Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA Funding Cuts By Sequestration  
User currently offlineDreamflight767 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 90 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 12334 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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!


http://afl.salsalabs.com/o/5893/p/di...dia/action/public/?action_KEY=5541

Your efforts and time are much appreciated.

204 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinemmedford From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 561 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 12312 times:

I'd bump this thread...

If you guys think delays are bad now, imagine how bad things will be when 1/10 of the staffing is avaliable.,

Do your part, here...now.



ILS = It'll Land Somewhere
User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12210 times:

You want their attention? Operate DCA on a limited budget and schedule, before any other airports.


I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineas739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6141 posts, RR: 23
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12165 times:

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 2):
You want their attention? Operate DCA on a limited budget and schedule, before any other airports.



Completely agree!



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12168 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.
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 12053 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.
User currently onlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9639 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 12027 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!
User currently offlineatct From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2293 posts, RR: 38
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 11791 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!


"The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." - Walt Disney
User currently offlineDreamflight767 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days ago) and read 11636 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

Thanks!


User currently offlineMeanGreen From United States of America, joined May 2006, 142 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days ago) and read 11616 times:

atct, you are excited about unpaid time off? I am not and I am also not excited about the impact this will have on my facility and the users of the NAS!

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13121 posts, RR: 100
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days ago) and read 11582 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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?

  

Quoting Dreamflight767 (Reply 8):
this will have a direct impact on your daily life.

I've had multiple friends laid off. This has already had impacts on daily life. But as long as we import more than we produce, we'll be on a downward spiral.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinebohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2701 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 11568 times:

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 2):
You want their attention? Operate DCA on a limited budget and schedule, before any other airports.

Better yet, shut down DCA. Also shut down IAD and BWI so congressmen can't use those as alternate airports. Lets see how fast they will act.


User currently offlinefrmrcapcadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1718 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 11547 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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...reason-to-worry-about-the-deficit/



Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 11258 times:

Quoting MeanGreen (Reply 9):
atct, you are excited about unpaid time off?


You have to know him to understand him! I'm not defending those words, only that he need serious help...thus why we sent him packing to Alaska.   



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8269 posts, RR: 23
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 11227 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 10):
The cuts are brutal and *not* going after the waste.

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?  



This Website Censors Me
User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1322 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 11199 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.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 5):
Lets just pass an emergency FAA bill if its so vital.

  

Quoting atct (Reply 7):

We need to cut costs,

Particularly if "we" is the US Government.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 10):
This is a 5% budget cut.

Any agency/business that cannot handle a 5% budget cut is mismanaged. Businesses do this ALL THE TIME. 5% isn't even hard.

Quoting frmrcapcadet (Reply 12):
And posters need to keep in mind that the federal budget roughly represents a concensus of American wishes.

No it doesn't. I'm sorry - the federal budget roughly represents the result of gerrymandering and corruption.

Quoting N766UA (Reply 14):
them to NOT take a damned weeklong vacation

Paid by us of course.

PS - this should probably be in the non-aviation thread. The aviation impact of this out of control spending is miniscule.



rcair1
User currently offlinedreamflight767 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11003 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Evening Folks;

Just a reminder to please take a moment and fill-in the blanks of this link to emphasize to those who "run" our country how important it is to resolve this issue:

http://afl.salsalabs.com/o/5893/p/di...dia/action/public/?action_KEY=5541

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.

Thanks again!


User currently offlinekellmark From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 693 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day ago) and read 10854 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.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2999 posts, RR: 27
Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 23 hours ago) and read 10810 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."



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineatct From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2293 posts, RR: 38
Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 23 hours ago) and read 10802 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 13):

You have to know him to understand him! I'm not defending those words, only that he need serious help...thus why we sent him packing to Alaska.

 
Quoting Dreamflight767 (Reply 8):
LOL!!! You obviously haven't worked for the agency that long.

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.



"The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." - Walt Disney
User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4001 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 23 hours ago) and read 10748 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineanrec80 From Canada, joined Jan 2011, 158 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 15 hours ago) and read 10563 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!


User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8540 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 14 hours ago) and read 10509 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.


User currently offlinekellmark From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 693 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 14 hours ago) and read 10484 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.


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 2 hours ago) and read 10365 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.


Nicely done.  
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.
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 7 months 1 hour ago) and read 10523 times:

Quoting Dreamflight767 (Thread starter):

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 which receive general fund money that face cuts. Not a single ATC facility will be impacted by sequestration, but I'm sure the political appointees will falsely claim otherwise so they can get more money to spend on people and things we don't need.

Same applies to the TSA and the "lines" you claim will come. TSA staffing comes from the security fees and airport revenues come from the airlines.

BTW... How much is the union paying you to post this stuff? I know they are counting on the uninformed to throw their hands up in the air and sign petitions.

Quoting Dreamflight767 (Thread starter):
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

Actually, they won't cut a dime from the operating budget. Your admin might get a furlough, but your controllers will be at work. That was the whole purpose of developing the Trust Fund. Keep the FAA operation going in spite of what the rest of the government is doing.

[Edited 2013-02-20 07:12:05]

User currently offlinewagz From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 516 posts, RR: 16
Reply 26, posted (1 year 7 months ago) and read 10509 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 26):
Actually, they won't cut a dime from the operating budget. Your admin might get a furlough, but your controllers will be at work. That was the whole purpose of developing the Trust Fund. Keep the FAA operation going in spite of what the rest of the government is doing.

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 sequestration lasts that long) right now planned to be one day a pay period. Only caveat is that we are required to have 30 days notice, so essentially furloughs start April 1. On top of that, most details for work groups will be cancelled and some facilities may cancel annual leave to cover staffing. I won't be too happy if I have to cancel my vacation I booked for this summer.

I'm not really up to speed on all the legal mumbo jumbo or technicalities involved with this sequestration, but this time it's supposed to be different. Supposedly the law requires a 5% budget cut from all budgets, including the operating budget. All the past FAA budget issues allowed them to just shift money out of R&D budget for example to the operating budget, but they cannot do that this time (we never faced sequestration before, at least as long as I've been in the agency). That's why controllers are also getting furloughs, and not just your admin people and research people.

Also, we shouldn't forget our friends in Airways Facilities (Tech Ops) who keep our equipment running. God knows things break at my facility constantly and we need them to fix it, not to mention their work on tall the airport navaids.



I think Big Foot is blurry, Its not the photographers fault. Theres a large out of focus monster roaming the countryside
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 10499 times:

Quoting wagz (Reply 27):

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 thing at risk is your benefits package that and maybe next gen which has been an enormous waste of money to date. Anyone telling you you're going to get a furlough is someone who doesn't understand the financial obligations of the trust fund.


User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6608 posts, RR: 24
Reply 28, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 10428 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 28):
Anyone telling you you're going to get a furlough is someone who doesn't understand the financial obligations of the trust fund.

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 NOT cover the cost of the entire FAA operations budget. The trust fund does NOT obligate the FAA to keep every controller working, nor does it require a minimum level of staffing be maintained.

The FAA has already announced that they will make cuts to the operations budget as required by sequestration. And that they will furlough ops employees 11 days during the remainder of the fiscal year. The FAA could try to avoid furloughing controllers, by making even deeper cuts in admin/tech ops type spending, but that isn't totally feasible.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 10405 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 29):

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 general fund tax revenue. The AATF currently has a $10 billion surplus. There are no threats to the operation of the ATC system.

The notion of cuts is the same myth that was perpetrated by the government when the FAA didn't have a budget authorization in 2011. Nothing happened to the operation all of the cuts came from outside the operation becaus the government is obligated to continue operations.

How soon we forget the false claims of political appointees...

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=12943

Sequestration doesn't stop the flow of AATF revenue from the operation of the aviation system.

[Edited 2013-02-20 10:22:42]

User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2999 posts, RR: 27
Reply 30, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 10430 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 26):
Actually, they won't cut a dime from the operating budget.

According to the FAA Adminstrator:
"Sequestration would force the FAA to cut back on operating costs by reducing the core services we provide."



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 31, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 10402 times:

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 neo cons are up in arms over military cuts. But everything needs cutting and stream lining.

User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 10396 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 31):

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 with the revenue streams. If their budget split was the other way around then yeah there would be a problem but the general fund impact and the very minor cuts simply aren't enough to have a major impact. Too much of the FAA budget is from non-government resources.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...apl/aatf/media/AATF_Fact_Sheet.pdf

[Edited 2013-02-20 10:29:45]

User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6608 posts, RR: 24
Reply 33, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 10374 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 30):
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 general fund tax revenue. The AATF currently has a $10 billion surplus. There are no threats to the operation of the ATC system.

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 directed to cut the expense side of the ledger (including operational expenses).

Now they could shield the ops budget, by putting all the cuts on admin, facilities&equipment and R&D, but that is not the path they are taking.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 10361 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 34):

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, nothing more. It's also shameful.


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 35, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 10349 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 30):
The notion of cuts is the same myth that was perpetrated by the government when the FAA didn't have a budget authorization in 2011. Nothing happened to the operation all of the cuts came from outside the operation becaus the government is obligated to continue operations.



Was that in 2011 or last year? Regardless they did not furlough essential employees such as controllers or support staff however; many working on special projects or support of the projects did get furloughed.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6816 posts, RR: 34
Reply 36, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 10345 times:

Quoting frmrcapcadet (Reply 12):
And posters need to keep in mind that the federal budget roughly represents a concensus of American wishes.

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.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 15):
The US government has not passed a budget in - how many years? We should furlough the legislative and executive branches.

It's been 1,392 days since the US Senate passed a budget in this country. April 29, 2009 was the last time. The entire Federal government has since been operating under continuing spending resolutions.


****

As for the FAA, as much compassion as I'd like to have for the rank and file front line, that is one adminstration that is bloated, wasteful and politically off track. We've pissed away untold billions on ATC reform and aren't terribly far ahead where we were. It's ridiculous how Flight Standards, among others, operate. Cut the fat. Automate. Deliver the goods as if you were private sector.

Until or unless that happens, I'm not weeping over cutting a pithy $85B from a $1.3TRILLION budget. That's a pittance...it's 2.3% and the sequestration only cuts what the planned INCREASE in spending was already slated for--it's all smoke and mirrors. Don't believe the hype.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 10338 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 36):

Late 2011. I think they signed the reauthorization in 2012. Seems longer ago than that. But yeah, non-op suffered however operations continued even with the loss of the revenue stream. A problem we don't have this time around.

Personally I want to see a formula that gets rid of all the general fund obligations for aviation. A small uptick in passengers fees and fuel taxes would do the trick.

[Edited 2013-02-20 10:45:11]

User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6608 posts, RR: 24
Reply 38, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 10340 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 30):
The notion of cuts is the same myth that was perpetrated by the government when the FAA didn't have a budget authorization in 2011. Nothing happened to the operation all of the cuts came from outside the operation becaus the government is obligated to continue operations.

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 come from the operations budget as well as F&E.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 35):
They have an obligation to shield the ops budget, ATC in particular.

No they don't. There is no legal obligation to maintain the complete ops budget based on AATF revenues. It might be the ideal thing to do, but it is NOT an obligation. The FAA has freedom to adjust ops spending as it sees fit, regardless of AATF revenue.

I will agree however that the overall impact of these cuts on operations will be relatively small. There's enough fat in the ops budget to make these cuts without noticeably degrading service.


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 39, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 10296 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 37):
It's ridiculous how Flight Standards, among others, operate


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 wasted on projects that made sense, worked just fine in operational demonstrations and were perfectly safe only to grind them to a complete halt with their jurassic thinking.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 10304 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 40):

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 approval and release, even whe someone else is doing all the leg work. It's like pulling teeth getting them to update procedures if there is a change in the obstacle environment, which is disturbing to say the least. I've seen DPs and APs go unchanged for years when our own analysis shows there should be an increase in minimums or climb gradients, and in a few cases improvements because of obstacle removal. It's just broken. That's the only way to describe it.


