FAA to Close 149 Air Traffic Towers Under Cuts......

Visbek said:

There is no %$#@!! "Obamaphone."

There is a private sector program, run by a company called SafeLink, which provides 1 hour of call time a month to qualifying low-income households. It's not a government program. (FactCheck.org : The Obama Phone?)

Quite a few federal employees will lose their salaries, if not their jobs. Contractors will go first, because they are a) pretty expensive and b) contractors, so firing them is a lot easier. The same with any company.

I'd prefer that government agencies be run by Oompa-Loompas, and give out candy for free. Unfortunately, that's not how government actually works.

Click to expand...

Never said it was an Obama program. The program was started many years ago by the government, not providers, and like most government, has continued to grow. The program is paid for by a tax, or is it a fee?, on providers of communications. That fee is passed on to the paying consumer, either directly, or included in the bill of the paying customer. In most cases, the program costs the takee nothing. Nevertheless, it is time to stop the program and eliminate the service fee. SafefLink is just one of the many providers that have jumped on this bandwagon.

You are probably right, by eliminating the czars, a lot of unnecessary and redundant jobs will be lost. How else are you going to cut spending other than cutting spending?

I would prefer the government be run by responsible persons who are actually representing the people rather than answerable only to the one man who appointed them.

Obama is using the sequester, which was originally at least partially his proposal, to cut those programs that he will get the most publicity unfavorably to those who oppose him. Yet, at the same time, no cuts in welfare, foreign aid, high level government perks and travel, are all left alone. Biden spends, for instance, while these cuts are being proposed, is spending a million in hotel bills alone in 2 days, not including transportation and incidentals, and as far as I know the 6 figure dog handler is still on the payroll. The WH tour program reportedly costs less than 75 K per year.

ttwtt78640 said:

That would be a 10% cut if it were all "take home" pay, yet we know at the controller pay rate that SS, Medicare, retirement and taxes make that "hit" a good bit smaller. Think for a minute, why a reduction in the planned budget increase needs ANY personnel action at all; the FAA still gets as much (if not more) in 2013 as it got in 2012.

Click to expand...

Their budget is substantially lower, not higher. They have to cut $627 million from this year's budget, which ends in September. Funding they thought they'd have through September isn't going to be there. You're making an awful lot of assumptions in this thread that you haven't checked on first.

MMC said:

I would agree.....but then with 70% of these fields being in Republican states. I am sure you can understand how it looks like Cherry Picking.

Click to expand...

Rural areas with less traffic. It only looks like that if you don't bother to actually think about it.

Deuce said:

Rural areas with less traffic. It only looks like that if you don't bother to actually think about it.

Click to expand...

Well I just gave an example. With Gary's Airport for Indiana and being Chicagoland Area. Also the Waukegan field and Another out NW Illinois. Which also will include Lansing Illinois and their Small private field. But then to top it off.....they haven't decided yet with Midway and the night shift. Which would affect the entire South Suburbs and People from Indiana that go there instead of O'hare.

So while they may be under a certain limit all of them service Chicago Illinois South Suburban Illinois, Northern Illinois, and NW Indiana.

Visbek said:

Yep... and indicative of the real problem.

People want services, but don't want to pay for them.

These smaller airports are exactly the kind of "federal wasted dollars" that ought to be targeted. They're small, low-volume airports, and many receive federal funding and services because locals pressure Congress to keep them going.

What these small airports ought to do is the private sector thing -- namely, hire or pay for the controllers to keep working, and charge those who use the airport for that service. Instead, we get all sorts of hue and cry about how this government spending is "necessary." As long as the people who use the airport don't have to pay for it, that is.

Click to expand...

Privitize the whole ATC system like Canada and Australia have done. Problem solved sequester or no sequester the system continues to work. The cuts will be in middle management just as they were in Canada and Australia. Heck Canada's ATC system went from 7 levels of management down to 3.

jimbo said:

Never said it was an Obama program. The program was started many years ago by the government, not providers, and like most government, has continued to grow....

Click to expand...

It's not operated by the government, and it isn't funded by taxes. It's operated by the telecom companies, who have been offering subsidies on telecommunications since at least 1997. The President's office has little or no control over it.

I would prefer the government be run by responsible persons who are actually representing the people rather than answerable only to the one man who appointed them.

Click to expand...

That's not how it works.

