ERR MOU Change Campaign - Page 2

I Disappear When You Log In - Register

 

I Disappear When You Log In - Register

^^ The Advertisements above disappear once you log in. Not a member? Register Now, it's free! ^^
Page 2 of 42 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 838
  1. #21
    NovemberEcho's Avatar
    Epic Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    4,387

    Re: ERR MOU Change Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by RomeoNovember View Post
    NO Shit!!! I said same hours, type, level, and positions!
    its early. Me no read so good.

  2. #22
    RomeoNovember's Avatar
    Senior Analyst

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    943

    Re: ERR MOU Change Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by NovemberEcho View Post
    its early. Me no read so good.
    All good!

  3. #23
    Stinger's Avatar
    Epic Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,559

    Re: ERR MOU Change Campaign

    Why in the world does Daytona Beach have a CPC target of 58? That seems way too high.
    The next highest CPC target for level 9's is Jacksonville with 47.

  4. #24
    phillyman2633's Avatar
    Epic Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    International waters
    Posts
    4,209

    Re: ERR MOU Change Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Stinger View Post
    Why in the world does Daytona Beach have a CPC target of 58? That seems way too high.
    The next highest CPC target for level 9's is Jacksonville with 47.
    Interesting....and JAX has like 9 scopes, apparently they should be a level 10 with the amount of approach traffic they have.

  5. #25
    RomeoNovember's Avatar
    Senior Analyst

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    943

    Re: ERR MOU Change Campaign

    I heard from several people JAX approach is one of the hardest in the FAA.

  6. #26
    NovemberEcho's Avatar
    Epic Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    4,387

    Re: ERR MOU Change Campaign

    Did they all work at JAX?

  7. #27
    RomeoNovember's Avatar
    Senior Analyst

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    943

    Re: ERR MOU Change Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Stinger View Post
    Why in the world does Daytona Beach have a CPC target of 58? That seems way too high.
    The next highest CPC target for level 9's is Jacksonville with 47.
    Has anyone found this magic CPC target formula? It's kinda a big F...ing deal!

  8. #28
    RomeoNovember's Avatar
    Senior Analyst

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    943

    Re: ERR MOU Change Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by NovemberEcho View Post
    Did they all work at JAX?
    Yes they did. One from A80.

  9. #29
    NovemberEcho's Avatar
    Epic Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    4,387

    Re: ERR MOU Change Campaign

    Oh and to answer your "why does 2 similar, same level facilities" have different CPC numbers the answer is complexity and amount of positions. Two level 9's may not have/need the same amount of scopes, therefore not need the same amount of CPC's, even if they have similar numbers. Or at least that's my best guess.

  10. #30
    Trusted Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    478

    Re: ERR MOU Change Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by NovemberEcho View Post
    Y'all are thinking short term. The idea is to send the new hires to mostly low level facilities. Easier to gain staffing, faster checkouts, less washouts. Then there will be MORE opportunity to move up, with the focus being on the short staffed places like A80 and N90 etc. it def sucks right now for individuals, but for the health of the system as a whole it's a must. And my facility is projected 48%, so yes it sucks for me too. But I predict that within 5 years time, you will be hard pressed to find an 8 or below in the Cat 2 or 3, other than possibly brief moments after people leave. A lot of these lower facilities are short staffed right now because for an entire year they got 0 new hires during the freeze and shutdown, but ERRs and retirements still went on.
    I address this argument in my letter, so I'll explain here. The idea that the FAA will somehow start staffing lower level facilities to the point where they can churn people up the ladder is not even remotely feasible. Look at the facilities that are in dire straits D10, C90, A80, N90.. you know first hand how bad it is. They will not staff lower facs to over 100%, train those people for two years, ERR from those facs, to spend 2 yrs in training. They are already behind the curve and need folks now. Second, the logic that the lower facs will be eligible to ERR is flawed as well. As facs move towards an average staffing percentage, the eligibility of those fac's goes away. They are using bad math. Here's the best example I can give of how bad this method is. If you could snap your fingers and tomorrow every single facility is at 90% staffing, can you guess how many people would be eligible to ERR? The answer is zero.
    This mou isnt designed to "fix" the staffing problems (if it is they failed miserably), it's designed to make everyone hurt the same amount. The only thing that can fix the staffing problems is hiring more controllers. As of Feb 16, the FAA is projecting net -26 CPC over the training cycle. A LOSS of CPCs. It doesnt matter how you divide it up, the number of CPCs FAA wide is the number, and without increasing it facilities will still be understaffed and people still wont be able to ERR. All this MOU accomplishes is restricting movement of controllers, period.

  11. #31
    Trusted Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    478

    Re: ERR MOU Change Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by lowapproach View Post
    This MOU just went into effect. Its first meeting won't conclude until sometime next week. However fucked up your staffing is now, that represents the pre-MOU state working as well as it can.

    What would you replace this MOU with? Status quo ante? Something else? Why would anybody listen to you unless you could show them a better process than the one you're complaining about?
    Your post is completely ignorant, but I'll answer your last question. Yes, I would replace it with something else. I wrote out a couple examples in my letter. Barring a revamp, yes, I would replace it with the status quo. 100%. It was significantly better than what is in effect now.

  12. #32
    TimShady's Avatar
    Senior Analyst

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    886

    Re: ERR MOU Change Campaign

    N90 and C90 both have a separate MOU, so they can theoretically still get as many people as are willing to go there. Other facilities that aren't getting enough ERR's will eventually be able to put out bids, which people in other than Cat 1 and 2 facilities can bid. I think we at least need to let it play out for a little bit before we go demanding it's changed ASAP.

