ATC Hiring Changes Draw Protest

PhillyManlove

Senior Member
Dec 18, 2013
237
11
18
Philly
The Federal gov never said there were only two paths. CTI school admin might have fed you that line, but in reality there has been the OTS path for over 40 years. It was unfortunate that you were mislead by the CTI school as you could have followed the military ATC path and actually be doing the job.
This. The FAA maintained all along that hiring from the general public was a method of hiring. It was on their frequently asked questions page.
 

Dcalcoda

Newcomer
Aug 21, 2013
19
3
3
True. Well, there's not much anybody can do about it now. It is what it is. I'm assuming this year will be mostly military hires so I'm hoping I at least get the opportunity to take the test and get picked up in the next couple of years. I know I can do the job, I just need somebody to give me the opportunity to prove it. If this doesn't work out I'll just open up a juice bar in Costa Rica, smoke a whole bunch of weed and pick up surfing.
 

RFDATM

Trusted Contributor
Nov 27, 2009
586
1
18
IL
Do not despair - in the days of old (pre CTI) veterans pref really helped OTS. That extra 5 points added to the scores put a lot (about 70% vets) into the job. Don't know what it takes to qualify for vets pref with todays enlistment but check it out if you are young enough.
 

Plaaaane

Trusted Member
Apr 27, 2012
449
3
18
The Federal gov never said there were only two paths. CTI school admin might have fed you that line, but in reality there has been the OTS path for over 40 years. It was unfortunate that you were mislead by the CTI school as you could have followed the military ATC path and actually be doing the job.
Since the last OTS hiring, I believe in 2009, I emailed the FAA to ask when the next PUBNAT would be. I was told that they are typically held twice a year and to expect one early 2010. I waited well into 2010 and nothing. I again asked when the next OTS hiring would be and was told that due to the increasing size of the other applicant pools, there was no need for OTS hiring.

I then decided to attend a CTI school in hopes of getting a job in ATC. All the while I knew there was no job guaranteed, but I was sure that through good grades, a high score on an aptitude test and a bachelor's degree, I would have a decent shot of standing out, and I was giving my self around at least a fifty percent chance of getting hired in the 4 years before I age out.

Now the that I have finished the program, the FAA has implemented this new hiring process and I'm giving myself a less than 10 percent of getting hired. After spending $20,000 on out of state tuition and wasting two years in classes, that I'll admit were somewhat worthless, this probably isn't a gamble I would've taken... But who was it who told me CTI was a pathway to get hired and that OTS was gone due to the amount of qualified CTI and VRA applicants? The FAA. Not the CTI school.
 

NovemberEcho

Epic Member
Dec 8, 2010
4,388
68
48
Long Island
Why are you only giving yourself a 10% chance of being hired? You can't base something on some arbitrary odds that you pull out of your ass. You are basing on your entire argument on something that you made up with absolutely 0 facts, statistics, or precedent to back it up.

And as for the methods to become an ATC, if you had looked at the CTI FAQ page on the FAA website, it says (and always has) on there numerous times that they reserve the right to hire people from all sources, including GenPub announcements.
 

NovaZDC

Trusted Member
Apr 8, 2009
414
6
18
I know everyone's sick of the complaining and that nobody is entitled to anything, but it's kind of hard not to admit the way things went down, that a bunch of ctis got a pretty raw deal. Plane makes a few good points and I feel like this has been the popular thing here to give the ctis the "school of hard knocks" speech. The cti program was pretty useless for the most part but the way things have gone down the last six months, I don't blame people for being upset. The ones I don't feel sorry for are the ones that won't even qualify due to no work experience, that could have been working during school.
 

Plaaaane

Trusted Member
Apr 27, 2012
449
3
18
Why are you only giving yourself a 10% chance of being hired? You can't base something on some arbitrary odds that you pull out of your ass. You are basing on your entire argument on something that you made up with absolutely 0 facts, statistics, or precedent to back it up.

And as for the methods to become an ATC, if you had looked at the CTI FAQ page on the FAA website, it says (and always has) on there numerous times that they reserve the right to hire people from all sources, including GenPub announcements.
Where did I use those numbers as the base of my argument? There wasn't an argument.

The only thing even close to an argument would be the point I made about the FAA telling me, not the CTI schools, there would be no more OTS hiring due to the amount of VRA and CTI candidates.

I shouldn't have to provide any sources when I clearly said that those were the numbers I was giving myself, but I'll rephrase it for you. Before attending CTI school I thought that by doing so I would have a decent chance of getting a job with the FAA. Upon completion, and with the implementation of the new hiring process, I think we can all agree those chances for a CTI grad are now substantially lower. Why? Because there will be many more people applying. How is that?
 

PhillyManlove

Senior Member
Dec 18, 2013
237
11
18
Philly
Where did I use those numbers as the base of my argument? There wasn't an argument.

The only thing even close to an argument would be the point I made about the FAA telling me, not the CTI schools, there would be no more OTS hiring due to the amount of VRA and CTI candidates.

I shouldn't have to provide any sources when I clearly said that those were the numbers I was giving myself, but I'll rephrase it for you. Before attending CTI school I thought that by doing so I would have a decent chance of getting a job with the FAA. Upon completion, and with the implementation of the new hiring process, I think we can all agree those chances for a CTI grad are now substantially lower. Why? Because there will be many more people applying. How is that?
This is sound logic. You are now a needle in a very large haystack.
 

