Rich Santa - Accomplishments, FAA Reauthorization, and Pay. Focus on the Issues!

[Nothanks]

Nick has a plan to address the cap which would involve moving 2152 out of the job series that is subject to the cap. JD hasn’t even mentioned it on his website but he’s been nonexistent for a while anyway.

It’s because JD has no idea how to get any of this done

 

[blarg]

I’m not saying upper facilities with people at the cap aren’t getting screwed to a degree. But apparently this cap is gonna take an act of congress, so forget that from happening. So what do we do? Work on raising what we can, as much as we can, as I laid out. People making $250k base with no OT is a ok spot to be, but screwing those stuck at a 6 making 1/3 of that means turnover and quitting.. So play in the rules we have. What about the idea that everyone is at max pay, but we turn to time in agency bonuses? Is that a complaint?

As I said above, a controller once told me that progress means some will not benefit as much as others. And that’s ok. If my idea helps 90% of controllers (which it probably helps more), the last 10% can complain and bitch all they want, but a huge bonus check can help them wipe away some of that pain. We cannot decide to do nothing if cap issue cannot be fixed. Raise all boats across the board, and award those at the top with a healthy bonus. Waiting for a cap fix isn’t the answer if we can do something NOW.

I never said we shouldn't do something else now as well. You guys keep completely misinterpreting what I'm talking about.

Yes we all need a raise. Yes the cap needs fixing. You and that other guy keep making it sound like the cap isn't a big deal and not something to worry about (or not worth trying), but it is. We need to work on both things. I never said don't do anything until the cap is fixed.
\
NATCA national has pretty much completely ignored dealing with the cap as far as I can tell. I don't recall seeing them talk about it... literally ever I think. Devine mentioned it in one of his YT videos. I think that's the only time I have EVER seen the union talk about it at all in public.

 

[Phanatical]

This is his problem. full stop. Terrible campaign.

Or just be mad that it has been addressed in some fashion by a candidate?

 

[32andBelow]

Or just be mad that it has been addressed in some fashion by a candidate?

He hasn’t addressed it. Unless he puts a plan out for everyone to watch and read then I have nothing to go off of.

I never said we shouldn't do something else now as well. You guys keep completely misinterpreting what I'm talking about.

Yes we all need a raise. Yes the cap needs fixing. You and that other guy keep making it sound like the cap isn't a big deal and not something to worry about (or not worth trying), but it is. We need to work on both things. I never said don't do anything until the cap is fixed.
\
NATCA national has pretty much completely ignored dealing with the cap as far as I can tell. I don't recall seeing them talk about it... literally ever I think. Devine mentioned it in one of his YT videos. I think that's the only time I have EVER seen the union talk about it at all in public.

We are more saying don’t delay or put an entire raise in jeopardy if the cap is too big of an issue. But yes they should work to move the cap.

 

[LennyA21]

Or just be mad that it has been addressed in some fashion by a candidate?

Yeah he can’t just say oh im making you not 2152. What’s the plan?

I saw a town hall recently that Jamaal has no idea how contract negotiations work and he was on the contract team. So I doubt these guys have any idea.

 

[32andBelow]

 

[HurryUpandWait]

oof

 

[LennyA21]

So Jamaal thought the contract would go to the president appointed FLRA as opposed to a 3 person panel that Natca gets to put someone on. Those are two very very different things and would yield very very different results. How on earth did he got on the contract team and not know that

 

[CaptainObvious]

It’s not going to 70% overnight. These are numbers they are going to use to hire to. It doesn’t say anything about NCEPT in faa reauth. Changing NCEPT is different

Well if the target number is new, and higher, and our staffing is still the same, it’s a lower percentage of the new number. So how is it not changing overnight

Nick has a plan to address the cap which would involve moving 2152 out of the job series that is subject to the cap. JD hasn’t even mentioned it on his website but he’s been nonexistent for a while anyway.

Moving it to what though

 

[SquawkHijack]

If they keep using the National average NCEPT could survive.

I mentioned the possibility of this in another thread and got called an idiot…

Well if the target number is new, and higher, and our staffing is still the same, it’s a lower percentage of the new number. So how is it not changing overnight

Because NCEPT could go back to using the national average instead of the % to target number like we’ve seen. If our target number increases and staffing stays the same, that will always result in national average decrease. That wouldn’t be impossible to negotiate. Honestly I’d be okay with them not changing it and have no movements for like a year (except the priority release MOU facs) let a bunch of certs and hiring happen and then switch to the national average and start a healthier, steady stream of releases. Would be better than what we’ve had going on.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Because NCEPT could go back to using the national average instead of the % to target number like we’ve seen. If our target number increases and staffing stays the same, that will always result in national average decrease. That wouldn’t be impossible to negotiate. Honestly I’d be okay with them not changing it and have no movements for like a year (except the priority release MOU facs) let a bunch of certs and hiring happen and then switch to the national average and start a healthier, steady stream of releases. Would be better than what we’ve had going on.

