The Texas DOT has announced it will pay to keep ATC towers open at ALL 13 proposed closures.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/03...-texas-should-fund-air-towers.html

While the federal govt may be out of money, it is quite nice to see a local (or republic in this case, haha) area see the need to keep air traffic safe.

While there are not likely to be other states to follow suit since so many of the others are broke, any others you see following suit and ensuring safety of the flying public?

http://www.faa.gov/news/media/fct_closed.pdf

Again, Major Kudos to Texas.

Awesome display from the Republic of Texas!!!   

The state of Texas is paying for government services when the Feds will not? That's a delicious bit of irony ...

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 2): That's a delicious bit of irony

Politically it is awesome and I can't stand politics.

I am curious now as to exactly how many of the FCT structures were built using state and local funds? I know the SGR structure was built and early on operated by Midwest ATC with funding by the city of Sugar Land, maybe with TexDOT funds as well before RVA took the contract.

Best thing Governor Goodhair has done for this state in a long time!   

Glad to see KGTU keep its tower!

Cheers,
Cameron

Why am I thinking the funds are excess federal funds from other programs which are being reprogrammed (steered) toward the sequestered towers. Not a lot of people can argue safety. Its not a bad idea but I'll stay reserved if Texas is really funding the initiative. In my mind it's more of a lead, follow or get out the way scenario.

Good this is how it should be. In fact, the solution to ATC and Security problems with regards to govt funding is to privatize both.

Good news! That's too bad that KTXK is just on the other side of the border over in Arkansas. That airport is valuable to flight training opportunities in Northeast Texas.   

[Edited 2013-03-29 08:12:36]

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 3): Politically it is awesome and I can't stand politics. I am curious now as to exactly how many of the FCT structures were built using state and local funds? I know the SGR structure was built and early on operated by Midwest ATC with funding by the city of Sugar Land, maybe with TexDOT funds as well before RVA took the contract.

I agree. Nearly all control towers (not just FCT) are built using a substantial portion of state/local funds (even 100% for some). RVA and Midwest never pay to build their own towers they merely bid to operate them once completed.

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 5): Best thing Governor Goodhair has done for this state in a long time!

Not my governor so I cant speak to that but it was specifically mentioned he was a driving force in this. Kudos to him.

Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 6): Why am I thinking the funds are excess federal funds from other programs which are being reprogrammed (steered) toward the sequestered towers. Not a lot of people can argue safety. Its not a bad idea but I'll stay reserved if Texas is really funding the initiative. In my mind it's more of a lead, follow or get out the way scenario.

Not entirely sure what you are getting at. The TXDOT gets its funding just as any other state does with registrations, fuel taxes, tolls, etc. They also get allowances from the fed for certain purposes that are usually very broad, but nevertheless their funds to use for their DOT. I am not quite sure why you dont think people can argue safety, keeping these towers open and operated by safety focused professionals is surely more beneficial than going uncontrolled. FWIW, even some airlines have policies/insurance requirements to operate at controlled airports, obviously a reason.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 7): Good this is how it should be. In fact, the solution to ATC and Security problems with regards to govt funding is to privatize both.

Absolutely the worst possible idea ever spoken regarding ATC. Look how good the pseudo govt/private industry did with TSA. Privatizing ATC would cut pay, cut employees, and certainly put controllers back to IWR white book days. BAD IDEA!

I'm a Texan and would normally applaud this, but in some instances, a few of these airports truly don't need to be controlled.

I don't think the blanket should cover all of them necessarily.

Still, for these privately controlled airfields, one has to ask the obvious question: why didn't the states have this authority to begin with?

Quoting slider (Reply 10): a few of these airports truly don't need to be controlled.

Just curious which airports do you believe are better suited being uncontrolled?

Not a huge fan of our current Governor, but I applaud him on this one.

[Edited 2013-03-29 09:29:24]

Frankly I think this was a very bad move and sets a bad precedence.

One you take over something, you potentially get stuck with it on the long run.

There really is nothing stopping the FAA from leaving the bill to local agencies for an ever larger set of airports they appropriately deem no longer fiscally prudent to run themselves.

Slippery slope.

Where is the $ for this being diverted from?

