Heads not in the sand. Just asking what you’re talking about, so I’m aware.
So this person moved legally through ncept?
Thoughts on a114 having to report to work?
- Thread starter Phillytroll69
- Start date
So this person moved legally through ncept?
Soul_Controller
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 499
May or may not be true, but management has to be in on a pencil whipping and they have no real incentive for that.
Mike Kilo
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 3,030
Not “management” true but we all know sups and are still friends with them, no? It’s not like they stop having any interactions with them. The age of “if you move to management you’re dead to us” is gone. It’s a new age where I support people doing what they need to get where they need to or want to.
Yup, I didn’t say they broke any rules. Just saying it’s shitty to block another member when you know full well you won’t be on the boards after you certify. Block someone and then add a person who won’t be there full time and counts against their numbers. I know it’s an ATMs duty to choose (since that’s your next argument) but we all know they take NATCA’s input seriously or in a lot of cases let the FacRep rank everyone themselves.
This last part
If you have a halfway competent rep they have serious pull when it comes to ranking list if not flat out ranking everyone themselves.
To act like there isn't a good ole boys club when it comes to certain individuals transferring because of who they know is ridiculous. Hell even if you're tight with supervisors or an ATM or something you can get your number pulled over others.
On a personal level use it to your advantage and get what you need cause the FAA doesn't care about you. On a professional level stuff needs to change in relation to transfers, term limits on Art 114 positions, and a whole lot of other stuff
Expectvectors24
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 71
There is not a way you’re this disconnected and serious about it. Yes sure I would like to see more A114s from small level facilities.
bravounite33
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 197
I have no idea who this is about and frankly don't care but I will say the situation itself sucks, sure, but isn't it just coincidence that they got a full-time gig just after certifying in Houston? I mean NCEPT itself takes months and then I would be surprised if they certified in less than a year (maybe at IAH or HOU but definitely not at I90 or ZHU). And these NATCA postings get done in a month or two, not a year so no way they knew about a full-time gig opening up unless they were counting on a guy leaving/retiring or something. Sure it sucks to lose someone to that but it's no different to getting someone just checked out and they're gone on NCEPT within 6 months to some other place.
At least with that though, they are off your facilities books. I agree that A114 full-time guys need to at least not count against your facility until they are off that detail. The FAA does the same type things with temporary TMCs and Sups. It's stupid and just hiding staffing issues.
- Messages
- 1,519
- Facility
- JNU Juneau Tower
So the safety person that got their job by dating a vp creates some huge leverage? Please explain more. There should be term limits so everyone has a chance to get involved.
In solidarirty
Seems like your are mad about ncept and transferring the anger from that to a114 this week? Less than 1% of the workforce is a114. The agency has deviated more than 1% every panel for sups and other nonsense. You should have really gotten on some of these town halls and expressed your points of view.
Term limits ? There isn’t a standard term to begin with ? If someone isn’t doing a good job they should be removed. Simple
Expectvectors24
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 71
Less than 1% of the workforce is A114 but how does everyone know someone who is a A114. We tried to throw supes in the mix to redirect that anger but it didn’t work, because supes do more than these computer people.
You’re right there is anger, my question is WHY is there anger? Is everyone here just stupid or is there a deeper issue causing the anger?
Soul_Controller
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 499
Air traffic isn't that spread out. All it takes is one person gone from every center and that means half the workforce has been affected by 114. Throw in supertracons and you have a huge percentage of the workforce that knows like 20 people.
Simple math. That’s how
- Messages
- 1,519
- Facility
- JNU Juneau Tower
I mean you shouldn't get into a spot let's say in DC, and then retire in 20 years while earning good time etc. If you aren't talking to planes or doing shift work for over 5 years why do the favorites get the same benefits as the peons
Expectvectors24
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 71
You didn’t address my main question. Why is there anger amongst the ranks?
Sassyquatch
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 241
Because my low level facility is working 6 day work weeks while a controller on A114 hasn't worked traffic since covid. I've been in the FAA for almost 5 years, fully certified for over 2, and just met this person recently at a union meeting that only 15% of the local membership could attend. They're in the top 5 in seniority and are one of the highest paid controllers at our facility. This person does not want to come back and work traffic but if they did it would help us TREMENDOUSLY. Local NATCA is okay with them not coming back, stating that this person would not certify on current traffic if they came back. They are being counted against us in staffing, preventing us from getting previous exp applicants, but will also count for staffing when we release someone to ncept. This person has about 15 more years until they reach 56. I fully anticipate them staying until the very last day because why wouldn't they?
I'm not against A114, I'm against full-time A114 details that allow controllers to work from home and never work traffic for years on end while their home facility is working on skeleton crews, 6 day work weeks, and training constantly.
Mike Kilo
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 3,030
For the A114 that aren’t in DC full time they should be made to join the six day work weeks. No reason (that can see) they can’t help out if the rest of the facility is already working them. Maybe even then. How often does Natca pay for them to go back home if they are in DC full time?
Sassyquatch
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 241
No idea, but the person on A114 at my facility is not in DC. They live within an hour away from our facility but just work from home.
Mike Kilo
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 3,030
They should be in that 6 day work week for sure then. Stay current. Work OT. Help coworkers out.
PooseMaGoose
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 434
The number one thing that would solve practically every gripe overnight is to provide the administrative mechanism that would treat 114s like a guardsman who just left for a 12 month deployment, or somebody who is going to be medically incapacitated for a long time. Getting an individual off the facility numbers isn’t a new concept and it’s beyond me why it isn’t the case already.
Expectvectors24
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 71
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT
SquawkHijack
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 651
Maybe that’s because the 114 scammers (as dismal as the number may be) don’t contribute to the agency at all let alone their facility. I’d say the folks that come to work and plug in 10 hours a day, 6 days a week and actually do their job have a right to criticize those who’ve worked from home for years and have to endure such miserable paid occasional travel for a work group… I would also argue the gain is definitely emotional because the Union doesn’t help US at all. Since when the fuck is it our job to help the Union WE pay to represent US? You sound like one of the shady NATCA simps that LIVES to attend convention.
Last edited:
