|
|
Post by artension on Mar 5, 2013 13:55:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by vortlobe on Mar 5, 2013 15:05:08 GMT -5
Just as I said last week...this regime will make sure that the greatest pain is inflicted upon the people as possible. Remember that the FAA's budget is higher this year than last year even with the "cuts" factored in. And their budget has exploded by 67% over the past five years. There is no need for any of this...unless you want to punish as many as possible...
|
|
|
|
Post by tornado on Mar 5, 2013 15:18:19 GMT -5
One key paragraph reads: "Tower closures would not necessarily result in airport closures, because some aircraft can land without air traffic control help, and those that need controller help can communicate with more distant FAA facilities. But the contract tower closings will contribute to the workload at other FAA facilities, which simultaneously will be coping with controller furloughs." Do they really want to add controllers taking weather observations to this mix?  |
|
|
|
Post by fu on Mar 5, 2013 15:44:42 GMT -5
Just as I said last week...this regime will make sure that the greatest pain is inflicted upon the people as possible. Remember that the FAA's budget is higher this year than last year even with the "cuts" factored in. And their budget has exploded by 67% over the past five years. There is no need for any of this...unless you want to punish as many as possible... Where should the FAA cut then? The April 7 date is actually a week later then the date that was floated around last week. These are the C level towers and do not effect any CWO's. |
|
|
|
Post by vortlobe on Mar 5, 2013 15:58:30 GMT -5
My point is that NOTHING needs to be eliminated...they had all the contract towers and CWOs last year...the year before...etc with less money than they will operate with this year. There are no cuts...just reductions in the rate of growth. Only a DC bureaucrat would consider a 5% increase in budget a "cut" when he expected 7%.
|
|
|
|
Post by kukblue1 on Mar 5, 2013 18:05:26 GMT -5
There are other ways they could save money also then getting rid of our jobs. Do away with night pay. I know it's a pay cut but better then having no job at all. Find room for us in the tower so your not spending money to lease out space in other buildings. Just to name a few
|
|
|
|
Post by kcfan on Mar 5, 2013 18:41:50 GMT -5
kukblue, I like the way you think but good luck getting union members to agree to the elimination of night differential or any other extra benefit such as sick pay, personal days, Sunday Diff, etc. I'm sure they would do so if given the choice of a job or no job, but remember the government is taking an unconscious approach to these cuts. There would be little to no impact on anyone if they would simply reduce ALL PROGRAMs proportionally to the amount of DECREASE IN THE INCREASE.
I'm also aware of notices being given to ATMs regarding the reduction in hours at their sites. Those sites are being asked to justify why they need to remain open during late night / early morning hours. Ironically those I have confirmed so far are the same as someone posted awhile back on one of these boards. If you haven't heard about it yet, your site is either not reducing hours or the ATM is keeping the info from you. I take this as a great sign for the future of the CWO program because at least they are talking about a reduction rather than a closure.
|
|
|
|
Post by kukblue1 on Mar 5, 2013 22:40:54 GMT -5
I just saw on Twitter that Congress has gone for the week already "due to impending storm". Hello? They have worked 6 days in the last 3 weeks! If I work 6 days, I get paid for 6 days not 3 weeks! Maybe our budget crisis would cure itself, if we paid Congress for the days they actually worked!
|
|
|
|
Post by weatherorknot on Mar 13, 2013 15:00:35 GMT -5
Night Differential and Sunday Differential are all in the wage determination. Why would a Union go against something that the Government already mandates?
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustwx on Mar 13, 2013 16:10:20 GMT -5
I just saw on Twitter that Congress has gone for the week already "due to impending storm". Hello? They have worked 6 days in the last 3 weeks! If I work 6 days, I get paid for 6 days not 3 weeks! Maybe our budget crisis would cure itself, if we paid Congress for the days they actually worked! I am so sick of the Congress. Don't they live in DC while in session, yes! |
|
|
|
Post by wxstorm on Mar 13, 2013 16:27:43 GMT -5
Congress members care about one thing. The good life and the attention they get for being in Congress. No one party wants to work with the other party. It is all a sham. They don't have to worry about a job bc they have a nice cushy pension to live on. Or they can write a book..etc. I don't look for any Louisiana senator or representative to do anything about this FAA kingship. Hopefully, God will provide for those who trust him and help us find another job if this circus is allowed to continue. I will never vote for a republican or democrat again if I lose my job over this circus on the moon BS.