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 41, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 10275 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 41):
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 approval and release, even whe someone else is doing all the leg work. It's like pulling teeth getting them to update procedures if there is a change in the obstacle environment, which is disturbing to say the least. I've seen DPs and APs go unchanged for years when our own analysis shows there should be an increase in minimums or climb gradients, and in a few cases improvements because of obstacle removal. It's just broken. That's the only way to describe it.



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 into Flight Inspection and there you will have the meltdown of scheduling.

Some Flight Procedures Team folks work really well and I had the pleasure of working with such a dude. If left to his own devices which happened quite often thankfully, he was able to convince higher ups that the amendment needed to happen on a particular chart date and got it done, otherwise years would come to pass.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8540 posts, RR: 2
Reply 42, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10226 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 42):
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 into Flight Inspection and there you will have the meltdown of scheduling.

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.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13121 posts, RR: 100
Reply 43, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10256 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting wagz (Reply 27):
All the past FAA budget issues allowed them to just shift money out of R&D budget for example to the operating budget

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 and useful fixes under development will not happen.

Quoting slider (Reply 37):
It's been 1,392 days since the US Senate passed a budget in this country. April 29, 2009 was the last time. The entire Federal government has since been operating under continuing spending resolutions.

That needs to stop. We need to take our medicine and cut. Too many programs are not part of the 5% cut. The reality is the 'non-discretionary' part of the budget must be revisited as that is too much of the budget.

Quoting slider (Reply 37):
Until or unless that happens, I'm not weeping over cutting a pithy $85B from a $1.3TRILLION budget. That's a pittance...it's 2.3% and the sequestration only cuts what the planned INCREASE in spending was already slated for--it's all smoke and mirrors. Don't believe the hype.

Funny how 5% becomes 2.3%....   

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2999 posts, RR: 27
Reply 44, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10201 times:

FWIW, air navigation services have been privatized in Canada: http://www.navcanada.ca/NavCanada.as...efinitionFilesAboutUsDefault.xml Seems to be working well.


Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 45, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10071 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 45):

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 private. ATC would be too dangerous.


User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8540 posts, RR: 2
Reply 46, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10045 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 48):
Because to do that would require massive layoffs of 5-10 million people...mostly in the private sector.

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 patronage did. But even politically, this patronage is unsustainable. Things will get bad enough eventually we will all scream. Look at Argentina. Their debate is how far can you pervert your financial policy and still have a surviving country.

In any event, major corporations don't want to be based in Argentina and be on the hook to pay for an unlimited government shit show. Same applies to the US.


User currently offlinemmedford From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 561 posts, RR: 8
Reply 47, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9932 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 49):
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 private. ATC would be too dangerous.

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, materials and added redundancies without the need to jump through corporate policies which are in place in the private sector.

Sure private ATC may sound like a good idea on paper, but the reason things work with the reliability and integrity that we have today, is because we plan for the 1% when the shit hits the fan...not the 99% when conditions are ideal.

Contact the FAA and request numbers on our equipment avaliability, and compare those numbers to those in countries with privatized services. You'll see a difference.



ILS = It'll Land Somewhere
User currently offlinesuperjeff From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9904 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting frmrcapcadet (Reply 12):
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

Not so sure. The administration is very much idealogically driven. Sequestration was proposed by Obama, not Congress. And most people are more concerned about spending (which unfortunately the administration won't address) rather than taxing - and Obama just got perhaps the largest tax increase in history.

I don't think a*net is the right place for a political discussion.


User currently offlineNBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 815 posts, RR: 1
Reply 49, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 9817 times:

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. The over-bloat of staffing in these facilities is ridiculous vs. a FCT. A facility in my area is a C primary tower only that does maybe 200 ops a day, nearly the same as several of the local FCTs. The FCTs do it with less than half the staff and just as safely.


"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
User currently offlineatct From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2293 posts, RR: 38
Reply 50, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9717 times:

Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 49):
The FCTs do it with less than half the staff and just as safely.

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 some time at a contract tower. We did 99% g/a with an occaisonal military practice approach. I am against the contracting of facilities with Pt. 121 air carrier service (I know there are some out there already) and am in favor of more up/down facilities. Those people who have only worked radar, a VFR tower, an IFR tower, FSS, or a center are very closed minded, most of it unintentional, to the operations of the adjacent facility type. Having worked at a VFR Tower, an IFR class B tower, and a TRACON, it has opened by eyes to how the system functions. I thought I knew how it worked at each level but as I progressed in my career, I have learned more and it has made me 10x better as a controller. It is a shame that most of these lower level facilities have lost or are losing their tracon and thus are being contracted.

I'll use Beaumont, TX as an example. It WAS a level 6 "up/down." It has since been downgraded to a level 4 because te radar was transferred to I90. It was nowhere near the top 25 busiest facilities but was a great place for a new hire to cut their teeth. They learned basic tower skills as well as rudimentary radar skills. From here a controller could progress to a level 8-10 tower, tracon, or up/down or wherever and expand on that knowledge. From that point they could expand even further by going to "the show." On to the 11/12's where all this background has taught them the skills to provide the best possible service to our users.

In the FCT program, there is no forward progress. You come out of the military (dont get me started) and go to a tower. Whether you go to Wheeling, WV (zzzZZZzzz) , Phoenix Willy (oh god not another Md80!), or Nashua, NH (busy), its still a VFR tower. There is little to no room to expand your knowledge other than managerial ranks, which is a whole other ball of wax. You can save a few bucks by contracting out and not impact safety. You forget that safety is just 1 part of our job. When I was hired we used to say our job was to provide for the Safe, Orderly, and Expeditous flow of air traffic. Safety is first and foremost. Without further knowledge of the system, Orderly and Expeditous are only assumed, not fully realized.

I have nothing against the actual FCT controllers, I was one for a short period of time, my dad was one, and lots of my friends are or were as well. It is of my own personal opinion that we would have a better system all under one roof, run by the FAA.



"The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." - Walt Disney
User currently offlineNBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 815 posts, RR: 1
Reply 51, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 9639 times:

Quoting atct (Reply 50):
...we would have a better system all under one roof, run by the FAA.

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, is that is a perfect world, and we are far from a perfect world. The original FCTs were the towers that were never reopened after the PATCO strike in '81. After that the program was expanded in '97 to allow for the continued operation of the level 1/2 facilities that the FAA deemed too expensive to run. A facility like mine had 12 controllers in it, now it does it with less than half that. The truth is that the FAA and the government is flat broke, and the ability to cut the costs on facilities that are overstaffed and underutilized is the right move.



"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 52, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 9562 times:

Quoting mmedford (Reply 47):

Yet Canada and Australia make it work.


User currently offlineOOsnowRat From United States of America, joined Sep 2012, 26 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 9515 times:

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 of the world back then.

User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 54, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 9487 times:

Quoting OOsnowRat (Reply 53):
I don't remember it being the end of the world back then.


It wasn't, but you could it from there!!

Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 51):
The truth is that the FAA and the government is flat broke, and the ability to cut the costs on facilities that are overstaffed and underutilized is the right move.


Sad thing is, a good number of larger facilities are not overstaffed but understaffed with CPC's. Developmental are everywhere at some places with some having been in the training program for well over two years. This is what makes the staffing numbers look all rosy and nice, but look at the overtime usage at those places and you have to ask yourself, if it is properly staffed with CPC's why all the overtime?



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineNBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 815 posts, RR: 1
Reply 55, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 9418 times:

The FAA just put out the list of possible facility closure.

http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/Facilities_Could_Be_Closed.pdf



"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 56, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 9382 times:

Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 55):



WOW that is quite a list....places that have quite a bit of traffic among those that don't, incredible.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6608 posts, RR: 24
Reply 57, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 9380 times:

Quoting OOsnowRat (Reply 53):
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 of the world back then.

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 30 day furlough notice). On an annualized basis, this is closer to a $900 million to 1 billion dollar cut to the FAA ops budget.

It's not the end of the world. The FAA could absorb this loss without impacting any of the major towers. However, that would require major cuts at the less busy facilities.


User currently offlineNBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 815 posts, RR: 1
Reply 58, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 9353 times:

What is interesting about the list, is the seemingly random facilities they are closing.


"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
User currently offlinemmedford From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 561 posts, RR: 8
Reply 59, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 9301 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 52):
Yet Canada and Australia make it work.

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; which is massive. That's acceptable by private ATC, not by this agency's standards.



ILS = It'll Land Somewhere
User currently offlineGEsubsea From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 183 posts, RR: 1
Reply 60, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 9266 times:

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 providing points on how the sequester would affect the State of Texas in particular.

“The budget cuts will also affect the larger state airports like George Bush Intercontinental and DFW International through flight delays. Flights to major cities like New York, Chicago, and San Francisco could experience delays of up to 90 minutes during peak hours because we will have fewer controllers on staff.”

LaHood further outlined four major changes that would be made:

1. Furlough 47,000 employees for approximately one day per pay period through September
2. Eliminate midnight shifts in over 60 towers
3. Close over 100 air traffic control towers
4. Reduce preventative maintenance and equipment provisioning and support for all NAS equipment

Couple that with the suggestion that Texas towers where overnight shifts could be eliminated are:

Abilene tower
Austin tower
Corpus Christi tower
El Paso tower
Meacham tower (Fort Worth)
Lubbock tower

OR eliminated all together....which have fewer than 150,000 flight operations or 10,000 commercial operations per year. Facilities that could be cut include:

Waco Regional
New Braunfels Municipal
Jack Brooks Regional (Beaumont)
Brownsville/South Padre Island International
Easterwood Field (College Station)
TSTC Waco
Lone Star Executive (Houston)
Fort Worth Sprinks
East Texas Regional (Longview)
Arlington Municipal
Grand Prairie Municipal
Georgetown Municipal
San Marcos Municipal
Dallas Executive
Sugar Land Regional
Stinson Municipal (San Antonio)
Collin County Regional at McKinney
Tyler Pounds Regional
Victoria Regional


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 9205 times:

Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 55):
The FAA just put out the list of possible facility closure.

http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/medi...d.pdf
Quoting GEsubsea (Reply 60):
Ray Lahood is on the record today in the Houston Chronicle providing points on how the sequester would affect the State of Texas in particular.

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 billion surplus today. Exactly why is the FAA threatening to cut any services over a half billion budget reduction? They'll still have a $9 billion plus surplus.

[Edited 2013-02-22 15:25:23]

User currently offlineNBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 815 posts, RR: 1
Reply 62, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 9150 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 52):
Yet Canada and Australia make it work.

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 government. My only suggestion it that it may be time to readdress a further expansion of the FCT program to include those facilities that were already on the list prior to the FAA stopping it in the early 2000s.



"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6608 posts, RR: 24
Reply 63, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 9111 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 61):
Exactly why is the FAA threatening to cut any services over a half billion budget reduction? They'll still have a $9 billion plus surplus.

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 bunch of IOU's from the federal government.


User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13113 posts, RR: 12
Reply 64, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 9091 times:

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 cannot be cut further by airlines, it will hurt the profits of airlines and in turn less revenue and taxes from airline profits and passenger and freight flight fees.

User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8269 posts, RR: 8
Reply 65, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 9001 times:

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 at loads and figure out what planes to put on what flights. And what flights to "consolidate" on larger planes.

Biggest hits I see are the smaller jets that will have a very difficult time competing for a slot for a much larger plane.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 9002 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 63):

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 budget with Air 21 and remains off budget to this day with the objective of eliminating general fund contributions to support aviation over time. It's why general fund contributions have been cut from about a third of the total FAA budget in 2000 to about 15% today.

This is all a political game. Nothing more, nothing less.

@NGB... Can't have a manufactured crisis if it only impacts a couple of places.