The agencies are staffed by contractors (whose companies bid for the contracts) and lots of staffers, who are civil servants. Most of them stick around for decades. Some are dead wood, some have -- gasp! -- gained expertise in their fields. (I have little doubt that many corporations have similar staffing inefficiencies, despite all the layoffs and pressure.)

The President gets to appoint the heads of those agencies, usually with review by Congress. There are no provisions for elections for the heads of agencies, nor do I really see how that makes much sense, since those agencies are the responsibility of the Executive, and answerable to Congress.

Obama is using the sequester, which was originally at least partially his proposal, to cut those programs that he will get the most publicity unfavorably to those who oppose him.

Click to expand...

Partly incorrect.

Yes, Obama is partly responsible for the sequester. But again, the idea all along was to devise cuts so distasteful to both parties, that no one would actually want it to go through. It's yet another manufactured crisis.

However, it wasn't designed with "publicity" in mind. It was designed so that everyone involved would say "wow, this spending cut really sucks ass."

And guess what? That's exactly what's happening. No one really wants to gank the FAA or Homeland Security. And yet, here we are.

Yet, at the same time, no cuts in welfare, foreign aid, high level government perks and travel, are all left alone.

Click to expand...

Partly incorrect.

Medicaid, TANF, CHIP are welfare programs that don't get cut. This is not because someone likes them, but because they're mandatory spending. Just like interest payments, which are also spared the axe.

Social Security doesn't get cut -- and is not "welfare." Most of the recipients are retirees who have paid into it for their entire lives.

Foreign aid and the State Department are getting cut like everyone else. So is unemployment, the FDA, NIH, CDC, education, housing subsidies, FEMA NASA DOE NSF FBI SEC -- you name it, it's almost certainly getting a cut. The only "perk" that can't be cut is Obama's salary -- and that's because the Constitution forbids it (Art II §1 Cl 7).

Griping about Biden's travel allowance is not a serious complaint. It's an indication that people don't understand how big money works. Even Bill O'Reilly is smart enough not to make a federal case out of travel allowances.

By the way....

Here's the FAA's 2013 Budget

It's only, uh.... 1000 pages long.

You might want to read it --- ok, ok, skim it -- before you proclaim that it's easy to cut $650 million by firing a couple of suits in Washington. :mrgreen:

Deuce said:

Their budget is substantially lower, not higher. They have to cut $627 million from this year's budget, which ends in September. Funding they thought they'd have through September isn't going to be there. You're making an awful lot of assumptions in this thread that you haven't checked on first.

Click to expand...

The sequestration budget law was signed in August 2012, before the fiscal year 2013 even started. I realize that they cared not and planned on business as usual, since the mighty Obama assured them that the budget law was merely a joke and that he had powers to force congress to change their minds. This is simply mismanagement on a monumental scale.

MMC said:

Well I just gave an example. With Gary's Airport for Indiana and being Chicagoland Area. Also the Waukegan field and Another out NW Illinois. Which also will include Lansing Illinois and their Small private field. But then to top it off.....they haven't decided yet with Midway and the night shift. Which would affect the entire South Suburbs and People from Indiana that go there instead of O'hare.

So while they may be under a certain limit all of them service Chicago Illinois South Suburban Illinois, Northern Illinois, and NW Indiana.

Click to expand...

Area of service has very little to do with whether or not a control tower is necessary. The tower closes, the airport does not.

Traffic volume is pretty much the sole determinant of whether a tower is necessary for safety.

Private airports don't have control towers. You might be confusing "doesn't have airline service" for "private field." Or "mostly small planes."

ttwtt78640 said:

The sequestration budget law was signed in August 2012, before the fiscal year 2013 even started. I realize that they cared not and planned on business as usual, since the mighty Obama assured them that the budget law was merely a joke and that he had powers to force congress to change their minds. This is simply mismanagement on a monumental scale.

Click to expand...

So you've gone from "are you sure they're getting cut" to "it's not really a cut because it's just not raising" to "well it's a cut but they should have planned on the cut." The FAA did plan ahead. They had a list of potential closures before sequestration actually took effect. I knew my local tower was at risk in December. The FAA, obviously, didn't actually close towers until sequestration took effect because... why would you prematurely close air traffic control towers? Once sequestration took effect, they moved forward, sent out notices, and took time to go through the appeals process. (where various facilities were given the chance to make their case for staying open)

Yes, I totally agree. It was horribly mismanaged from the start. Congress designed this as being "too stupid to actually do so we're forced to deal" and then went and did it anyway. The FAA only has so much discretion here, they've worked with what congress gave them. Hell, as previously mentioned there's $50 million in unallocated research funding they'd love to use to shore up the Air Traffic budget but they're literally not allowed to do that unless Congress signs a bill saying so.

