Oakland Oceanic is moving!

[Ryan Parry]

Effective September 1, 2021, Oakland Oceanic will be leaving the current Pacific Oceanic Partnership and will be under the sole control of the Oakland ARTCC. This puts ZAK inline with how other oceanic airspaces within VATUSA are handled.

What does this mean if you're Pacific Oceanic certified and wish to continue controlling ZAK? There will be a two month grace period in which Pacific Oceanic certified controllers may elect to join Oakland ARTCC as Oceanic Visitors. These Oceanic Visitors will maintain their ZAK certification and will not need to undergo any additional training, but will be subject to Oakland ARTCC policy. After the two month grace period ends (November 1, 2021) anybody wishing to control ZAK airspace will have to join the Oakland ARTCC as either a regular visitor and progress through domestic training and certification prior to ZAK, or join as an Oceanic Visitor and will receive training and certification for ZAK. 

There are discussions about a new Pacific Partnership LOA similar to a mutual visiting controller agreement, but the plans are tentative. With GCAP pending changes to Oceanic are likely. Should some form of new agreement be established an announcement will be made, until such time all ZAK controllers will need to be on the Oakland ARTCC roster after September 1, 2021.

Applications for ZAK Oceanic Visitors will open September 1, 2021 on the Oakland ARTCC website www.oakartcc.org

Questions can be directed to Ryan Parry, VATUSA Western Region Manager (vatusa4[at]vatusa.net) and Daniel Everman, Oakland ARTCC Air Traffic Manager (atm[at]oakartcc.org). 
 

[Greg Barber]

This post is inaccurate.

[Ryan Parry]

1 hour ago, Greg Barber said:

This post is inaccurate.

This is post is not inaccurate. 

[Zach Biesse-Fitton]

Dear members of VATSIM,

Please see a statement from VATPAC and VATNZ regarding this change.

https://vatpac.org/forums/topic/19064-oceanic-partnership-us-to-leave/?do=findComment&comment=133188

Regards,

Zach

[William Teale]

I draw the parties attention to the Agreement signed by Mark Richards, Shannon Wells, Alex Bailey, Terry Scanlan, and Bryan Wollenberg: https://pacificoceanic.vatsim.net/docs/Oceanic LOA rev1 090710.pdf

Quote

The signatories to this document have agreed to the provisions and terms described
herein. All signatories, their successors or assigns must approve future amendments to
this agreement. This agreement shall be considered in force unless suspended or
terminated by the VATSIM Board of Governors, or terminated by mutual agreement of
the VATNZ, VATPAC, and VATUSA Directors.

Can someone point out to me where the mutual agreement or vote to terminate occurred, for my own peace of mind, as an interested and affected controller?

[Ryan Parry]

8 minutes ago, William Teale said:

I draw the parties attention to the Agreement signed by Mark Richards, Shannon Wells, Alex Bailey, Terry Scanlan, and Bryan Wollenberg: https://pacificoceanic.vatsim.net/docs/Oceanic LOA rev1 090710.pdf

Can someone point out to me where the mutual agreement or vote to terminate occurred, for my own peace of mind, as an interested and affected controller?

Hi William, the proposal received approval from the RVP's which are the BoG. As stated in the agreement you quoted, it may be suspended by the BoG thus no mutual agreement or vote is necessary. 

[William Teale]

It may be suspended by the BoG - so, where is the minutes from the BoG meeting that voted to suspend it?

The members of the BoG individually are not the BoG.

[Greg Barber]

Let's be clear.

VATUSA unilaterally decided to leave the Pacific Oceanic Partnership effectively ending it.  It was not agreed to by the other parties.

 

[Ryan Parry]

2 minutes ago, William Teale said:

It may be suspended by the BoG - so, where is the minutes from the BoG meeting that voted to suspend it?

The members of the BoG individually are not the BoG.

If you look at the agreement, originally written in 2006, the VATSIM representation was the North America Regional Director and Oceania Region Director. Effectively, these positions are now known as Region Vice Presidents, who are BoG members and approved the proposal. The RVP's have the authority to terminate the partnership.

If you'd like to work ZAK post September 1, please join Oakland ARTCC as an Oceanic Visitor. They'd be happy to have you.

[Sean Harrison]

Crazy that the BOG would suspend an agreement, but not make any statement about it, but allow an effected party to announce it.  Seems very one sided.

 

On what date does the suspension take effect?  Eg when can’t we assist with services.

Edited August 29, 2021 at 04:15 AM by Sean Harrison

[Chris Gardiner]

1 minute ago, Sean Harrison said:

Crazy that the BOG would suspend an agreement, but not make any statement about it, but allow an effected party to announce it.  Seems very one sided.

Agreed, would be nice to see a statement from the BoG regarding the topic.

