|
Post by TCU 2U2 on May 26, 2017 6:50:53 GMT -5
FAA/DOT FY18 Budget Request - Save $50,000,000 from CWO Program Page 6 - Operations – Air Traffic Organization (ATO)Cost savings; - $50,000,000 for Contract Weather Cost Savings Page 7 & 13 Operations – Air Traffic Organization (ATO)Contract Weather Observer (CWO) Savings (-$50 million) is among several programs FAA plans to streamline to achieve operational cost efficiencies. The FAA has identified multiple airports currently serviced by CWO that have similar traffic, weather and operational complexity profiles to 391 other airports currently serviced by Limited Aviation Weather Reporting Station (LAWRS) controllers. Safety analyses have been conducted to determine where LAWRS –controller provided weather observations can replace CWO contractors. The FAA believes the transition from CWO-provided to LAWRS-controller provided weather observations at these sites will yield a cost savings with no impact on safety Full DOT FY18 Budget Request: www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/mission/budget/281191/faa-fy-2018-cj-budget.pdf
|
|
|
Post by skobie on May 26, 2017 9:46:31 GMT -5
Well there you have it. The first shot fired across the bow for our next official battle. I just hope everyone is prepared to fight and are doing everything on their end to show up to the fight. If you don't know what that means, I mean writing your letters to Congressional representatives (particularly the ones that serve on the House and Senate Aviation Subcommittees) to express to them why the above cannot work, making phone calls to any key contacts who "know a guy", and supporting your USCWOA (whom is already on the case, but still needs as much support as possible going forward)! The time for sitting back and seeing what happens has come and gone. Any questions, INBOX me.
skobie
|
|
|
Post by rich on May 26, 2017 10:00:18 GMT -5
The 57 sites the FAA has targeted don't come close to 50 million a year. They have more then that in mind.
|
|
|
Post by mharding83 on May 26, 2017 10:13:06 GMT -5
The 57 sites the FAA has targeted don't come close to 50 million a year. They have more then that in mind. To me, that reads that the entire CWO program is on the chopping block.
|
|
|
Post by rich on May 26, 2017 10:24:22 GMT -5
The 57 sites the FAA has targeted don't come close to 50 million a year. They have more then that in mind. To me, that reads that the entire CWO program is on the chopping block. Possible but they would have probably said eliminate rather then streamline. I believe the cost of the program is somewhere around 65M per year.
|
|
|
Post by mharding83 on May 26, 2017 10:39:08 GMT -5
To me, that reads that the entire CWO program is on the chopping block. Possible but they would have probably said eliminate rather then streamline. I believe the cost of the program is somewhere around 65M per year. I think we can all agree, however, this is really bad news for the original 57 sites that were spared last year.
|
|
|
Post by rich on May 26, 2017 10:41:27 GMT -5
Possible but they would have probably said eliminate rather then streamline. I believe the cost of the program is somewhere around 65M per year. I think we can all agree, however, this is really bad news for the original 57 sites that were spared last year. No doubt about that.
|
|
|
Post by hlsto2 on May 26, 2017 13:17:43 GMT -5
"no impact on safety"...seriously?
|
|
|
Post by snowwx on May 26, 2017 13:39:50 GMT -5
Now they start the lies to congress. Closing cwos in any way shape or form is a major major safety issue whether the FAA believes it or not ... the FAA is in denial on safety. ... nobody in their right mind would close any CWO given the track record of lawrs ... over a 1000 printed pages of operational weather errors by ATC shows any body with any sense that this is a serious problem and this shows that the cwos need to be enhanced and used to full potential and not cut But the FAA is in denial and full of themselves... 50 million could be cut in DC alone and safety would still be maintained by retaining the certified professional weather observers
|
|
|
Post by Prplra on May 26, 2017 14:05:44 GMT -5
Coincidence or not, it's just like the FAA to do this just before a big holiday weekend.
|
|
|
Post by wxlover on May 26, 2017 15:01:21 GMT -5
There was another thread here where people said their contractors had already been notified of being extended until Sep 2018. How does that square with cost savings from eliminating CWO sites in an FY2018 budget? Have any contractors been notified that some of their sites would not be part of an extension past September 30th of this year?
|
|
|
Post by rich on May 26, 2017 20:18:13 GMT -5
There was another thread here where people said their contractors had already been notified of being extended until Sep 2018. How does that square with cost savings from eliminating CWO sites in an FY2018 budget? Have any contractors been notified that some of their sites would not be part of an extension past September 30th of this year? The extensions aren't official until they receive the signed paperwork.
|
|
|
Post by northwx on May 29, 2017 18:29:06 GMT -5
Calamity Joe and blind Ken are at it again - pumping Congress for more money using us to get it... and yes they will close us if we don't fight. Call your Congress folks ASAP.
|
|
|
Post by northwx on Jun 1, 2017 14:28:42 GMT -5
What part of this am I not getting... Congress tells them to leave us alone, and they proceed to announce cost cutting from CWOs to the tune of $50M - what has anyone heard - from our union, association, and/or congressfolks? Maybe this was prepared months ago and just not updated (hopefully, and the lack of update is confirmable...).
|
|
|
Post by northwx on Jun 1, 2017 16:50:58 GMT -5
OK, I think I'm picturing this right... FAA promises not to eliminate the CWO program, but wants to cut $50M from us... from PATCO: It is confirmed! Here is the exact language from PATCO: The agreement provides $159,000,000 for the contract tower program. The agreement includes language preventing the elimination of the Contract Weather Observers (CWO) program, therefore a report is not required. The agreement directs F AA to develop a plan updating the controller staffing model for en route centers no later than one year after enactment. I am drafting a thank you letter from AFSCME to the Senators we worked with on this, and am happy to draft one and send on your behalf as well. In the meantime, here is the hotline you can distribute to folks to call their members of congress: 888-615-4791 Karl Stark AFSCME Federal Government Affairs
Yeah, we've got a lot of work to do.
|
|