You've made a lot of assumptions in this thread and virtually all of them have been wrong. Stop making such grand declarations about a subject you clearly have no direct information on.

Quag said:

Hmm wouldnt it be better to just lay off FAA office staff? I know that wouldnt have as big a political impact and maybe might show that the FAA works fine without them so I guess they cant do that!

Click to expand...

The first priority of any bureaucracy is to protect the bureaucracy.

samsmart said:

Isn't stuff like this what conservatives and the Tea Party wanted anyways?

If we're going to have drastic cuts to the budget, don't be surprised when they're drastic.

I'm not blaming the Tea Party or conservatives or Republicans for this stuff. In fact, I'm wondering why they aren't taking credit for these measures to cut government spending, which their rhetoric has always supported.

Click to expand...

Drastic? Are you kidding me? These cuts are miniscule and still leave us aout $1 trillion dollars in the red. The cuts appear drastic because that is the way the Great Leader wants them to appear.

Grant said:

The first priority of any bureaucracy is to protect the bureaucracy.

Click to expand...

You seem to have missed the part where they were cutting "bureaucrats."

Fletch said:

Drastic? Are you kidding me? These cuts are miniscule and still leave us aout $1 trillion dollars in the red. The cuts appear drastic because that is the way the Great Leader wants them to appear.

Click to expand...

They appear drastic because some areas that were already under-funded are getting cuts, because sequestration was done in a completely blind fashion. I did my thesis on air traffic control staffing. The situation was bad and deteriorating before sequestration. Closing towers isn't political, **** has just gotten that bad with FAA funding.

Deuce said:

They appear drastic because some areas that were already under-funded are getting cuts, because sequestration was done in a completely blind fashion. I did my thesis on air traffic control staffing. The situation was bad and deteriorating before sequestration. Closing towers isn't political, **** has just gotten that bad with FAA funding.

Click to expand...

It is hard to believe that when we are running $1,000,000,000,000 deficits and a budget of $3,600,000,000,000 that there is any parts of the government that "were already under-funded."

Fletch said:

It is hard to believe that when we are running $1,000,000,000,000 deficits and a budget of $3,600,000,000,000 that there is any parts of the government that "were already under-funded."

Click to expand...

Yes, because the government is so good at wisely allocating those funds, right? They wouldn't overlook some areas while grossly overfunding others, possibly by coincidence benefiting the corporate buddies of congress? You don't think that's a possibility? Interesting. You have quite a bit of faith in Congress' budget process!

Another joke by the current occupiers of the White House. It's also another appeal to low information voters.

Deuce said:

Yes, because the government is so good at wisely allocating those funds, right? They wouldn't overlook some areas while grossly overfunding others, possibly by coincidence benefiting the corporate buddies of congress? You don't think that's a possibility? Interesting. You have quite a bit of faith in Congress' budget process!

Click to expand...

Actually, I have none. I was being somewhat sarcastic, but not entirely. Our budget is almost $1,000,000,000,000 more per year than it was a decade ago. So it really doesnt seem possible that anything could be underfunded with such lavish spending going on at the federal level. Perhaps sequester will help allocate fund more efficiently in the future. God know tht whatever they are doing now isnt working.

Fletch said:

Actually, I have none. I was being somewhat sarcastic, but not entirely. Our budget is almost $1,000,000,000,000 more per year than it was a decade ago. So it really doesnt seem possible that anything could be underfunded with such lavish spending going on at the federal level. Perhaps sequester will help allocate fund more efficiently in the future. God know tht whatever they are doing now isnt working.

Click to expand...

The sequester is basically the opposite of allocating funds more efficiently. It is a completely blind, unthinking, across the board cut that leaves agencies no discretion to go for that efficiency thing you want. The FAA is sitting on unspent money and they can't use it to keep a few towers open because the sequester doesn't give them that option.

I'm glad your vague gut feeling has you so sure that nothing could possibly go underfunded. I guess I'll just toss out all that research I did and all that firsthand experience I have from my being in the industry for my entire adult life. Controller staffing must be just fine. It's not like there was a massive wave of retirements over the last decade creating critical staffing problems.

MMC said:

Well around us they are Shutting down Gary Airport Tower and some of the Private Fields.....course once again blaming sequester cuts. Although if I was some of these millionaires and billionaires. I think they could build their own towers and hire their own people for Private fields. Which if it affects these types and business. Then they should also be able to turn around and make the Democrats and Obama pay the price.