Texas IS broke. We've slashed spending on everything from higher education to pre-K programs being slashed. Heck, we're talking about selling PUBLIC parks to the highest bidders!

I don't have a problem with this, but I do worry when folks just assume we've got the $$$ for it. We don't. We're broke, despite all the posturing out of Austin.

I wish California had the gumption to do this!

Quoting slider (Reply 9): I don't think the blanket should cover all of them necessarily.

That I agree. But for a statement, start with keeping all open.

Quoting COflyerBOS (Reply 13): Texas IS broke.

The economy is turning up and that freed up revenue.
Sales-tax receipts, which make up more than half of the state’s general-revenue funds, had come in higher than expected, after several years in which consumers had been looking down the back of the sofa for spare change. Oil and gas revenues were up, too, as big fracking sites such as the Eagle Ford Shale came online. Her estimate also included a hefty surplus: Texas would end the current budget cycle with $8.8 billion left over.

http://www.economist.com/news/united...exan-austerity-too-much-good-thing

Lightsaber

Not a fan of our governor, and this isn't helping. No, no one's against aviation safety, but there are far, far more important things to fund, like education, that have more positive influence on more people's lives than aviation.

Just another attention-grabbing ploy...

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 15): Not a fan of our governor, and this isn't helping. No, no one's against aviation safety, but there are far, far more important things to fund, like education, that have more positive influence on more people's lives than aviation. Just another attention-grabbing ploy...

Could not agree more!

I hope it stands, but my gut instinct is that some way will be found to deny the use of local funds for a federal entity.
It should be remembered that the politics involved in the sequester is to first shut down services that are important to the citizens thus forcing them to pressure their congress representatives to restore full government funding, same principle applied by states where the first to be cut is police and fire when cut-backs are announced.

I love our governor. While we may be "broke", at least we aren't in the hole as so many states are. Passing a balanced budget every 2 years is a fantastic idea and what that should be required by all 50 states and the federal government.

If we have some discretionary money, then I applaud the decision to keep towers open, but as someone else stated, not every one of them needs to be saved.

[Edited 2013-03-29 11:29:06]

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 3): Politically it is awesome and I can't stand politics.

Texas is doing an incredibly smart thing and this should become something of a model for future infrastructure investments.

Quoting slider (Reply 9): I'm a Texan and would normally applaud this, but in some instances, a few of these airports truly don't need to be controlled.

Who's more likely to figure that out and act accordingly: Texans or the feds? Infrastructure should have a strong local funding component because those are the people who will actually use the infrastructure and have a good understanding of its value.

It comes down to the simple idea that what I find good uses of my money and what I find good uses of someone else's money are two different things.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 8): The TXDOT gets its funding just as any other state does with registrations, fuel taxes, tolls, etc. They also get allowances from the fed for certain purposes that are usually very broad, but nevertheless their funds to use for their DOT.

The monies most states receive from vehicle registrations, fuel taxes and alike are a drop in the bucket when compared to the federal appropriations they receive. I wouldn't be surprised if a chunk of the state revenue generated from these programs goes toward the education program including the school bus transportation program which would include acquisition of new buses. The brunt of it is steered (pun intended) for specific purposes including the maintenance of their Eisenhower Federal Interstate system.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 8): I am not quite sure why you dont think people can argue safety,

My statement didn't come across quite right. What I was trying to say is people generally cannot argue against safety meaning safety trumps a lot of things. With that said one must be prepared to hoist the B.S flag.

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 10): Just curious which airports do you believe are better suited being uncontrolled?

Any airport with less than 30,000 or so movements qualifies.

NQA, just to name one. BAZ also, which is in Texas.

http://www.gcr1.com/5010web/airport.cfm?Site=NQA&AptSecNum=2

http://www.gcr1.com/5010web/airport.cfm?Site=BAZ&AptSecNum=2

BTW, the average aircraft movements at the airports that will close is around 54,000.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...port-towers-after-budget-cuts.html

According to the same article above, the one with the most airline movements was Bloomington, Illinois, with 4,835. That's 13 a day. Hardly anything dramatic.

I do agree however that some of these airports with 120,000 + aircraft movements that are closing is just insane.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 8): Privatizing ATC would cut pay, cut employees, and certainly put controllers back to IWR white book days. BAD IDEA!

