New Facility Placement Procedure

[Ghost]

For Enroute I couldn't care less what facility I got, except for one thing... Cost of living. If I get stuck going to Oakland or New York, there is a possibility I will turn it down and go back to my old life, so a smaller list could really screw things up for me!

 

[StealthChain]

For Enroute I couldn't care less what facility I got, except for one thing... Cost of living. If I get stuck going to Oakland or New York, there is a possibility I will turn it down and go back to my old life, so a smaller list could really screw things up for me!

They account for COL in the pay for facility though...

 

[breakaway2000]

They account for COL in the pay for facility though...

COLA is a drop in the bucket for what those areas truly cost...especially on AG pay.

 

[jswizzle060]

Say you do get a place with a high cost of livin or just an undersireable place for you in general.. how easily can you transfer to you desired facility after becoming a CPC?

 

[breakaway2000]

Say you do get a place with a high cost of livin or just an undersireable place for you in general.. how easily can you transfer to you desired facility after becoming a CPC?

Depends entirely on where you end up and where you want to get to. Read up on the process here.
ERR

 

[MJ]

I can hear it now at the next NATCA Reloaded event at Shorty Smalls: "We got the FAA to agree to only take one facility off your placement list in the unlikely event that someone doesn't pass."

Was going through the NEB minutes...

Additionally, NATCA will work to change the process whereby additional slots are offered beyond the number of students graduating per class, which appears to have created a system in which certain facilities are repeatedly bypassed for placement.

For new hires who may not follow... the controller union was the driver behind the slots being removed.

 

[Stinger]

Was going through the NEB minutes...

Huh, well isn't that something.

 

[32andBelow]

Doesn’t even make sense cus skipped slots literally just become mandatory a week or two later.

 

[JNev]

Doesn’t even make sense cus skipped slots literally just become mandatory a week or two later.

Yea. That. Dear god... So stupid and shows a total lack of understanding of the process

 

[jdatc]

Doesn’t even make sense cus skipped slots literally just become mandatory a week or two later.

I don’t understand, isn’t it better new hires get sent places quicker so people get out?

Especially less desirable places?

 

[32andBelow]

Right

I don’t understand, isn’t it better new hires get sent places quicker so people get out?

Especially less desirable places?

now it’s 2 spots per student. The top 33% are mandatory. Any slot not taken stay on their position in the list.

If clas selected 123(mandatory) then 6,7,8,10. They skip 4,5

The next class list will start with the old slot 4 and then 5, 9,11,12,etc. now those skipped slots from the previous class are now mandatory for the next class.

 

[Stinger]

Right

now it’s 2 spots per student. The top 33% are mandatory. Any slot not taken stay on their position in the list.

If clas selected 123(mandatory) then 6,7,8,10. They skip 4,5

The next class list will start with the old slot 4 and then 5, 9,11,12,etc. now those skipped slots from the previous class are now mandatory for the next class.

A few months ago there was a concentrated group of JAN slots. And then also I believe some in quick succession for some other facilities. Depending on how the list shakes out, one slot may stay on a list for 3+ straight classes. Get that happening enough times in a row and now a facility is getting groups of trainees all together. What was the intent initially was to spread the students out so a specific facility doesn't get flooded.

Some facilities would like that better where they can get a few people through their classes all together instead of scheduling them individually....especially at facilities where they have one of their controllers teaching the class who now has to be taken off the schedule.

 

[MJ]

to add to the above, the priority tool resets priority/slots, so it isn't as simple as a slot just deferring to the next class.

 

[BrocolliRob]

JAN was an issue on our list when I graduated in December. It accounted for 6 slots of our 36, all while they were on the verge of a training backlog. AJT went so far as to asking our class how many people may be interested in going there because the ATM didn’t want any more people. Only 1 ended up going (as a mandatory).

 

[JNev]

to add to the above, the priority tool resets priority/slots, so it isn't as simple as a slot just deferring to the next class.

