Updating Facility Staffing Numbers

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.


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.
But everything is removed. They don’t get to decide who can leave and they don’t decide who gets sent to them from the academy. It’s all centralized decisions now.

At least at my facility if we got to 100% we’d have 6 hours of breaks a day probably.
 
But everything is removed. They don’t get to decide who can leave and they don’t decide who gets sent to them from the academy. It’s all centralized decisions now.

At least at my facility if we got to 100% we’d have 6 hours of breaks a day probably.
I understand but they are the ones filling out staffing work book or they are the ones feeding the info to the person who does fill it out. Yes the atm direct power has been diminished but what they do day to day or yearly with BWS and other MOUs in fact directly impacts what decisions are ultimately made, the GM isn't in the weeds of that facility, they trust what the ATM says which trickles down to the supes. It can even impact how the FACREP operates based on what they believe they can fight for an actually accomplish for the work force.

these decisions don't exist in a vacuum.
 
I understand but they are the ones filling out staffing work book or they are the ones feeding the info to the person who does fill it out. Yes the atm direct power has been diminished but what they do day to day or yearly with BWS and other MOUs in fact directly impacts what decisions are ultimately made, the GM isn't in the weeds of that facility, they trust what the ATM says which trickles down to the supes. It can even impact how the FACREP operates based on what they believe they can fight for an actually accomplish for the work force.

these decisions don't exist in a vacuum.
But is there any evidence of a facility seeing they can do it with less and actually reducing their staffing number like was said in that post?
 

These places are getting 804'ed because they're slow as shit. A lot of these tiny TRACONs simply shouldn't exist.

Examples:
Elmira - up/down facility back in 2016 had 60,000 ops with the tower and tracon combined and over 20k lower now. That's about 164 ops a day at it's highest in 6 years.
Binghamton - up/down. 45,000 ops in 2016. Around 10k lower now. 123 ops back in 2016.

There are many contract towers that work more traffic in just the tower than both of those up/downs combined. That's why those facilities are being 804'ed. I bet AVP will get their numbers increased a bit too and be fat staffed from minimal increase in traffic. But I could be wrong, I'd have to look at that huge combination of facilities that did in Michigan or wherever it was and see if the gaining facility increased staffing.
 
no but they are heavily involved in that process. you cant be this stupid?
Nah I just don’t think there is a conspiracy to reduce staffing. I think that the FAA is unable to hit their hiring goals cus they aren’t that good at it

There’s no advantage to the FAA not filling to their budgeted headcount.
 
Fusion with STARs allows for a lot of TRACONs to get 804ed easier. One TRACON can see further and never have to reduce separation. This wasn't possible back in the 60s or whenever most of these places were built. It only makes sense to consolidate.
 
Here's the second edition:

From the Desk of NATCA President Rich Santa

In the second edition of the From the Desk series on staffing, President Santa discusses how our Union will move forward to identify the required fully certified air traffic controller staffing needs for each facility in the National Airspace System (NAS) and collaborate with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to ensure that Congress authorizes sufficient funding to hire and train controllers to meet those staffing targets.

The first edition of this series covered the history and causes that have led to the current staffing deficit, as well as the steps that NATCA and the FAA, through the Collaborative Resource Work Group (CRWG), must take to update staffing targets. To this end, the CRWG has already started a pilot survey that will soon be shared with all facilities’ FacReps and Air Traffic Managers to jointly collect the necessary data.

Participation in the survey will be critical because it will allow the CRWG to set operational staffing targets for each facility based on the most accurate data we can collect. We all know that controllers are stretched thin, with many working six-day weeks and mandatory overtime. It affects our quality of life and our physical and mental health – and it must be addressed to ensure that the NAS remains the safest and most efficient in the world.

Let me be clear – staffing shortages are not a new issue. This has been a battle our Union has fought for years. The FAA remains near a 33-year low for certified professional controllers (CPCs), and there are approximately 1,000 controllers who are eligible to retire. In recent years, we have advocated for several pieces of legislation that have become law, which have revamped the FAA’s hiring processes. Still, there is more that must be done.

Last summer, the NAS experienced an unprecedented number of flight cancellations and delays, as business and leisure air travel returned to pre-COVID levels. These cancellations and delays directly affected hundreds of thousands of travelers on thousands of flights. For those not personally affected, there was unrelenting media coverage that described the “meltdown of the aviation system” for the general public. Controller staffing levels – in addition to convective weather, and airline operational issues– were at the center of this media coverage. The flying public, operators in the NAS, and members of Congress have demanded solutions.

However, shining a light on controller staffing challenges will help us as we continue to make a case to the FAA to update the operational staffing targets. The airline industry and other aviation stakeholders are in our corner and have joined the conversation. At no other time in our recent history has our Union been so closely aligned with so many other aviation stakeholders to achieve the same goal – to establish and transparently report appropriate operational staffing targets, which we believe will result in increased controller staffing.

We have convinced the FAA to increase controller hiring in FY23 from 1,000 to 1,500 and increase it to 1,800 in FY24. Working with the FAA we will continue to update and refine the priority placement tool to ensure we have the right number of controllers in the right place.

In discussion with senior leadership of the FAA, we have secured more funding for local training support, funding for more tower simulators, and investing and building more capacity at the air traffic academy.

At every opportunity we are correcting the false narrative that controller staffing is at 103 percent and ensuring that there is more accurate reporting of the cause delays in the NAS.

