Does anyone out there know how they actually calculate the projected losses column for a given facility? Are they taking average controller age into account or retirement eligibility or something? Because you can have 2 identical facilities, with identical staffing have wildly different projected retirements and other losses. Let's use A80 and C90 for an example. As of the revised PPT from the most recent ncept panel, A80 has a CPC target of 102 and has AOB staffing of 69.6% with C90's target being 100 at 70% staffed. A80's projected losses are 5.6 while C90 has 11.1, basically double?
Another example: M98 with 43/55 (78.2%) AOB/10.0 projected lossed and DFW with 49/57 (86%) AOB/2.9 losses. M98 has 6 less CPC's yet has 3.5x more projected retirements.
I bring it up because you have lower level places like YIP, VGT, TOA, and others with a projected retirement column of 0.1 while some of their counterparts like TVC and SUS have 1.0 in the column. When your target is 11-13 CPCs like many of these small places, that's a nearly 10% difference in their projected to target calculations which could be the difference in releasing or not.
Edit: Never mind, I found the answer.
Projected Retirements and Other Losses (Finance): Number of retirements and other losses (ROL) as determined by Finance’s 3 year outlook that will occur during the facility training time. Starting in FY2021, this calculation was adjusted to consider known mandatory retirements within the fiscal year. If the known mandatory retirements for a facility is greater than the loss projected by Finance, then the sum of the known mandatory retirements is used.
Does anyone out there know how they actually calculate the projected losses column for a given facility? Are they taking average controller age into account or retirement eligibility or something? Because you can have 2 identical facilities, with identical staffing have wildly different projected retirements and other losses. Let's use A80 and C90 for an example. As of the revised PPT from the most recent ncept panel, A80 has a CPC target of 102 and has AOB staffing of 69.6% with C90's target being 100 at 70% staffed. A80's projected losses are 5.6 while C90 has 11.1, basically double?
Another example: M98 with 43/55 (78.2%) AOB/10.0 projected lossed and DFW with 49/57 (86%) AOB/2.9 losses. M98 has 6 less CPC's yet has 3.5x more projected retirements.
I bring it up because you have lower level places like YIP, VGT, TOA, and others with a projected retirement column of 0.1 while some of their counterparts like TVC and SUS have 1.0 in the column. When your target is 11-13 CPCs like many of these small places, that's a nearly 10% difference in their projected to target calculations which could be the difference in releasing or not.
Edit: Never mind, I found the answer.
Projected Retirements and Other Losses (Finance): Number of retirements and other losses (ROL) as determined by Finance’s 3 year outlook that will occur during the facility training time. Starting in FY2021, this calculation was adjusted to consider known mandatory retirements within the fiscal year. If the known mandatory retirements for a facility is greater than the loss projected by Finance, then the sum of the known mandatory retirements is used.
Interesting! We show .5 in that column with nobody within 7 years of retirement and when we asked about it were told it also considers potential resignations, as we had 1 quit last year. I haven’t seen that in writing anywhere, but was told by the fac rep that’s what the ATM told him when he asked about it.
Interesting! We show .5 in that column with nobody within 7 years of retirement and when we asked about it were told it also considers potential resignations, as we had 1 quit last year. I haven’t seen that in writing anywhere, but was told by the fac rep that’s what the ATM told him when he asked about it.
That’s a number autocalculated by Finance. Your ATM has no say in it.
That’s a number autocalculated by Finance. Your ATM has no say in it.
I thought NATCA touted in an email within the last few months that they have successfully removed finance from the FAA’s staffing projections? Or was that a dream?
I thought NATCA touted in an email within the last few months that they have successfully removed finance from the FAA’s staffing projections? Or was that a dream?
The FAA and NATCA had come up with the CRWG numbers which removed finance from the equation. Acting FAA Administrator Billy Nolen then refused to approve it after every facility sent in their paperwork and the CRWG came up with new numbers. He has since stepped down so we'll see if Polly does anything. But yes, NATCA had some large telecons and it seemed like a big win and then the FAA changed their minds.
