Dreamflight767 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 154 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 13088 times:
I would like to share this with our aviation community and ask for your support. Thank you.
The upcoming sequestration (across-the-board cuts) are set to take place on March 1st. Unless Congress acts, the FAA will be forced to cut $483 million from its operations budget and will likely result in mandatory furloughs for ALL FAA employees include air traffic controllers, other aviation safety professionals, Alaskan Flight Service Stations, and Federal Contract Towers. These cuts will no doubt have a severe effect on the efficiency and capacity of the National Airspace. In addition to furloughs we may expect a reduction in facility operating hours (shutting down facilities during mid-shift operations) and services and a host of yet-to-be-determined cost-saving measures (maintenance to NAV aids –ILS, NDBs, & VORs - and other FAA operated equipment).
Please help to make sure that your members of Congress understand the need to avoid these cuts under sequestration by clicking on the link below to make our voice heard!
IAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 21
Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 12922 times:
Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 2): You want their attention? Operate DCA on a limited budget and schedule, before any other airports.
And then ORD, ATL, JFK and a few others right behind, in fact start it now. Also, when an ILS goes down and requires a Flight Inspection to bring it back to service, they can't fly because the pilots who were not furloughed that day are out of crew time.
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 22175 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 12807 times:
But is this so vital that they also are allowed to continue wasteful spending in other departments to prevent it? Reminds me of the pleas on the state and local levels in California, that if you don't agree to our tax demands, we will let prisoners out if jail and cut the fire department. This is simply government extortion on the national rather than regional level.
Lets just pass an emergency FAA bill if its so vital.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 11166 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 12781 times:
One thing that is even worse for some people is that the FAA Certification offices are looking at going on furlough as well. That would put a hault to certification work, which could keep the 787 grounded, and impact deliveries of all Cessna, Boeing, etc airplanes as well as deliveries to airlines under FAA jurisdiction of Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier, etc. The consequences are rather big.
I know we are supposed to keep politics out of the Civil Aviation thread, but any politician thinking that it is ok to have such consequences should be voted out of office in my opinion. The impact to aviation alone is enough to seriously hurt many people within the FAA and the industry as a whole.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
atct From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2593 posts, RR: 34
Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 12545 times:
We need to cut costs, plain and simple. I can only hope the furlough days are back to back so I can enjoy it, not the 1 day a pay period im hearing. Looking forward to a few days off, sorry travelling public!
Dreamflight767 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 154 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12390 times:
Quoting atct (Reply 7): We need to cut costs, plain and simple. I can only hope the furlough days are back to back so I can enjoy it, not the 1 day a pay period im hearing. Looking forward to a few days off, sorry travelling public!
LOL!!! You obviously haven't worked for the agency that long. If you think the FAA/Management is going to be that diligent when deciding what days you spend on the beach, you have a rude awaking. And, if you haven't looked around your facility or kept pace with other FAA paraphernalia for better cost cutting measures, you need to improve your scan. Moreover, if you think it takes HR a long time to process your payroll/benefits/ERRs/Bids, or any other "paperwork" you might need, just wait and see.
A reminder for everyone to please take a moment and follow the link in the original post. Regardless if you plan to travel by air, this will have a direct impact on your daily life.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 15664 posts, RR: 100
Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12336 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Its not just the FAA. I came out of the defense industries. The cuts are brutal and *not* going after the waste. In fact, they seem determined to go after programs people care about in an attempt to just raise taxes.
This is a 5% budget cut. I came out of a group that had to do the same work after a 20% budget cut where half the budget went back to the government and they were cut 0%!
While I do not want anyone laid off, I suspect the FAA has more than 5% waste. Identify that and cut it. It won't be the air traffic controllers and many of the line personel IMHO.
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 5): But is this so vital that they also are allowed to continue wasteful spending in other departments to prevent it?
frmrcapcadet From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 2110 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12301 times:
This Ezra Klein article discusses the deficit, and includes the CBO projected spending chart in the main government spending sectors. It is fairly non-controversial that medical spending is crowding out most of the other spending. And posters need to keep in mind that the federal budget roughly represents a concensus of American wishes.
If a moderator were to consider it appropriate posting the CBO chart might be helpful.
Absolutely correct. There are so many meaningful and effective ways to cut costs that would actually be beneficial. This is not one of them. This is just another prime example of a corrupt and broken government screwing up and me, and average citizens like me, taking the hit.
But hey, it's not important enough for them to NOT take a damned weeklong vacation, and I'm sure they're doing it unpaid like I'm going to have to, right?
rcair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1451 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 11953 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 5): But is this so vital that they also are allowed to continue wasteful spending in other departments to prevent it? Reminds me of the pleas on the state and local levels in California, that if you don't agree to our tax demands, we will let prisoners out if jail and cut the fire department. This is simply government extortion on the national rather than regional level.
The US government has not passed a budget in - how many years? We should furlough the legislative and executive branches.
For those of you traveling in the upcoming weeks or enjoying spring break/St. Patrick's day via air travel will encounter endless security lines and unknown lengthy delays due to air traffic controller and equipment shortages.
Those who are not traveling still benefit from air service(s) and will feel the impact. Since Friday alone, my airport provided services to: Business/Cooperate Aviation, General Aviation, at least two local FBOs, countless neighboring FBOs, countless flight schools - fixed wing/helos - including several large university pilot programs, one of the world's largest helo manufacturing factories, the hospital pad located on airport grounds, local/county/state/federal law enforcement, county fire services, air ambulances, U.S. Coast Guard, pest and agriculture control, power and water helo, and TV news helos.
Each one of the mentioned above received services from some of the best personnel in world who indirectly play a pivotal roll in how we live day-to-day.
kellmark From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 698 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 11608 times:
I cannot believe the "end of the world as we know it" type of comments above. The Federal Government is the largest bloated bureaucracy in the world. The FAA is no exception to that, although I do agree that there are many other programs that would deserve to be totally eliminated rather than have the FAA budget reduced. Unfortunately, our political system is so corrupt and mismanaged that it has shown itself incapable of even doing that or even producing a legally required budget for more than 3 years. It is a disgrace.
The fact is that the Federal government is basically bankrupt. We have over 16 trillion dollars in debt now and no way to pay that off. 40% of every dollar we spend we simply don't have. It has to be borrowed, taxed or printed, all of which is being done at an outrageous pace. We have a huge spending problem. The spending cuts that would happen are minuscule, basically worth about a week of operations to the entire federal government. The government wastes far more than that just with its gross inefficiencies. But we don't have a choice.
When reductions are necessary, line operations should be prioritized. That could be done here and there would be basically no impact on operations. But politically, that wouldn't work. They want the public to be inconvenienced, to show how "terrible" the effects of a very small cut would be.
Kaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3394 posts, RR: 39
Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 11564 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 10): While I do not want anyone laid off, I suspect the FAA has more than 5% waste. Identify that and cut it.
Quoting kellmark (Reply 17): When reductions are necessary, line operations should be prioritized. That could be done here and there would be basically no impact on operations.
Unfortunately, it looks like they have no choice where to cut. Excerpt from a Feb 7 speech by Michael Huerta (FAA Administrator):
"We anticipate that the Office of Management and Budget would implement sequestration across the board. This would require the FAA to make the cuts equally across all budget line items in the affected accounts. This significantly minimizes the flexibility we would have in managing the budget reductions.
Sequestration would force the FAA to cut back on operating costs by reducing the core services we provide."
Ive got a few years under my belt with more than just the FAA. I know how the system works. Please discuss the issue and do not attack individuals as per forum guidelines.
I don't know about the other potential government employees on this thread but I have something called a savings account. I was warned years ago that this would happen and have planned accordingly. A little pay cut when I make 3-4x the average household income of the US isn't going to hurt much. I live well within my means and, frankly, am looking forward to some extra time off. I know HR will be backed up with all the paperwork...when aren't they? They aren't held to the same standard and are paid accordingly.
Long story short, If the furlough comes, sorry users. There is nothing I can do to change the happenings but in the mean time I can be smart and plan ahead for how it may affect me. I wont whine on some internet board that "oh no, I'm only going to make $95,000 next year, boo hoo." I know many pilot friends of mine who would love to change positions.
blueflyer From Tuvalu, joined Jan 2006, 4949 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 11502 times:
I don't think life will be that different in March, or April, for that matter. The CBO and other government agencies have already said they understand the law to require annual budget cuts with no obligation to spread them evenly. If agency heads believe letting the deadline is a ploy to force the "other side" to compromise, nothing stops them from delaying budget cuts until later in the year. Instead of applying 1/12 of the cuts to the monthly budget, if there is such a thing, they can apply half of the cuts each to the last two months of the year, effectively shutting down their agency, and be in full compliance with the law.
My guess is this is why some politicians are willing to wait out the deadline, because they know that, in the short term, nothing will change. In March, no one will blame them for being furloughed or having spent three hours more than usual in a TSA line. In fact, most government agencies are not ready to implement cuts on day one anyway.
Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 4): And then ORD, ATL, JFK and a few others right behind, in fact start it now
Refusing to perform work that you are expected to is a strike, even if you are just being "early" on a future reality not of your own will.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 10): The cuts are brutal and *not* going after the waste. In fact, they seem determined to go after programs people care about in an attempt to just raise taxes.
That to me indicates that for once, Congress got it right. The purpose of the sequestration is to make inaction so painful for so many people that it would be simply unacceptable to let it happen and politicians would be forced to make a deal. Refusing to compromise and letting sequestration cuts take effect is a new low I didn't think was physically attainable that we can thank certain ideologue, take-no-prisoners, my-way-or-the-highway members of Congress for.
I can't decide what makes me angrier, the fact that there may not be a deal to avert sequestration come March 1st, or that we are in this situation because of yet another short-term solution from incompetent politicians who seem unable to do more than take half-measures and kick the can down the road. I suppose it is a good sign their own pay will be suspended on March 1st if there's no deal. That their budget for their congressional office is not affected, and that they will get their pay back in full once a deal is signed, is too bad.
When we unleash the dogs of war we must go where they take us
anrec80 From Canada, joined Jan 2011, 280 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 11317 times:
Quoting kellmark (Reply 17): When reductions are necessary, line operations should be prioritized. That could be done here and there would be basically no impact on operations. But politically, that wouldn't work. They want the public to be inconvenienced, to show how "terrible" the effects of a very small cut would be.
On the other hand, with sequester being in place, the airports, TSA and other air infrastructure agencies will be forced to seek their required funding in forcing airlines to charge higher fees for their services. Such as airport landing fees and navigation fees will get funneled through to the consumers in terms of higher airfares, or more additional surcharges. Yes, already annoying list of fees will get inevitable longer.
This sequester is only the beginning - ultimately more to come. So air travel will probably be more like a cable bill - travel provider quotes you one thing, and at the end you will end up paying a different price, and you won't necessarily know what will it be.
TSA under these conditions will also want more than $5 they charge right now. Or, say, special pat-down surcharge - Thanksgiving Special for $4.95 only! Highly intimate pat-down from TSA!
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 10108 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 11263 times:
My guess is the FAA used to operate in 1998 on a lot less money, and can do so again.
Of course, people who earn their paycheck through the government will make cuts as unpleasant as possible. This is partly because they want to maintain their family's receipt of hefty government paychecks.
kellmark From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 698 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 11238 times:
Quoting anrec80 (Reply 22): On the other hand, with sequester being in place, the airports, TSA and other air infrastructure agencies will be forced to seek their required funding in forcing airlines to charge higher fees for their services. Such as airport landing fees and navigation fees will get funneled through to the consumers in terms of higher airfares, or more additional surcharges. Yes, already annoying list of fees will get inevitable longer.