[Edited 2013-02-22 19:08:41]

[Edited 2013-02-22 19:12:49]

User currently offlinerickabone From United States of America, joined May 2006, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 9012 times:

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 allow for fewer people per shift without forcing people to work longer without breaks thereby increasing fatigue. I love my job, and we all do our best to move airplanes safely and expeditiously, but it is a job that requires frequent breaks and changes of position to keep from getting mentally exhausted. The more you cut into those breaks and position changes, the more fatigue becomes a factor.

In the end though, I think it is more of the game of political chicken that is the MO of our current congress and I do believe that they will either work out a last minute deal, or cut a deal within after the deadline so that cuts never actually take effect.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8931 times:

Quoting rickabone (Reply 67):

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 for everything.

[Edited 2013-02-22 20:00:00]

User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 69, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 8888 times:

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 0.5%. Growth. Granted, they may have already "spent" the extra money they were expecting, and the cuts are not evenly distributed, but it's hardly the end of the world. Even if it ends up being 3% (-1%), it's not the end of the world.

Image if you had to do with 1% less, how that would devastate your life? Oh, wait, real household income has dropped more than that year over year...

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 56):
WOW that is quite a list....places that have quite a bit of traffic among those that don't, incredible.

They want to make sure it's spread out so everyone "feels the pain" and everyone is equally scared so that they agree the sky is falling and agree to raise taxes on "not me" which is exactly what they did in California.

This isn't Chicago politics, it's California politics. And it's bankrupting us.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 63):
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 bunch of IOU's from the federal government.

Well, yes you can. The sequester means that a certain amount of the BUDGET money must be held back, not allocated. The IOUs are not budget money, they are money already spent, just not distributed. If the feds are short of that, they now have unlimited power to issue debt to cover it, or to print money to cover it. Because it's not a budget item.

This is the same situation, again, experienced in California. Most departments have these emergency funds, but nothing is an emergency bad enough to use it. Even a major budget shortfall. It's best to cut services, staff, etc. rather than use the money they have stored away for a time that will never come.

Heck, out here in California, local towns were having fund raisers to pay to keep local state parks open, all while the parks department was sitting on enough money to keep them open for a few years. It's no different here. It's all a scam to raise taxes.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offline707lvr From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 585 posts, RR: 2
Reply 70, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 8805 times:

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 people, or those who are soullessly trying to pull it off.

User currently offlinerickabone From United States of America, joined May 2006, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 8763 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 68):
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 for everything.

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.


User currently offlinerickabone From United States of America, joined May 2006, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 8764 times:

http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/Facilities_Could_Be_Closed.pdf

User currently offlinerickabone From United States of America, joined May 2006, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 8767 times:

Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 49):
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. The over-bloat of staffing in these facilities is ridiculous vs. a FCT. A facility in my area is a C primary tower only that does maybe 200 ops a day, nearly the same as several of the local FCTs. The FCTs do it with less than half the staff and just as safely.

Almost everything you said is wrong. In several cases of ATC Tower privatization and most definitely in the case of the privatization of Flight Service, we saw the labor force cut, but costs didn't go down. In fact, in the case of Flight Service, the job done by Lockheed Martin was done so poorly that they went back to the FAA to ask for more money to fix their own screw up. Money that is likely in the long run to cost the FAA more than if Flight Service were never privatized. The whole privatization myth has nothing in reality to do with efficiency, and everything to do with a corporate handout. It is a myth that private always equals more efficient.

You are even more wrong on the safety aspect. The profit motive in almost every safety related industry leads to a decrease in safety. You can't argue that fatigued air traffic controllers at contract towers, many of whom are too old to hold a medical for the FAA and who are working more hours with fewer breaks than would be allowed by the FAA aren't more fatigued than an FAA controller which is inherently more dangerous. Fatigue, both controller and pilot have often been sited as causes of incidents and accidents.


User currently offlinerickabone From United States of America, joined May 2006, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8739 times:



User currently offlinerickabone From United States of America, joined May 2006, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8795 times:

STATEMENT FROM NATCA PRESIDENT PAUL RINALDI: “Today’s announcement from the FAA unfortunately confirms the concerns we have been warning about for months – sequestration will significantly and perhaps permanently undermine the capacity of the National Airspace System. The fact that they will not just be furloughing critical FAA personnel but closing air traffic control towers means the system will be even more compromised than anticipated. We share the FAA’s commitment to preserving the safety of the system despite these draconian cuts. Safety is always the top priority of air traffic controllers, but the reality is this - safety will be preserved at the expense of operations across the country. Once towers are closed, the airports they serve may be next. Additionally, we believe the delay estimates provided by the FAA are conservative and the potential for disruptions could be much higher.

“Every one of these actions by the FAA will have an impact far beyond inconveniencing travelers. Local economies will be diminished, military exercises will be cancelled and jobs will be lost. There’s no telling how long these effects will be felt because many of these service reductions may not be reversed. The National Air Traffic Controllers Association continues to urge the nation’s policy-makers to find a solution that prevents or mitigates the impact of sequestration in a way that does not diminish the world’s safest and most efficient national airspace system.”


User currently offlinerickabone From United States of America, joined May 2006, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8795 times:

POLITICO: "The March 1 sequester will mean shutting down midnight shifts at 60 air traffic control towers nationwide, and more than 100 closed air traffic control towers at smaller airports, as well as reduced “preventative maintenance and equipment provisioning” for the national airspace, according to a letter sent to the airline industry from the FAA today.

"Facility shutdowns and furloughs of FAA employees, including air traffic controllers, will begin in April, the letter says, and travelers should expect delays of up to 90 minutes during peak hours.

“We are aware that these service reductions will adversely affect commercial, corporate and general aviation operators. We also expect that as airlines estimate the potential impacts of these furloughs, they will change their schedules and cancel flights,” the letter reads.

"The letter echoes warnings that Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood just made during a personal appearance at the daily White House press briefing." http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/2013_02_22_10_00_10.pdf


User currently offlinerickabone From United States of America, joined May 2006, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8783 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 69):
And it's bankrupting us.

What's really bankrupting US, as in the people of this nation is the economic downturn. Austerity measures such as this sequestration have been shown over and over to have a damaging effect on the economy. Spending leads to growth and eventually higher tax revenues thanks to that growth. Cuts to spending lead to economic stagnation and downturn, so that is really what is bankrupting us in these times, and the economic data from history is there to prove it.


User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5664 posts, RR: 6
Reply 78, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8749 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 52):
and Australia make it work.

Australia does not have privatised ATC or airways. Air Services Australia is a government owned corporation.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2999 posts, RR: 27
Reply 79, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8728 times:

Quoting rickabone (Reply 73):
The whole privatization myth has nothing in reality to do with efficiency, and everything to do with a corporate handout. It is a myth that private always equals more efficient.

You are even more wrong on the safety aspect. The profit motive in almost every safety related industry leads to a decrease in safety.

Depends how you structure it. Nav Canada, which provides services throughout Canada, is a private sector non-share capital corporation - i.e. there is no equity investment and therefore no profit motive.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlinenkops From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2665 posts, RR: 6
Reply 80, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8709 times:

So what does this mean for airlines flying into uncontrolled fields.... do any airlines have rules against this ?


I have no association with Spirit Airlines
User currently offlineNBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 815 posts, RR: 1
Reply 81, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 8633 times:

Quoting rickabone (Reply 73):

Almost everything you said is wrong. In several cases of ATC Tower privatization and most definitely in the case of the privatization of Flight Service, we saw the labor force cut, but costs didn't go down. In fact, in the case of Flight Service, the job done by Lockheed Martin was done so poorly that they went back to the FAA to ask for more money to fix their own screw up. Money that is likely in the long run to cost the FAA more than if Flight Service were never privatized. The whole privatization myth has nothing in reality to do with efficiency, and everything to do with a corporate handout. It is a myth that private always equals more efficient.

You are even more wrong on the safety aspect. The profit motive in almost every safety related industry leads to a decrease in safety. You can't argue that fatigued air traffic controllers at contract towers, many of whom are too old to hold a medical for the FAA and who are working more hours with fewer breaks than would be allowed by the FAA aren't more fatigued than an FAA controller which is inherently more dangerous. Fatigue, both controller and pilot have often been sited as causes of incidents and accidents

wow, that is some NATCA kool-aid if I have ever heard it, and even they have backed off from that position. The fact is, if it wasn't for the FCT, these towers would be gone, not FAA...gone. All new towers being constructed are all FCTs. The fact is according to the 1994 GAO report on the expansion of the FCT program:

"Of the remaining 127 towers, 32 are currently contracted out. FAA estimates that it could save as much as $120 million (in constant 1994 dollars) if it contracts out the operation of the remaining level 1 towers by fiscal year 1997.4 FAA will not realize immediate savings primarily because of the short-term costs to relocate controllers to other facilities."
-Reference the report here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GAOREPO...65/html/GAOREPORTS-RCED-94-265.htm

As for safety, we are as safe or safer than our FAA counterparts, your argument about the FAA retirees that work for the FCT, we pass the same medical as you, we are just now bound by the age 57 rule the FAA is, as long as we can pass the medical we can work, simple as that. Like a pilot who retires at 65 from a part 121 airline and goes and flies legally for a part 135 charter. He was just a safe as the day he left the airline.

Our companies are not-for-profit operations, their money comes from the government to cover operating expenses. These are negotiated in the contract every 5 years or so. These companies are not getting rich off the backs of the flying public, or compromising safety, as a matter of fact, our safety culture is often punitive in nature. If we have too many deals, or the company feels that we are not operating safe enough, they can fire us, and there is nothing NATCA or PATCO can do about it.

As for you lumping us in with the FSS debacle...that's just plain insulting. That fluster cuck was vastly different from when they privatized the towers. It was handled very wrong, by a company that had no business getting into it. LockMart was the wrong company to award the contract to, but whats done is done there, and it is working much better now, not perfectly but better.



"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6608 posts, RR: 24
Reply 82, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 8617 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 66):
No, there is $10.570 billion in the account right now, cash on hand.

There's $10.57 billion in IOU's in an account, yes. There's no cash. It's no different than the Social Security Trust fund which has tons of "cash" on hand, but all that cash is simply IOU's from the federal government. The government doesn't keep cash accounts like this laying around.

ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/dfi/tfmb/dfiaa0113.pdf

Notice on page 4, the entire amount of the AATF is held in U.S. government securities. The government takes the AATF money and spends it. They provide an IOU saying we'll pay you back from future revenues if you ever need the cash.

But even if they ate into the trust fund, then what? Next year, they take another $600 million out. Then the next year they take another $600 million out? Eventually the fund would be drained out anyway. Given the federal budget deficit, the FAA will face much deeper cuts in future years.

Let me put it to you in another light. Say your boss came to you and said you had to take a 7% paycut. How would you react? Would you just eat into your savings/401(k) to maintain the same standard of living? Or would you adjust your spending and maybe eat out a little less, cut your fancy cable tv package, etc?

Your saying the FAA should just eat into it's savings rather than actually adjust to the permanent budget realities it faces. Bottomline, the FAA has to cut spending.


User currently offlineDreamflight767 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8585 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 52):
Yet Canada and Australia make it work.
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 79):
Depends how you structure it. Nav Canada, which provides services throughout Canada, is a private sector non-share capital corporation - i.e. there is no equity investment and therefore no profit motive.

I'll reinforce that Air Services Australia is a function of the government.

I cannot comment on a profit motive. But, I will say after some communications with NAV CANADA controllers I learned that facilities there are also understaffed. Overtime is utilized heavy at the beginning/middle of each month but by month's end, the "budget" is short and overtime stops. This shortage of staffing requires sectors to be combined/closed.

By combining/closing sectors (especially during heavy traffic levels), you have decreased safety and lost efficiency. As someone mentioned, when you privatize something, the bottom line becomes how to save money.


User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8540 posts, RR: 2
Reply 84, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8591 times:

More and more I believe the "government industry" is gleefully putting its boot on the neck of taxpayers to continue their infinite funding.

