Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Is Bush Thinking?  
User currently offlineCALPilot From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 998 posts, RR: 13
Posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1740 times:

I am going on record now to every customer I have on a airplane next year. If Bush passes a budget that cuts almost $700mil from the FAA;

DON'T BLAME ME OR MY AIRLINE FOR THE DELAYS THAT YOU EXPERENCE, ITS NOT OUR FAULT! ITS THE EDIOT IN THE WHITEHOUSE! BLAME THE PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON! DUH...

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePilot1113 From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2333 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1551 times:

NASA operates on a budget that is much less than the FAA. Yet they're building a Space Station.

The FAA said they were upgrading the ATC system. That was 10 years ago. Nothing's happened. Some airports closed (mostly GA) and traffic's increased.

Maybe this will teach them not to throw $2B in the toilet next time.

Hopefully they'll control costs better on a limited budget.

Also, I've heard that Boeing is in talks to take over ATC.

- Neil Harrison


User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1540 times:

I think there's one word too much in your question...
the first word.  Big grin


User currently offlineSR3496 From Switzerland, joined May 2000, 792 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1486 times:

Sabenapilot:
That's funny (and true)!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineN312RC From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 2682 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1473 times:

70 dollar hammers and 200 dollar toilet seats, imagine how much an ATC system will cost.


Fly Delta's Big Jets!
User currently offlineFLY DC JETS From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 199 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1465 times:

Not to mention we will have Bush to thank for the destruction of the Alaskan wilderness, the higher healthcare costs after his reduction in pollution standards, and the deficits that will surely be caused by his tremendously flawed tax plan. I really feel sorry for those who voted for Bush and are proud to have done so.

User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1454 times:

You are too right Sabenapilot. Bush will do nothing but bad for the country. It took Clinton 8 years to pull us out of the slump that Bush and Reagan put us in.

User currently offlineN766AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1423 times:

I echo Pilot1113. If a government progam isn't working well, what do you do? Throw more money at it? Of course not- that is the most stupid concept I have ever seen. No, you don't give them more money, you take it away and make them run more efficiently. Once they are efficient, maybe they'll get a bit more money... Its not really a hard concept to grasp.

User currently offlineTheCroupier From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1415 times:

Just because one holds an affection for aviation doesn't mean that the FAA should be spared from budget cutbacks. They are a wasteful federal bureaucracy, just like their peers. They've done very little towards privitizing and modernizing our ATC system (under your lauded Saint Clinton).

Why don't you give the new administration the benefit of the doubt? Maybe if you looked at the FAA's budget, maybe you'd see wasteful spending that has nothing do with aviation. At what point are you going to say enough is enough?



User currently offlineGreeneyes53787 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 844 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1404 times:

What is an ediot?

Is someone here criticizing Mr Bush by calling him an "ediot?"

What a foul!


User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 10, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1397 times:

Does he think?

-maiznblu_757-


User currently offlineAA-SAN From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1361 times:

N766AS:
Great plan: so our freeways aren't perfect, lets' take money away from freeway improvement projects, our schools aren't really that good, let's not give them as much money, the FAA isn't doing all it said it would do, let's cut it's funding. What is their incentive to improve efficiency... nothing. They would just do a worse job than they were doing before. The things is that the people would notice this and demand that more money be given to these projects/programs, to improve efficiency, and then we just start a vicious cycle of cutting funds, increasing funds, cutting funds... etc. Cutting funds isn't an effective way of improving efficiency. The only way to do this is by directly confronting the efficiency issue, not by indirect methods such as cutting funds. Sorry I had to ramble on so, but Bush has just been pushing my hot button lately and I have been needing to take it out on somebody for a while.


User currently offlineHlywdCatft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5321 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1347 times:

I forgot, I could have sworn I was reading an airliner forum but now I am reading a forum here about politics.


Man I had to be tortured enough in November about these stupid chads and crap and who really should be president. I disqualify both of those losers and break up the democrat and republican party and make several small parties just like I would love to see in the airline industry, no huge airlines but several small ones.

