Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am wondering how this will effect people who have to make connections and what can be done to prevent this whole situation once the air-traffic controllers numbers have started to be reduced.
3.5 hour delays are not uncommon at major airports in the Eastern US in the summer even with full staffing, due to thunderstorms and traffic volume. Morning flights in the summer are less likely to be delayed because the weather is usually more benign. Reducing staffing is not going to decrease delays, unless they reduce the separation requirements (unlikely to happen). Any controller with any common sense will not risk his/her job and the safety of the flying public by being a hero and breaking the rules in order to run more traffic under these conditions. And I assume that FAA management would be on the same page in this situation.
Another reason to get trains running again with better schedules and high speed.
Agreed. Trains are more efficient than planes for shorter segments, and they aren't subject to as many weather delays. In some parts of the US (e.g. Northeast Corridor) the system is clogged with these short-haul flights. Ideally a good airport will have good train service, so that passengers (connecting and otherwise) will have other options.
Location: About 10 miles north of Pittsburgh International
2,458 posts, read 4,204,562 times
Reputation: 2374
Quote:
Any controller with any common sense will not risk his/her job and the safety of the flying public by being a hero and breaking the rules in order to run more traffic under these conditions.
Ironic as it may seem, controllers are at risk if they choose to "work-to-rule" as that slows traffic. It's considered a "job action", and is as illegal as the PATCO strike that resulted in the mass firing of the controller workforce.
I am wondering how this will effect people who have to make connections and what can be done to prevent this whole situation once the air-traffic controllers numbers have started to be reduced.
They need to start wrokig to do what other shave done for sometime;that is do the job with less as private has been doig for near four eyars now. od let the private sector do itby outsoucig their jobs.
Ironic as it may seem, controllers are at risk if they choose to "work-to-rule" as that slows traffic. It's considered a "job action", and is as illegal as the PATCO strike that resulted in the mass firing of the controller workforce.
In the article the Secretary of Transportation stated that the traffic volume will be cut back before safety is compromised. At major airports the flow of traffic is preplanned with the feeding facilities and Central Flow Control (in Washington D.C.) in the form of conference calls where factors such as weather, construction, and staffing are taken into consideration. In other words if an airport can normally accept "X" number of arrivals per hour with a given runway setup/weather conditions with normal staffing, maybe they will now only be able to accept "X-Y" arrivals with reduced staffing (the individual controllers do not arbitrarily determine these numbers). The original number "X" will not be increased.
In addition my understanding is that all employees will be affected by the furloughs (including management), and it is also illegal to break the separation rules. So I don't think that this will be a typical management vs. union fight, barring an occasional rogue supervisor. I'm not saying that controllers should and/or will go out of their way to unnecessarily delay traffic, but in this situation they should make an extra effort to stay legal.
They need to start wrokig to do what other shave done for sometime;that is do the job with less as private has been doig for near four eyars now. od let the private sector do itby outsoucig their jobs.
I'm guessing that you're probably not a pilot. The FAA privatized flight service stations, and imo the level of service has gone down the tubes. There used to be flight service stations all over the country and it was relatively easy for pilots to get a face-to-face briefing from someone who was familiar with the nuances of the local area. Now there are only a couple a "mega-facilities" and a lot has been lost. It's one thing to pinch pennies and outsource if you produce something like sneakers, but cheaper is not always better when you're dealing with professions where more is at stake (e.g. police, military, aviation, etc.).
I think it is odd that the FAA has the same money as last year but they can't do the same job as last year.... Irony... This is how government is suppose to work?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
