Updating Facility Staffing Numbers

U have been on your facilities numbers for 4 years and haven’t been there because you have been on a detail?
I am on a training detail at the facility. I am recallable but not counted for staffing. Our facility has probably close to 20 people on local and national details. These people are counted towards our facilities staffing number however, they aren't used for staffing.
 
I am on a training detail at the facility. I am recallable but not counted for staffing. Our facility has probably close to 20 people on local and national details. These people are counted towards our facilities staffing number however, they aren't used for staffing.
That’s bullshit. Not your situation if you aren’t counted for staffing. But in no way should controllers who aren’t CONTROLLING be counted as staffing if they are in a detail out of the building. That’s some FAA bullshit
 
I am on a training detail at the facility. I am recallable but not counted for staffing. Our facility has probably close to 20 people on local and national details. These people are counted towards our facilities staffing number however, they aren't used for staffing.
Wait r u Jamaal? ?

I appreciate all that you do for our Union, but agree with the other guy, details should not be counted for staffing when the detail is longer than 6 months or something.
 
Wait r u Jamaal? ?

I appreciate all that you do for our Union, but agree with the other guy, details should not be counted for staffing when the detail is longer than 6 months or something.
Lol not Jamaal. I was on a local training detail for my area at PCT, not a national detail
 
Had a discussion at work today about the target percentages. It’s wild that ONLY 8s and 9s can potentially take up to 100% with round 2…

This effectively fucks over the 10-12s when they can only take up to the national average.

4-7 has the academy feeder and the vast majority of prior experience placements. With the exception of enroute academy grads, 10-12s rely on NCEPT.
We've had this discussion before as well at my facility. 8's and below should be academy feeders so ppl at poorly staffed facilities like my 7 can get to where they want to go.
 
For roughly 3 billion/year they could double the air traffic controller count, everyone could move to where they'd like, staffing issues would be non-existent, and the NAS would be safer.
 
For roughly 3 billion/year they could double the air traffic controller count, everyone could move to where they'd like, staffing issues would be non-existent, and the NAS would be safer.
Lmao they can’t staff the current allowed number ???

Also
iT’S IlLeGaL FoR ThE FaA To hIrE LoCaLlY

The Air Traffic Organization (ATO) has been approved the use of a limited On-the-Spot (OTS) hiring authority to fill critical Airway Transportation System Specialists (ATSS/2101) positions in the Technical Operations Services (Tech Ops). This excepted authority is used to non-competitively appoint qualified individuals at any of the hard- to-fill duty locations identified below.
Candidates must meet the minimum requirements to be considered for an ATSS position. This must include the following:
 
Last edited:
Lmao they can’t staff the current allowed number ???

Also
iT’S IlLeGaL FoR ThE FaA To hIrE LoCaLlY

The Air Traffic Organization (ATO) has been approved the use of a limited On-the-Spot (OTS) hiring authority to fill critical Airway Transportation System Specialists (ATSS/2101) positions in the Technical Operations Services (Tech Ops). This excepted authority is used to non-competitively appoint qualified individuals at any of the hard- to-fill duty locations identified below.
Candidates must meet the minimum requirements to be considered for an ATSS position. This must include the following:

The legal problem isn't hiring to specific facilities, the federal government does that all the time.

The problem is that you aren't supposed to hire based on the applicant's location since that has jack shit to do with whether or not they can do the job.
 
The legal problem isn't hiring to specific facilities, the federal government does that all the time.

The problem is that you aren't supposed to hire based on the applicant's location since that has jack shit to do with whether or not they can do the job.
Who said to hire based on their location? Just open up direct bids to hard to staff places. Chances are people from those places would be most likely to apply
 
Who said to hire based on their location? Just open up direct bids to hard to staff places. Chances are people from those places would be most likely to apply
Just to find out there are thousands of people that want a job no matter where it's at? Our job pays too much and has too low a bar of entry to stop tons of people from applying, no matter the location.
 
Just to find out there are thousands of people that want a job no matter where it's at? Our job pays too much and has too low a bar of entry to stop tons of people from applying, no matter the location.
So you set the bar higher. Advertise it needing specific experience like the DoD and every other federal agency do. Use it to fill however many vacancies you need filled. Make hiring competitive, hire enough people to staff to 100%. Where’s the problem? You enjoy working 6 day work weeks?
 