RFDATM

Trusted Contributor
Nov 27, 2009
586
1
18
IL
Who in the FAA told you that there would be no more OTS bids? How many sources did you check? Did you cross check this random information from whomever with the offical/published CWP? Unfortunately, your due diligence was lacking for a 20K/2 year investment. Let the buyer beware.
 

Plaaaane

Trusted Member
Apr 27, 2012
449
3
18
Who in the FAA told you that there would be no more OTS bids? How many sources did you check? Did you cross check this random information from whomever with the offical/published CWP? Unfortunately, your due diligence was lacking for a 20K/2 year investment. Let the buyer beware.
Random information? Anytime between 6 months and 3 years ago if you were to ask anyone in the ATC world when the next OTS hiring would be, what do you think they would say? I was never told there would be no more OTS bids. I was told they weren't needed because of the large size of VRA and CTI pools. Those pools didn't get any smaller.
 

NovaZDC

Trusted Member
Apr 8, 2009
414
6
18
Who in the FAA told you that there would be no more OTS bids? How many sources did you check? Did you cross check this random information from whomever with the offical/published CWP? Unfortunately, your due diligence was lacking for a 20K/2 year investment. Let the buyer beware.
You're kidding right?
 

NovemberEcho

Epic Member
Dec 8, 2010
4,388
68
48
Long Island
Where did I use those numbers as the base of my argument? There wasn't an argument.

The only thing even close to an argument would be the point I made about the FAA telling me, not the CTI schools, there would be no more OTS hiring due to the amount of VRA and CTI candidates.

I shouldn't have to provide any sources when I clearly said that those were the numbers I was giving myself, but I'll rephrase it for you. Before attending CTI school I thought that by doing so I would have a decent chance of getting a job with the FAA. Upon completion, and with the implementation of the new hiring process, I think we can all agree those chances for a CTI grad are now substantially lower. Why? Because there will be many more people applying. How is that?
makes much more sense now.
 

Dcalcoda

Newcomer
Aug 21, 2013
19
3
3
I've heard 20k, I've heard 46k and I've heard over 50k. I'm going to start my own rumor. According to a reliable source, whom I am unable to name because of reasons which I cannot state, the FAA has received 6 applications. One of those applications is from none other than 12-time all star shortstop, Derek Jeter. Tell everybody you know.
 

GS3k

Trusted Member
Oct 24, 2013
410
16
18
"It's not time to worry yet" - Harper Lee, To Kill A Mockingbird.
 

lrcr

Junior Member
Apr 29, 2011
96
2
8
Seattle, WA
No worries, "All I need are some tasty waves, a cool buzz, and I'm fine." - Jeff Spicoli, Fast Times at Ridgemont High.
 

TreyDeezy

Rookie
Oct 14, 2011
71
0
6
California
While refreshing my MMPI-2 Thursday morning at a facility I will leave unnamed, I overheard a training teleconference. The number of applicants they mentioned was 22,700.
 

Yinzer

Rookie
Feb 9, 2010
61
0
6
Moon Township, PA
It comes down to the individual. Working as an RPO at N90, I've seen CTI hires succeed and I've seen VRAs succeed. I've also seen CTIs shit the bed and VRAs shit the bed. I've seen controllers with many years of radar experience do worse than a CTI student fresh out of the academy. You can all argue about who is more qualified until you're blue in the face but ultimately it comes down to the individual. Just because somebody went to college for 6 years studying law doesn't mean they'll make a great lawyer.

The issue isn't who makes a better controller. The issue is that we were told by our federal government that there are 2 paths to become an air traffic controller. Military or CTI. And many, like myself, followed the CTI path. I agree that VRAs should be considered more qualified, whether or not they actually are, because of the time they dedicated to serving our country. But I don't agree with being thrown into a pool with a bunch of OTS people who 2 months ago thought an air traffic controller waved orange sticks at airplanes. There's no sense of entitlement. I don't think I deserve a job simply because I completed a CTI program. But I do think that the FAA should have, at least, filtered through the remaining VRAs and CTIs before pulling this shit.
Amen, brother
 

rjaeger13

Rookie
Apr 5, 2013
70
2
8
It comes down to the individual. Working as an RPO at N90, I've seen CTI hires succeed and I've seen VRAs succeed. I've also seen CTIs shit the bed and VRAs shit the bed. I've seen controllers with many years of radar experience do worse than a CTI student fresh out of the academy. You can all argue about who is more qualified until you're blue in the face but ultimately it comes down to the individual. Just because somebody went to college for 6 years studying law doesn't mean they'll make a great lawyer.


The issue isn't who makes a better controller. The issue is that we were told by our federal government that there are 2 paths to become an air traffic controller. Military or CTI. And many, like myself, followed the CTI path. I agree that VRAs should be considered more qualified, whether or not they actually are, because of the time they dedicated to serving our country. But I don't agree with being thrown into a pool with a bunch of OTS people who 2 months ago thought an air traffic controller waved orange sticks at airplanes. There's no sense of entitlement. I don't think I deserve a job simply because I completed a CTI program. But I do think that the FAA should have, at least, filtered through the remaining VRAs and CTIs before pulling this shit.
BOOM. This is it. There was no where on that Bio that recognized CTI period. My thoughts are yes, maybe CTI wasn't the best form of training. But the way i see it is ALL lawyers go through law school... WHY? cause they are told they have to. Will all law grads be good at it? no.. are there better law schools than others? yes.. and what would happen if a law grad was told that he no longer needed schooling and would be "selected" based off prior work experience to take the bar? oh... cause some people have what it takes to practice law and some don't.