ERR MOU Change Campaign

MJ0730

Trusted Member
Mar 8, 2010
478
8
18
pointsixtyfive.com
5/23 Update: For anyone interested in following updates on this topic please visit the thread on pointsixtyfive.com

I've written template letters to send to the RVP's advocating change of the ERR MOU. I'm in need of people to send and distribute copies at the facilities. I plan on bringing in envelopes and stamps and getting the people at my fac to sign physical letters and mail the whole lot in, but emailed copies would be better than nothing as long as they're signed, by individuals or facilities. Ill post copies here soon for people to download, but I do want to try and make sure every region is hit. If you are willing to make the letters available at your fac, PM me here or send an email to fixerrmou@gmail.com with FAC ID and region.

I plan on making copies available for everyone to sign, and also putting the template on the NATCA computer. If you can pass along the info to your FACREP, or you are the FACREP, they can send in a letter representing the entire facility, that would work too. The templates will be available for people to modify as they please, and I would actually encourage some personalization, and how the MOU is affecting your facility or career. For example: Atlanta tracon, the #3 priority facility in the nation, had ONE eligible ERR. They asked not to be sent that person based on their qualifications.

We all need this to change, and change asap.

Long version
Short version
 
Last edited:

MI ATC

Rookie
Jun 9, 2014
47
0
6
I like this, the MOU is terrible and will only force new hires to these complex facilities, and continue to halt the movement of CPCs at lower level facilities looking to move up.

I know there was a previous list posted with names removed of those actually selected for ERRs of this first ERR process, but I heard since then, a flood of ERRs hit the market, does anyone have the final list (with names removed for privacy)?
 

NovemberEcho

Epic Member
Dec 8, 2010
4,388
68
48
Long Island
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KDskylark

MI ATC

Rookie
Jun 9, 2014
47
0
6
Then this needed to be phased in. A lot of these top priority facilities are already on/or very close to mandatory 6's. Waiting 5 more years, with only a trickle of inbounds while they wait for the small facilities to get extremely healthy could bring them to dangerously low levels as many people continue to retire.

Not allowing 90% of CPCs the ability to ERR while we wait to train new hires at Middle-of-Nowhere tower to the point the facility is 90-100% staffed, while A80 staffing drops completely down the shitter, doesn't seem like the perfect solution.

I understand the long term plan, but what about the short term? There is NO short term plan to keep these facilities afloat for the next 5-7 years. Because of that, they will get dangerously low on staffing (even more than now) and the FAA will be REQUIRED to send new hires to these places because they have no other options! Their hands are tied by this MOU. And the whole MOU essentially backfires on itself because now new hires are being directed to these bigger facilities, washing out at higher rates, and less are being sent to smaller facilities further delaying any ERRs of actual qualified CPCs.
 

RobertB

Senior Analyst
Aug 18, 2008
868
6
18
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.
The problem is you're counting on people actually wanting to move to A80, C90, or N90. People aren't going to move to two out of those three unless there is a huge financial incentive due to their high cost of living. I'm willing to bet that at least two out of those three will be in worse shape in 2021 than they are in today. N90 used to allow a controller every six months to leave. Now, you are never going to leave with this new MOU.
 

BrewnATC

Epic Member
Jan 28, 2015
2,398
36
48
Ass deep in a folding chair
The problem is you're counting on people actually wanting to move to A80, C90, or N90. People aren't going to move to two out of those three unless there is a huge financial incentive due to their high cost of living. I'm willing to bet that at least two out of those three will be in worse shape in 2021 than they are in today. N90 used to allow a controller every six months to leave. Now, you are never going to leave with this new MOU.
But then again neither is someone at a level 4-7 facility. They'll be stuck waiting to hit staffing and hopefully be the one person who gets selected on an ERR. All the new hires will go to N90, wash, and be at square one. Everyone else will be waiting for them to NEST to the lower facilities and then hopefully check out 3-5 years after they started in the agency.

The idea behind the MOU and bringing about staffing parity is a sound one, but 86 and 90% staffing without a meaningful and effective hiring plan is way too high.
 

MI ATC

Rookie
Jun 9, 2014
47
0
6
The problem is the staffing priorities are backwards. You have this list of facilities ranked based on their NEED and IMPORTANCE to the NAS and instead we are staffing facilities with the least need and the least importance to the NAS.

No new hire should go anywhere above a level 7. Priority should be given to AT LEAST the top 20 facilities on the PRIORITY LIST for any current CPC in the agency. If that means Podunk Tower has to call in an OCCASIONAL OT shift, or only 4 people instead of 5 can get leave every day in a 15 person facility all so that a priority facility doesn't have to remain on 6 day mandatory work weeks, I think the sacrifice is justified.

All new hires will slowly backfill CPCs who have been priority placed to these NAS critical facilities. The smaller, "less important" facilities need to make the sacrifice, NOT the other way around.
 
Aug 10, 2014
71
0
6
The problem is the staffing priorities are backwards. You have this list of facilities ranked based on their NEED and IMPORTANCE to the NAS and instead we are staffing facilities with the least need and the least importance to the NAS.