|
|
|
|
Post by alwayswx on Mar 13, 2013 20:19:20 GMT -5
If they close 160ish Contract towers on Apriil 7th, the FAA will have no problem shutting down a lot of CWO offices. The closure of towers will have a much larger impact on Air Traffic then closures of weather offices. I doubt they would have WX offices go part time if the FAA tower it serves is open 24-7.
The impact of closing contract towers will be felt immediately on air traffic. Then hopefully the FAA will realize how unsafe it is to worry about just money. Remember, for the Congress and FAA these cuts being made are about money and not safety or efficiency.
|
|
|
|
Post by alwayswx on Mar 29, 2013 18:57:14 GMT -5
Airports suing FAA over planned tower shutdowns
Published - Mar 29 2013 05:03PM EST
JASON KEYSER, Associated Press
CHICAGO (AP) — Airport operators are mounting a legal challenge to the Federal Aviation Administration's decision to cut funding for 149 air traffic control towers, accusing the agency of violating federal law meant to ensure major changes at airports do not erode safety.
Several airports are now asking a federal court to halt the plan and compel the FAA to more carefully study the potential safety impact, said Carl Olson, director of the Central Illinois Regional Airport in Bloomington, Ill. He warned that without a more cautious approach, lives will be put at risk by cuts that he contends are arbitrary and the result of reckless political brinkmanship in Washington.
"I think everybody's going to realize what the industry knows, and that is there is a razor thin margin of error in aviation and any diminishment of safety is going to have an immediate and cascading effect," Olson said in an interview Friday. "And all the talk to the contrary won't change that fact."
Olson's airport is among the latest to file a lawsuit this week with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington. The others are Spokane Airports in Washington state, and the operators of Florida airports in Naples, Ormond Beach and Punta Gorda. The court combined the suits into a single case Thursday.
FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said Friday that the agency could not comment on the pending litigation.
The agency's administrator, Michael Huerta, has stressed that safety remains the FAA's top priority even as it is forced by the budget cutting known as sequestration to trim $637 million for the rest of the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30.
The FAA said it had no choice but to subject most of its 47,000 employees, including tower controllers, to periodic furloughs and to close air traffic facilities run by contractors at 149 small airports with lighter traffic. The first of those closures will happen April 7. Olson's airport is slated to lose its funding May 5.
The tower shutdowns will not mean that airports have to close. All pilots are required to know how to land at un-towered airports and to practice those procedures, which include communicating with other pilots over a shared radio frequency.
But airport directors, pilots and others in the aviation sector say stripping away an extra layer of safety during the most critical stages of flight will elevate risks and at the very least slow years of progress that made the U.S. aviation network the safest in the world.
Lawrence Krauter, director of Spokane International Airport, said he expects more airports and possibly trade associations to join the legal challenge. He said the tower closures amount to one of the most significant changes to the national air system's safety network in recent history and deserve to be studied carefully.
"No one's going to tell you ... that there aren't some contract towers out there that could be closed," Krauter said. "What we're saying is that we think that there needs to be a more reasoned and appropriate process."
Spokane's second and smaller airport, Felts Field, is set to lose its tower funding May 5. Like many of the airports losing funding, it has a busy flight school and serves the area's medical air evacuation operation in addition to handling private aircraft.
Local airport authorities have been scrambling to find the money to keep their towers running once the federal funding runs out. And several of the airport operators wrote to Huerta to ask that he halt the plans and detail exactly what study and review processes, if any, the FAA has carried out.
Olson said he's gotten no response and suspects that no substantive review has been conducted.
"We're not aware of any," Olson said. "There doesn't appear to be any consideration for the individual operations, safety or environmental consequences."
The lawsuits specifically mention the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires extensive review of any airport changes, as well as the Safety Management Systems protocols requiring thorough risk analysis that the FAA must carry out.
"That requirement is not excused" by the budget cuts, Olson said.
|
|