2000+ controllers up in Canada would beg to differ. Since privatization back in '96, pay scales have gone up substantially, and i'm not just talking about indexation and cost of living.

Thenoflyzone

[Edited 2013-03-29 12:06:10]

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 19): Texas is doing an incredibly smart thing and this should become something of a model for future infrastructure investments.

What - taking money out of funding for medical care for poor kids to keep towers open so millionaire's jets will have extra ATC service. That's the kids of working parents who make under $30,000 per year. Not welfare moms. The governor is cutting back help for working families.

The only major infrastructure done in Texas in recent years is by toll road authorities and organizations funded either over the state level, or under the state level.

The state government of Texas is broke, running at a deficit on their budget. Has been for years.


Texas is doing something incredibly short sighted to take care of the Governor's millionaire cronies.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 8): The TXDOT gets its funding just as any other state does with registrations, fuel taxes, tolls, etc. They also get allowances from the fed for certain purposes that are usually very broad, but nevertheless their funds to use for their DOT.

The governor and the state legislature has been saying for months that TXDOT doesn't have the money to maintain the roads. That the state needs to sell stretches of interstate to private companies so they can be toll roads. To free up funds for non-DOT projects.

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 2): The state of Texas is paying for government services when the Feds will not? That's a delicious bit of irony

Yes, the same governor who cut billions of dollars in federal education funding because it "wasn't a federal responsibility".

Now that schools are still critically underfunded, he finds money to keep towers open at airports, most of which barely have enough traffic to qualify for a manned tower under FAA regulations.

Quoting COflyerBOS (Reply 13): Where is the $ for this being diverted from? Texas IS broke. We've slashed spending on everything from higher education to pre-K programs being slashed. Heck, we're talking about selling PUBLIC parks to the highest bidders!

You know the shell games the Texas governor plays.

He can find money for his pet projects - but doing such things as not spending taxes collected on cigarette sales for medical needs - and saying the 'savings' by not spending the money as required by state law means he has money for another project.

We haven't had a marginally balanced budget in Texas since 2002, despite the requirement in the state constitution for a balanced budget.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 22): What - taking money out of funding for medical care for poor kids to keep towers open so millionaire's jets will have extra ATC service.

That's incredibly short sighted coming from a person on an aviation website. At least half of those airports have airline service but of course you didn't take the time to look into that. It's just easier to blame the government helping millionaires.

Towers should be run by the same people who run the airport. . . i.e., not the FAA.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 22): What - taking money out of funding for medical care for poor kids to keep towers open so millionaire's jets will have extra ATC service.

If Texans feel that way they can close the towers. Your sort of attitude is exactly what we should be trying to avoid: "It isn't a cause worthy of Texas' money, but we're all for Uncle Sam paying for it!"

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 22): The only major infrastructure done in Texas in recent years is by toll road authorities and organizations funded either over the state level, or under the state level.

Their new superhighway is another good example of how some infrastructure should be built in the future.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 22): What - taking money out of funding for medical care for poor kids to keep towers open so millionaire's jets will have extra ATC service.

Really? I can't comment on the validity of Texas's spending priorities as I live in South Carolina.....but

Why do people always take the 'fat cat' approach to private aviation? Oh wait, I know it's because the people in this country are materialistic jerks that obsess over lives of celebrities and bad apple CEOs whose extravagent lifestyles include things such as private jets, so by extension people assume that all private jets are toys of the rich.

Do people not realize that the VAST MAJORITY of private jets are business jets? Do people not realize that without the economic benefit of business aircraft companies would be significantly less profitable and subject to the inefficiency and disaster that is airline flying? What about the small business owners that own private light aircraft (ie pistons) that would lose their businesses if it wasn't for the freedom of private travel? Not to mention the jobs that they create (pilots, mechanics, manufacturers which in turn create jobs for suppliers, etc)

BTW the people flying in the airplanes mentioned are everyday working individuals who have families that depend on their income which is determined (or at least should be) by the profitability of said business that own those airplanes.

Quoting slider (Reply 9): Privatizing ATC would cut pay, cut employees, and certainly put controllers back to IWR white book days.

Which the FAA is already doing right now.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 22): 2000+ controllers up in Canada would beg to differ. Since privatization back in '96, pay scales have gone up substantially, and i'm not just talking about indexation and cost of living.