The government we have at present has no problem with raising fees or taxes. In fact they look for "crisis" opportunities all the time, so that they can increase their control on the country. And if they can create one, then so much the better for them.
But any increase in fees or taxes is not done in a vacuum. The airline industry already has 2 major problems. Skyrocketing fuel prices, (again), in large part because of a terrible government policy on energy which literally guarantees more limited supply, and also the effect of an economy which is again contracting, also due to terrible government policies of high regulation and more taxes, such as Obamacare.
If the industry has to raise fares due to higher taxes, fees or higher fuel prices, fewer people will travel. There is a point where there is no extra revenue, no matter how high you raise taxes, as people will find ways to avoid paying them. It becomes a lose-lose deal for everyone. A lot of airline travel is purely discretionary in nature. Leisure travel, visiting family and friends can be largely a choice that can be canceled or delayed. A lot of business can now be done over the internet. Short haul is already way down from before. There are alternatives. The passengers, the airlines and the supporting infrastructure will be diminished in the future, unless we can get some better policies and decision makers.
IAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 21
Reply 24, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 11119 times:
Quoting blueflyer (Reply 20): Refusing to perform work that you are expected to is a strike, even if you are just being "early" on a future reality not of your own will.
Nothing was mentioned regarding refusing to perform work nor a strike!!!!!!! The content was when they (FAA) start reduction of services to start with those airports first. It might be nice to read reply 2 over if you have questions.
Quoting atct (Reply 19): Please discuss the issue and do not attack individuals as per forum guidelines.
Quoting atct (Reply 19): I live well within my means and, frankly, am looking forward to some extra time off.
Now you're making sense. When you think of how many controllers have been working 6 day weeks and some of those days 10 hour days for the last 3-4 years the numbers are astonishing. Sure they will be looking forward to less work and as you hope their savings has grown with the overtime.
Regardless, it takes XX number of people to staff a facility no matter where it is, when you don't have those numbers services will be reduced from the air traffic side alone. Possibly something as simple as dual/triple simultaneous approaches can't be operated because it takes too many bodies, but then due to pressure from the airlines the facility uses the bodies necessary for that arrival push and cuts other services the controllers. Either way not good.
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
: I don't want to sound like a jerk or anything, but the operating budget for the FAA comes from the trust fund. It's the administrative functions whic
: You may want to check your facts again buddy, because last time I checked I'm a controller, and we all will be getting 11 days of furlough (assuming
: Says the political appointees trying to drum up fear in the rank and file. Your salary comes form airlines ticket taxes and fuel taxes. The only thin
: The trust fund is simply a stream of revenue, but it has NOTHING to do with the sequestration and it cannot prevent cuts. As is, the trust fund does
: Sequestration does not impact off budget accounts that cannot be raided like the AATF. Only $3 billion of the FAAs total $15 billion budget relies on
: According to the FAA Adminstrator: "Sequestration would force the FAA to cut back on operating costs by reducing the core services we provide."
: Let the sequester happen. You can bet there are thousands of threads like thus one urging readers to contact congress over one program or another. The
: According to a political appointee. A slightly dated but mostly accurate fact sheet on the AATF. The claims of draconian FAA cuts simply don't jive w
: You're confusing the revenue side of the ledger with the expense side. Regardless of how much revenue the FAA takes in via the AATF, they have been d
: They have an obligation to shield the ops budget, ATC in particular. Claiming they won't is a scare tactic to get what they want. This is political,
: Was that in 2011 or last year? Regardless they did not furlough essential employees such as controllers or support staff however; many working on spe
: NO it most certainly does not!! The oligarchs spend as they wish, irrespective of the wishes of the people. Let's be clear on that. It's been 1,392 d
: Late 2011. I think they signed the reauthorization in 2012. Seems longer ago than that. But yeah, non-op suffered however operations continued even w
: The FAA Budget Reauthorization was only about the F&E budget, so of course there was no impact on operations. However, this time the cuts will co
: Now you're on to something which should have a crime scene tape around the entire organization! IMHO it is incredible how much those folks have waste
: Flight procedures is a mess too. Been working on some RNP projects lately and it's insane the way they are inflexible in the scheduling of procedure
: They'll be part of a furlough as well which will certainly toss the entire slow charting process into a toilet. Then that backlog will spill over int
: They need to hire budget analysts and learn how to make *more* product on far, far less money. That's how the rest of us ALL do it.
: This country will suffer in 15 years due to all the R&D cuts. I came out of aerospace R&D. The money isn't there anywhere. Any more cutting a
: FWIW, air navigation services have been privatized in Canada: http://www.navcanada.ca/NavCanada.as...efinitionFilesAboutUsDefault.xml Seems to be work
: Yup. But it will never be privatized in the USA. It is a dumping ground for political patronage. The usual suspects will scare monger and say a priva
: Yes, but it doesn't justify continuing on this path. Most of those 5-10 million should not have been hired. The market didn't pay for them; political
: The reality is; most of the critical restorations that happen which are unseen by the public are possible because of the ability to purchase tools, m
: Not so sure. The administration is very much idealogically driven. Sequestration was proposed by Obama, not Congress. And most people are more concer
: To be totally honest, the FAA needs to look at further (not total) privatization of some of the slower D and C primary towers over to the FCT program.
: Says the FCT Controller. Im not splittng hairs because whether I want to or not, as an employee of a certain group, I therefore represent them. I did
: I actually agree 100% to what you say most of the functions of ATC need to remain wholly with the government under the FAA. Where it all falls down,
: Yet Canada and Australia make it work.
: If that $483 million number is actually true, that would reduce the FAA operations budget to its 2009-2010 amount. I don't remember it being the end o
: It wasn't, but you could it from there!! Sad thing is, a good number of larger facilities are not overstaffed but understaffed with CPC's. Developmen
: The FAA just put out the list of possible facility closure. http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/Facilities_Could_Be_Closed.pdf
: WOW that is quite a list....places that have quite a bit of traffic among those that don't, incredible.
: Not quite. Remember, this $483million cut has to be absorbed in a ~6 month window of time (roughly April 1 - Sept 30 since you're required to provide
: What is interesting about the list, is the seemingly random facilities they are closing.
: No I don't want to hear make it work...I want actual numbers, because that's the reality having a system unavaliable .1% of the time is 9 hours; whic
: Crazy times are ahead for the flying public if this sequester comes to pass March 1st. Ray Lahood is on the record today in the Houston Chronicle prov
: Political appointees (including former ones) are workin' hard today! Run for the hills! The end is coming! The trust fund is sitting on a nearly $10
: The idea of privatizing the whole system will never happen. There are some aspects of the operation that should always be in the hands of the governm
: Because you don't use the surplus to cover regular operating expenses. Not to mention, the surplus is fake money. There's nothing there...just a bunc
: Another downside with operations cuts by the FAA is that fewer planes will be able to operate, so along with higher fuel costs and labor costs that ca
: While there are all kinds of a horror stories related to the sequestration I have no doubts that the airlines have been planning for it. They can look
: No, there is $10.570 billion in the account right now, cash on hand. The AATF is an off budget trust fund that has a cash surplus. It was taken off b
: As an Air Traffic Controller at SFO, I am mainly worried that sequestration could affect safety. Staffing levels at many ATC facilities do not really
: I feel for you guys. Nothing like being a pawn hung out to dry by politicos. To be fair, sequestration was the Presidents idea. Can't blame congress
: The total sequester cuts are 1.5% of the US budget. A budget that is already growing at 2% or so. It's a positive cut, in that the growth is now only
: I don't know which is sadder, the people who are dumb enough not to understand "baseline" and the massive fraud that is being played on the American p
: True, but it was the President's idea that sequestration cuts would be so drastic and painful for both sides that it would force a compromise.