No new hire should go anywhere above a level 7. Priority should be given to AT LEAST the top 20 facilities on the PRIORITY LIST for any current CPC in the agency. If that means Podunk Tower has to call in an OCCASIONAL OT shift, or only 4 people instead of 5 can get leave every day in a 15 person facility all so that a priority facility doesn't have to remain on 6 day mandatory work weeks, I think the sacrifice is justified.

All new hires will slowly backfill CPCs who have been priority placed to these NAS critical facilities. The smaller, "less important" facilities need to make the sacrifice, NOT the other way around.
My smaller, less important facility is operating with 10 CPCs. Management is working 4-6 mids a pay period. At least for us, there is not much room for sacrifice. Everybody is hurting.
 

RobertB

Senior Analyst
Aug 18, 2008
868
6
18
My smaller, less important facility is operating with 10 CPCs. Management is working 4-6 mids a pay period. At least for us, there is not much room for sacrifice. Everybody is hurting.
Where are you at where you only have 10 CPCs and need to be open for the mid?
 

Stinger

Epic Member
May 24, 2009
1,561
21
38
Where are you at where you only have 10 CPCs and need to be open for the mid?
Peoria fits the criteria of 10 CPCs and mids. I know places that have 11 and 12 CPCs that work mids too.
 
Last edited:

RobertB

Senior Analyst
Aug 18, 2008
868
6
18
Peoria fits the criteria of 10 CPCs and mids. I know places that have 11 and 12 CPCs that work mids too.
That sounds like a complete waste of taxpayer funds and resources of controllers. PIA did 47,102 tower operations last year. Even if every single one of those ops occurred during the hours of 2200-0600, five days a week they would averaged like 22 operations a night!
 

Stinger

Epic Member
May 24, 2009
1,561
21
38
That sounds like a complete waste of taxpayer funds and resources of controllers. PIA did 47,102 tower operations last year. Even if every single one of those ops occurred during the hours of 2200-0600, five days a week they would averaged like 22 operations a night!
I'm at a Level 9 that works mids. Tower ops last year was about 75,000. There's plenty of places that don't talk to anyone on the mids.
Some main Class B airports have basically no traffic on the mids too.
 

RobertB

Senior Analyst
Aug 18, 2008
868
6
18
I'm at a Level 9 that works mids. Tower ops last year was about 75,000. There's plenty of places that don't talk to anyone on the mids.
Some main Class B airports have basically no traffic on the mids too.
Yeah, I remember a few years back when that TYS controller got in trouble for sleeping and the tower was averaging like five aircraft between 0000-0600. It's just surprising that the agency keeps those places open 24 hours a day.
 

Stinger

Epic Member
May 24, 2009
1,561
21
38
Yeah, I remember a few years back when that TYS controller got in trouble for sleeping and the tower was averaging like five aircraft between 0000-0600. It's just surprising that the agency keeps those places open 24 hours a day.
My last facility tried to get rid of the mids back in the 90s. Story I heard was that Strategic Air Command stepped in and said they had to stay open 24 hours because there's no other suitable airports even remotely close. So it's not always just the FAA telling a facility to remain open.
 

RomeoNovember

Senior Analyst
Sep 26, 2009
944
4
18
36
USA
I agree this new MOU is terrible for the short term. I think we should be looking at these facilities staffing numbers. No one seems to know this formula! This formula needs to be looked at because some same level facilities with the same hours of operation and positions, have a different number of required CPC. These numbers very, by a lot. If X facility has 20 required CPC and Y has 27, how is that justified? If one facility has X number of required CPC and they only work 2 to 5 hours on position a day, how is this justified? Can someone please find this formula! I call BS on these facility staffing numbers!!!
 

phillyman2633

Epic Member
May 13, 2010
4,205
88
48
International waters
www.drudgereport.com
That sounds like a complete waste of taxpayer funds and resources of controllers. PIA did 47,102 tower operations last year. Even if every single one of those ops occurred during the hours of 2200-0600, five days a week they would averaged like 22 operations a night!
We're lucky to get 15 ops/mid here at SJU (14 CPCs, 17 is our magic number...L7 tower-only). However, from what I was told, the airlines pushed for us to stay open 24 hrs due to our location...we're the only 24 hour airport in the Caribbean and ZSU gets a lot of Africa and South America overflights during the mid so they want us to stay open for diversion purposes...which happens 2 or 3 times a month usually. Enough to justify keeping us open 24 hours? I'd say DAL B777 can coordinate with airport ops and land themselves, but hey, it's not up to me. I f'kn hate the mids, I'd give them all away if I could.
 

NovemberEcho

Epic Member
Dec 8, 2010
4,388
68
48
Long Island
I agree this new MOU is terrible for the short term. I think we should be looking at these facilities staffing numbers. No one seems to know this formula! This formula needs to be looked at because some same level facilities with the same hours of operation and positions, have a different number of required CPC. These numbers very, by a lot. If X facility has 20 required CPC and Y has 27, how is that justified? If one facility has X number of required CPC and they only work 2 to 5 hours on position a day, how is this justified? Can someone please find this formula! I call BS on these facility staffing numbers!!!
a level 7 tower does not need as many people as a level 7 up/down.
 

lowapproach

Epic Member
Oct 29, 2010
1,316
32
48
WV
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?