  13. #33
    dubdub's Avatar
    Junior Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    91

    Re: ERR MOU Change Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by RomeoNovember View Post
    Has anyone found this magic CPC target formula? It's kinda a big F...ing deal!

    What I've read and heard from NATCA reps and management is that the CPC target is supposed to be based on the staffing required for the 90th percentile busiest traffic day. In other words, if you had had 100 days of traffic, and ranked them from #1 being the slowest day, and #100 being the busiest day, then how many CPCs would you need to run a schedule if your facility for day #90. The target number was submitted up the chain with both the NATCA rep and management's agreement.

    I guess the committee wanted to put the logic and number crunching into the facility's hands and assumed that a fair target number would be submitted since it came from both sides (NATCA and management). But looking at other same type facilities (up/down), same level, same amount of hours of open, and even same number of FLMs, there is a lot of disparity.

    I've been told that the number CAN be changed if NATCA and management get together and send up a new number, but in lieu of that, hopefully some audits will be done to look at OT used, length of breaks, time of scopes/positions opened, and comparisons to similar facilities, to create a more realistic target.

  14. #34
    Stinger's Avatar
    Epic Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,559

    Re: ERR MOU Change Campaign

    I used to hope for a facility level downgrade until I realized that time on position and number of positions open wouldn't change any.

  15. #35
    RomeoNovember's Avatar
    Senior Analyst

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    943

    Re: ERR MOU Change Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by dubdub View Post
    What I've read and heard from NATCA reps and management is that the CPC target is supposed to be based on the staffing required for the 90th percentile busiest traffic day. In other words, if you had had 100 days of traffic, and ranked them from #1 being the slowest day, and #100 being the busiest day, then how many CPCs would you need to run a schedule if your facility for day #90. The target number was submitted up the chain with both the NATCA rep and management's agreement.

    I guess the committee wanted to put the logic and number crunching into the facility's hands and assumed that a fair target number would be submitted since it came from both sides (NATCA and management). But looking at other same type facilities (up/down), same level, same amount of hours of open, and even same number of FLMs, there is a lot of disparity.

    I've been told that the number CAN be changed if NATCA and management get together and send up a new number, but in lieu of that, hopefully some audits will be done to look at OT used, length of breaks, time of scopes/positions opened, and comparisons to similar facilities, to create a more realistic target.
    Lots of great info, thx! I still call BS when a target is 11 and they're lucky to work 2-3 OP a day, somethings not right, when other facilities work 6/10s, 8 OP a day! Also think about combining positions. Should facilities be required to have X amount positions open X amount of hours, regardless of traffic and/or staffing? If so, this could and will hugely affect this magic mystery formula that give us our target numbers. How does NATCA let this happen and the FAA justify? Horrible management from the top! If they were to audit these target numbers and TOP, they could probably find 300+ CPC that aren't needed where they're currently and they could fill seats at starving facilities. Even just a 1% chance of disparity between facilities could mean someone waiting 2-5 years to ERR with this new policy. Don't even get me started on the FLM staffing numbers! They could probably free up another 50+ CPC to fill seats. These numbers NEED to be changed if this current ERR is sticking around! NATCA and management are never going to CHANGE these numbers because they like their country club atmosphere, you'd have to be an idiot! I guarantee you some pissed off people stuck with a life sentence will be asking for these numbers to be looked at.

  16. #36
    RomeoNovember's Avatar
    Senior Analyst

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    943

    Re: ERR MOU Change Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Stinger View Post
    I used to hope for a facility level downgrade until I realized that time on position and number of positions open wouldn't change any.
    Its a big f../ing joke anywayz! (Accent like, Teddy KGB) If they say their using the 90th percentile, I'd love to know under what criteria. If we'd be required to keep all position spilt and maned, all hours of operation, then I'd agree with their mysterious target numbers formula.
    Last edited by RomeoNovember; 02-22-2016 at 12:33 AM.

  17. #37
    Rookie

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    47

    Re: ERR MOU Change Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by dubdub View Post
    I've been told that the number CAN be changed if NATCA and management get together and send up a new number, but in lieu of that, hopefully some audits will be done to look at OT used, length of breaks, time of scopes/positions opened, and comparisons to similar facilities, to create a more realistic target.
    Where did you hear that? Any facilities you know of successfully do this?

  18. #38
    Stinger's Avatar
    Epic Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,559

    Re: ERR MOU Change Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by RomeoNovember View Post
    Its a big f../ing joke anywayz! (Accent like, Teddy KGB) If they say their using the 90th percentile, I'd love to know under what criteria. If we'd be required to keep all position spilt and maned, all hours of operation, then I'd agree with their mysterious target numbers formula.
    If my facility had even two-thirds of the available positions open, we'd need 9 people on position at all times. With overtime included, there's only 9-10 people working per shift.

  19. #39
    RomeoNovember's Avatar
    Senior Analyst

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    943

    Re: ERR MOU Change Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Stinger View Post
    If my facility had even two-thirds of the available positions open, we'd need 9 people on position at all times. With overtime included, there's only 9-10 people working per shift.
    I guess i should've said certifiable position.

  20. #40
    NovemberEcho's Avatar
    Epic Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    4,387

    Re: ERR MOU Change Campaign

    Um, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but aren't all positions certifiable positions?

Page 2 of 42 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •