Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 03-02-2013, 12:54 PM
 
Location: Barrington
63,917 posts, read 46,946,061 times
Reputation: 20675

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post

We are but pawns in a political game being played in DC. They don't care about us, they don't care about the economy, they don't care about the debt and deficit spending. They are playing power games among themselves.
Yes, indeed.

 
Old 03-02-2013, 01:03 PM
 
Location: Del Rio, TN
39,950 posts, read 26,685,942 times
Reputation: 25885
If the head of the FAA can't perform his function with a 5% increase in spending instead of 8%, the solution is pretty simple. Fire the head of the FAA. Repeat until you find someone competent enough to do the job. Private industry deals with actual cuts in revenue and manages to get the job done. We need to hold federal employees to the same standard.
 
Old 03-02-2013, 01:04 PM
 
1,728 posts, read 1,784,256 times
Reputation: 893
These clowns are way over paid. Senior ATCs can make $50 an hour and as someone said earlier in the thread they wouldnt have the skills to work at McDs if they didnt have this govt gravy train
 
Old 03-02-2013, 01:30 PM
 
7,359 posts, read 5,481,091 times
Reputation: 3142
Quote:
Originally Posted by 70Ford View Post
You either needed them, or you didn't. Obviously, we didn't. Anyone else besides me ever worked in a FAA control tower? I fixed their comm gear. Man, I wonder what a tower control guy can do after being tower guy for like, ever. Maybe they can deliver pizzas or something. Salary gonna take a hit, though. Which is just what a recovering economy needs.... less money going in. It's like someone is bleeding to death and you give them a lot of blood and then you are like "No more blood for you, Cuz, Congress, that's why."

FAA begins process to close 168 towers on April 1 - CNN.com

Congress cares about this. That's why they did NOTHING... because, hey, they ain't losing their jobs, right? One side can sit there and say the same BS for MONTHS and ... nothing happens. We need a fundamental change in Congress. If it doesn't matter that you can't do your job, yet you can still keep your job, you have a seriously flawed system. Imagine, if at work, they gave you a task, and a date. At the end, you say, "Meh, I didn't figure it out. "

YOU GET FIRED. We just get to wait a few years, and watch as the idiot gets elected again. It's hilarious in its idiocy.

Imagine ... if Congress told everyone to cut a lot of money by a certain date and the FAA got to that date and said "No one could agree on what to do."

What would happen then? Would Congress be like, all OK with that massive cluster#$@#? I dare say, heads would roll.
I understand being emotional about them being fired since you've worked with some of these people. And the urge to lash out at someone is understandable.

But a few points -

1. Did Congress decide to cut those jobs? Or did Congress cut the budget of the FAA and the FAA, rather than cutting costs in sensible areas, make emotionally charged and newsworthy cuts as a bid to have public pressure over them get the funding restored?

2. Would we have been forced to make the cuts if we hadn't been overspending in the first place? For example, the General Accountability Office found 200 billion dollars in redundant programs last year. Now the programs themselves may be worthy, but that's double the overhead in administering them. Creating and maintaining procedures, overseeing operations, preparing reports - all costs money. How many essential jobs would that have saved by not duplicating all of that?

3. Congress was prepared to give Obama the authority to apportion out the cuts so that essential services and jobs would not be affected in bill S. 16. Go ahead and look it up if you don't believe it. Obama refused and said he'd veto the bill of they passed it. Congress offered Obama the chance to save those jobs you're complaining about and Obama said no. And isn't it odd how by Obama refusing to save the jobs, you are now blaming Congress for their loss? Again, go google S. 16 and see what you think about Obama refusing to let it get passed. It hasn't made big news for some reason but the bill is up there on the internet for anybody to read.
 
Old 03-02-2013, 01:31 PM
 
Location: On the Chesapeake
45,764 posts, read 61,172,984 times
Reputation: 61540
Quote:
Originally Posted by boner View Post
These clowns are way over paid. Senior ATCs can make $50 an hour and as someone said earlier in the thread they wouldnt have the skills to work at McDs if they didnt have this govt gravy train

Don't know much about aviation, eh?

Someone touched on this but what's happening with the sequester is SOP when funding is threatened, propose cuts in popular or high profile popular programs. PR 101.
 
Old 03-02-2013, 01:33 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,752,928 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2 View Post
I understand being emotional about them being fired since you've worked with some of these people. And the urge to lash out at someone is understandable.

But a few points -

1. Did Congress decide to cut those jobs? Or did Congress cut the budget of the FAA and the FAA, rather than cutting costs in sensible areas, make emotionally charged and newsworthy cuts as a bid to have public pressure over them get the funding restored?

2. Would we have been forced to make the cuts if we hadn't been overspending in the first place? For example, the General Accountability Office found 200 billion dollars in redundant programs last year. Now the programs themselves may be worthy, but that's double the overhead in administering them. Creating and maintaining procedures, overseeing operations, preparing reports - all costs money. How many essential jobs would that have saved by not duplicating all of that?

3. Congress was prepared to give Obama the authority to apportion out the cuts so that essential services and jobs would not be affected in bill S. 16. Go ahead and look it up if you don't believe it. Obama refused and said he'd veto the bill of they passed it. Congress offered Obama the chance to save those jobs you're complaining about and Obama said no. And isn't it odd how by Obama refusing to save the jobs, you are now blaming Congress for their loss? Again, go google S. 16 and see what you think about Obama refusing to let it get passed. It hasn't made big news for some reason but the bill is up there on the internet for anybody to read.
Dept of Transportation got the cuts and directed most of them to the FAA.
The FAA gets 80% of it's money from us in user fees and 20% from taxes.
They are using that 20% to shut down towers.

Targeted shutdowns to DIRECTLY affect us.
Oh we're going to feel the pain; they are making sure of it.
Being held hostage by your own government is what it amounts to.
 
Old 03-02-2013, 01:44 PM
 
Location: Albemarle, NC and Gaithersburg, MD
113 posts, read 181,458 times
Reputation: 215
I work as a pilot for a living and I frequently fly to a lot of smaller towered fields. This sequester will be an absolute disaster! Yes planes takeoff and land at uncontrolled airports, but if there happens to be more than two airplanes using the airport at the same time, I feel much better when there is trained controller managing things. I can only imagine what this will be like at towered fields that have a lot of students training. Five planes in the pattern practicing takeoffs and landings with no tower? That should be interesting.

The other thing is that it will very inefficient for IFR traffic without a tower. It will be one plane in, wait for the pilot to cancel IFR (hopefully he remembers), and then another plane out. This is how it is at the airport at Gaithersburg, MD. It can get very busy, and it is not efficient at all. Of all the things they could have cut, they choose to cut Air Traffic Control. The fact that our government would allow this to happen is absolutely disgraceful!
 
Old 03-02-2013, 02:02 PM
 
79,910 posts, read 44,427,722 times
Reputation: 17214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex Vermonter View Post
I work as a pilot for a living and I frequently fly to a lot of smaller towered fields. This sequester will be an absolute disaster!
Disaster I tell you, disaster. Repent, the end is near.
 
Old 03-02-2013, 02:06 PM
 
Location: San Francisco, CA
15,087 posts, read 13,497,105 times
Reputation: 14266
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
The cuts will not force the closure of the airports, because aircraft can land without air traffic control help, and some operations can be switched to other FAA facilities.

GREAT, wonderful. We are going to actually address expensive redundancy. I'll believe it when I actually see it though.
I know your brain is trained to think of redundancy as a bad thing, but when you have human beings flying through the sky and 3/4 the speed of sound, redundancy is a very GOOD thing.

Redundancy is the primary mechanism by which safety is engineered into technology.

You could have planes fly a few hundred feet apart, but instead ATC ensures that they adhere to minimum distances several times that magnitude.

You could have just one computer system to control all of the flight sensors, GPS, and hydraulics, but instead you have several backup systems in case that one fails.

You could have just one guy at the shop checking to make sure that there are no micro-cracks on the fuselage, but instead we have a system of checks and balances that is carefully monitored.

You could just fix that new engine problem in that one plane, but instead the FAA requires that all planes of that same model with those engines are inspected to ensure it doesn't happen.

Redundancy has been carefully engineered into the commercial aircraft process by people with many more IQ points than you or me. When you remove layers of "useless" redundancy, you are actually increasing the risk of a serious problem.
 
Old 03-02-2013, 02:09 PM
 
79,910 posts, read 44,427,722 times
Reputation: 17214
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
I know your brain is trained to think of redundancy as a bad thing, but when you have human beings flying through the sky and 3/4 the speed of sound, redundancy is a very GOOD thing.
The article doesn't make it seem like anyone is all that concerned. Technology marches on.
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:03 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top