FAA is largely self funded. It's hard to picture why they have trouble operating... with a massive budget. Each trip I pay 60 bucks in fees or something.

But, consider for a moment that government workers and government vendors have a lot of power. This is a way to make it seem like the government is truly essential with every dollar. Which is the biggest lie ever told.

If you ever live in DC, people there have deep distain for taxpayers. Even open contempt. Private citizens have reduced their budgets for MANY years now. The government industry and its masters deserve NO sympathy. It is already over 50% of our GDP.


User currently offlinemcoatc From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 195 posts, RR: 2
Reply 85, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8561 times:

Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 81):
Our companies are not-for-profit operations, their money comes from the government to cover operating expenses.

I had no idea that RVA and Midwest were non-profits. I assume they return to the government any monies that exceed their cost of operations?


User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5438 posts, RR: 7
Reply 86, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8549 times:

Quoting N766UA (Reply 14):
There are so many meaningful and effective ways to cut costs that would actually be beneficial.

Unfortunately the way the sequester is written, the agencies will not be allowed to cut selectively. The reduction applies to every budget element and sub-element across the board, with military pay and welfare programs being largely exempted. Congressional micro-management of the budget ensures that those sub-elements are pretty small fiefdoms.

Virtually everything that is not exempt will feel some impact, although that impact is likely to be less drastic than is being portrayed in the press.



I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offlinerickabone From United States of America, joined May 2006, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 87, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8530 times:

Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 81):
Our companies are not-for-profit operations, their money comes from the government to cover operating expenses. These are negotiated in the contract every 5 years or so. These companies are not getting rich off the backs of the flying public, or compromising safety, as a matter of fact, our safety culture is often punitive in nature. If we have too many deals, or the company feels that we are not operating safe enough, they can fire us, and there is nothing NATCA or PATCO can do about it.

You are calling Serco a not-for-profit operation?!?!?! You can't be serious!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serco_Group
& The controllers that I know that work for Serco are currently WAY overworked thanks to the lower staffing levels requiring them to work longer without a break, for more hours a day and more days a week, you can't say that doesn't affect safety.


User currently offlinerickabone From United States of America, joined May 2006, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8536 times:

This is Serco... This is who is in charge of most of privatized ATC in the US:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szNLMtgI7hU


User currently offlinerickabone From United States of America, joined May 2006, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8517 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 79):
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 79):
Depends how you structure it. Nav Canada, which provides services throughout Canada, is a private sector non-share capital corporation - i.e. there is no equity investment and therefore no profit motive.

Agreed, as are skyguide in Europe, and in that situation, when properly regulated by the government, it isn't so bad, but they are still providing an inherently governmental function and in that, I do believe they should be a part of government. At some point government outsourcing INCREASES opportunities for waste, fraud and abuse because it creates buffers against regulation and self policing.


User currently offlinerickabone From United States of America, joined May 2006, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 90, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8511 times:

Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 81):
wow, that is some NATCA kool-aid if I have ever heard it

You should've read the well researched study on the topic before you drank the privatization Kool-Aid:
http://www.controladoresaereos.org/w.../pitfalls-of-atc-privatization.pdf


User currently offlineNBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 815 posts, RR: 1
Reply 91, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8482 times:

Quoting mcoatc (Reply 85):

I had no idea that RVA and Midwest were non-profits. I assume they return to the government any monies that exceed their cost of operations?

That may be one of the more ignorant comments I have seen in a while. I am unaware as what these companies do with the excess monies that are paid to them, I would imagine that it is stipulated in their respective contracts with the FAA Programs Office. The meaning behind not-for-profit is that, while the employees do make money, all of the operating costs are paid by the FAA per the contract, including what the controllers are paid and what the administrative personnel are paid.



"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
User currently offlineNBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 815 posts, RR: 1
Reply 92, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8477 times:

Quoting rickabone (Reply 90):
You should've read the well researched study on the topic before you drank the privatization Kool-Aid:
http://www.controladoresaereos.org/w...n.pdf

Here is the problem with that report, it was 1. commissioned by NATCA at the same time they filed the lawsuit to stop the further privatizing of FAA Towers. 2. It does not take into account the fact, that those towers that were already privatized would cease to operate, as the FAA would just close them down. 3. NATCA no longer looks upon the FCTs as bastard children, in fact support our operations as equal to the FAA controllers doing the job as safely and as professionally as you.

Now as for your view of the FCT program through Serco...obviously you have worked for them in the past, I have not. From what I hear they are a rather crappy company to work for. But that is one company of the 3 majors. Both of whom treat their employees reasonably well, although some better than others. Also Serco runs many towers outside of the US, which are for profit operations through user fees and other means. The also run other operations not even dealing with aviation, so to use them as your example is hogwash.



"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
User currently offlinemcoatc From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 195 posts, RR: 2
Reply 93, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8476 times:

Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 91):
That may be one of the more ignorant comments I have seen in a while. I am unaware as what these companies do with the excess monies that are paid to them, I would imagine that it is stipulated in their respective contracts with the FAA Programs Office

Listen cranky pants, you need not be rude (which seems to be your only tone) because I asked for clarification to something that you wrote.

You are calling me ignorant while telling me you don't know what your company does with the money left over after it covers costs? This is generally referred to as profit.

I'm not fighting you on safety or any other point, simply asking a question. Get that chip off your shoulder and stop trying to read into things.


User currently offlinerickabone From United States of America, joined May 2006, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 94, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8461 times:

These private ATC firms are making a profit off of their ATC services... It just doesn't come from user fees, but rather the taxpayers who's money the FAA uses to pay them... Have no doubt that they are all in it to make a profit. Also, yes, NATCA is trying to organize contract tower workers, but it would much rather see them readmitted into the FAA fold, though the chances of that are less than slim to none.

User currently offlinerickabone From United States of America, joined May 2006, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8450 times:

The profit comes from getting money from the government by placing the highest bid that they think will still be a winning bid and then cutting costs as much as possible (through understaffing or whatever) and then raking in the difference... All of the contract ATC services in the US are doing it with a profit motive... It's just that their revenues come from the US taxpayer through the FAA.

User currently offlineNBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 815 posts, RR: 1
Reply 96, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8416 times:

Quoting mcoatc (Reply 93):
Listen cranky pants, you need not be rude (which seems to be your only tone) because I asked for clarification to something that you wrote.

You are calling me ignorant while telling me you don't know what your company does with the money left over after it covers costs? This is generally referred to as profit.

I'm not fighting you on safety or any other point, simply asking a question. Get that chip off your shoulder and stop trying to read into things.

My apologies, I read that more as sarcasm then a question. I was trying to answer your question though. I do not know where the excess monies go, if they are not spent on operations, I assume they are put back into the company in some way. Now there have been some abuses in the past and present, but those only last for so long until they are caught, then they have to pay up. This is why we have unions such as NATCA and PATCO representing us.

The fact is...further privatization is going to happen...weather it is now or later, it will eventually happen. I do not believe that it will be correct to fully privatize the system, since some functions such as centers, approaches and the busier terminal facilities need to have the function of the government...some of the smaller facilities can go over and still provide the same services at a lower cost.



"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 97, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8389 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 82):

Considering the pay cuts the private sector has taken, maybe you should take a 7% pay cut (most of which would come out of your incredibly generous benefit package)?

I say this because that's what the health care mandate and tax increases have cost me this year. It's actually a little more than that. 7.63% to be exact. I'm not trying to pick on you or anything, I simply have a difficult time being sympathetic to a group of people who are trying to hold a gun to my head for more money. All this sequestration means is that this years budget is only half a percent higher than last years budget instead of being 2.5% higher. There is far too much drama over this. And when people lie about its impacts to get what they want, especially the government, your not going or find many sympathetic people.

You don't have to try to explain the zero base accounting used in the trust fund. I'm well aware of its status, where the money comes from and how it's used. The money is there so there is nothing to worry about. What you should be asking yourself is why would the government effectiely punish people by withholding money they already have on hand to affect a political outcome? That should make everyone's head turn and vomit.

[Edited 2013-02-23 13:00:27]

User currently offlinemmedford From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 561 posts, RR: 8
Reply 98, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 8351 times:

Hell I think all federal employees should do their parts to help the federal budget, instead of taking 1 day per pay period...Why not just take the last 2 weeks in August off?

Do our part and help the budget out.



ILS = It'll Land Somewhere
User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1322 posts, RR: 52
Reply 99, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 8309 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 86):
with military pay and welfare programs being largely exempted.

Which is a mistake.



rcair1
User currently offlinerickabone From United States of America, joined May 2006, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 100, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8189 times:

Quoting mmedford (Reply 98):
Hell I think all federal employees should do their parts to help the federal budget, instead of taking 1 day per pay period...Why not just take the last 2 weeks in August off?

Do our part and help the budget out.

Austerity in general is a bad idea... When an economy is stalled or recessing, deficit spending is often necessary to pull an economy out of that situation. Further cuts only further hurt the economy. Times of growth and economic prosperity are the appropriate times for government austerity.


User currently offlinerickabone From United States of America, joined May 2006, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 101, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8185 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 97):
most of which would come out of your incredibly generous benefit package

Our pay and benefit packages aren't anything close to what they used to be. Many facility levels have been cut (lowering the pay bands), and the benefits we receive now are nothing like they used to be. We still get a pension, but it's a lot less than the old system and the health care options we get are nothing better than you can get in the private sector. Many of my co-workers use their spouse's health care because they have better and cheaper options through their private sector jobs. We have taken a series of cuts over the past decade. Enough is enough. We need to stop cutting each other down and start building each other up. By pitting us all against each other they are tricking us into arguing that if someone else has benefits that you don't have, theirs should be cut rather than yours being raised. That is a race to the bottom that isn't healthy for our society.


User currently offlinekellmark From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 693 posts, RR: 8
Reply 102, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8015 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 97):
I simply have a difficult time being sympathetic to a group of people who are trying to hold a gun to my head for more money. All this sequestration means is that this years budget is only half a percent higher than last years budget instead of being 2.5% higher. There is far too much drama over this. And when people lie about its impacts to get what they want, especially the government, your not going or find many sympathetic people.

Exactly right. The worst thing that could happen to all of those that are telling us that the "world is ending" because they can't handle a small cut in the budget's growth is for nothing to happen. So they are going to ensure that it looks as bad as possible. Such scare tactics by people who in general make considerably more than the average taxpayer who is paying their salary is simply beyond the pale.

There is a saying, that "when something cannot continue , it won't". And that is where we are in this country. Eventually you run out of "other peoples' money".


User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8540 posts, RR: 2
Reply 103, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7955 times:

Quoting kellmark (Reply 102):
There is a saying, that "when something cannot continue , it won't". And that is where we are in this country. Eventually you run out of "other peoples' money".

One of the best things about the private sector is, sometimes you shrink (and get rid of dead wood). And sometimes your grow, _when there is a need_.

And then you shrink again. Govt managers doesn't know how to shrink. They consider it a human rights violation. Meaning, they are human and the rest of us are just meat for them to eat.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 104, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7925 times:

Quoting rickabone (Reply 101):

Lowering of pay bands isn't a pay cut. It just means the new guy is paid less. Older employees are fenced and continue on with the same pay and perks they've always had. It's a start, but it doesn't solve the problem which is the simple fact that the government is running out of other people's money. If the government was serious, they'd cut government salaries by 5% and freeze them until we see real economic growth.


User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6608 posts, RR: 24
Reply 105, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7899 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 97):
Considering the pay cuts the private sector has taken, maybe you should take a 7% pay cut (most of which would come out of your incredibly generous benefit package)?

I don't work in the FAA first of all.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 97):
The money is there so there is nothing to worry about.

And I'm telling you that the money is not there. It's just a bunch of worthless government IOU's.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 97):
What you should be asking yourself is why would the government effectiely punish people by withholding money they already have on hand to affect a political outcome?

