FAA shutdown may last through August

Because the children in Congress can't get along. I wonder how many House members flew home to their districts tonight?
 
kkoran said:
Because the children in Congress can't get along. I wonder how many House members flew home to their districts tonight?
Click to expand...

Who keeps putting them into office? I think perhaps you are shooting at the wrong target.

(If Babbitt had any balls he would have shut down ATC services. That would have gotten their attention.)
 
Everyone who reads this post: Write and/or call your Representative and let him/her know that you are appalled that the House recessed for month without resolving the FAA authorization issue. They estimate the Aviation Trust Fund will lose out on $1.2B. This will affect aviation improvement projects for years to come. Tens of thousands of people are out of work--just pawns in a political game.
 
We should put all the congressman/congresswoman on a boat and send them out to sea. Then vote in some new ones.
 
DavidWhite said:
We should put all the congressman/congresswoman on a boat and send them out to sea. Then vote in some new ones.
Click to expand...

The other option is to take the politicians out of the funding decisions completely by getting funding directly from the users of the system. However, that means "user fees" and a lot of people reading this would object to that - indeed it is likely that organized objections have prevented such a system from happening in the U.S.

I have no experience flying in Canada where ATC was privatized into Nav Canada and whose funding isn't subject to political bickering. Is it that bad that it is to be avoided at all costs - such as the cost now?
 
Jim Logajan said:
The other option is to take the politicians out of the funding decisions completely by getting funding directly from the users of the system. However, that means "user fees" and a lot of people reading this would object to that - indeed it is likely that organized objections have prevented such a system from happening in the U.S.?
Click to expand...
What makes you think that Congress wouldn't find a way to control the dispersion of "user fees"? And if they have any say, a bunch of that money would likely end up being used "temporarily" for non-aviation programs like the current "trust" fund.

Of course the more important issue with aviation user fees is that the cost of collection will consume a huge portion of that revenue stream which means that the total collection will need to increase dramatically over the present system. Heck if it's as inefficient as the systems to collect tolls on roads it might never get beyond red ink.
 
DavidWhite said:
We should put all the congressman/congresswoman on a boat and send them out to sea. Then vote in some new ones.
Click to expand...
yeah we got one of them 'new ones' in our area. He was a party non-favorite but made it in despite all the stories of his financial irresponsibility and failure to actually live in the district. He now rents a house in the district. But last week a lawsuit was filled by his ex-wife for back pay of child support in the six-figure amounts. Not a new accusation either, this has been going on for a while.

What I am saying is that as long as the people elect neer do wells they are going to get them. Throwing out one bunch just to replace them with the same is not a solution.
 
kkoran said:
Because the children in Congress can't get along. I wonder how many House members flew home to their districts tonight?
Click to expand...
What does one have to do with the other?

Congressman are supposed to come home to their districts so we can verbally beat the crap out of them at town halls for their stupidity. Better they get out of the isolated world of the US Capital and see how people are living, don't you think?
 
"User fees" presume the payer is the only beneficiary to the service.

Long ago we determined that aviation has benefits that accrue to the public good.
 
Well, if it's like the Minnesota state government shut down, voters will benefit from the realization that nothing changed without them -- except that we saved billions of dollars.

Personally, I could have flown home from OSH without ever turning my radio on. In fact, the first two hours out of OSH, all we heard on board was the music from "One Six Right". Only South of Wisconsin did we pick up Flight Following, out of habit.
 
this shutdown is not saving billions of dollars Jay. the FAA is losing 200 million a week in ticket taxes.
 
Last edited:
tonycondon said:
this shutdown is not saving billions of dollars Jay. the FAA is losing 200 billion a week in ticket taxes.
Click to expand...

My, oh my, how we have all drank the koolaid.

The FAA "losing" $200 million a week means "We, the People" are SAVING $200 million per week in taxes we are not being forced to pay.

The FAA is NOT "us". "We" (well, 50% of us, anyway) are taxpayers. If we can't keep that relationship straight, we are in serious trouble.
 
Last edited:
wrong. most airlines have not lowered ticket prices. so yea travelers are not paying the taxes but they are still paying.
 
tonycondon said:
wrong. most airlines have not lowered ticket prices. so yea travelers are not paying the taxes but they are still paying.
Click to expand...

Perhaps for the short term. If it goes on long enough, competitive forces will drive the price down through the level of that tax.

And you know what? I would rather that money went to the airlines. Maybe they could then afford to make the seats wider? ;)
 
tonycondon said:
sorry, million, will edit my post.
Click to expand...

Ok, but even if it is a mere $200 million per week, that money is now being used for other things -- such as buying products other people make, thereby benefiting overall economic activity.

When a Government agency absorbs dollars, much (most?) of the money is siphoned off for various bureaucratic uses. A few cents might trickle down to the actual, intended use (runway paving, ATC new hires, safety education, etc).

I've spent enough time in and around government to assert a simple, trite, and banal truth -- government does not efficiently allocate funds.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Perhaps for the short term. If it goes on long enough, competitive forces will drive the price down through the level of that tax.

And you know what? I would rather that money went to the airlines. Maybe they could then afford to make the seats wider? ;)
Click to expand...

the airlines aren't going to provide 90% matching grants when you need a new runway or hangars at your local airport.
 
tonycondon said:
the airlines aren't going to provide 90% matching grants when you need a new runway or hangars at your local airport.
Click to expand...

Good.

My airport in Iowa received those bogus FAA funds (we called them "ObamaBux") to re-do the runways, and the waste was sinful. The job should have been paid for locally, for half the cost.

Borrowing money from China so that we can enjoy runways my kids must pay for is neither intelligent nor sustainable.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Good.

My airport in Iowa received those bogus FAA funds (we called them "ObamaBux") to re-do the runways, and the waste was sinful. The job should have been paid for locally, for half the cost.

Borrowing money from China so that we can enjoy runways my kids must pay for is neither intelligent nor sustainable.
Click to expand...

i seem to recall that the runway was extended in Iowa City during the Bush administration.
 
This may shed some light on what's going on.

Best,

Dave
===========================================================

The reason H.R.658 the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act is on hold is over Union issues. Obama changed the NLRB rules on voting to certify/decertify to favor the unions, and the Republicans want to override that. If I understand correctly, to certify/decertify a union, the old rule was 50%+1 of the employees. Obama changed that to 50%+1 of those voting to certify, but 50%+1 of the total number of employees to decertify.


  • Mr. MICA. Unfortunately, I have to strongly disagree with my good friends and colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from Illinois, on this amendment.

    What's proposed as fairness is really probably the height of unfairness. We've had 75 years of rule and law in which to organize. In the transportation sector, you had to have a majority of all of the individuals that worked there, all the people that would be potential members, and a majority of those folks would have to vote in the union, and I have no problem with union representation. The President packed the board of the National Mediation Board, and on a 2-1 vote, they changed 75 years of ruling.

    Now, what's particularly unfair, and the dirty little secret in all this is, they didn't change it to decertify to shed the union. They left it so you still have to have all majority plus one of all of the members. So this is not fair by any means. We should allow unionization. We should allow votes of it; but for those again who are affected who have to pay the dues, who have to abide by the union rules and regulations that they set, it's not fair.

    So I wish this was crafted in a different way for fairness, but it's not. So, again, they upset 75 years in which it worked very well. In fact, they told me today that under the 75 years, you had a larger number than most recent votes under this rule. I think it's 50 percent to 70 percent, something like that. So, if you really want to favor unionization in a fair way, let's have it the way it worked for many years and oppose this amendment.
 
Jim Logajan said:
The other option is to take the politicians out of the funding decisions completely by getting funding directly from the users of the system. However, that means "user fees" and a lot of people reading this would object to that - indeed it is likely that organized objections have prevented such a system from happening in the U.S.

I have no experience flying in Canada where ATC was privatized into Nav Canada and whose funding isn't subject to political bickering. Is it that bad that it is to be avoided at all costs - such as the cost now?
Click to expand...
The funding in question is directly from the users in the form of airline ticket and fuel taxes. Congress failed to re-authorize the FAA's collection of the taxes. The things that have been affected (airport improvement projects, furloughed FAA employees, etc.) are the things funded through the trust fund.
 
ScottM said:
What does one have to do with the other?

Congressman are supposed to come home to their districts so we can verbally beat the crap out of them at town halls for their stupidity. Better they get out of the isolated world of the US Capital and see how people are living, don't you think?
Click to expand...
Because, if they don't want to do their jobs and pass legislation for the funding, they should take the bus. I know if I left on a 5-week vacation with something like this hanging out there, I'd find my personal items in a box when I returned.
 
kkoran said:
Because, if they don't want to do their jobs and pass legislation for the funding, they should take the bus. I know if I left on a 5-week vacation with something like this hanging out there, I'd find my personal items in a box when I returned.
Click to expand...
Where did you get the silly idea that coming back to their district is a "vacation"

Holding town halls, meeting constituents, raising cash, plotting strategies, etc. does not sound like vacation to me.
 