  

[Edited 2013-03-29 14:23:28]

Quoting twincessna340a (Reply 26): Which the FAA is already doing right now.

Aren't the towers being cut the privatized ones?

Quoting flight152 (Reply 23): That's incredibly short sighted coming from a person on an aviation website.

I've flown out of all but two of those airports at one time or another, some of them as a student pilot. My second solo was to one of these airports. I know exactly what the impact will be at those airports - which only have contract ATC for part of the day.

Two airports in the Dallas area - KTKI and KRBD do have some flight training, no commerical service. But KTKI is focused on attracting corporate jets, and they've done a good job gaining them.

I've done most of my TNG practice at an uncontrolled airport in the DFW area, which averages 3 to 5 aircraft in the pattern for 10-12 hours per day. The airport averages close to 500 takeoffs and landings per day - yet has never had a tower, and the FAA says it is not busy enough for a tower.

The impacted airports with no commercial airline service

BAZ / KBAZ - No commercial service - averages 71 takeoffs and landings per day - ATC only 11 hours per day - their commercial cargo flights all operate during hours ATC is not manned

CNW / KCNW - No commercial service - averages 197 takeoffs and landings per day - ATC 11 hours per day - 25% military training traffic (this airport only got ATC service when it was the choice of the USAF and Secret Service for President Bush - the FAA has been trying to close the tower for four years)

CXO / KCXO - No commercial service - averages 219 takeoffs and landings per day - ATC 14 hours per day - this airport does host an Army National Guard helicopter unit

GTU / KGTU - No commercial service - averages 350 takeoffs and landings per day - ATC 10 to 14 hours per day depending upon season - ATC ends at dusk

HYI / KHYI - No commercial service but is home to Berry Aviation - averages 326 takeoffs and landings per day - ATC 12 hours per day

RBD / KRBD - No commercial service - averages 370 takeoffs and landings per day - ATC 9 hours per day

SGR / KSGR - No commercial service - averages 370 takeoffs and landings per day - ATC 17 hours per day

SSF / KSSF - No commercial service - averages 430 takeoffs and landings per day - ATC 15 hours per day

TKI / KTKI - No commercial service - averages 284 takeoffs and landings per day - ATC 17 hours per day

VCT / KVCT - No commercial service - averages 125 takeoffs and landings per day - ATC 14 hours per day M-Sat, 12 hours on Sunday

Three have with commercial airline service

BRO / KBRO - 8 regional jet flights per day - averages 107 takeoffs and landings per day - ATC hours not listed but does use UNICOM and PCL at night - 40% of their traffic is military training flights from Laughlin and Kingsville (Note the local South Padre government councils have committed to pay 50% of the cost of keeping the tower open)

CLL / KCLL - 9 regional jet flghts per day - averages 141 takeoffs and landings per day - ATC 16 hours per day - several cargo flights operate duing hours ATC is not manned

TYR / KTYR - 7 regional jet flight per day - averages 133 takeoffs and landings per day - ATC 17 hours per day

Quoting flight152 (Reply 23): t least half of those airports have airline service

I don't know where you got this - but only 3 of the 13 have scheduled airline service.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 25): If Texans feel that way they can close the towers.

I'm certain most Texas working people see closing the towers as a good management of federal resources.

But, again you completely miss the point and promote your own fantasy agenda.

This is not about closing contract ATC towers.

The governor of Texas is promoting his great plan to save jobs by taking money from approved and budgeted programs to play politics for his supporters.

If he was a real conservative, he would be applauding the move to close the unnecessary towers.

Quoting twincessna340a (Reply 26): Do people not realize that the VAST MAJORITY of private jets are business jets? Do people not realize that without the economic benefit of business aircraft companies would be significantly less profitable and subject to the inefficiency and disaster that is airline flying? What about the small business owners that own private light aircraft (ie pistons) that would lose their businesses if it wasn't for the freedom of private travel?

I agree with your points - but the issue isn't about closing towers.

The issue is the state governor diverting funds from budget spending that was passed by the legislature and trying to make political points from the misuse of state funds.

Notice that he has NOT promised or planned to do anything when the second round of closures hits towers manned by FAA employees later in the summer.