Again, the government has NOTHING on hand. Every dime of the AATF is spent. So unless you want the government to start paying people in IOU's, your solution doesn't work.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 97):
There is far too much drama over this. And when people lie about its impacts to get what they want, especially the government, your not going or find many sympathetic people.

I agree that there is far too much drama. I have no problem with the FAA (and all other government agencies) taking cuts. However, cuts will eventually have consequences...raiding the AATF is just sticking your head in the sand trying to avoid those consequences.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 97):
Considering the pay cuts the private sector has taken, maybe you should take a 7% pay cut (most of which would come out of your incredibly generous benefit package)?

Not everyone in the private sector has taken cuts. CEO's and others like them are enjoying record wealth. If times were so tough in the private sector, why are those at the top enjoying such good times??

[Edited 2013-02-24 10:21:49]

User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13113 posts, RR: 12
Reply 106, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7886 times:

One thing this will probably hurt is the NexGen ATC program, slowing it's badly needed changes it will eventually bring.

I suspect the way the cuts have to be done, with no flexibility, is to prevent Senators and Congress Members using pressure to force agencies to favor cuts in programs for 'the others' state and district and keep spending up in 'theirs'.


User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5438 posts, RR: 7
Reply 107, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7856 times:

The classic bureaucratic maneuver, of course, is to shut down every productive field activity while the Washington Hqs will hire staff and go on overtime to account for the lost workload.


I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offlinecjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 832 posts, RR: 0
Reply 108, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7791 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 106):
One thing this will probably hurt is the NexGen ATC program, slowing it's badly needed changes it will eventually bring.

I suspect the way the cuts have to be done, with no flexibility, is to prevent Senators and Congress Members using pressure to force agencies to favor cuts in programs for 'the others' state and district and keep spending up in 'theirs'.

This.

Sometimes you have to spend money to save money, as the saying goes. NextGen, even if it doesn't fully meet expectations, should have a massive benefit to the industry in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. The infrastructure and transportation support systems of the United States are in deep, deep trouble right now. Too many politicians are viewing transportation-related projects as prime for the chopping block. People have got to realize that once our infrastructure fails, the country fails. Really, though, aviation is in one of the better positions relative to the other modes of transportation.



Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8540 posts, RR: 2
Reply 109, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7776 times:

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 107):

The classic bureaucratic maneuver, of course, is to shut down every productive field activity while the Washington Hqs will hire staff and go on overtime to account for the lost workload.

Bingo. This is a fairly transparent aggression against the American people.

Bureaucrats ask: how can we disrupt the people as much as possible, in order to get them to surrender to our will?

Hopefully when performance declines, people are fired for not getting the job done. There will be ample applicants to replace them.


User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6608 posts, RR: 24
Reply 110, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7716 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 109):
Bingo. This is a fairly transparent aggression against the American people.

For years now, conservatives and a good chunk of the American populace have railed on the evils of government and how awful government workers were. They were to be reviled. You keep kicking a dog and he's bound to bite back.

And if you have a problem with these cuts, shouldn't you really blame your Congressmen who voted for this bill that requires equal cuts across all budget line items?

Of course, the FAA could reduce the impact by only shuttering low-volume facilities, but then all the conservatives would scream because most of those cuts would be in conservative districts.


User currently offlinekellmark From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 693 posts, RR: 8
Reply 111, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7666 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 110):
For years now, conservatives and a good chunk of the American populace have railed on the evils of government and how awful government workers were. They were to be reviled. You keep kicking a dog and he's bound to bite back.

This is not a conservative or liberal problem. And most of us do not "revile" government workers. There are a great many very professional hard working people in the government. But let's face it, some of them are living in quite a protected bubble and not working all that hard, even while huge numbers of people are suffering greatly in the private sector, unemployed and underemployed, while federal government employment has exploded.

This is basic math. The government is bankrupt. Even with these minor cuts, the government still grows and we still have to borrow, tax and print billions and billions of dollars we simply do not have. But yet, we see people screaming about how awful this will be. It is absolutely ludicrous. The world will not end if the government budget grows less.

If we had a balanced budget amendment and 40% of our revenue really had to be cut, then that would be serious.

Also, for those who say that government spending increases economic activity and therefore this cut will hurt the economy, that also defies basic logic. Every dollar the government spends is an asset that cannot be used to generate useful, productive jobs and creativity in the private sector. There certainly are necessary government functions, but there are plenty of them which are duplicated, inefficient and a huge drag on the economy.

This is just an incredible attack on the American taxpayer and on those whom the government actually is supposed to be serving.


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 112, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7593 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 106):
One thing this will probably hurt is the NexGen ATC program, slowing it's badly needed changes it will eventually bring



NextGen is a complete joke. What benefits do the customers of the FAA find and how long does it take to implement them? Is it similar to how the FAA has implemented RNAV SID/STAR/SIAP and other programs only to find out the end result is much less than what they told the operators they'd reap? What are the benefits to the controller workforce and define them?

This entire sequestration is going to have very negative impacts to each and every project for years that has the FAA name associated.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8540 posts, RR: 2
Reply 113, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7586 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 110):
You keep kicking a dog and he's bound to bite back.

Government has doubled since the days of Bill Clinton. I am incredulous that govt workers may have this kicked dog mentality. American people are the ones being kicked. US govt is the world's highest budget organization by a factor of... maybe five. Slowing its rate of growth causes this reaction? Good. It's a sign the medicine is working. I respect all people, but it does not mean I believe layoffs and streamlining should never occur.


User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1718 posts, RR: 1
Reply 114, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7537 times:

The utter and ficticious things asserted as facts on this thread has been astounding.


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 115, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7526 times:

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 114):
The utter and ficticious things asserted as facts on this thread has been astounding.



Just for fun, what fictitious things do you find on this thread asserted as facts? Just a curious mind asking!



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2351 posts, RR: 2
Reply 116, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7517 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Flighty (Reply 113):
Government has doubled since the days of Bill Clinton. I

A true statement only if you look at non-inflation adjusted spending numbers, and ignore growth in GDP.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ys-government-twice-size-it-was-d/


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10427 posts, RR: 14
Reply 117, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7526 times:

I can't imagine the airlines standing for any of this......if it comes about, flights from large metro areas to smaller cities will be cut and some smaller cities won't be open at all.

Article the other day, in the local paper, here in FSM about the tower possibly being closed as well as towers at airports in Rogers & Springdale, Texarkana & Fayetteville (Drake Field), Arkansas and reductions in service at LIT, SGF and TUL. No mention of XNA which I thought was odd.

If this was to be a pattern, with cities about this size being closed, I would think much traffic would be lost altogether.



http://swtimes.com/sections/news/spe...tter-fort-smith-airport-tower.html



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 118, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7494 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 117):
No mention of XNA which I thought was odd.


Why odd? You may only be the Mayor but look at the administration!



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 542 posts, RR: 3
Reply 119, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7490 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 117):
I can't imagine the airlines standing for any of this......if it comes about, flights from large metro areas to smaller cities will be cut and some smaller cities won't be open at all.

What often isnt acknowledged is that most of the smaller airports go 'uncontrolled' at night anyway. That said, if these BS cuts were to take place, their uncontrolled hours will fall back on the centers required to provide IFR separation (usually by company mandate, but sometimes by weather too). When that happens you WILL SEE a number of these 'smaller' airports experience SIGNIFICANT delays for centers to provide adequate separation. One of the airports in our control for example does not have radar or communication to the ground... Hence, one plane goes on approach (where approach has better radar coverage than we), we block the airport until the plane is on the ground and can cancel IFR via PHONE LINE through flight service. Then AND ONLY THEN can we clear the next plane for approach. The airport I am speaking of sees about 25 flights during the proposed cut hours where we normally run them straight in, they will ALL see SIGNIFICANT delays. When the airlines feel this pinch you can expect to see many of them go against regs and cancel IFR only to get in instead of diverting.

The sequester is not only a dumb, bad, and absurd idea for the NAS, it is unsafe.



By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 120, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7484 times:

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 119):
they will ALL see SIGNIFICANT delays.



You are so correct. Just wait till the first dumba$$ forgets to cancel IFR either in the air or on the ground and you have to go looking for them. Let us all burn gas and/or divert. What a friggin nightmare.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6608 posts, RR: 24
Reply 121, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 7435 times:

Quoting kellmark (Reply 111):
federal government employment has exploded.

There were more federal employees 20 years ago than there are today.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 113):
Government has doubled since the days of Bill Clinton.

But that's almost entirely Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and Defense, not the FAA.

Quoting kellmark (Reply 111):
Also, for those who say that government spending increases economic activity and therefore this cut will hurt the economy, that also defies basic logic.

Not when the government is deficit spending. Effectively, the government is currently pumping an extra trillion dollars into the economy that would not exist otherwise. Obviously, this can't be sustained over the long-term, but pulling a trillion dollars out of the economy to balance the budget would put us into a severe recession/depression.

Quoting kellmark (Reply 111):
The world will not end if the government budget grows less.

True, but it will impact the economy negatively. As the federal government lays people off, it will take in less tax dollars. Meanwhile, the private sector will further cut back as private companies that do business with the federal government will make cuts. Those cuts will trickle down to private sector workers as well as local/state governments.

I don't debate that cuts will have to happen. But you'd be a fool to think these cuts won't impact the economy in a negative way.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13121 posts, RR: 100
Reply 122, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7395 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Unfortunately ATC is something we care about, so the government is threatening to cut that rather than the waste. But at some point, one has to 'starve the beast.'

Quoting OOsnowRat (Reply 53):
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 of the world back then.

   We'll survive and so will the FAA. Forbid their employees have to pay their share of health insurance and lose the pension like the rest of us...


Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 123, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7370 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 122):
Forbid their employees have to pay their share of health insurance


The employees have always had to pay their share of health insurance.....mine was a nice sum when I was working.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 119):
The sequester is not only a dumb, bad, and absurd idea for the NAS, it is unsafe.


I won't go so far as to say unsafe however; I will say it will say it introduces more safety risks. There are hundreds of airports that are uncontrolled yet have been extremely safe and easy to fly into and out of for many years before the FCT program populated them with Towers and will be long after. The pilots flying into them will make them safe regardless, but your point is well taken.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlinekellmark From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 693 posts, RR: 8
Reply 124, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7370 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 121):
Not when the government is deficit spending. Effectively, the government is currently pumping an extra trillion dollars into the economy that would not exist otherwise. Obviously, this can't be sustained over the long-term, but pulling a trillion dollars out of the economy to balance the budget would put us into a severe recession/depression.

That is exactly the point. It cannot be sustained. It is a "Potemkin Village" of manufactured, false activity that we will have to pay for. And these "cuts" are not even "cuts". Growth in government spending still continues. It is nowhere near a trillion dollars in cuts.

Recession? We are in one now, because private industry is cutting back in the face of higher taxes, more regulations, and high fuel prices.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 121):
True, but it will impact the economy negatively. As the federal government lays people off, it will take in less tax dollars. Meanwhile, the private sector will further cut back as private companies that do business with the federal government will make cuts. Those cuts will trickle down to private sector workers as well as local/state governments.

If we follow this logic, then everyone should work for the federal government so that it can increase spending much much more and we will all pay more taxes to ourselves. Oh wait, that has been tried in other countries, and it failed miserably.

The private sector is what is devastated and is already cutting back. Because of terrible government policies. This high spending is hurting the economy by leaving us with a tremendous debt we and our children cannot pay back.


User currently offlinecjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 832 posts, RR: 0
Reply 125, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7354 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 117):
Article the other day, in the local paper, here in FSM about the tower possibly being closed as well as towers at airports in Rogers & Springdale, Texarkana & Fayetteville (Drake Field), Arkansas and reductions in service at LIT, SGF and TUL. No mention of XNA which I thought was odd.

There better be no mention of XNA! I'm flying out of there on March 1st!  Wow!



Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
User currently offlinesccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5520 posts, RR: 28
Reply 126, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7346 times:

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 125):
There better be no mention of XNA! I'm flying out of there on March 1st! Wow!

Fret not - even if the control tower were closed, it would serve as no impediment to airport operations. Airplanes can come and go, they'll just have to operate like the vast majority of airports do - self-announce and exercise care and common sense to see and be seen.



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 127, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7383 times:

Quoting sccutler (Reply 126):
Fret not - even if the control tower were closed, it would serve as no impediment to airport operations. Airplanes can come and go, they'll just have to operate like the vast majority of airports do - self-announce and exercise care and common sense to see and be seen.

In some cases with much less delay!  



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlinecjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 832 posts, RR: 0
Reply 128, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7377 times:

Quoting sccutler (Reply 126):
Fret not - even if the control tower were closed, it would serve as no impediment to airport operations. Airplanes can come and go, they'll just have to operate like the vast majority of airports do - self-announce and exercise care and common sense to see and be seen.

Hah. I know. We've had to deal without a tower here at SCE from the time the airport opened until only about 18 month ago (13 years w/out a tower).

But, without any flight experience myself, my first thought would be, wouldn't changing suddenly from tower-to-no-tower create a few hiccups at least? Just a curiosity question. No idea, as I said.



Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
User currently offlinemmedford From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 561 posts, RR: 8
Reply 129, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 7350 times:

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 128):
wouldn't changing suddenly from tower-to-no-tower create a few hiccups at least?

Not the first uncontrolled airfield in history.



ILS = It'll Land Somewhere
User currently offlinecjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 832 posts, RR: 0
Reply 130, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 7340 times:

Quoting mmedford (Reply 129):
Not the first uncontrolled airfield in history.

But if you're used to flying into a controlled airfield for a long time and then it's uncontrolled, couldn't that cause a bit of a problem, operationally?



Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8540 posts, RR: 2
Reply 131, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 7333 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 121):
But that's almost entirely Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and Defense, not the FAA.

Oh I agree - you would think it has nothing to do with FAA, especially since FAA is (entirely?) self funded. But, folks like the military and Medicare-fueled wealthy businessmen are putting the squeeze on our government. So FAA feels pressure from those powerful drains on our budget.

In turn, government (like any people) are going to defend their turf and their paycheck. My point is, salaries in my field have not doubled (even nominally) since 2001. There is no way to justify or pay for this overall govt growth, and it all needs to be scrutinized and/or eliminated.


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 132, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 7315 times:

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 130):
But if you're used to flying into a controlled airfield for a long time and then it's uncontrolled, couldn't that cause a bit of a problem, operationally?



Not a problem more of an inconvenience operationally as under IFR flight plans it is one in and one out, still a bit slower. Most of these towers (FAA or FCT) on the list have approach controls that issue the IFR departure releases on a land line, most do not have automatic releases that are used at the larger airports where the tower has IFR separation responsibility.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 542 posts, RR: 3
Reply 133, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 7320 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 122):
  We'll survive and so will the FAA. Forbid their employees have to pay their share of health insurance and lose the pension like the rest of us...

While I dont offend easily, this came close. Seeing you clearly have no idea what you are talking about I will cut a little slack but not much. FAA employees already pay a LARGE share of their health insurance (probably more so than most in the private industry). Second, why on Earth would you say that just because some lousy companies have misappropriated funds and lost their employee pensions (ie. US Airways) that the same should happen to FAA employees? Just because it happened somewhere else thats how you see to cut the budget? Shame.

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 123):
I won't go so far as to say unsafe however; I will say it will say it introduces more safety risks

You just contradicted yourself in less words than I am using. Yes, it introduces a lot of safety risks, it also introduces airlines to a significant delay at airports where they did not previously suffer one. This means more time burning fuel, more burning time/fuel on the ground to get off, could lead to personnel issues when pilots who would normally be within legal timeframes for hours on duty, etc. This leads to pilots "bending" the rules, cancelling IFR, or departing without a proper IFR clearance. Even in doing so, transferring these responsibilities to centers, our radar is not as good, nor can we see all traffic (VFR) to let the incoming/outgoing planes know about.

Quoting kellmark (Reply 124):
If we follow this logic, then everyone should work for the federal government so that it can increase spending much much more and we will all pay more taxes to ourselves. Oh wait, that has been tried in other countries, and it failed miserably.

And that logic is flawed. There is a reason the FAA is a federal agency. There are some things that the private sector just CAN NOT be responsible for. Imagine if our police were contracted out to Wackenhut, or the Supreme Court was turned over to Baker and Mackenzie Law Firm. I took a bunch of your classes and understand what you are saying but there are just some things where the government needs to spend the money and ensure safety and order where the private industry would give the finger and cut, cut, cut...

Quoting kellmark (Reply 124):
The private sector is what is devastated and is already cutting back. Because of terrible government policies. This high spending is hurting the economy by leaving us with a tremendous debt we and our children cannot pay back.

Couldnt agree more but how does it help our debt cutting safety critical positions?

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 127):
In some cases with much less delay!

And in most cases a larger delay with significantly higher safety risks.

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 128):
But, without any flight experience myself, my first thought would be, wouldn't changing suddenly from tower-to-no-tower create a few hiccups at least?

As I said earlier, AT THE LEAST, it transfers separation responsibility to centers who do not have the same caliber radar as some of the approach controls. Yes, hiccup is the polite way of saying it.

Quoting mmedford (Reply 129):
Not the first uncontrolled airfield in history.

Come on Mark... lahood's letter even went as far as to say the FAA will no longer be completing preventative maintenance.

The whole sequester idea may work in some non-safety critical aspects of government but no one wants commercial planes flying uncontrolled in/out of places where maintenance is not being completed until something breaks.



By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6608 posts, RR: 24
Reply 134, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 7300 times:

Quoting kellmark (Reply 124):
The private sector is what is devastated and is already cutting back.

They why is CEO and management pay at record levels? If the private sector is so devastated, why is income for those at the top 10% of American skyrocketing to new heights?

Quoting Flighty (Reply 131):
especially since FAA is (entirely?) self funded.

Not entirely, but about 75%.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 131):
My point is, salaries in my field have not doubled (even nominally) since 2001.

Government salaries haven't doubled. Most government spending is simply putting money right back into the hands of private citizens not employed by the government where you're giving Lockheed Martin money to build planes or giving out social security checks to little old ladies.


User currently offlineFreequentFlier From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 900 posts, RR: 12
Reply 135, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 7308 times:

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 133):
While I dont offend easily, this came close. Seeing you clearly have no idea what you are talking about I will cut a little slack but not much. FAA employees already pay a LARGE share of their health insurance (probably more so than most in the private industry). Second, why on Earth would you say that just because some lousy companies have misappropriated funds and lost their employee pensions (ie. US Airways) that the same should happen to FAA employees? Just because it happened somewhere else thats how you see to cut the budget? Shame.

Quite frankly, many of us are not concerned if you're offended. And yes, your pensions should be modified to exclusively defined contribution plans, as has already occurred in the private sector for the most part. This is not the 1950s anymore. The world has moved on to defined contribution plans now, rather than defined benefit plans.

You work for us, we don't work for you.


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 136, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7273 times:

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 133):
You just contradicted yourself in less words than I am using


Nope, read it again and you'll see that is not the case. Increasing a risk doesn't' t mean it is totally unsafe as you seem to imply. Flying is a risk yet it is by no means unsafe.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 133):
This means more time burning fuel, more burning time/fuel on the ground to get off, could lead to personnel issues when pilots who would normally be within legal timeframes for hours on duty, etc. This leads to pilots "bending" the rules, cancelling IFR, or departing without a proper IFR clearance. Even in doing so, transferring these responsibilities to centers, our radar is not as good, nor can we see all traffic (VFR) to let the incoming/outgoing planes know about.


Not all airports mentioned use LRR nor do all VFR aircraft pose a threat to an IFR departure. I'm not sure about when you fly, but when I fly whether IFR or VFR it is still see and be seen regardless if I'm getting RADAR from an ASR-9/11 or LRR. RADAR doesn't keep a pilot from bending the rules, that is a choice they make all on their own knowing the possible consequences before hand.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 133):
And in most cases a larger delay with significantly higher safety risks.


Lighten up Francis, that was sarcastic and directed at anyone who can't, won't or selects not to move traffic as a professioinal air traffic controller. 
Quoting ATCtower (Reply 133):
The whole sequester idea may work in some non-safety critical aspects of government but no one wants commercial planes flying uncontrolled in/out of places where maintenance is not being completed until something breaks.


Come on, do you actually believe every NAVAID in the NAS is getting preventative maintenance like they used to be given? I know for a fact that while FAA Tech Ops has the very best techs they cannot possibly maintain the NAS as it used to be due to already understaffed and over worked employees.

I am on your side my friend, but I am also not drinking entire meltdown of the system. Sure there will be some delays and multiple other issues as have been mentioned in many posts on this thread.

FYI, I worked for the FAA longer than you have been alive if your age is correct in your profile. I don't support this sequestration, but I also know the system and know controllers/pilots/techs/flight procedures/flight inspection folks that will work just as hard to ensure a safe environment no matter how it all comes out.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10427 posts, RR: 14
Reply 137, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7189 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 118):
Quoting mayor (Reply 117):
No mention of XNA which I thought was odd.


Why odd? You may only be the Mayor but look at the administration!
Quoting cjg225 (Reply 125):
Quoting mayor (Reply 117):
Article the other day, in the local paper, here in FSM about the tower possibly being closed as well as towers at airports in Rogers & Springdale, Texarkana & Fayetteville (Drake Field), Arkansas and reductions in service at LIT, SGF and TUL. No mention of XNA which I thought was odd.

There better be no mention of XNA! I'm flying out of there on March 1st!

The only reason I thought that it was odd that XNA (WalMart International   ) was not mentioned was that two larger airports, LIT and TUL might be subject to cutbacks, at least. Perhaps WalMart has exerted some pressure to see that XNA stays open or it was just an accidental ommission by the author of the article.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinekellmark From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 693 posts, RR: 8
Reply 138, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7135 times:

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 133):
And that logic is flawed. There is a reason the FAA is a federal agency. There are some things that the private sector just CAN NOT be responsible for. Imagine if our police were contracted out to Wackenhut, or the Supreme Court was turned over to Baker and Mackenzie Law Firm. I took a bunch of your classes and understand what you are saying but there are just some things where the government needs to spend the money and ensure safety and order where the private industry would give the finger and cut, cut, cut...

Hey Tower. (First, thanks for being in the classes).
I do not favor privatizing the FAA. What the comments above were about was that if one believes that more government spending somehow helps the economy, well that just doesn't work, because there has to be a way to pay for it which doesn't do additional harm, meaning higher taxes, more borrowing or more printing of money, which is inflationary. That is our problem in the first place. Spending way too much by the government got us into this mess and spending more just makes it worse.

The appropriate answer to this is for us to have an effective, efficiently run government in all of its agencies which deliver the services that are required by law. And I believe that ATC is one of those services. Practically, of course, we know that this is impossible. But the problem is, that ATC is an easy chokepoint to take advantage of politically when something like the sequester happens. In spite of the fact that the actual reductions are in the rate of GROWTH, and not real cuts, the administration is going out of its way to maximize the impact on the public. But in fact, there should be no crisis whatsoever.

Here is an interesting chart which shows the real deal.

http://netrightdaily.com/2013/02/cha...-of-the-day-savage-sequester-cuts/

Politicians do this all the time. They create a crisis out of what should be managed easily. Locally, it is the police and firemen who will be cut, and not the bureaucrats. Federally, it is the air traffic controllers who are cut, who can cause delays and cancellations and directly affect the public, but not all of the "diversity managers" or "public relations" or "analysis" people.

To me, the bottom line here is, that this whole situation is a failure of political leadership. It is one side posturing to hurt the other at the expense of the American people whom they are supposed to be serving. It is a crass and corrupt attempt to place blame, while hurting the very people who are paying a lot for these services. It is truly a betrayal of the public trust for political gain.