Can you explain how that would prevent the facilities with the greatest need being mandatory? If more desirable facilities are chosen, the less desirable ones will be mandatory sooner than later, that’s the sole purpose of the mandatory system. I still think they should just make a higher % of the 2x # of graduates mandatory instead of all.

 

[MJ]

Can you explain how that would prevent the facilities with the greatest need being mandatory? If more desirable facilities are chosen, the less desirable ones will be mandatory sooner than later, that’s the sole purpose of the mandatory system. I still think they should just make a higher % of the 2x # of graduates mandatory instead of all.

because the priority formula is whack

 

[bceltics933]

Yea. That. Dear god... So stupid and shows a total lack of understanding of the process

gonna go ahead and say the union understands this a little bit more than us trainees...

 

[Maintainvfr]

There are many times where a facility is on an academy list, does not get picked, and then it does not show up on another list for quite a while. Especially for smaller facilities, it's very volatile when one person makes up a huge percentage of your staffing.

Some examples of this are if someone certifies at that facility, they are now a full body instead of what they were projected as based on the training success rate - this can be a huge difference if the success rate is low; getting selected by a previous experience new hire (this seems kind of silly at first, because either you needed both people or you didn't... but once you pick up the one trainee, suddenly your projected staffing is better than xyz facility's projected staffing.)

I understand this is less desirable for trainees, however even in the current system those same trainees are certifying and bidding out (not trying to take a side on whether this is good or bad) so it doesn't make a huge difference on that end. Even more importantly, the people that were frustrated with constantly getting bumped are controllers too, they're already certified and paying dues. There's always going to be people that are going to want to change the process, you can't always please everyone.

Imagine if they gave ten facilities per academy grad, we would think that was ridiculous wouldn't we? Most of the same arguments would apply though.

 

[Move78]

gonna go ahead and say the union understands this a little bit more than us trainees...

The union is very much uninvolved in the new hire portion of the staffing picture. And The Agency certainly doesn't prioritize the desires of academy grads. It's obvious that 1 facility per student nails down the projections. Eliminating variables.

 

[breakaway2000]

Can you explain how that would prevent the facilities with the greatest need being mandatory? If more desirable facilities are chosen, the less desirable ones will be mandatory sooner than later, that’s the sole purpose of the mandatory system. I still think they should just make a higher % of the 2x # of graduates mandatory instead of all.

While the agency controls the right to hire, NATCA did influence the new change. This originated from the NCEPT and the pressure smaller level up/down facilities (Level 5/6/7) placed on the leadership running the NCEPT. This returns the process back to what it originally was.

The Reasoning
As others have stated, whether you realize it or not yet, the terminal placement list is updated continuously based on data from the staffing workbook. A facility could be 35, then 26, then 13, then 6, then 82. This happens quite often.

How does that happen?
NCEPT - The facilities in the worst shape are the 5 and 6 up/downs where training time can take upwards of 2+ years due to waiting for traffic/volume. They also have higher staffing numbers due to having more positions to operate. This can effect them in a number of ways.

EX. Lets say their projected staffing is 82%. They cannot release on the NCEPT and they're inching closer to receiving a body from the academy. Then an NCEPT panel happens, a stand alone tower with a CPC count of 11 releases 1 person, their projected % now drops from 87% to 78%. Guess who just got jumped on the next terminal placement list? Rinse and repeat. The same can be said for all other types of losses (hardships, FLM's, quitting, TMC, etc).

Believe it or not, this will help facilitate more movement in some of these hard to staff facilities. For all those at the academy, you're going to want that down the line.

In reality, when you stop and consider it, the change will effect the first class. After that, the percentages of "desirable" facilities on a list will stay relatively consistent. You can go back and look at previous placement lists. Assuming 10 people passed, the majority of the slots taken prior to mandatory selection were in the 11-20 range as the least desirable facilities left from the class before filled the 1-10 range. With each class exhausting a list, you should still see the same percentage of desirable facilities to choose from down the line.