Targeted Pay Raises vs. Across-the-Board Increases: What the 3.8% Air Traffic Controller Raise Signals for Federal Pay in 2026

Federal pay policy in 2026 is quietly but clearly changing direction. The discussion is no longer limited to how much federal employees should receive each year. Instead, the focus is shifting toward where pay increases are applied, why certain roles are prioritized, and what outcomes the government expects in return. The proposed 3.8 percent pay raise for air traffic controllers is a strong example of this shift.

‍

This raise is not just about higher salaries for one group. It reflects a broader movement away from uniform pay increases and toward targeted compensation strategies designed to address workforce shortages, safety concerns, and operational risk. Understanding this change is essential for anyone tracking the future of federal compensation.

‍

Understanding Across-the-Board Pay Increases

• For decades, across-the-board pay increases formed the core of federal compensation policy.
• These increases were designed to promote fairness, predictability, and consistency across the federal workforce.
• A single percentage raise was applied to most federal civilian employees each year.
  Pay adjustments were typically driven by inflation, cost-of-living changes, or political negotiations.
• All eligible employees received the same increase regardless of job role, skill demand, or labor market conditions.
• Agencies were not required to justify raises based on staffing shortages or performance pressures.
• This approach helped maintain pay equity and administrative simplicity.
  Employees could expect steady annual increases, and agencies avoided internal disputes over compensation.
• Over time, as workforce demands and labor markets changed, the limitations of this model became increasingly clear.

‍‍

The Limitations of a Uniform Pay Model

‍

While across-the-board raises promote fairness, they are not always effective in solving real workforce problems. Over time, several weaknesses became increasingly clear.

‍

Uniform raises do not address roles that face extreme staffing shortages. They do not account for jobs that require highly specialized skills or carry extraordinary levels of stress and responsibility. They also fail to respond to private sector competition, where salaries can adjust quickly to demand.

‍

As a result, some mission-critical roles continued to struggle with recruitment and retention even after annual pay increases were applied. In high-pressure environments, pay adjustments that treated all positions the same simply were not enough.

‍

These challenges laid the groundwork for a more targeted approach.

‍

What Makes the 3.8 Percent Air Traffic Controller Raise Different

‍

The 3.8 percent raise for air traffic controllers approved in the 2026 spending framework represents a clear break from tradition. Unlike broad-based raises, this increase is focused on a specific occupation within a specific agency.

‍

The raise applies to air traffic controllers, supervisors, and managers working under the Federal Aviation Administration. More importantly, it is not guaranteed by default. The funding is tied to conditions related to workforce scheduling, operational efficiency, and staffing improvements.

‍

This structure sends an important message. Pay increases are being treated as strategic investments rather than automatic entitlements. Compensation is now being linked to how well agencies manage risk, performance, and safety.

‍

Why Air Traffic Controllers Were Prioritized

‍

Air traffic controllers perform one of the most demanding jobs in the federal workforce. Their role directly affects public safety, national transportation systems, and economic stability. Several factors made this occupation a clear candidate for targeted pay action.

‍

Air traffic control has faced persistent staffing shortages across the country. Many facilities operate below recommended staffing levels, forcing existing controllers to work longer hours and increasing overtime. This creates fatigue, stress, and long-term burnout risks.

‍

At the same time, air travel demand has rebounded strongly. Aircraft movements, passenger volumes, and airspace complexity have increased, placing additional pressure on an already strained workforce.

‍

Training new air traffic controllers takes years, not months. Losing experienced staff creates gaps that cannot be quickly filled. Targeted pay increases help stabilize the workforce while new hires move through lengthy training pipelines.

‍

Taken together, these factors explain why lawmakers viewed air traffic control as a mission-critical area requiring immediate attention.

‍

Targeted Pay Raises Explained Simply

‍

Targeted pay raises are designed to address specific problems rather than applying blanket solutions. They focus on roles where compensation can directly influence outcomes such as safety, retention, and operational continuity.

‍

Key characteristics of targeted pay raises include the following.

1. They apply to specific occupations or agencies rather than the entire workforce.
   
   
2. They are often tied to labor shortages or high turnover risks.
   
   
3. They may include performance or efficiency requirements.
   
   
4. They are justified through data related to mission impact.
   
   
5. They are intended to solve defined problems rather than provide general relief.
   
   

The air traffic controller fits this model precisely.

‍

What This Signals for Federal Pay Policy in 2026

‍

The structure of the 3.8 percent raise reveals important trends that extend beyond aviation.

‍

Federal pay policy is becoming more selective. Rather than spreading limited budget resources evenly, lawmakers are directing funds where the consequences of inaction are greatest. Safety-sensitive and infrastructure-related roles are gaining priority.

‍

Compensation is also becoming more outcome-driven. Agencies may be required to show that higher pay leads to better scheduling, improved performance, or reduced risk. This introduces a new level of accountability into pay decisions.

‍

Finally, the government is using pay as a workforce management tool. Raises are no longer just about keeping pace with inflation. They are being used to influence behavior, improve retention, and strengthen critical operations.

‍

Implications for Other Federal Employees

‍

Although the 3.8 percent raise applies only to air traffic controllers, its implications are much broader.

‍

Other federal occupations may begin to pursue similar targeted increases, especially in areas such as public safety, cybersecurity, healthcare, and engineering. Roles facing strong private sector competition may argue for differentiated pay to remain competitive.

‍

At the same time, employees in roles with stable staffing may see slower pay growth. This could lead to increased discussions around pay equity, morale, and transparency.

‍

Agencies will likely need stronger data and clearer justification when requesting compensation changes. Simply arguing for fairness may no longer be enough.

‍

Benefits and Risks of a Targeted Pay Approach

‍

Targeted pay raises offer clear benefits when applied carefully.

•  They help stabilize critical operations.
•  They reduce costly turnover.
•  They align pay with real-world labor market pressures.
•  They improve long-term workforce planning.

However, there are also risks.

•  Employees outside targeted groups may feel undervalued.
• Pay disparities can widen across agencies.
• Defining which roles qualify as mission-critical can be contentious.
• Conditional raises add administrative complexity.
• Managing these risks will require clear communication and consistent policy standards.

‍

A Turning Point in Federal Compensation

‍

The 3.8 percent pay raise for air traffic controllers is not simply another budgetary adjustment. It signals a fundamental shift in how federal compensation is structured and defended. Broad, uniform pay increases are no longer the automatic answer. Instead, pay decisions are increasingly shaped by mission-criticality, operational risk, and demonstrable outcomes.

‍

As 2026 takes shape, federal employees and agencies should anticipate a more intentional approach to compensation. One that prioritizes targeted investments, relies on data rather than tradition, and directly supports the roles that keep essential systems safe, resilient, and effective.

‍

This shift may represent the start of a new chapter in federal pay policy. An era where compensation is not only fair, but deliberate, strategic, and purpose-driven.

‍

The Way Forward

‍

As federal pay becomes more targeted and less predictable, federal employees can no longer rely solely on uniform raises for long-term financial security. Changes in compensation structures can affect retirement savings, cash flow, and future income planning in ways that are not always obvious.

‍

Working with a federal financial advisor helps employees navigate these shifts with clarity. A specialized advisor understands federal pay systems, benefits, and retirement programs, and can show how targeted raises or slower pay growth may impact long term goals. They help federal employees adjust savings strategies, plan for retirement with confidence, and make informed decisions regardless of how future pay policies evolve.

‍

FAQs

‍

What does an across the board pay increase mean?
An across the board pay increase refers to a uniform salary adjustment applied equally to all eligible employees. Everyone receives the same percentage raise regardless of job role, performance level, or market demand. In the federal system, these increases are typically tied to inflation, cost of living changes, or budget decisions and are designed to maintain fairness and consistency across the workforce.

‍

Is a 20 percent raise for a promotion reasonable?
A 20 percent raise for a promotion can be reasonable, depending on the situation. It is more common when the promotion involves a significant increase in responsibility, leadership expectations, or specialized skills, or when moving into a role that is harder to fill. In structured systems like federal pay scales, promotional increases are often more modest, while private sector promotions may allow greater flexibility.

‍

What are the 3 P’s of compensation?
The three P’s of compensation are Position, Performance, and Person. Position refers to the role, responsibilities, and market value of the job. Performance reflects how well an employee meets or exceeds expectations. Person accounts for the employee’s skills, experience, and qualifications. Together, these factors help determine fair and competitive pay.

‍

What is the difference between a pay raise and a merit increase?
A pay raise is a general increase in salary that may be applied uniformly or for reasons such as cost of living adjustments or promotions. A merit increase is specifically tied to individual performance and is awarded based on how well an employee performs in their role. Merit increases reward results, while general pay raises focus on maintaining income levels or adjusting compensation structures.