|
|
Post by TCU 2U2 on Apr 26, 2013 9:59:18 GMT -5
Jamming the FAA now ... CPAN
|
|
|
|
Post by alstein on Apr 26, 2013 11:17:17 GMT -5
it passed.
|
|
|
|
Post by hokiefan on Apr 26, 2013 11:20:49 GMT -5
Any idea if the CWO program was even a footnote in that bill??
|
|
|
|
Post by TCU 2U2 on Apr 26, 2013 11:22:09 GMT -5
this from facebook ...
We are funded to the end of September, so we could not be included in any bill like HR 1765. FY14 is the next hurdle ... Congress does have the FAA under the microscope, which will help our cause. Bad PR can go along way, in Congress and in the public.
|
|
|
|
Post by wxfcstr on Apr 26, 2013 11:45:25 GMT -5
Problem with being funded til end of sept. is the FAA could close the CWO program piece by piece from now until the end of sept and not tell a lie. They should have or could have said the whole cwo program is funded until end of sept. But they did not. They could cut 75% of the CWO program and still have 25% of the program left and not tell a lie as a example.
|
|
|
|
Post by TCU 2U2 on Apr 26, 2013 11:59:47 GMT -5
And this is the FAA's MO. First 14 go next week. Training material / CBI training set up so to begin on June 1. Each group goes as designed in the transition plan to tower. The FAA has only officially announced the first 14 going ... back in late January. Also the month that the FAA COO decided to close most of the program this year, with some Alaska going in 2014. The response from any spokesperson is correct as you say. And until the complete closure is acomplished, the response can continue as " there has been no decision on the program" ... correct - for even 1 site remaining would still be designated a "cwo". Crappy way to treat your vendors and contract observers, not to be more up front with us all. If they said back in January that we are considering closing down the program, it would A) give us all some time to look for other lines of work and B) give us some time to counter with our own arguments - as was done with the contract towers. Some have been with ASOS since it was deployed and knows much more of the limitations and issues with the system than the folks in DC that are giving the program a death sentence. I must say, the one thing that I did not count on as they were always in our court in past fights was NATCA. Anyway ... back to writing and sending, just needed a few minutes to vent.
|
|
|
|
Post by skobie on Apr 26, 2013 14:20:58 GMT -5
Yes, what were/are the higher ups in NATCA thinking. Give them something for nothing? That is purely unprofessional behavior and certainly not in the best interest of the people you represent. If someone from NATCA could explain to me what they were thinking signing that MOU please, I'm all ears. I'll even give you my personal phone number if requested through a PM.
skobie
|
|
|
|
Post by sluroots on Apr 27, 2013 13:43:31 GMT -5
So apparently, Obama refused to sign the bill b/c of a typo! There was a part missing an "S", but apparently will sign it on Sunday. Funny, I can think of a word that starts with an "S" for this sequestration, this Congress, and this administration. It is what happens in a baseball game quite often as a single, double, triple or homer....just add the s prior to it! What a joke all this is becoming. Simply ridiuculous www.cnn.com/2013/04/27/politics/faa-legislation/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 |
|