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 139, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7097 times:

Quoting kellmark (Reply 138):
To me, the bottom line here is, that this whole situation is a failure of political leadership. It is one side posturing to hurt the other at the expense of the American people whom they are supposed to be serving. It is a crass and corrupt attempt to place blame, while hurting the very people who are paying a lot for these services. It is truly a betrayal of the public trust for political gain.



Very well said and more!!!   



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineDreamflight767 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 140, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 7048 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 135):
You work for us, we don't work for you.

Actually, indirectly, you do work for us. Tax dollars from YOUR pocket provide FAA funding. Furthermore, Controllers provide a SERVICE to the National Airspace whether it be a person(s), freight, or other logistics. Which in itself is another excellent example of why not to privatize Air Traffic. Air Traffic provides a service to the whole, they don't work for corporate who set their own agendas/preferential treatments.

Ironically based on your statement, if this sequestration happens, Controllers won't be "working" for ANYONE; they'll be spending days on the beach.


User currently offlineFreequentFlier From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 900 posts, RR: 12
Reply 141, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6982 times:

Quoting Dreamflight767 (Reply 140):
Actually, indirectly, you do work for us. Tax dollars from YOUR pocket provide FAA funding. Furthermore, Controllers provide a SERVICE to the National Airspace whether it be a person(s), freight, or other logistics. Which in itself is another excellent example of why not to privatize Air Traffic. Air Traffic provides a service to the whole, they don't work for corporate who set their own agendas/preferential treatments.

Ironically based on your statement, if this sequestration happens, Controllers won't be "working" for ANYONE; they'll be spending days on the beach.

You seem confused how this works. If your salary comes from our pockets, it's because we're paying your salary. Thus ultimately it is the American citizens who are your boss.

And it is attitudes such as yours why we won't miss much of your services when the sequester kicks in (and it will).


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 142, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6977 times:

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 141):
And it is attitudes such as yours why we won't miss much of your services when the sequester kicks in (and it will).


When it kicks in and you are flying into a major airport expect to miss your meeting, connection or whatever else you had planned that resulted in you needing to use the NAS. Bottom line is this, it takes X number of bodies to staff a facility per shift, if you lose some of those and drop below the numbers necessary to run the joint efficiently then services disappear and everything is in the crapper!

While I may not agree with some attitudes displayed on this thread, I will say some of what has been posted is correct and sadly probably will become reality.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13121 posts, RR: 100
Reply 143, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6964 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 133):
Second, why on Earth would you say that just because some lousy companies have misappropriated funds and lost their employee pensions (ie. US Airways) that the same should happen to FAA employees?

You extrapolated my comment and I see why. So I should appologize.. I do not want to pay the taxes on the pensions that allow a far earlier and better retirement than the tax paying population will see. My pension wasn't misappropriated, it simply 'transitioned' to a lower payout scheme which is what should happen with all Federal employees.

I don't want the FAA to take the brunt. They are simply the symbol to keep a bunch of the waste going. So what I propose would have little impact on a FAA front line employee. It is time to cut behind the lines though. We simply have too many government employees and non-working citizens per private sector taxpayer. The transition will not be fun.

I want aviation to thrive. But the economics of all parts of the government can be improved. I'm not picking on the front lines in the tower. I'm thinking more of the organization and automation.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineDreamflight767 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 144, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6949 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 142):
When it kicks in and you are flying into a major airport expect to miss your meeting, connection or whatever else you had planned that resulted in you needing to use the NAS. Bottom line is this, it takes X number of bodies to staff a facility per shift, if you lose some of those and drop below the numbers necessary to run the joint efficiently then services disappear and everything is in the crapper!

This has been my point since starting the thread. The intention was never to point fingers or offer a specific solution. Political figures are using our airspace/aviation as a weapon for their own benefit(s) and it is important that us, as members of the aviation community, be aware.

I won't argue that better cost and spending control is needed. But, I, personally can easily identify more effective, longer term solutions that would not include furloughing, facility closures, and reduction of services.

People seem to forget that the even under the best conditions (weather, equipment, full staffing, etc.), the NAS STILL experiences delays because of saturation alone. Now close a sector, keep flight data/clearance combined with ground during a major push or take a major air carrier airport down to single/double RWY ops. and you just created grid lock. Add weather, an ILS or radar outage into that mix...well, you just try to exercises your "3 hour tarmac delay".


User currently offlineATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 542 posts, RR: 3
Reply 145, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6926 times:

Quoting kellmark (Reply 138):
Hey Tower. (First, thanks for being in the classes).

Believe me, pleasure was all mine, it was great having an intelligent professor (and most knowledgeable aviation nut I have ever met) to always bounce ideas such as this off of.

Quoting kellmark (Reply 138):
I do not favor privatizing the FAA. What the comments above were about was that if one believes that more government spending somehow helps the economy, well that just doesn't work, because there has to be a way to pay for it which doesn't do additional harm, meaning higher taxes, more borrowing or more printing of money, which is inflationary. That is our problem in the first place. Spending way too much by the government got us into this mess and spending more just makes it worse.

I agree but see my response below relating to 'ways to pay'.

Quoting kellmark (Reply 138):
To me, the bottom line here is, that this whole situation is a failure of political leadership. It is one side posturing to hurt the other at the expense of the American people whom they are supposed to be serving. It is a crass and corrupt attempt to place blame, while hurting the very people who are paying a lot for these services. It is truly a betrayal of the public trust for political gain.

I could not have said it better myself. Americans are mere pawns in the game and being exploited to further BS politician agendas.

Quoting Dreamflight767 (Reply 140):
Actually, indirectly, you do work for us. Tax dollars from YOUR pocket provide FAA funding. Furthermore, Controllers provide a SERVICE to the National Airspace whether it be a person(s), freight, or other logistics. Which in itself is another excellent example of why not to privatize Air Traffic. Air Traffic provides a service to the whole, they don't work for corporate who set their own agendas/preferential treatments.

Ironically based on your statement, if this sequestration happens, Controllers won't be "working" for ANYONE; they'll be spending days on the beach.

Yes, ATC (and the FAA in general) provides a SERVICE to you. It is one instance of obscene government regulation we can all agree on to keep YOUR system safe.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 141):
You seem confused how this works. If your salary comes from our pockets, it's because we're paying your salary. Thus ultimately it is the American citizens who are your boss.

Actually (and if I am wrong, just show it, no need to flame)... Our salaries are almost exclusively paid via the 7.5% federal ticket tax charged on every airline ticket. The 'non-traveling' segment of the population is not responsible for our salaries, operation, retirement, etc. Yes, you are our customers because in the purchase of your airline ticket you are directly paying our salaries. You are NOT our customer because you pay property tax or federal income tax or whatever absurd tax you are paying anyway.

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 142):
When it kicks in and you are flying into a major airport expect to miss your meeting, connection or whatever else you had planned that resulted in you needing to use the NAS. Bottom line is this, it takes X number of bodies to staff a facility per shift, if you lose some of those and drop below the numbers necessary to run the joint efficiently then services disappear and everything is in the crapper!

This is what so many who do not feel the sequester will affect them cant grasp. It is not uncommon for us to run a 30-40MIT flow going out for MDW or LAX where we are a thousand miles from either. When the sequester happens and airports like Casper, Rapid City, Aspen, Colorado Springs hit their peak times of the day, you WILL SEE HUGE DELAYS to these airports simply because of the logistics of 'one in, one out' which the airlines STRESS on commercial flights. Secondly, when airports like DEN, ORD, DFW, LAS that do not normally require in trail sequencing are running on less staffing than we currently have you will see flows for these airports. Say for example, Denver approach REQUIRES 30 MIT due to having positions combined and can no longer run the number of planes, they coordinate with Denver Center traffic management. Denver Center traffic management puts a flow out to adjacent centers requiring 20MIT to get it started. Doesnt sound like much until you are the 15th plane of an arrival stream and where I would normally need 75 miles from front to back of the line, I am now required to give approach 600mi between #1 and #last. See where this is going? Im not even talking about the adverse effect it will have on sector saturation for the enroute environment working 2-3 people per crew (6-9/shift) down... Next you will see a ground stop for all Denver planes and be at the whim of where our traffic management thinks they can squeeze you in that 600mi stream. See where this is going?

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 143):
You extrapolated my comment and I see why. So I should appologize.. I do not want to pay the taxes on the pensions that allow a far earlier and better retirement than the tax paying population will see. My pension wasn't misappropriated, it simply 'transitioned' to a lower payout scheme which is what should happen with all Federal employees.

Already done. While I am no fan of the 'entitlement' so many of todays youth enjoy, I have been with the FAA under 5 years and am on a TOTALLY different retirement plan from many of the 'older guys' who do have sweet deals with 6 figure pensions where I will expect around 30-40k. I disagree with what they receive; not because I will not get it but because it does contribute to our nations problems. That is why it changed. If you care to read more, search CSRS vs. FERS.

It is not a pretty little fairytale so many think just because it happens it wont affect them. If you fly, it WILL affect you.



By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
User currently offlineKarlB737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3105 posts, RR: 10
Reply 146, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6703 times:

It looks like Allegiant will evaluate each city to see if they will maintain service:

Courtesy: Northwest Indiana Times

Possible Gary Tower Closing Has Allegiant Looking At Options

"Allegiant airline will make decisions on a "case-by-case basis" on whether to keep flying to airports such as Gary/Chicago International, where control towers may close because of federal sequestration budget cuts."

"There are many factors at play, and we will make operations decisions on a case-by-case basis that are in the best interest of safety, above all else," Allegiant spokeswoman Jessica Wheeler said in an email to The Times."


http://www.nwitimes.com/business/loc...7-cb4e-5e58-a4ee-053e32802137.html


User currently offlinemrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 49
Reply 147, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6355 times:

We have built a situation where you basically cannot tie your shoes in the aviation industry without government permission. Because, you know, people would just tie their shoes wrong and potentially, some day, under really unrealistic conditions, maybe, cause an incident where, maybe, some harm would be done to someone or something. Maybe. Because, of course, people in the actual aviation industry are all idiots willing to get people killed to save five cents. "The profit motive" is evil, etc.

Now that the federal government is finally being forced to deal with the fact that it is on an unsustainable path to devouring all the wealth produced in this country (Surprise! Not.), we discover that things can't get done without insane federal spending. Because everyhting is regulated.

The solution is not to give the politicians and bureaucrats (even) more money. It is to let americans do business without having to ask for permission from uncle Sam. As if we were free people.


User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 148, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6327 times:

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 135):
And yes, your pensions should be modified to exclusively defined contribution plans, as has already occurred in the private sector for the most part. This is not the 1950s anymore. The world has moved on to defined contribution plans now, rather than defined benefit plans.

The feds don't have defined benefit anymore. Take a look at what happend to the federal employee retirement system in 1984. Had a lot of the private sector followed suite, many private sector people would still have something left.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 143):
it simply 'transitioned' to a lower payout scheme which is what should happen with all Federal employees.

Already happend. Again, back in 1984. And those in the old Civil Service Retirement System, lost the lump sum payout, and for some time had higher contributions than were defined when they hired. Many were counting on that lump sum to pay off homes or kids college bills. They were takinging it in the ass long before the private sector. By the way, redirect your research to the federal compensation paid within 50 nautical miles of D.C. if you seriously want to find where there's excess federal compensation. For the most part, out in Flyover Country the worker bees are earning it.

I see you have a dislike for the federal employees and their compensation system. I also see you seem to lack an understanding of what the actual facts surrounding their compensation are. Find out the facts of the latter, and the former may change.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6608 posts, RR: 24
Reply 149, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6324 times:

Quoting mrocktor (Reply 147):
Because, of course, people in the actual aviation industry are all idiots willing to get people killed to save five cents.