ScottM said:
yeah we got one of them 'new ones' in our area. He was a party non-favorite but made it in despite all the stories of his financial irresponsibility and failure to actually live in the district. He now rents a house in the district.
Click to expand...
Rahm Emmanuel?
 
Telemakhos said:
Rahm Emmanuel?
Click to expand...
You really for a moment think that Rahm was not a party favorite?

And FYI Rahm owns a house in the district, he just was not living in it.

But I was talking about that exEagles guy. ;)
He had no RNC support in the primary and almost none when he won. Remember how close the election was too? Something like 200 votes between him an the incumbent.
 
ScottM said:
Where did you get the silly idea that coming back to their district is a "vacation"

Holding town halls, meeting constituents, raising cash, plotting strategies, etc. does not sound like vacation to me.
Click to expand...

That's their problem. Campaigning is not the job we hired them to do.
 
denverpilot said:
That's their problem. Campaigning is not the job we hired them to do.
Click to expand...
Listening to us is. Most of those things are talking to us. And yes campaigning is also a part of listening and communicating with us.

I already have two appointments made with my Congresscritters for the week after next made. This is my chance to get in their face so to speak, on a couple of issues that I have. I am getting a better chance to raise these with them directly than by faxing them in DC. Perhaps for part of that 5 weeks they will take some days off. I do not begrudge anyone a vacation. But to characterize their entire 5 weeks as some sort of beach blanket break is not fair nor accurate.

But I do think that the president should order Congress to stay in session to complete the FAA funding bill and do a jobs bill. Those are both very important things that will not get worked on in earnest over this session break.
 
Last edited:
ScottM said:
Listening to us is. Most of those things are talking to us. And yes campaigning is also a part of listening and communicating with us.

I already have two appointments made with my Congresscritters for the week after next made. This is my chance to get in their face so to speak, on a couple of issues that I have. I am getting a better chance to raise these with them directly than by faxing them in DC. Perhaps for part of that 5 weeks they will take some days off. I do not begrudge anyone a vacation. But to characterize their entire 5 weeks as some sort of beach blanket break is not fair nor accurate.
Click to expand...

They could easily have stayed in Washington and replied to the e-mail, voice mail and other electronic communications if it's about "communicating". All I get anymore from my "representatives" is a form-letter response that's usually not even about the topic I wrote about originally when I e-mail (or should I say, go through their gauntlet of web-based messaging), and if I'm really lucky I'll get a form letter by snail mail (I always provide my full and complete mailing address when communicating, so they know I'm a constituent and also so they can reply) once in a while in reply to a voice mail.

I answer my e-mail. They typically don't. Or they have a clueless staffer do it. The world is electronic these days, and town halls are just a filter to make sure the tough questions don't get asked or answered, most of the time.

Understandable that they don't actually respond to things -- there's far too many constituents to representatives in the current ratios. They couldn't give personal representative service if they wanted to. They'd have to put some underlings in charge of large chunks of their constituents.

Oh yeah, I think those were once called "States". :)
 
denverpilot said:
They could easily have stayed in Washington and replied to the e-mail, voice mail and other electronic communications if it's about "communicating".
Click to expand...
Hey you know all businesses should just give up on business travel. It is expensive and everything can be done over the phone! Then we could save lots of federal tax dollars on that FAA because we would not need as many airports or ATC! Great idea :mad2:

The reality is that lots get done in a face to face environment. And that is sometimes the best way to do business, even if your business is governing.

denverpilot said:
All I get anymore from my "representatives" is a form-letter response that's usually not even about the topic I wrote about originally when I e-mail (or should I say, go through their gauntlet of web-based messaging), and if I'm really lucky I'll get a form letter by snail mail (I always provide my full and complete mailing address when communicating, so they know I'm a constituent and also so they can reply) once in a while in reply to a voice mail.
Click to expand...
So whose fault is that really?