---------------------------------

The FAA has to do something with the mandate from Congress and the administration. I'm not sure this is the best approach, but they have chosen to meet the initial spending cuts by closing contract operations towers.

Most of these airports never met the federal standard of a certain level of traffic to justify a tower.

The vast majority of small business owned private aircraft, a lot of biz jets, the overwhelming majority of private aircraft - operate from home bases with a tower for ATC services. These 13 airports are home to about 118 biz jets.

The governor only got concerned about this 'crisis' when two of his biggest financial supporters complained about the possible cutbacks at the towers in the Houston area where their jets are based.

There might be a case for individual airports. Only one in the list in Texas might meet that criteria in my mind. And in that case, the US military needs to kick in funding support of their view is that a manned tower is important for their usage of the civilian airport.

[Edited 2013-03-29 14:36:02]

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 28): CNW / KCNW - No commercial service - averages 197 takeoffs and landings per day - ATC 11 hours per day - 25% military training traffic (this airport only got ATC service when it was the choice of the USAF and Secret Service for President Bush - the FAA has been trying to close the tower for four years)

There are a lot of student pilots from TSTC that fly out of KCNW as well as the military training flights. Although its not necessary to have a control tower for them it helps. I heard the TSTC aviation program was going to find a way to keep the tower open with or without the federal funding when all the sequestral hysteria was going on. I believe the tower itself is less than four years old.

I find it funny that all the agencies are "finding money" to avoid layoffs and furlough days. All THEY'RE doing is "kicking the can down the road." The point of these cuts were that they were SO extreme and draconian that nobody, on either "side" would let them happen and a deal would come forth.

Guess the "deal" didn't have to happen. But I can tell you this, SOMEONE is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Towers should be funded by local airport revenues, not the federal government. ATC centers are another story altogether.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 25): Your sort of attitude is exactly what we should be trying to avoid: "It isn't a cause worthy of Texas' money, but we're all for Uncle Sam paying for it!"

With due respect, you might just not "get" it.
Our governor has told us time and again we are broke to get us to accept deep cuts in education funding (that wasn't very high to begin with), to turn new highways into toll roads, to make maintenance of existing highways an after-thought, to end medical care for some poor kids, ...

If the state had miraculously found money to restore these cuts and keep open ATC towers that the FAA will no longer fund, I think most Texans would be pretty happy, if not proud, but instead we find out yet again that there is money for a project that is close to the governor and his cronies, but not for the rest, so forgive some of us for being... cynical to say the least.

[Edited 2013-03-29 22:20:50]

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 33): If the state had miraculously found money to restore these cuts and keep open ATC towers that the FAA will no longer fund, I think most Texans would be pretty happy, if not proud, but instead we find out yet again that there is money for a project that is close to the governor and his cronies, but not for the rest, so forgive some of us for being... cynical to say the least.

My point is that if you are going to be annoyed with the fact that Texas is funding the towers, then you shouldn't also be annoyed with the fact that the federal government is not funding them.

It's kind of like EAS: if air service is so crucial to all these small communities, then they should have no problem getting a travel bank or actually ponying up sustainable fairs to fly out of their city. They are unwilling to spend their own money, but gladly take the federal money.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 29): The vast majority of small business owned private aircraft, a lot of biz jets, the overwhelming majority of private aircraft - operate from home bases with a tower for ATC services. These 13 airports are home to about 118 biz jets.

Does it really matter how many biz jets are based at an airport or how many biz jets might happen to fly to the airport? I will tell you from working air traffic in a few of the Texas areas which these airports are located the traffic in an around the airports does create a concern for pilots of all aircraft types as they approach or are ready to depart.

Also, from speaking directly with three major corporate jet operators who use some of the airports referenced, they will look for a controlled airport to fly to rather than use an uncontrolled field.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 28): I know exactly what the impact will be at those airports - which only have contract ATC for part of the day.

If you've flown from some of the airports only a few times you have no idea what the impact will be. You need to sit and watch the traffic day to day, hour by hour to know exactly what an impact will be, nothing less.

Please tell us what the time line looks like for an IFR departure from an uncontrolled airport during a day with low IMC and traffic arriving/departing from the airports you know won't be impacted!!