But we have plenty of evidence of that being true. Look back to the airline industry of the 1930's, 40's and 50's when there was little safety regulation (though quite a bit of economic regulation). The industry suffered crash after crash largely caused by aviators and airlines engaging in dangerous practices.

And complain all you want, but the safety record of the aviation industry under FAA regulation speaks for itself.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10427 posts, RR: 14
Reply 150, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6295 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 149):
Quoting mrocktor (Reply 147):
Because, of course, people in the actual aviation industry are all idiots willing to get people killed to save five cents.

But we have plenty of evidence of that being true. Look back to the airline industry of the 1930's, 40's and 50's when there was little safety regulation (though quite a bit of economic regulation). The industry suffered crash after crash largely caused by aviators and airlines engaging in dangerous practices.

And complain all you want, but the safety record of the aviation industry under FAA regulation speaks for itself.

Well, there was very little of ANY type of safety regulation in those years, not just in the aviation industry, but in most industries. Unfortunately, the only way any meaningful safety regulation came about was because a dangerous incident happened and, consequently, safety regs came from it. Things weren't dangerous back then because people wanted it to be, but because they didn't know any better until something happened to change things.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinerickabone From United States of America, joined May 2006, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 151, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6162 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 104):
Lowering of pay bands isn't a pay cut. It just means the new guy is paid less. Older employees are fenced and continue on with the same pay and perks they've always had. It's a start, but it doesn't solve the problem which is the simple fact that the government is running out of other people's money. If the government was serious, they'd cut government salaries by 5% and freeze them until we see real economic growth.

First of all, there are lots of people retiring or very close to retirement. So yes, you will see a drastic decrease in salary expenditures for the agency. Secondly, the government isn't actually running out of other people's money as the deficit is going down as a percentage of GDP and has been for a couple of years now. Thirdly, the suggestion that cutting government spending will lead to any real economic growth flies in the face of ECONOMICS! Austerity is a huge drag on the economy, and any serious academic economist will tell you that. Government spending is one of the drivers of economic growth so your rationale is all wrong.


User currently offlinerickabone From United States of America, joined May 2006, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 152, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6238 times:

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 135):
Quite frankly, many of us are not concerned if you're offended. And yes, your pensions should be modified to exclusively defined contribution plans, as has already occurred in the private sector for the most part. This is not the 1950s anymore. The world has moved on to defined contribution plans now, rather than defined benefit plans.

And this, my friends, is exactly what is wrong with this nation. While the wealthy financier class is making out like bandits, profiting greater than at any time in history, they are pitting us in the middle class against each other and convincing us that if we do not have benefits that someone else has, rather than fighting for our own, we should be fighting to take away someone else's. That money won't go back to anyone but the wealthy financier class who is taking an ever larger slice of the pie every day. Thanks to them, we are living in a nation where we can no longer expect to be better off than our parent's generation and ensure that our kids are better off than us. We are racing to the bottom rather than working together to get to the top and this post is perfect evidence of this.


User currently offlinerickabone From United States of America, joined May 2006, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 153, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6222 times:

Quoting kellmark (Reply 138):
Quoting kellmark (Reply 138):
Spending way too much by the government got us into this mess and spending more just makes it worse.

You clearly have not studied how we got into this mess or how we or any other nation got into recessions in the past and how they got out of them. Government spending is one of the most proven ways to end a recession. Austerity is best during times of economic boom, not recession and thanks to the multiplier effect, deficit spending benefits the economy 5 - 7 times more than the dollar amount spent so it is very beneficial in a struggling economy. Any serious academic economist will tell you this.


User currently offlinemrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 49
Reply 154, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6045 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 149):
But we have plenty of evidence of that being true. Look back to the airline industry of the 1930's, 40's and 50's when there was little safety regulation (though quite a bit of economic regulation). The industry suffered crash after crash largely caused by aviators and airlines engaging in dangerous practices.

And complain all you want, but the safety record of the aviation industry under FAA regulation speaks for itself.

The assumption that humans only learn from mistakes if forced to do so by a government official is the one I do not share.


User currently offlinefreakyrat From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 868 posts, RR: 1
Reply 155, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6010 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Some of the FAA support for Sun N Fun has been cancelled also some FAA support for Oshkosh may be threatened.

User currently offlineatct From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2293 posts, RR: 38
Reply 156, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5967 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 122):
Forbid their employees have to pay their share of health insurance

I pay most of my health insurance. That insurance is also crap compared to what I recieved at a crappy regional. I am also paid alot more, thus I can afford to pay for crappy insurance.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 133):
just because some lousy companies have misappropriated funds and lost their employee pensions (ie. US Airways) that the same should happen to FAA employees?

Half my family is former Allegheny/Airways....no thanks!

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 145):
Already done. While I am no fan of the 'entitlement' so many of todays youth enjoy, I have been with the FAA under 5 years and am on a TOTALLY different retirement plan from many of the 'older guys' who do have sweet deals with 6 figure pensions where I will expect around 30-40k. I disagree with what they receive; not because I will not get it but because it does contribute to our nations problems. That is why it changed. If you care to read more, search CSRS vs. FERS.

FERS came about in the late 80's for teh ATC workforce. I would wager that 95% of the workforce is under the FERS retirement system. The CSRS people are in the minority. This is why we have the TSP, which if managed properly, can far exceed the CSRS program. Im running 10-12% gains so far over my career. I lost some on the downturn, but only 1-2%. I think with FERS I am better off.


Long story short is we are all dicussing speculations when it comes to the sequestration. Give it another few weeks and as the facts roll in, we'll know exactly how it will affect us. I just put off buying my house until this whole thing settles. Relax, take a drink, enjoy the sunset, and enjoy the time off.

ATCT



"The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." - Walt Disney
User currently offlinekellmark From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 693 posts, RR: 8
Reply 157, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5894 times:

Quoting rickabone (Reply 153):
You clearly have not studied how we got into this mess or how we or any other nation got into recessions in the past and how they got out of them. Government spending is one of the most proven ways to end a recession. Austerity is best during times of economic boom, not recession and thanks to the multiplier effect, deficit spending benefits the economy 5 - 7 times more than the dollar amount spent so it is very beneficial in a struggling economy. Any serious academic economist will tell you this.


I do know how we got into this mess. Massive overspending over many years. But it has never been as bad as it is now. It sounds like you think that a tiny, tiny, tiny cut of GROWTH in the budget is a cut . The budget is still growing this year. And creating a higher and higher deficit. Deficit spending has to be paid for. That is the fundamental flaw with your philosophy. Government does not create wealth or economic growth. That is a false premise of a failed ideology.The dollar that is spent by a government has to be taken from somewhere else, meaning the private sector. That dollar is a pure loss to the private sector. But here it is more than a dollar, because interest has to be paid on the 40% of that dollar the government can't cover with revenue that must be borrowed, printed or taxed. You don't account for that. In the last 4 years of this administration the federal government has grown 20%. This is absolutely unsustainable. The amount of spending and debt will crush the economy unless something is done. And of course there is the massive duplication of programs and waste all through the federal government. If anything, the cuts should be far larger. We need a balanced budget amendment. That is why the great outcry about these tiny cuts is so ludicrous.

There have been many recessions and even some depressions in the economic history of the US. The vast majority of them disappeared naturally as part of the economic cycle, without any government action whatsoever. There were 2 depressions in the twentieth century. The one from the stock market crash in 1929 and another one before that in 1920. The one in 1929 was famously "managed" by the Roosevelt administration with massive government programs and spending which distorted the economy and which delayed the recovery until the start of World War II. Those policies were a disaster for the country. While people were starving, the government actually had programs destroying crops and holding prices high. But the one in 1920, was very different. The economy recovered very quickly, in less than 2 years, as the government then did nothing. The economy recovered on its own far better without any government intervention. And here we are in the economic doldrums, for nearly 5 years, after spending over 6 trillion dollars of money we didn't have, to find us with millions fewer people working, far less income per household, and our children with little hope for the future as we have a new, far larger dependent class who looks purely to the government to provide for them. About 45 million Americans are now on food stamps. This is a scale of disaster of epic proportions for us. Except of course for those who live in Washington, D.C. We have become a "Hunger Games" country, with Washington and its ravenous government feeding off of the states and living in the bubble. Some might say that this debacle is even beneficial for certain politicians.

But now we are witnessing the first clash of the government class of workers on the federal side being faced with economic reality. Most of us have faced this all of our lives. Well, we have run out of "other people's money". I feel for all of those people who may lose some work or days of pay, or even an entire job. I have been there a number of times myself. But each time, I recovered, on my own and sought another way to make a living and support my family. But no one should be guaranteed a job when there are no resources to pay for it. And you don't have to look as far as Greece to see where this will lead the country. Just look at Detroit, which has become a third world country. Or California, losing thousands of businesses and millions of people who are leaving the oppressive taxes and regulations there.

This is a basic take over of our society by a class of people who feel that they have the right to be rewarded no matter the economic situation or suffering that millions of others are going through. I just don't see how, when private taxpayers on average make far less than federal workers and bureaucrats do, that they should now be asked to give more.


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2351 posts, RR: 2
Reply 158, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5843 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kellmark (Reply 157):
The one in 1929 was famously "managed" by the Roosevelt administration with massive government programs and spending which distorted the economy and which delayed the recovery until the start of World War II. Those policies were a disaster for the country. While people were starving, the government actually had programs destroying crops and holding prices high.

Completely backwards. Early stimulus was easing the country (and other countries that were doing the same) out of the depression, but sudden and very premature austerity then tossed the whole thing even deeper into the toilet. WWII caused the government to stimulate the holy heck out the economy with deficit spending the likes of which had never been seen before or since. During WWII added something on the order of 100% of the annual GDP in debt (aka stimulus*) spending, counting the deficits since 2009 is around 40%.

The debt is a medium and long term issue, cratering economic growth to deal with a short term deficits is hugely expensive - those years of little or no growth have a big impact on what the accumulated debt costs us in the future, since you tend not to get that lost growth back, and the burden of the debt is only meaningful in relation to GDP. If you cut GDP growth by a percentage point, you’re effectively increasing the burden of the debt by 1%. Further, for the U.S., since we actually get to borrow money in dollars, inflation also eases the burden of the debt. Obviously you need a balance, but one side in this debate seems eager to repeat the mistakes of the early 1930s, or those of Japan in the last couple of decades, or Europe of the last few years.

You also notice much of Europe where premature austerity has dump a bunch of countries back into recession.


*Sure, there was a good reason for building bombers and whatnot, but it certainly wasn't because that's what the market wanted - if there had not been a war on, we could have built the same bombers, ships, tanks, etc., gotten the same stimulus value out of that spending, and then buried the lot of it in a big hole. Or we could have built another million miles of roads instead, or whatever.


User currently offlineFreequentFlier From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 900 posts, RR: 12
Reply 159, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5791 times:

Quoting rickabone (Reply 152):
And this, my friends, is exactly what is wrong with this nation. While the wealthy financier class is making out like bandits, profiting greater than at any time in history, they are pitting us in the middle class against each other and convincing us that if we do not have benefits that someone else has, rather than fighting for our own, we should be fighting to take away someone else's. That money won't go back to anyone but the wealthy financier class who is taking an ever larger slice of the pie every day. Thanks to them, we are living in a nation where we can no longer expect to be better off than our parent's generation and ensure that our kids are better off than us. We are racing to the bottom rather than working together to get to the top and this post is perfect evidence of this.

Mike Boyd's March 4th Hot Flash aviation column does a wonderful job of digging into the FAA's budget as compared to years prior. Then he digs into the number of aircraft enplanements and departures. And shock of all shocks, it turns out that even POST sequester, the FAA will have a budget that is 9.3% LARGER than in 2008, despite the fact that aircraft enplanements will be DOWN 1.5% and departures will be DOWN 10.9%. So post sequester, the FAA will still have a much larger budget to deal with much less work.