Although the President will make the final recommendation to Congress for FAA funding as part of his annual budget request, and Congress will authorize and appropriate the funds as it sees fit, our Union, through the CRWG, is now in the position to make sure that the operational staffing targets reflect the true and accurate needs of each facility and adequately address the staffing shortages.

In the final edition of this series, President Santa will discuss the Union’s legislative strategy regarding the upcoming conversation about FAA Reauthorization and appropriations, as it relates to controller staffing.
 
Here's the second edition:

From the Desk of NATCA President Rich Santa

In the second edition of the From the Desk series on staffing, President Santa discusses how our Union will move forward to identify the required fully certified air traffic controller staffing needs for each facility in the National Airspace System (NAS) and collaborate with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to ensure that Congress authorizes sufficient funding to hire and train controllers to meet those staffing targets.

The first edition of this series covered the history and causes that have led to the current staffing deficit, as well as the steps that NATCA and the FAA, through the Collaborative Resource Work Group (CRWG), must take to update staffing targets. To this end, the CRWG has already started a pilot survey that will soon be shared with all facilities’ FacReps and Air Traffic Managers to jointly collect the necessary data.

Participation in the survey will be critical because it will allow the CRWG to set operational staffing targets for each facility based on the most accurate data we can collect. We all know that controllers are stretched thin, with many working six-day weeks and mandatory overtime. It affects our quality of life and our physical and mental health – and it must be addressed to ensure that the NAS remains the safest and most efficient in the world.

Let me be clear – staffing shortages are not a new issue. This has been a battle our Union has fought for years. The FAA remains near a 33-year low for certified professional controllers (CPCs), and there are approximately 1,000 controllers who are eligible to retire. In recent years, we have advocated for several pieces of legislation that have become law, which have revamped the FAA’s hiring processes. Still, there is more that must be done.

Last summer, the NAS experienced an unprecedented number of flight cancellations and delays, as business and leisure air travel returned to pre-COVID levels. These cancellations and delays directly affected hundreds of thousands of travelers on thousands of flights. For those not personally affected, there was unrelenting media coverage that described the “meltdown of the aviation system” for the general public. Controller staffing levels – in addition to convective weather, and airline operational issues– were at the center of this media coverage. The flying public, operators in the NAS, and members of Congress have demanded solutions.

However, shining a light on controller staffing challenges will help us as we continue to make a case to the FAA to update the operational staffing targets. The airline industry and other aviation stakeholders are in our corner and have joined the conversation. At no other time in our recent history has our Union been so closely aligned with so many other aviation stakeholders to achieve the same goal – to establish and transparently report appropriate operational staffing targets, which we believe will result in increased controller staffing.

We have convinced the FAA to increase controller hiring in FY23 from 1,000 to 1,500 and increase it to 1,800 in FY24. Working with the FAA we will continue to update and refine the priority placement tool to ensure we have the right number of controllers in the right place.

In discussion with senior leadership of the FAA, we have secured more funding for local training support, funding for more tower simulators, and investing and building more capacity at the air traffic academy.

At every opportunity we are correcting the false narrative that controller staffing is at 103 percent and ensuring that there is more accurate reporting of the cause delays in the NAS.

Although the President will make the final recommendation to Congress for FAA funding as part of his annual budget request, and Congress will authorize and appropriate the funds as it sees fit, our Union, through the CRWG, is now in the position to make sure that the operational staffing targets reflect the true and accurate needs of each facility and adequately address the staffing shortages.

In the final edition of this series, President Santa will discuss the Union’s legislative strategy regarding the upcoming conversation about FAA Reauthorization and appropriations, as it relates to controller staffing.
We will reduce NATCA details and return more professional controllers to the floor
 
Why not go back to regional placement? Who cares about all the hiring? Sure we’ll see more cpcs hopefully but the majority of people will still want to move the minute they check out. So we hire more people but majority of places will see staffing issues and wonder why..
 
Why not go back to regional placement? Who cares about all the hiring? Sure we’ll see more cpcs hopefully but the majority of people will still want to move the minute they check out. So we hire more people but majority of places will see staffing issues and wonder why..

I know I'm beating a dead horse because I bring it up every time staffing is talked about but I just don't understand why N90 can get a NYC citizen bid for hiring yet the FAA doesn't do the same for all these smaller towers/tracons that most people don't want to be at. Put job offers out and I'm sure locals will apply. Will they move for money? Probably. But being in your hometown near family and friends is enticing and would probably keep a lot of people at that facility rather than the constant certify and leave that goes on now.
 
We are 100% the lost generation of controllers. Nothing will go our way. It will be awesome 15 years from now. Right when I retire.
Not sure if it will be better in 15 years. N90 has been “on the verge of collapse” for well over 15 years. 15 years ago movement was easier and staffing was better but I think it’s really hard for them to get back to that unless there are mass consolidations.
 
I just don't understand why N90 can get a NYC citizen bid for hiring yet the FAA doesn't do the same for all these smaller towers/tracons
That was literally an Act of Congress. 49 USC 44506(f)(1)(C). (The general rule, at (f)(1)(B)(iii), is that they have to hire individuals "who apply under a vacancy announcement recruiting from all United States citizens.")

In this subparagraph the term “covered facility” means a radar facility with at least 1,000,000 operations annually that is located in a metropolitan statistical area (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget) with a population estimate by the Bureau of the Census of more than 15,000,000 (as of July 1, 2016).

There's only one such metro statistical area in the entire US, and it's NYC. In order for the FAA to do local bids Congress would have to change the law.

I think they should, mind you, but there's your answer for the moment.
 
Back
Top Bottom