NCEPT ignores the most important thing that should dictate releases in my opinion, and that's time spent at the facility. I don't care if you're a dirtbag or a lousy controller - if you've done your time somewhere you should be given the opportunity to try and succeed where you'd like to move. Guess what? If you're a piece of shit when you get there your ass is getting washed out anyway. The very reason that certain people become so toxic is that they feel the transfer process screws them over and always will. Allowing managers OR facreps to not give people a chance to certify because they dislike them personally is completely insane.
When you take a tower that only gets 1 or 2 transfers a year and you award those transfers to brand new controllers in front of people who have been trying to get out for years and years you're doing substantial damage to the faith people have in the union. That shouldn't happen, even if those new CPC's are willing to go to N90. They need to wait their turn. They need to train their replacements and put their time in to where they're trying to leave. And if they do these things, they need to be rewarded for it with career progression. That's always been the mindset of both NATCA and the FAA until very recently.
I worry that this practice of awarding transfers to the "lowest bidder" is causing an extreme amount of frustration at hard to staff towers and that we might see decent sized exoduses of controllers quitting. I know of a few smaller scale ones that have already occurred and I know that theres many facilities where the desire to move has turned into an arms race of hardships and supervisor deviations. If you just give people a good faith assurance that their time spend staffing the NAS with CPCs (by training new ones) they will be much happier.
Yep.I completely disagree. NCEPT ignores the most important thing that should dictate releases in my opinion, and that's time spent at the facility. I don't care if you're a dirtbag or a lousy controller - if you've done your time somewhere you should be given the opportunity to try and succeed where you'd like to move. Guess what? If you're a piece of shit when you get there your ass is getting washed out anyway. The very reason that certain people become so toxic is that they feel the transfer process screws them over and always will. Allowing managers OR facreps to not give people a chance to certify because they dislike them personally is completely insane.
When you take a tower that only gets 1 or 2 transfers a year and you award those transfers to brand new controllers in front of people who have been trying to get out for years and years you're doing substantial damage to the faith people have in the union. That shouldn't happen, even if those new CPC's are willing to go to N90. They need to wait their turn. They need to train their replacements and put their time in to where they're trying to leave. And if they do these things, they need to be rewarded for it with career progression. That's always been the mindset of both NATCA and the FAA until very recently.
I worry that this practice of awarding transfers to the "lowest bidder" is causing an extreme amount of frustration at hard to staff towers and that we might see decent sized exoduses of controllers quitting. I know of a few smaller scale ones that have already occurred and I know that theres many facilities where the desire to move has turned into an arms race of hardships and supervisor deviations. If you just give people a good faith assurance that their time spend staffing the NAS with CPCs (by training new ones) they will be much happier.
We're gonna put every controller with over 20 years in at DEN or CLT
They've been able to leave faster but the TPA's and the DEN's have been able to leave eventually. I know its anecdotal but many of my friends left hard to staff towers for well staffed ones with 18 month-ish release dates. They understood the reason for the lengthy waits and were grateful to be able to eventually transfer. Now those transfers are impossible. Theres a huge difference between having to wait a year or two and being stuck foreverEven before NCEPT transferring has been location location location. The people willing to go to the N90s and ZOAs have always been able to leave quicker then the people wanting TPA and DEN. Staffing is the BIGGEST problem in the FAA. So low staffed facilities will ALWAYS be priority. So people willing to go to them will ALWAYS be priority. No matter how long or short they've been an employee