If that is what you settle for then they feel they did their jobs. I instead opt for seeing them face to face, I get to know the staffers and people in the local offices. When I call or stop by I get heard a lot more than the occasional letter writer. Why? I'm the squeaky wheel.

denverpilot said:
I answer my e-mail. They typically don't. Or they have a clueless staffer do it. The world is electronic these days, and town halls are just a filter to make sure the tough questions don't get asked or answered, most of the time.
Click to expand...
And how many email do you get per day as compared to you Congresscritters? Lets actually compare apples to apples and not live in fantasy land.

denverpilot said:
Understandable that they don't actually respond to things -- there's far too many constituents to representatives in the current ratios. They couldn't give personal representative service if they wanted to. They'd have to put some underlings in charge of large chunks of their constituents.
Click to expand...
Sure, but to fix that means more Represenatives. Are you advocating the expansion of Congress?

denverpilot said:
Oh yeah, I think those were once called "States". :)
Click to expand...
I forget when did the states REPORT to Congress on an org chart? :mad2:
 
kkoran said:
Everyone who reads this post: Write and/or call your Representative and let him/her know that you are appalled that the House recessed for month without resolving the FAA authorization issue. They estimate the Aviation Trust Fund will lose out on $1.2B. This will affect aviation improvement projects for years to come. Tens of thousands of people are out of work--just pawns in a political game.
Click to expand...

I called mine... the person who answered the phone didn't have a clue what I was talking about... sigh...

-Rich
 
ScottM said:
Hey you know all businesses should just give up on business travel. It is expensive and everything can be done over the phone! Then we could save lots of federal tax dollars on that FAA because we would not need as many airports or ATC! Great idea :mad2:
Click to expand...

My last employer became a billion dollar a year company doing exactly that. I hear they saved McKinsie & Company $200 million a quarter, but that's probably proprietary info...

Oh well... they can come find me if they don't like me talking about their success stories. And that was just one of them. ;)

I left to go work on the next big thing... work from home. There's few of the Fortune 100 who aren't using our services at the new place, and growing... why build an office building at all, if you build the correct business structure around management of the technology that connects the staff virtually to the customer. That's where I'm at now...

I'm glad you have time to be the squeaky wheel with your CongressCritter. I don't assume you're thinking that's the solution for all of us, or that line outside the Critter office is going to get pretty long.

I wonder if the $1000/plate dinner-goers get access to the staffers who can read?
 
denverpilot said:
I wonder if the $1000/plate dinner-goers get access to the staffers who can read?
Click to expand...

Probably get to talk to the Representative. But why stop there? For $35,800 you can get access to the President.
Obama is scheduled to attend a 50th birthday gala on Wednesday at the Aragon Ballroom, an event featuring Jennifer Hudson and Herbie Hancock. There’s also a dinner fundraiser planned for some special donors to go with the show at a cost of $35,800 a person.
Click to expand...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...-birthday-fundraiser-20110801,0,6237794.story
 
This may have been posted already, but.
If the FAA is shut down and there is no authority to collect the airline ticket fee that supports the Aviation Fund, then what about the fuel tax that goes into the same fund?

Congress just went on vacation for 5 weeks with no FAA budget resolution.
 
I still maintain that a shutdown of the FAA is a good thing. They don't really provide any valuable service to VFR Only, GA flyers. Their very existence was brought about by a lack of skill in maintaining visual separation between airliners.

So what happens if the FAA goes away for good....completely:

1. No more towers.
2. No more FAA taxes
3. Pilot licenses would probably change administrative control to the state DOT, where it belongs to begin with
4. Maybe we will finally get somewhere in aviation that isn't hacked together using technology from 60 years ago

I may just be jaded, but I'd love to see the FAA get replaced by state aviation agencies instead.
 
SkyHog said:
I still maintain that a shutdown of the FAA is a good thing. They don't really provide any valuable service to VFR Only, GA flyers. Their very existence was brought about by a lack of skill in maintaining visual separation between airliners.

So what happens if the FAA goes away for good....completely:

1. No more towers.
2. No more FAA taxes
3. Pilot licenses would probably change administrative control to the state DOT, where it belongs to begin with
4. Maybe we will finally get somewhere in aviation that isn't hacked together using technology from 60 years ago

I may just be jaded, but I'd love to see the FAA get replaced by state aviation agencies instead.
Click to expand...
Which means hands-off, do whatever you want in some states and IFR-only with body cavity searches before every flight in others.
 
kkoran said:
Which means hands-off, do whatever you want in some states and IFR-only with body cavity searches before every flight in others.
Click to expand...

Possibly. But then aviation is funded where it ought to be funded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top