FAA Shutdown

[Everskyward]

The really ridiculous thing about this is squabbling over $15 million per year in rural air service subsidies has resulted in the end of the airline ticket excise taxes that bring in $200 million in revenue every *week*. So even if the shutdown ends after just one day the aviation transport trust fund will already have lost almost twice as much as the amount the political hissy fit is over. Sigh.

Of course. Haven't you heard, it's all about WINNING, not logic.

 

[Bob Noel]

Of course. Haven't you heard, it's all about WINNING, not logic.

Yep, too many Josh Lymans, not enough actual leaders.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Hmm, as someone who is currently waiting for the plastic certificate to be processed Real Soon Now I wonder how much longer I will be waiting.

The really ridiculous thing about this is squabbling over $15 million per year in rural air service subsidies has resulted in the end of the airline ticket excise taxes that bring in $200 million in revenue every *week*. So even if the shutdown ends after just one day the aviation transport trust fund will already have lost almost twice as much as the amount the political hissy fit is over. Sigh.

What I've read indicates that is a miss-characterization of the underlying dispute. Both sides seem to be pointing to a change in the rules (as passed by the Republican controlled house) for how unionization vote passage is to be determined. [As I understand it: It currently is majority of all votes cast; new rule as set out by house Republicans would change it to a majority of all eligible workers, with non-voting workers counted as "no" to unionization.] The Democratically controlled house and the administration are sufficiently opposed to this rule change to prefer shutdown of the FAA than allow that change to become law. The subsidy allocation changes appear to be a secondary political move. But despite the political posturing, there are genuine economic and political philosophies at odds here.

 

[wsuffa]

Hmm, as someone who is currently waiting for the plastic certificate to be processed Real Soon Now I wonder how much longer I will be waiting.

The really ridiculous thing about this is squabbling over $15 million per year in rural air service subsidies has resulted in the end of the airline ticket excise taxes that bring in $200 million in revenue every *week*. So even if the shutdown ends after just one day the aviation transport trust fund will already have lost almost twice as much as the amount the political hissy fit is over. Sigh.

Of course. Haven't you heard, it's all about WINNING, not logic.

We COULD simply run a van service from each of those cities to the larger airport for substantially less money.

Who is out to "win" in this case? The folks that have proposed eliminating the subsidies, or those that are holding up the bill because they want the subsidies to continue? Sounds to me like it's more of the bull**** partisan politics.

We can't continue to run the country this way. Not financially. Not politically.

 

[Tom-D]

We can't continue to run the country this way. Not financially. Not politically.

Preach it........... because it is true,

 

[Everskyward]

Who is out to "win" in this case?

Both sides, of course.

 

[spinfire]

What I've read indicates that is a miss-characterization of the underlying dispute. Both sides seem to be pointing to a change in the rules (as passed by the Republican controlled house) for how unionization vote passage is to be determined. [As I understand it: It currently is majority of all votes cast; new rule as set out by house Republicans would change it to a majority of all eligible workers, with non-voting workers counted as "no" to unionization.] The Democratically controlled house and the administration are sufficiently opposed to this rule change to prefer shutdown of the FAA than allow that change to become law. The subsidy allocation changes appear to be a secondary political move. But despite the political posturing, there are genuine economic and political philosophies at odds here.

Yeah, that is correct. The reason widely publicized by house leadership has been about the rural air service subsidy, but many are angry about a republican sponsored provision inserted into the bill unrelated to FAA funding which makes it harder for railroad and airline workers to unionize. The complete nonsensical nature of complaining about the rural air service subsidy which is tiny compared to both the economic benefit and a tiny portion of incoming revenue highlights the fact that the real reason is more complex. Knowing about things like this and understanding the dynamic between PIC and management in an environment of rising airline and fuel costs leads me to personally believe that the union is more important than ever.

 

[alaskaflyer]

What I've read indicates that is a miss-characterization of the underlying dispute. Both sides seem to be pointing to a change in the rules (as passed by the Republican controlled house) for how unionization vote passage is to be determined. [As I understand it: It currently is majority of all votes cast; new rule as set out by house Republicans would change it to a majority of all eligible workers, with non-voting workers counted as "no" to unionization.] The Democratically controlled house and the administration are sufficiently opposed to this rule change to prefer shutdown of the FAA than allow that change to become law. The subsidy allocation changes appear to be a secondary political move. But despite the political posturing, there are genuine economic and political philosophies at odds here.

Interesting spin. It IS a bill to reauthorize the FAA, isn't it? I would say the "secondary" political move is to attach ridiculous unrelated riders.

 

[Tim]

4000 more folks out of jobs at least temporarily today. That should help balance the budget.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Interesting spin. It IS a bill to reauthorize the FAA, isn't it? I would say the "secondary" political move is to attach ridiculous unrelated riders.

That tactic has been going on probably since ancient Greece. Though rules regarding unionization of airline workers does put a different spin on things: for example, if a proposal to unionize is put before 100 workers and 2 workers vote for and 1 against while the other 97 abstain or unable to vote, all 100 are unionized. Previously 51 of those workers had to explicitly vote for unionization. But a NLRB ruling changed that. Since unions have historically donated more to one party than the other, it isn't surprising that hardball tactics are being employed by both sides. http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/205200/