Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B767-400 and 400 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We had 5 daytime tracks. Because of staffing considerations; and in light of the recent furloughs; I was told that we were unable to accept random routes or aircraft on even altitudes in an effort to push flights back and delay flights on the ground in Europe. Due to this restriction; aircraft which would normally be at higher altitudes were stuck at FL310 and below. I started receiving reports of flights getting turbulence between 30w and 40w just prior to entering my airspace. I advised the supervisors that I may not be able to stick to these rules due to the turbulence reports. Air Carrier X was approximately 10 minutes from 41n040w when he began to encounter moderate turbulence at FL280; I received the ARINC message; [and] the flight was requesting FL320 but was held down by 4 other flights above him. I received a call from ZZZZ requesting a deviation 30L of course for the flight which I approved. I then received the desperate message from the flight; apparently in response to ZZZZ's unable higher message saying 'get me any deviation then; I don't care; moderate turbulence.' ZZZZ then called me asking if I could approve the flight descending from FL280 to FL260; no deviation; I approved the flight descending. Upon entering my airspace. I eventually was able to step climb the aircraft reference the traffic that was holding him down. They were all requesting higher as well; some as much as 7;000 feet. Just as I was relieved from the position; the relieving Controller got a call from ZZZZ stating another flight was in Severe Turbulence and he had to approve the flight at FL380; because there was no other altitude available. During this entire exchange; the Supervisor kept passing by and commenting that we must 'be mean' and joking that he split the sector again; hoping I would 'quit complaining' about the restrictions and the unsafe; adverse effects it was having on the flights. I had a problem with that because my priority was the safety of these flights; and because I was forced to deny other flights even altitudes higher up; even if there was no traffic at those higher levels; the lower flights encountered safety hazards. I told the Supervisor about this; and I was told the users were all aware of this for days and they knew to expect it. I know that is not true because I personally answered a call yesterday from a Dispatcher inquiring about a 'rumor they heard that we were going to be at 50% reduced staffing; how that was going to effect the flights and that he hadn't seen any NOTAMS or advisories regarding the impact to the flights.' I was also told that all adjacent facilities knew about these restrictions and should have planned accordingly so to space flights out and give us more spacing; in order to minimize holding at sectors that may be effected by furloughs and have minimum or no staffing; which did not happen; now these flights are airborne and stuck. Stop the furloughs. Our users are encountering hazardous and potentially dangerous conditions as a result.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller described an unsafe condition event when traffic encountering turbulence could not be granted an altitude change in part due to both traffic and staffing restrictions; the reporter listed the recent 'furloughs' as a casual factor.