I got my point across and stayed on topic I hope  Smile


User currently offlineToxtethogrady From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1289 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1336 times:

Let's mix aviation and political here...

Does someone recall a little piece of legislation passed last year called the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act, which was supposed to increase investment in airports and aviation infrastructure, and take the Trust Fund off-budget? It provided a budget of $40 billion for the FAA and for airports that was supposed to INCREASE. So why is Bush carrying forward with a decrease proposed by, of all people, Bill Clinton? This is the second instance in which Bush has chosen to follow Clinton's example, to the disappointment of his followers (the Pentagon budget reassessment being the other, ha-ha). All so the lazy brats of his wealthy contributors can get their inheritances tax-free...

PS - You guys need to take your attitudes over to the MSNBC Politics BBS, where they definitely need some sense knocked into them.


User currently offlineN766AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1344 times:

>Great plan: so our freeways aren't perfect, lets' take money away from freeway improvement projects, our schools aren't really that good, let's not give them as much money, the FAA isn't doing all it said it would do, let's cut it's funding

Now you're catching on...  Smile The Federal government shouldn't even be funding freeway improvements or schools. It should all be locally funded.

But, really, the FAA needs some funding taken away. If you lose funds what will you do? Try to run more efficiently so that you can make the same product for less money? Of course. It works in the private sector EXTREMELY WELL. Why can't it work in the public sector? IT CAN.


User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1297 times:

Greeneyes53767,

I think an "ediot" is an electronic idiot.
 Big grin


User currently offlineAA-SAN From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1255 times:

Unfortunately the public sector is extremely different than the private sector. People like to think that what works in one will work in the other, but you show me a business that is trillions of dollars in debt and collects taxes and I'll agree with you.

User currently offlineN766AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1239 times:

It doesn't matter how revenue is acquired in this instance. That is totally irrelevant.
What is relevant is that if you take money away from a program (whether it be the Federal ATC program or the Boeing Phantom Works program), the program MUST make itself much more efficient in order to provide the same, quality product. I don't know how you could argue that point.


User currently offlineVirginA340 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1213 times:

Shame on the FAA once again for not updating the ATC especially at LGA. I've met with ATC at ORD, JFK, LGA, EWR and Tracon as well as ATC in ORD and they absolutely loath the FAA. Now they don't belive them after the promised changes 10 years ago. But nothing happned. Amtrak runs on a smaller budget yet it was able to strengthen tracks from Boston-New York City through Philidelphia to Washington DC for their high speed train called the Acella which speed to more than 180 mph with plans to eventually expand to Chicago once they get more money and NASA is almost done with the Internatioanl Space Station on a silimar sized budget yet they were able to get the job done. Some politicans on the hill actually demand the FAA to be abolished and privitized like in Europe or partially privitized. I hope that their budget is reduced and that the NTSB has more power. This will teach the FAA to waste $2 Billion and do little to ease the delays and stall on the ATC upgrade


"FUIMUS"
User currently offlineRaddog2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1197 times:

N766AS - Your argument is hilarious. And typical. Who's to say if you take money away from a program it won't just give you a shittier product? By your logic if you didn't give the FAA any money at all, it would be a pillar of efficiency. The laughs never cease with you.

User currently offlineN766AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1180 times:

Actually, it is your argument that is frankly hideous. "By your logic if you didn't give the FAA any money at all, it would be a pillar of efficiency." I didn't say that, now did I. And you know exactly what I mean...cut back their budget and make them run more efficient. It happens all of the time in both the private and public sectors, but leave it to a liberal to say that throwing money at a problem will make it go away. You just don't think things through, do you?

User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4195 posts, RR: 37
Reply 21, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1170 times:

Raddog...being a college student it seems that you would be able to understand this principle.... When money gets tight, as it often does in college...what do you do? Live and do things more effieciently and smarter than you ever thought possible. It is unreal how far i can stretch 5 bucks now. The same principle applies with large organizations prone to unefficiently throwing away large amounts of money. Look at what NASA did with that cool little Martian Rover a few years back.


Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8507 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1166 times:

Sure, make the FAA be more efficient by giving them less money. Charge me $22 for filing a VFR flight plan because the FAA is desperate for funding. I probably wouldn't file that flight plan. The FAA's number one goal is SAFETY.

It's obvious few of you are pilots. There's a reason why the president of AOPA, Phil Boyer, is fighting to keep funding that was guaranteed by AIR-21. Amtrak has, to my knowledge, never shown a profit in it's history. It's always been subsidized by the federal government. The biggest threat to all of aviation is a privatized ATC. That and higher fuel costs are part of the reason why it costs $150/hour to rent a Cessna 172 in most of Europe. Why is Australia's privatized ATC saying that they may have to stop providing full aid to pilots in distress because of liability? Amtrak can be sued directly, but the FAA can't. In the interest of safety, that's a good thing.

In the end, safety is all that matters.


User currently offline747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1155 times:

Good for Bush. I wonder how much waste there is at the FAA; since Nasa is building a space station with less of a budget (even with International cooperation). The FAA is probably another pork laden, cronyism factory and patronage mill, like many things under crooked idiot Clinton.

If your airline has to be "forced" into providing service and safety by a government body instead of providing these things on its own I wouldn't want to fly it anyway...and I'm, sure your insurer's would like to look into that too. So much for social responsibility.


User currently offlineRaddog2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1140 times:

N766AS -- I think we need to take a closer look at who it is who doesn't think things through. What exactly makes you think the FAA will bother to do anything when its budget gets cut? It's not MANDATED to do anything other than provide bare bones ATC. If it can't modernize the ATC system because it doesn't have the funds, it's no sweat off its back. It's not like in the private sector where it will go out of business if it can't provide quality products. In the FAA's case, if you cut their funding, you'll just get shitty products. I think you need to get it through your head that public and private sectors operate under very different circumstances, and incentives for efficient operation are not the same in both. Clear? And the people throwing money at the FAA aren't liberals -- remember the failed ATC modernization boondoggle of the 80s? Guess who did that one? Your idol Ronald Reagan.

XFSUgimp -- I've graduated from college thanks. But I think your analogy is also mistaken. If my funds go down, I run the risk of going hungry. If the FAA's funds go down, the airways get poor service. So? Not like anyone at the FAA is going to do anything about it. If you want to make the FAA more efficient, fine. But cutting their funding isn't gonna do it.


25 N766AS : OK- maybe I'm not getting through, Raddog2. I don't want any drastic measures taken at the FAA, for the reasons MD-90 pointed out. We can't take that
26 Pilot1113 : I believe the FAA had no intention of modernizing the ATC system. They're just going to wait until two or more planes occupy the same place at the sam
27 XFSUgimpLB41X : Half the time when the FAA guy gives me a traffic advisery i can hear the collision warning bells going off in the background...lots of time this is u
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
JetStar What Is Qantas Thinking? posted Tue May 25 2004 12:51:35 by Ruscoe
What Is Cactus Thinking posted Wed Nov 26 2003 17:42:33 by Panaman
What Is Boeing Thinking!?! posted Sun Nov 25 2001 18:10:29 by Airplanetire
What Is Crossair Thinking? posted Sun Sep 24 2000 22:20:05 by Chieftain
Ted, What The Hell Is UA Thinking? posted Tue Nov 11 2003 16:16:11 by JayDavis
What The Heck Is Continental Thinking? posted Tue Jan 9 2001 22:46:02 by TWA
What Is Fed Ex Thinking? posted Sun Jan 7 2001 13:26:50 by UPS Pilot
What The Hell Is JAT Thinking! posted Mon Oct 30 2000 00:01:23 by JAT
What Is The Scrap Metal Value Of A Falcon 20? posted Thu Dec 14 2006 21:52:09 by COAMiG29
What Is Delta Doing? posted Sun Dec 10 2006 00:18:26 by Flavio340