The key fact to the contract!!!

rogersjf Trusted Contributor New Jersey

Reading all the articles and being honest, not understand all of it i have taken one thing away from the article which could affect a lot of facilities (i think) and the so called "pay raise" Due to the fact i am not hired yet i really have no bias for either for or against, because i will get what i get.

The most important thing hidden in this contract is not in a dollar amount it is Complexity-Based Facility Pay Levels. Which is calculated by

-----
Dt = 1+ (Cav2 / Cav1)
Dt x Wav1 = Traffic Count Index

where:
Dt is the sustained traffic index
Cav1 is the average unweighted hourly count for the busiest 1,830 hours
Cav2 is the average unweighted hourly count for the second busiest 1,830 hours
Wav1 is the modified average weighted hourly count for the busiest 1,830 hours.
-----

**Now not knowing the green book i do not know if this is the same formula (hopefully some one can interject) Not going thru the whole calculations due to the fact of all the weighted avgs based on controlled types of flights and types of airspace etc. are really difficult to calculate if you do not have a DSP, DFM or some sort of FAA tool that will separate the flights in to categories its hard to figure out. So I will use PHL as an example because i know what the numbers are around for traffic. PHL is a Combined Tower/Tracon (?Lv12?)

------
Combined Tower and TRACON (Pg43)
FPL = 950 - +
903 (Buffer) = A numerical figure of five percent (5%) below the minimum facility complexityformula-based pay level (breakpoint) for a particular facility’s pay level. This figure will be used in conjunction with air traffic projections to determine if change to a lower pay level is appropriate.
------

Before USA cut capacity by 6%, Phl was well above the 950 and the 903 buffer rate. However due to the fact that when they did cut 6% 2/3 of USA passengers and flights come thru Phl, the total number has dropped below the Buffer of 903. It is now in the Upper 800's, with USA expecting to cut more in Nov. from Phl the number will sure to drop. and put PHL at a lvl 11 for sure.

So begins the process of appeal to stop the change to a lvl 11, so even thou Phl got the 9% increase they will lose a substantial amount of money from the switch.

I didnt really figure out the % it is late so i just took the avg of the Max and Min from both Lvl 12's and 11's added the three years up, then divided by 3 to get the yearly with out locality etc etc pretty stright foward when you look at the numbers but again my question coms back to how many other facilities are on the bubble and if they are the pending cuts by the hub airlines how will that affect there overall numbers, and what they will really get in the long run. (i dunno i dont know the numbers but i just think that it all comes back to this in the contract some big money out there to be lost and had)


Lvl 12 --- Avg Sal. = (Max-Min)/2 + Min = Avg Sal.

2010 = $99,314
2011 = $110,563
2012 = $121,811
Total 3yr Sal = $331,688/3yr = $110,562 Annual

Lvl 11 --- Avg Sal. = (Max-Min)/2 + Min = Avg Sal.

2010 = $91,466
2011 = $103,716
2012 = $116,009
Total 3yr Sal = $311,191/3yr = $103,730 Annual

Total Loss = $20,496/3yr = $6,832 Annual

Roddy_Piper Resident Knucklehead Vegas baby

WOW. a lot more math than i care to try and figure out.

what's the point of this all? trying to compare airplane worked vs $1 paid? what is the annual loss of $6,000 referencing?

Raydon Happy Camper OKC

thanks rogersjf - not to say I'm lazy, but I'd been doing other website stuff all day trying to keep the union issues forum straight... didn't get around to the factoids of the complexity/pay formulas.

^^ + to your rep for bringing this issue up.

atcbrownie Trusted Member Warrenton Va

I think it has to do with how they figure facility levels and if a level 12 drops to level 11 there will be a 6k per year pay difference w/o base pay included. I may be way of to what he was saying lol.

Roddy_Piper Resident Knucklehead Vegas baby

lol. i know. i tried diligently to read what the OP posted, but i couldn't follow. i suck.

rogersjf Trusted Contributor New Jersey

The whole purpose was just bringing up the point if some facilities drop rating they will get far less then the 9% over three years they are expecting. Where as they may get a fraction of what they would have gotten if they did not drop. Then again some may rise i do not know, but $20,000 for a decrease on Avg is alot to me. With that said these numbers of corse are just avgs so i am sure there are many CPC who pay scale is in the higher end and lower end etc.


*** yea it prob does not make a whole lot of sense i am working a rattler sech. and i really got some weird hours, guess i gotta get used to it...Time for bed up at 5am hopefully no Swap tomorrow....

Raydon Happy Camper OKC

he's basically saying that statistically speaking, the formula they're implementing now (from appendix a) to gauge facility levels may actually have an adverse effect on the pay we receive.

as set forth in his example, the new formula would basically allow facility levels to fluctuate with the economy, or the ability of the economy to produce a measurable level of sustained air traffic for each facility...on either a short term or long term basis....
depending on how often leveling statistics would be reviewed and revised.

this would have a direct effect on the "pay raises" and overall benefits we receive should general air traffic numbers dictate a facility be deemed a lower level (or higher) than it has in the past.

stuff like that.... and stuff..... catch my drift?

Zeppelinpilot Rookie

Here is another thing I noticed,

In order calculate the "Sustained Traffic Index" which is the base value (before all other considerations are taken into effect) for determining a facilities complexity level, they use the "Busiest 1,830 hours" and the "Second busiest 1,830 hours". Formula looks like this

Dt (STI) = 1+(Cav2/Cav1) where Cav2 is the second busiest 1830 and Cav1 is the busiest 1830.

This formula favors less busy facilities, and hurts busy ones. I will give an example based on totally fictitious numbers. Someone tell me if these numbers are sooo off that this example is totally useless.

Level 5 facility:
Average traffic count for busiest 1,830 hours = 10 planes/hr
Average traffic count for second busiest 1,830 hours = 2 planes/hr

Dt = 1+(2/10)
Dt = 1.2 (Sustained Traffic Index)

Level 12 facility:
Average count for busiest 1,830 hours = 450 plans/hr (obviously not a tower. I was thinking more along the lines of N90. But I really don't know)
Average traffic count for second busiest 1,830 hours (dead of night) = 20 pln/hr

Dt = 1+(20/450)
Dt = 1.04 (Sustained Traffic Index)

So, as a starting point, the less busy facility has the higher rating.


Basically:

You go from SUPER BUSY to dead quiet (FAA says you DON'T have sustained traffic)

You go from light traffic to dead quiet (FAA says you DO have sustained traffic)

And Sustained Traffic is what they believe to be the foundation of a facilities complexity.

Now, please explain to me why I am wrong.

(As a side note, as someone yet to be hired, I am very happy about this new contract. But I feel for all you guys who got the shaft.)

nsu7 Newcomer

Are you a math major by chance? specifically statistics?

boogs Newcomer MN

Expect facility downgrades...traffic is way down.