[Kirk Christie]

4 minutes ago, Ryan Parry said:

If you'd like to work ZAK post September 1

Seems very efficteve to make an announcement 3 days prior to the date..... or 2 days for us in the Paciffic region.
 

4 minutes ago, Ryan Parry said:

Region Vice Presidents

This is true, there is a Americas VP and a APAC VP, one would imagine that they both voted on a change which would affect their respected areas of responsability then?

Edited August 29, 2021 at 04:16 AM by Kirk Christie

[William Teale]

So to clarify Ryan, you believe that the BoG members are not required to comply with the CoR 2.01 requirements? Nor the 2.06 and 2.07J requirements?

The agreement may be suspended by the BoG, but members of the BoG do not constitute the BoG.

Included for everyone's convenience, the Code of Regulations which binds the Board of Governors: https://cdn.vatsim.net/policy-documents/VATSIM Code of Regulations OCT20.pdf

RVPs are part of the BoG, but do not constitute the BoG - unless its now your view that any one member of the BoG constitutes the entirety of the BoG?

Edited August 29, 2021 at 04:20 AM by William Teale

[Greg Barber]

5 minutes ago, Sean Harrison said:

Crazy that the BOG would suspend an agreement, but not make any statement about it, but allow an effected party to announce it.  Seems very one sided.

Simples.  There is no such agreement.

3 minutes ago, Kirk Christie said:

This is true, there is a Americas VP and a APAC VP, one would imagine that they both voted on a change which would affect their respected areas of responsability then?

Simples, there was no such vote.

[Blair Shaddock]

I am sure the VATPAC and VATNZ board will be eagerly awaiting an email from VATSIM to let them know that a decision has been made for the termination of this agreement. I am also looking forward to seeing the meeting minutes where this was discussed and more importantly the number of VP's who voted for this. COR 2.07J requires a simple majority to "pass or reach a determination on any matter or proposal before the Board" with a minimum of 3 votes from a group of 5 members with 3 days notice as written in COR 2.07G. 

Edited August 29, 2021 at 04:26 AM by Blair Shaddock

[Alexandra Robison]

Seems to me like the RVPs for their respective regions (AMAS and APAC) made a decision that affected only their regions. Why would that need a full BoG vote? Do RVPs not have executive control over their respective regions?

Do you have to ask the other 6 department managers at work when you want to make a change that affects only you and one other department? Or do you just coordinate it with that other department? Why does finance care if operations and support agree to do something that only affects them in a particular way?

Seems to me some people in here don't understand how a management structure operates.

[Sean Harrison]

1 minute ago, Alexandra Robison said:

Seems to me like the RVPs for their respective regions (AMAS and APAC) made a decision that affected only their regions. Why would that need a full BoG vote? Do RVPs not have executive control over their respective regions?

Do you have to ask the other 6 department managers at work when you want to make a change that affects only you and one other department? Or do you just coordinate it with that other department? Why does finance care if operations and support agree to do something that only affects them in a particular way?

Seems to me some people in here don't understand how a management structure operates.

Ah, so APAC agreed to the suspension/termination?  That seems to be the first public statement to that effect.

[Greg Barber]

People keep commenting here that both RVPs agreed to this.  I have seen no evidence that such an agreement has taken place. Perhaps the RVPs from both regions should make a statement to that effect.  Then all will be made clear.  Until then we are speculating (although some of us are privy to the communications that took place regarding this decision).

[Alexandra Robison]

Just now, Sean Harrison said:

Ah, so APAC agreed to the suspension/termination?  That seems to be the first public statement to that effect.

I couldn't tell you. I'm assuming so, as an outsider looking in.

[Greg Barber]

Just now, Alexandra Robison said:

I couldn't tell you. I'm assuming so, as an outsider looking in.

I can tell you.

It didn't happen.

[Sean Harrison]

Just now, Alexandra Robison said:

I couldn't tell you. I'm assuming so, as an outsider looking in.

Very helpful in that case.

[William Teale]

It would also be irrelevant, reading the current version of the agreement. Mutual agreement of the Division Directors, or suspension by the BoG (note: not by a BoG member).

Anything else is along the lines of me claiming to be the sole source of Airspace authority of Antarctica. Grandiose sounding, but ultimately without any substance.

[Alexandra Robison]

Just now, Greg Barber said:

I can tell you.

It didn't happen.

[citation needed]

[Tom Kilpatrick]

1 minute ago, Alexandra Robison said:

[citation needed]

You've got the burden of proof on the wrong foot there. It should be VATUSA's responsibility to show that this did occur, not VATPAC and VATNZ's responsibility to prove it didn't.

We are yet to receive this evidence, or any evidence that any discussion actually occurred.

[Dylan Lundberg]

I mean, it is called Oakland Oceanic...