One issue with finance being a part of the numbers is that staffing wasn't just you're target is 100. It could be a range from 90-110 so as long as you were at 90 you were technically staffed by finances reasoning (or at least that was how I took it from one of the telecons.)
There is a bill that has passed the Senate or the House that forces the FAA to increase staffing that had overwhelming support from both Democrats and Republicans but I haven't seen traction recently probably due to the shutdown stuff.
The FAA and NATCA had come up with the CRWG numbers which removed finance from the equation. Acting FAA Administrator Billy Nolen then refused to approve it after every facility sent in their paperwork and the CRWG came up with new numbers. He has since stepped down so we'll see if Polly does anything. But yes, NATCA had some large telecons and it seemed like a big win and then the FAA changed their minds.
One issue with finance being a part of the numbers is that staffing wasn't just you're target is 100. It could be a range from 90-110 so as long as you were at 90 you were technically staffed by finances reasoning (or at least that was how I took it from one of the telecons.)
There is a bill that has passed the Senate or the House that forces the FAA to increase staffing that had overwhelming support from both Democrats and Republicans but I haven't seen traction recently probably due to the shutdown stuff.
Got ya. I thought I was living in a nightmare.
It’s strange for the union to come out with a big W email when the time didn’t expire and it was not a W. It was only an idea on a spreadsheet.
At my low level shit hole, our staffing number on CRWG targets increased by about 50% of our current 100% number. This makes no sense because our current 100% number we would be tripping over people. We consistently have positions combined or not even open for years at a time because nobody is certified on them. If these positions were removed, this number could and should reduce the 100% staffing number on current staffing and CRWG projections.
I was not apart of the telecons or the decision making behind the scenes made by my FACREP or ATM to provide such bogus numbers for this dreamland fairy tail staffing number but it’s ridiculous to say the least. I am glad the union is actually taking notice and trying to change staffing for the better but the CRWG numbers make no sense in some places.
Even with the CWRG we only got 2 added on when we requested 13 I think.
Requested 13? You weren't supposed to request bodies, you were supposed to detail where you used the bodies/how many positions were open.
What's your current Target number? If you are at 20 and requested 13 and got 2...that's a huge difference. If you're a big Z and went from 220 to 222 instead of 233?
I will say that the "projected losses" number is an actuarial thing which accounts not only for people at the facility who are known to be aging out, but also the (on average) 0.35 people who will just up and quit in the next year, 0.10 people who will lose their medical, 0.05 people who will get hit by a bus on the way in to work, etc. That number I don't have a problem with. It's the logic of "your target is 100 CPCs, ergo 90 bodies (CPCs and trainees combined) is 100% staffed" that is more suspect.
The FAA and NATCA had come up with the CRWG numbers which removed finance from the equation. Acting FAA Administrator Billy Nolen then refused to approve it after every facility sent in their paperwork and the CRWG came up with new numbers. He has since stepped down so we'll see if Polly does anything. But yes, NATCA had some large telecons and it seemed like a big win and then the FAA changed their minds.
One issue with finance being a part of the numbers is that staffing wasn't just you're target is 100. It could be a range from 90-110 so as long as you were at 90 you were technically staffed by finances reasoning (or at least that was how I took it from one of the telecons.)
There is a bill that has passed the Senate or the House that forces the FAA to increase staffing that had overwhelming support from both Democrats and Republicans but I haven't seen traction recently probably due to the shutdown stuff.
Only problem with CWRG is that it’s avoiding the root cause of our staffing issue. Knowing how many people you need is like 5% of the problem here. Actually contributing assets and time toward hiring more people is the remaining 95%.
If we can’t hire enough people, conducting a willy-nilly staffing audit is a lateral move at this point in time…
Only problem with CWRG is that it’s avoiding the root cause of our staffing issue. Knowing how many people you need is like 5% of the problem here. Actually contributing assets and time toward hiring more people is the remaining 95%.
If we can’t hire enough people, conducting a willy-nilly staffing audit is a lateral move at this point in time…
Read the FAA Reauthorization Bill NATCA is pushing.