I agree. The one I responded to was saying our staffing wouldn’t decrease overnight

 

[ABACUS]

Because NCEPT could go back to using the national average instead of the % to target number like we’ve seen. If our target number increases and staffing stays the same, that will always result in national average decrease. That wouldn’t be impossible to negotiate. Honestly I’d be okay with them not changing it and have no movements for like a year (except the priority release MOU facs) let a bunch of certs and hiring happen and then switch to the national average and start a healthier, steady stream of releases. Would be better than what we’ve had going on.

F that. The union should always promote movement. It’s not our fault the FAA can’t staff.

 

[echster]

Nick has a plan to address the cap which would involve moving 2152 out of the job series that is subject to the cap. JD hasn’t even mentioned it on his website but he’s been nonexistent for a while anyway.

There's blowing smoke up someone's ass and then there's outright lying. I'll leave it to others to figure it out for themselves but I know which option I choose.

49 U.S. Code 40122 (c). Pay Restriction: No officer or employee of the Administration may receive an annual rate of basic pay in excess of the annual rate of basic pay payable to the Administrator.

Nick doesn't have a plan to eliminate the pay cap; Nick has never had a plan to eliminate the pay cap; Nick is not a member of Congress and has zero ability to change federal law.

I suppose there could be a negotiation for higher differentials, e.g., Saturday/Sunday premium, Holiday pay, night differential, etc. But it's always important to keep in mind that differentials do NOT count towards an employee's High-3... so they're practically meaningless when you work in a job with mandatory retirement and a limited number of years to reach peak earning potential.

There's nothing wrong with listening to what others have to say. But there is something wrong with blindly believing what others say without stopping to think for yourself.

 

[Dolan]

So Jamaal thought the contract would go to the president appointed FLRA as opposed to a 3 person panel that Natca gets to put someone on. Those are two very very different things and would yield very very different results. How on earth did he got on the contract team and not know that

Seriously, how on earth did he get that impression in his position in the union.... That's completely insane

 

[FightingIrish2012]

Seriously, how on earth did he get that impression in his position in the union.... That's completely insane

Trish Gilbert

 

[KP-ATC]

Trish Gilbert

She is a different kind of train wreck - glad she is mostly gone.

 

[SquawkHijack]

F that. The union should always promote movement. It’s not our fault the FAA can’t staff.

I agree, but with the last forty years in mind what exactly would be your recommendation? We all sit with our thumbs up our asses and continue to wait for the Union to “promote movement?”

 

[Nothanks]

I agree, but with the last forty years in mind what exactly would be your recommendation? We all sit with our thumbs up our asses and continue to wait for the Union to “promote movement?”

The union does promote movement ?

I’m not sure people give a fuck about anyone but themselves. Cry about being short staffed but also let everyone move !

 

[SquawkHijack]

The union does promote movement ?

I’m not sure people give a fuck about anyone but themselves. Cry about being short staffed but also let everyone move !

Bear in mind, NATCA has “collaborated” to make NCEPT as broken as it is now. An example being implementing the non-waiverable 85% to target release threshold when we used to use the national average. Yet OSs and other prospective management plebs get staffing deviations? Are we gonna pretend like there aren’t dozens taking sup gigs because NCEPT is collaboratively useless?

And I’m not saying to “let everyone move.” In prior comments I proposed an idea to not use the national average with CRWG numbers for a one year pause on movements in hopes to create a steady stream (not a surge) of them after, which was something I thought of with EVERYONE in mind. So with that part said, kindly frigg off with your “but also” energy.

 

[ManBearPig]

Bear in mind, NATCA has “collaborated” to make NCEPT as broken as it is now. An example being implementing the non-waiverable 85% to target release threshold when we used to use the national average. Yet OSs and other prospective management plebs get staffing deviations? Are we gonna pretend like there aren’t dozens taking sup gigs because NCEPT is collaboratively useless?

And I’m not saying to “let everyone move.” In prior comments I proposed an idea to not use the national average with CRWG numbers for a one year pause on movements in hopes to create a steady stream (not a surge) of them after, which was something I thought of with EVERYONE in mind. So with that part said, kindly frigg off with your “but also” energy.

OS's getting deviations is bullshit. Fight all of them.

The first couple of NCEPTs were actually kinda wild with movement. Something like 320 moved each panel.