GulfBravoPapa
⭐SuperStar
- Messages
- 1,976
The end result is that the FAA is happy with the process as is and it is not going to change despite whatever you propose.
jdatc
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 670
I think the easier thing to work on is a penalty for turning down an offer when picked up on an ERR. One year freeze with no ERR’s accepted.
Additionally, I think if you ERR somewhere and are unsuccessful, then after you NEST and upon certification at your prior, or new facility, you are frozen for a year before you can ERR again.
Additionally, I think if you ERR somewhere and are unsuccessful, then after you NEST and upon certification at your prior, or new facility, you are frozen for a year before you can ERR again.
Here's my solution, feel free to critique:
1. All facilities become first-in-first-out. Do you actually feel like people should be required to do their time, train replacements, then leave? This will guarantee that.
2. Take a facility's target CPC number. Let NATCA/FAA agree on a certain CPC staffing % above which people can leave. Maybe 85%? Sort of like NCEPT.
3. When a facility is able to release someone, go down the facility seniority list (NOT the NATCA seniority list) and apply this process to each CPC:
List all the facilities the CPC would like to go to in order. Find the first facility under 100% staffing. CPC gets to transfer there! If 100% or higher, go to the next facility on their list. If at the end of the list, CPC has to wait until their facility is able to release again, retaining their spot on the facility seniority list.
4. Upon obtaining CPC at the new facility, the controller starts at the bottom of that facility's seniority list.
What's wrong with this system? I used to work at a tower where everybody was trying to get out and I guarantee you this is the only system we could have implemented that wouldn't leave anyone feeling like they were getting screwed.
1. All facilities become first-in-first-out. Do you actually feel like people should be required to do their time, train replacements, then leave? This will guarantee that.
2. Take a facility's target CPC number. Let NATCA/FAA agree on a certain CPC staffing % above which people can leave. Maybe 85%? Sort of like NCEPT.
3. When a facility is able to release someone, go down the facility seniority list (NOT the NATCA seniority list) and apply this process to each CPC:
List all the facilities the CPC would like to go to in order. Find the first facility under 100% staffing. CPC gets to transfer there! If 100% or higher, go to the next facility on their list. If at the end of the list, CPC has to wait until their facility is able to release again, retaining their spot on the facility seniority list.
4. Upon obtaining CPC at the new facility, the controller starts at the bottom of that facility's seniority list.
What's wrong with this system? I used to work at a tower where everybody was trying to get out and I guarantee you this is the only system we could have implemented that wouldn't leave anyone feeling like they were getting screwed.
Usm4r1n3
Active Member
- Messages
- 26
According to this type of logic, NCEPT was just someone’s dumb idea. Keep this up. Our agency will just magically improve.
Though I’m biased to my own proposal, I can go along with this. Of course there are always kinks to work out.
Last edited:
Of course the FAA is happy, NATCA gave them everything with this. The process will absolutely change if NATCA invokes their right to bail on NCEPT through
- Messages
- 2,510
- Facility
- Command Center
The only thing that concerns me is facility seniority, while I will always be at the bottom of the BNA NATCA seniority list, something like this would be good but has its own vices.
Maintainvfr
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 528
How do you decide the order facilities get to release? I would imagine the only reasonable answer is based on what facilities have the highest staffing percentage.
The problem with that is that what you're describing is very close to the current NCEPT except that you're putting the priorities of less qualified people over the needs of facilities. This method sticks the bigger facilities with whatever they get, regardless of who is better qualified. So while the guy from the level 4 that got his first choice of level 12s is psyched, you're also kind of giving the guy from a level 10 that might certify faster and help the staffing issue kind of a raw deal.
More controllers are moving, and they're getting a set time frame with release dates. The controllers at short staffed facilities are finally getting the people that they need to fix their problems. No system is perfect, but this one is way better than the previous one for both NATCA and the FAA. There are more controllers benefitting than before, even if some people are getting passed over repeatedly.
I agree with all of this
Usm4r1n3
Active Member
- Messages
- 26
Simply wanting a freeze in ERR’s does not fix the bigger problem. The next bid someone will get picked up. The “punish for turning down” mentality wouldn’t lead to a better or more loyal workforce that trains its replacement. Resentment is rife in our field as it is. One year also doesn’t guarantee that you will train anyone on any position depending on RDO’s and training slots and type of facility. In 5 years if you haven’t trained anyone, that’s on the agency, not the individual. If you have never held an OJTI it would be a year post CPC before you could even get an over the shoulder and start to train. We need to reward facility loyalty. Simply looking at how many people are moving is doesn’t help out those who dedicate years to where they have spent time and trained many people.
After 30 years in the agency, it would be terrible to say thanks for serving Tri cities because you are a Charleston Native and couldn’t get back there.
After 30 years in the agency, it would be terrible to say thanks for serving Tri cities because you are a Charleston Native and couldn’t get back there.
Last edited:
Maintainvfr
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 528
I don't know how to address most of this because I don't know what you're trying to say in a lot of it.
As for the 1 yr vs 5 yrs thing, reread what he is saying. He's talking about a completely separate issue, the people that are getting picked up and turning down tols. They are harming both the facility that picked them, as well as someone from their facility that would have gotten picked up, and potentially someone from another facility that wanted that slot. I'm not going to discuss this at length because you can find this debate in other threads.
I am curious what you mean by reward facility loyalty? Either way aren't we talking about the people that don't want to be there? Loyalty doesn't seem like the right word here.
Also thanks to whoever combined my posts, I was going to edit them but I couldn't get the quotes in on an edit.
Usm4r1n3
Active Member
- Messages
- 26
After rereading what he said my response is the same. He wanted a one year stop for new certifications prior to being released (before further edits). Now it’s stating before accepting ERRs which still at cat1 is 3 months and no time to train. As far as loyalty it is semantics. It’s loyalty staying that you would remain at your facility to help out staffing. But it is also beneficial to the individual to have some way out when the time comes, preferably to the facilities they desire. Not being for a proposal like this doesn’t make sense to me. People at MWH watch people they worked with in the military or other people fresh out of college get placed at some great centers and other awesome terminal facilities. Not sure why anyone wouldn’t want a program that wasn’t almost completely luck of the draw. Someone who doesn’t want to be at a facility is not this proposal’s issue to resolve (they took the job) and someone who only wants to be at one or two specific facilities is who would be rewarded by this proposal.
Turning down TOL’s is terrible when seen objectively, but shunning those individuals like they don’t have families with spouses working and things not falling into place isn’t the answer.
I’d ideally like a program that avoids offer rejections by incentivizing a move somewhere they absolutely want to be and to prepare them, their family, and the facility for that move.
Turning down TOL’s is terrible when seen objectively, but shunning those individuals like they don’t have families with spouses working and things not falling into place isn’t the answer.
I’d ideally like a program that avoids offer rejections by incentivizing a move somewhere they absolutely want to be and to prepare them, their family, and the facility for that move.
GulfBravoPapa
⭐SuperStar
- Messages
- 1,976
And what do you propose for the severely understaffed facilities or facilities that nobody wants to go to? Five years they get to leave and screw over their co-workers who are already working six day work weeks or commuting two hours to work because they can't afford to live?
You accepted a job saying you were willing to work anywhere. Sucks that you can't go where you want but you knew that coming in. If it's so bad quit and find another job. Staffing of the NAS is the top priority, not you living in your desired area. That's the harsh reality of it.
You accepted a job saying you were willing to work anywhere. Sucks that you can't go where you want but you knew that coming in. If it's so bad quit and find another job. Staffing of the NAS is the top priority, not you living in your desired area. That's the harsh reality of it.
Usm4r1n3
Active Member
- Messages
- 26
5 years post CPC is enough to train two individuals successfully at most 9 and below facilities. I’ve been there and seen it. If you consider training two CPC’s and leaving “screwing over a facility”, then there is a systemic issue in the facilities training logic.
If something is so bad, you would just quit after you saw the glory days in stead of being someone who wanted to get your facility back to a healthy place? Or would you look for a solution? Once again, systemic failure in logic and faith in a broken system.
Maintainvfr
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 528
I don't know if we're talking about the same post, but the one I'm referring to is jdatc's that doesn't say anything about new hires being frozen for a year. Doesn't show any edits either.
If you think NCEPT is almost completely luck of the draw, you don't know enough about it. It's the most transparent release program/policy there's ever been.
Objectively is how things should be looked at when making policies.
Again, I don't want to take the bait and rehash the withdrawn TOL argument on this thread, just go catch up on the other thread. That being said, if someone's going to put in an ERR they should discuss that with their family ahead of time and be ready for the move. A one year penalty box is hardly shunning them considering they have potentially taken a life changing opportunity from someone else, and not even taken advantage of it.
Usm4r1n3
Active Member
- Messages
- 26
I believe you, and agree it is the most transparent. My whole point it to give people a chance to bolster their ERR package with something that works along side NCEPT and supplements the program with new rewards.
Maintainvfr
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 528
I haven't said much on your original proposal because I got here late and a lot of issues have been addressed, but I do think that it would be tough to have two systems working concurrently. What if your five years hits and the facility you wanted go to is fat now? Do we block a slot at that facility in the meantime when they could have gotten someone already from NCEPT?
You said priority, how does that work? Next time the facility is eligible to pick up on NCEPT you're automatically ranked number 1 on their list? What if there's multiple employees with this, how do you decide who goes first? Seniority? Facility level? If you're all level 4s with 6 years in, the facility is just stuck with you, when there's more qualified people on their list? Just because you trained a couple people in Napa, that makes you more deserving than everyone else on the list? Or...
Is there a levels up/down limit? If a facility of 10 cpcs has everyone sign one of these, is the agency supposed to just flood them with trainees? What if the receiving facility doesn't want you? Let's say they all refuse to sign these agreements, what then? Or do they not get a choice?
I'm being critical because any Nationwide program influences all of us. A lot of times when something is better for few, it's because it's worse for many.
Usm4r1n3
Active Member
- Messages
- 26
All are very good questions and are what i'm looking for. Being critical certainly make sure there aren't holes in the proposal, so thank you.
I prefer that collectively, from the bottom up in NATCA we have round tables at the regional level.
How to obtain selection? The agency could count you as "outbound without selection" possibly, if you have served the 5 years and trained two people (or three or four depending on what is feasible) throughout the facility, and count you as able to be selected on each NCEPT panel until you receive a selection. If there were to be a level cap I believe 4 is reasonable. Napa to ORD seems really unreasonable. This program may be of no benefit to level 4 or 5 candidates, so standard NCEPT routes may be the way to go.
Who goes first? Based on order the agreements are received would be my proposal. If enacted (say 2021 for example) those who have been CPC for 5 years receive a grace period and can reach an agreement of a 3 year extension as a grandfather understanding. After 2023 the grace period is gone and everyone gets 5 years regardless.
Where are you ranked? Still to an extent the ATM may rank priority first as a quota then after may rank the standard NCEPT candidates. If you know you are a turd, this program wouldn't be of benefit to you because you can be with 20 with priority to say DEN for example and be ranked at #20 and never get selected. Maybe 75-80% of candidates selected for each panel should be priority, and if taking less than 4 all should be priority selections.
Facilities with low negotiated numbers? I don't have the answer to this one. Maybe a one for one training to release ratio could be a solution.
This program is meant for upgrading facilities only. Downgrades and in-grades ERR's should use the NCEPT program.
I don't understand why - don't you guys ever get new people?
Better qualified doesn't exist. Who do you think determines who's qualified? The ATM? You can't be serious. Just because someone gets sent to a level 5 from the academy means they get to eat a giant dick for the first 10+ years of their career? They might be a great controller, but the one possible way for them to show this (certifying at a higher level place) is the one thing you're refusing to let them do.
If you've put in your time at facility A, I think you should get a chance to try and certify anywhere you want that needs bodies, period. You've earned the chance. You certainly have more of a right to try and certify there than brand new level 5 CPC's who leave in front of their entire facility on the first ERR cycle to the neediest 12 they can find, or the OTS people who were getting offered 12s just a few years ago.
You'd rather make a judgement call that facility level directly correlates to ability to do the job and chance to certify at other facilities of that level (protip: it doesn't). You'd rather watch level 4-7's wait years to move up even a couple levels for a few transfer cycles before even getting a chance at a core 30 while controllers at (most) 10-12's move about the NAS to their hearts content.
We've all heard of the guys who make it at one level 12 and wash out at the 11 they transfer to. We all know there are OTS people who can walk into level 12s and certify without any issues. Who are you to say that low level CPCs should stay low and high should stay high?
If you really want to discourage people from trying to go to places they have no business being at, then make the cost of washing out higher. Make them go back to where they came from at the bottom of that facility's seniority list for all I care. I guarantee you they'd be a lot more careful about where they try to ERR to than this fill-out-as-many-ERR's-as-I-can bullshit that's happening now
Last edited:
Maintainvfr
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 528
First thing, for your last paragraph we're pretty much on the same page. Maybe not bottom of seniority, but I just said up there I agreed with jdatc when he said make them wait a year before putting in another err. I could also be on board with a longer term.
As for the rest of it, I'm still on board with you for most of it. Obviously there's no way for you to know it but I say all the time that there's tons of talented controllers at low levels and tons of shitters at high levels. I went from a 6 to a 12. That being said, just like I don't think it's my job to say if they're qualified I do think letting the facrep and the ATM have a say in who they get out of the people that want to come is valid.