Click to expand...

Uhhh, ok so the people who make profit from air travel will have to provide their own systems without tax payer help to keep doing what their business needs to do. And how is this a horrible thing again? I don't understand why taxpayers who may not be flying are flipping the bill for other people's vacations. It seems to me that the government not providing airline welfare is a great way to cut costs. As for airline ticket prices going up, I don't fly. As for shipping costs going up, perhaps that is good for local manufacturing.

how is this a bad thing for all people and not just people who love being rammed into an uncomfortable tin can so they can visit exotic locations?

Deuce said:

The sequester is basically the opposite of allocating funds more efficiently. It is a completely blind, unthinking, across the board cut that leaves agencies no discretion to go for that efficiency thing you want. The FAA is sitting on unspent money and they can't use it to keep a few towers open because the sequester doesn't give them that option.

I'm glad your vague gut feeling has you so sure that nothing could possibly go underfunded. I guess I'll just toss out all that research I did and all that firsthand experience I have from my being in the industry for my entire adult life. Controller staffing must be just fine. It's not like there was a massive wave of retirements over the last decade creating critical staffing problems.

Click to expand...

Bad argument when you wonder why the people of the US are funding something that only benefits the airlines. They should cut all US hired ATC people, unless they are working for a military operation. This should all be funded by private enterprise. instead the taxpayers get to fund it. I am good with this cut and think we should slash anything but regulatory people making sure businesses keep up certain ATC standards. I don't see why we are doing welfare for the airlines to begin with.

MMC said:

Well Maggie with them looking at stopping the 3rd shift at Midway. Closing Gary and Waukegan Airfields. Only Place to go will be O'hare.

Click to expand...

They are talking about closing control towers, or overnight shifts at control towers, not airports. Planes, even commercial planes, do not require control towers to land.

MMC said:

I would agree.....but then with 70% of these fields being in Republican states. I am sure you can understand how it looks like Cherry Picking.

Click to expand...

Control towers are like post offices; many exist not because they are needed... they are pork barrel. One control tower that survived the chopping block was Front Range near Denver. Front Range is a sleepy airport about 30 miles east of the city. It never had a control tower until four years ago. The airport has very little traffic. The only reason the tower likely survived is the proximity of the field to Denver International Airport (about 3 miles west) ... otherwise the tower is superfluous, yet it survived.

The control tower close actually makes a ton of sense, as many are not likely worth the cost (staffing a control tower 24x7 has to cost $500k to $1M in salary alone), yet has only a marginal down tick is real safety (if you chose the right ones).... yet, it has a ton of political benefit as it sounds unsafe and therefore outrageous.

MMC said:

Who do you think those you mentioned would cut first. Air traffic Controllers or Pencil pushing shirts that sit in offices? What about sales and advertising? Middle management?

Click to expand...

Please show how there are pencil pushers sales and advertiseing that can be cut.

Deuce said:

The sequester is basically the opposite of allocating funds more efficiently. It is a completely blind, unthinking, across the board cut that leaves agencies no discretion to go for that efficiency thing you want. The FAA is sitting on unspent money and they can't use it to keep a few towers open because the sequester doesn't give them that option.

I'm glad your vague gut feeling has you so sure that nothing could possibly go underfunded. I guess I'll just toss out all that research I did and all that firsthand experience I have from my being in the industry for my entire adult life. Controller staffing must be just fine. It's not like there was a massive wave of retirements over the last decade creating critical staffing problems.

Click to expand...

For you to not understand what I am saying, you have to not want to understand what I am saying, so I wont bother repeating myself a third time.

captainawesome said:

Please show how there are pencil pushers sales and advertiseing that can be cut.

Click to expand...

https://faaco.faa.gov/index.cfm/announcement/view/9148

MISSION:

The mission of the FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization Program is derived from Public Law 95-507 and Section 3.6.1.2 of the FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS), Small Business Program, which states "The FAA shall implement and aggressively strive to provide small businesses and small businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, attainable and reasonable opportunities to participate as prime and subcontractors for products and services procured by the FAA." This commitment is supported by vigorous outreach efforts, senior management accountability, and the monitoring of goal accomplishments at all levels in the agency.

Office of Small Business Development - Small Business Program Overview

Did you need to see some more Pencil Pushers and any other marketing done by the FAA. :lol: