New time off between shifts mandate. Big change

Somenewguy said:
What rules does the 7210.3 have that the BWS MOU supersedes?
Click to expand...
The fact that agency agreed to your schedules that you currently have for this entire year. They don’t get to just change that unilaterally.

Everyone does realize this change hurts the ATO’s ability to staff, it handcuffs them. You think they actually want to deal with this ?

Where’s JD with the answers ? Nothing to say ?
 
Nothanks said:
The fact that agency agreed to your schedules that you currently have for this entire year. They don’t get to just change that unilaterally.

Everyone does realize this change hurts the ATO’s ability to staff, it handcuffs them. You think they actually want to deal with this ?
Click to expand...
Ooh. I get it. You don't know what you're talking about.

The BWS MOU doesn't supersede the 7210.3.

If you locally negotiated a schedule that only had 5 hours off between 13 hour shifts, that doesn't mean that you can ignore the 7210.3 and 14 CFR.

And that is what supersede would mean. The MOU doesn't replace or supplant these documents, it adds to them.
 
Anyone remember what happened when they changed it from 8 hours to 9 hours between shifts? I remember it happening but no details on how it was implemented reference BWS.

I’m genuinely curious what Whitaker’s idea is for mids being that 12 hours makes the day/mid virtually impossible. He must have had something in mind when issuing this order. The FAA has always been anti straight mids, but that’s obviously the way countless industries staff them.
 
ChuckNovember said:
People on here hate to admit that allowing trainees to have say in where they live would fix staffing much faster.
Click to expand...
Lol yeah, and you know what the agency would do? Super-glue stick us ALL right the fuck where we are until we retire or resign. The agency and us have wildly different perspectives on what our “staffing issue” entails. — We are all just numbers, they [management] are all just plebs who want to do anything in their power to ensure we don’t get where we want to be for as long as possible because… numbers.

Trainees should start at lower levels and get what they get, if it’s where they want to be and they like the pay good for them. If they want to move up and/or elsewhere, they put in the time after allowing CPCs to move up before them and staff the NAS from the bottom up. Then after a nice career of graduated facility experience and pay, eventually ride that article 124 train to retirement. Dust settled it makes the most sense for everyone.
 
Last edited:
The cru art MOU supercedes section 2-2-6 in the 7210.

Covid MOUs were probably the biggest example of ignoring all that 7210 bullshit.

Plus a lot of the things in the 7210 related to shift times was put in after the fatigue MOU was made. Until that happened, you followed the MOU, not the 7210.

ManBearPig said:
That is my understanding as well. But, my guess is management at every facility will be told to attempt to mid term bargain and reopen BWS. Those U1's gonna be 🔥🔥🔥
Click to expand...
I don't think that will be the goal. It's too chaotic and involves too many actors. I think the ATO will try to engage NATCA on a national level and see what the red lines are. Then they'll either collaborate, tell us go fuck ourselves, or just eat the loss
 
Last edited:
blockdenied said:
Many people just feel the need that since they went through it, so the other trainees must go through it too.
Click to expand...
Or maybe climb the totem pole to get where you want to be, just like every other job/industry/career out there. Why would we not put our current CPCs first since they’ve put in the time and the effort to at least certify? The entitlement some of you possess in here is truly baffling. Did you dream this up in your ATMs bathroom while wiping back to front?
 
SquawkHijack said:
Lol yeah, and you know what the agency would do? Super-glue stick us ALL right the fuck where we are until we retire or resign. The agency and us have wildly different perspectives on what our “staffing issue” entails. — We are all just numbers, they [management] are all just plebs who want to do anything in their power to ensure we don’t get where we want to be for as long as possible because… numbers.

Trainees should start at lower levels and get what they get, if it’s where they want to be and they like the pay good for them. If they want to move up and/or elsewhere, they put in the time after allowing CPCs to move up before them and staff the NAS from the bottom up. Then after a nice career of graduated facility experience and pay, eventually ride that article 124 train to retirement. Dust settled it makes the most sense for everyone.
Click to expand...
You should read article 124. That’s not how it works at all.
 
lol for the people advocating for 32 hr work week. Sure that’d be nice, but does anyone have any idea how much OT that would require? They still need to staff the same number of shifts. I’d bet that be +2 OT per pay period per controller at most facilities. Hundreds of millions in OT. No way the FAA signs off on that.
 
Golf delta said:
lol for the people advocating for 32 hr work week. Sure that’d be nice, but does anyone have any idea how much OT that would require? They still need to staff the same number of shifts. I’d bet that be +2 OT per pay period per controller at most facilities. Hundreds of millions in OT. No way the FAA signs off on that.
Click to expand...
I just don't see how they are going to implement this without (even more) OT; especially at 24 HR facilities.

So we get more rest between shifts but overall we work more because of scheduled OT? Only the FAA can come up with that "fix" and get away with it.
 
Golf delta said:
lol for the people advocating for 32 hr work week. Sure that’d be nice, but does anyone have any idea how much OT that would require? They still need to staff the same number of shifts. I’d bet that be +2 OT per pay period per controller at most facilities. Hundreds of millions in OT. No way the FAA signs off on that.
Click to expand...
I've been told by a coworker nearing reitrement who's been to 3 or 4 retirement seminars (both Union and Gov't) over the last year that going to a reduced hour workweek will screw with our retirement calculations. Not sure of the truth to this, but if it is true, then going to a reduced hour workweek (32/36hr) requires changes that are likely out of the Union and Agency's ability
 
N737ER said:
I've been told by a coworker nearing reitrement who's been to 3 or 4 retirement seminars (both Union and Gov't) over the last year that going to a reduced hour workweek will screw with our retirement calculations. Not sure of the truth to this, but if it is true, then going to a reduced hour workweek (32/36hr) requires changes that are likely out of the Union and Agency's ability
Click to expand...
That sounds like some boomer shit lol.

We should do either straight lines that vary week by week. Higher seniority can bid a line with fewer weeks of mids throughout the year.
 

Similar threads

woodski
Consider all current and new rules while imagining new schedules
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
8K
HurryUpandWait
H
GulfCharlie
FAA Moves to Accelerate Air Traffic Controller Hiring by Enhancing College Training Program
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
6K
bravounite33
B
fivebyfive
FAA Reauthorization Act of 2023
7 8 9
Replies
177
Views
21K
Seeyoufly
S
M
Ft. Campbell, Ky Announcements & Buc-ees
2
Replies
24
Views
4K
meanjoe
M
GulfCharlie
Dismantling Section 804: A Policy Shift
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
doodii
doodii
Back
Top Bottom