So you set the bar higher. Advertise it needing specific experience like the DoD and every other federal agency do. Use it to fill however many vacancies you need filled. Make hiring competitive, hire enough people to staff to 100%. Where’s the problem? You enjoy working 6 day work weeks?
That’s all great.but in the end it’s our managers bosses that need to step up to the plate and request higher hiring numbers from congress. Without those higher numbers 50% of people will wash out out of the 1500 a year and only 750 typically make it to controlling planes on average. At that rate everything will be painfully slow. Only other option would be to shut down all level 5-6 towers, contract them out and move controllers up from there across the nation.
 
I forget what I was thinking about the other day but it was something along the lines of: say your area or tower is super busy, down the tubes, but you guys manage to pull it out and separate everybody and the world keeps turning. This tells management that it's possible to run those numbers with that short of staff, so there is no need to staff more. Same goes in training, you don't have trainees working 5 or 6 aircraft, you want to see what they can do with 15-20 aircraft, so you constantly put them in situations that force them to become as efficient as possible. It's a negative feedback loop where we ultimately make better and better controllers (at least that's the hope) because they have to be prepared to work that amount of traffic when staffing dictates it. It's always worst-case scenario training which manifests into just normal everyday traffic training, it's really a trip.
 
I forget what I was thinking about the other day but it was something along the lines of: say your area or tower is super busy, down the tubes, but you guys manage to pull it out and separate everybody and the world keeps turning. This tells management that it's possible to run those numbers with that short of staff, so there is no need to staff more. Same goes in training, you don't have trainees working 5 or 6 aircraft, you want to see what they can do with 15-20 aircraft, so you constantly put them in situations that force them to become as efficient as possible. It's a negative feedback loop where we ultimately make better and better controllers (at least that's the hope) because they have to be prepared to work that amount of traffic when staffing dictates it. It's always worst-case scenario training which manifests into just normal everyday traffic training, it's really a trip.
It makes no sense cus it’s not a private business there no incentive to reduce headcount. Also the facility sups even the atm has nothing to do with staffing
 
It makes no sense cus it’s not a private business there no incentive to reduce headcount. Also the facility sups even the atm has nothing to do with staffing
If they can reduce staffing numbers they effectively reduce OT $ spending and then get a bonus at the end of the year
 
It makes no sense cus it’s not a private business there no incentive to reduce headcount. Also the facility sups even the atm has nothing to do with staffing
this lacks context. there is also no incentive to keep bodies. The ATM when asked has everything to do with staffing along with the FACREP, both of them had to made the decision pre-ncept to determine what their numbers should be. This was based on positions to be certified on, how much the facility uses those positions, how much overtime was used or not used to staff those positions. so while their day to day decisions might not directly come while thinking of the staffing, historical data on open positions in combination with overtime will provide context on what staffing numbers should be. Also, determines how many scopes shall be maintained by tech ops. Lets say a small facility has 3 physical radar positions which translates to 3 trained positions in the SOP and training order and how the BWS is negotiated each year. They normally combine to one because its slow, and only ever split to one other if its ever busy and hardly ever if at all opens to the 3rd. There can be serious justification to remove that position from tech ops work load and the defined position in the SOP/Training order. it will in effect reduce staffing requirements, training time, overtime needed etc etc. So while their day to day decisions don't involve the staffing numbers they can and will impact the numbers needed down the road at some point maybe even including possible 804. so when a controller doesn't want to split it off or does not come back from break to help, or when a manager says suck it up i don't have the bodies, all of that actually matters.

If they can reduce staffing numbers they effectively reduce OT $ spending and then get a bonus at the end of the year
their bonus DOES NOT come from how much OT they dont spend. this is such horse shit. yes the ATM might not want to fight that battle with their higher ups, its just one more way they dont get noticed, especially if the facility has had 3 near mid airs in the last 6 months, they just might not want to be noticed for going over the OT budget also, in effect making them look like they have it under control. its politics not money saving.
 
their bonus DOES NOT come from how much OT they dont spend. this is such horse shit. yes the ATM might not want to fight that battle with their higher ups, its just one more way they dont get noticed, especially if the facility has had 3 near mid airs in the last 6 months, they just might not want to be noticed for going over the OT budget also, in effect making them look like they have it under control. its politics not money saving.

I feel like my facility and many don't have a budget any more lol. My last facility tracked every time OT got used. Here it's basically a blank check and I never hear anyone questioning why we used OT because it's damn near every day.
 
Back
Top Bottom