Slashdot Mirror


FAA On Travel Delays: Get Used To It

coondoggie writes "The term sequestration has certainly become a four-letter word for many across the country — and now you can count business and regular traveling public among those hating its impact. The Federal Aviation Administration today issued a blunt statement on the impact of sequestration on the nation's air traffic control system, which this week begain furloughing about 10% of air traffic controllers for two days or so per month. It reads as follows: 'As a result of employee furloughs due to sequestration, the FAA is implementing traffic management initiatives at airports and facilities around the country. Travelers can expect to see a wide range of delays that will change throughout the day depending on staffing and weather-related issues. ... Yesterday more than 1,200 delays in the system were attributable to staffing reductions resulting from the furlough.'" U.S. Democrats and Republicans spent the day using the FAA's statement as political fodder rather than working on resolving sequestration.

32 of 720 comments (clear)

  1. Sequestration is a gimmick by pclminion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The same number of dollars could have been cut from specific programs in a way that would have had no noticeable impact on critical and important services. Instead, they chose to impact vital services in order to send a message to the public: "If you ask us to cut budgets, we'll do it in the most painful way possible." It's nothing more than an enormous "fuck you" to the American public.

    1. Re:Sequestration is a gimmick by TheGavster · · Score: 5, Informative

      The idea was that if the cuts were applied equally to every program, deals could be made to eliminate some programs to prevent cuts to the truly vital ones (in a sense, forcing choices about what really is vital by acknowledging that there is a finite amount of money to spend). Unfortunately, the goal of neither side was a balanced budget. Rather, cuts were maneuvered to impact the most visible programs so that both sides had fresh mud to sling.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    2. Re:Sequestration is a gimmick by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can bet the bureaucratic management isn't being cut.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:Sequestration is a gimmick by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Insightful

      no the dems never intended to work with the repubs, they simply wanted to make it look like the repubs were being the bad guys

      see how easy it is when we blame X or Y instead of dealing with the problem known as Z??

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    4. Re:Sequestration is a gimmick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Easy solution that will never be applied:

      Dismantle the TSA. Use the money saved to cover the air traffic control system's costs, and apply the remainder to actually effective (and much more affordable while simultaneously being less humiliating) safety strategies like bomb-sniffer dogs, police on planes, armed pilots and locks on the cabin door.

    5. Re:Sequestration is a gimmick by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      School districts do this to when levies don't pass. They immediately cut athletic programs and bus service.

    6. Re:Sequestration is a gimmick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Think of it like healthy eating.

      Sure, you can just cut out the sodas, the fast food, the candies.

      But if you want to be really healthy, odds are you need to get some better food as well.

      Or just realize that there's only so much you can cut, before it starts doing more harm, and that to pay for it, you have to increase revenue.

    7. Re:Sequestration is a gimmick by poetmatt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      both parties are at fault. It takes the entirety of congress to agree to fuck over the public, not just a single party.

    8. Re:Sequestration is a gimmick by NewbieV · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's not how the bill was written: agencies were given no discretion at all as to what and where they could cut.

      The sequester is part of the Budget Control Act of 2011, but it's not the first time sequestration was used. It was first used in 1985, with the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act.

      The Congressional Research Service published a report on the sequester (PDF link) that provides a very good overview of what sequestration means:

      "In general, sequestration entails the permanent cancellation of budgetary resources by a uniform percentage. Moreover, this uniform percentage reduction is applied to all programs, projects, and activities within a budget account."

      Sequestration is as across-the-board as you can get. Every "program, project and activity" that's not exempt from the sequester gets cut by an equal percentage. That's the way the bill was written, and that's the bill that was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.

      Sequestration was meant to be as blunt and distasteful an alternative as possible, to give the supercommittee (remember them?) and Congress incentive to come up with a deal.

      --


      "For every right, an equal responsibility..."
    9. Re:Sequestration is a gimmick by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's nothing more than an enormous "fuck you" to the American public.

      Yes it is, and one years in the making. The end game here is the end of Social Welfare. The GOP absolutely can not abide Social Welfare existing
      Social Security? Unemployment? This things are seen as an evil cancer destroying our society. And the GOP in Congress (declared themselves exempt from the Sequestration) will not stop until these programs are abolished.

      However, Corporate Welfare is good, and will be increased in upcoming years while today's 30 somethings are forced to house and feed their unemployable parents who have moved in with them in their studio apartments.

    10. Re:Sequestration is a gimmick by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you think the GOP is the only problem here, then you're also part of the problem.

      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    11. Re:Sequestration is a gimmick by Helix_Sky · · Score: 5, Informative

      The dems only wanted to raise taxes on the rich, so by your acknowledgement it would not have touched you. The cutoff rate was $200,000 or $250,000 a year. I can't remember which. The part that a lot of people did not understand was that it was a marginal tax rate increase. That means that if you made $200,001 in a year, only $1 would be taxed at the hire rate given a $200,000 cutoff. People seemed to think that once you went into a higher tax bracket, ALL you income would be taxed at the high rate. What that all boils down to is that only the very rich would feel the tax increase.

      On the other hand, it was the GOP that wanted to cut all tax rates but keep it "revenue neutral" by ending some deductions. The problem was that they could never specify what deductions they wanted to end. When economists tried to make head or tails out of it, they only way the GOP plan could work without blowing up the budget was if they eliminated deductions that would disproportionately affect the middle class. There simply weren't enough high end deductions that could be eliminated that would pay for the revenue that would be lost by the tax cuts. The end result is that while the GOP sounded like they wanted to lower taxes, the effective taxes for the middle class would actually go up.

    12. Re:Sequestration is a gimmick by Mitreya · · Score: 5, Insightful

      both parties are at fault. It takes the entirety of congress to agree to fuck over the public, not just a single party.

      Even so, the negotiation between D and R was rather one-sided. Democrats kept proposing spending cut/raising taxes compromises and Republicans laughed at them because "tax increase > 0". You cannot negotiate with someone who won't actually budge from their position for any reason.

      I am not exactly a fan of Democrats, but the sequestration blame goes mostly to Republicans.

    13. Re:Sequestration is a gimmick by hedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When's the last time the GOP cut spending? I'm guessing that would probably be during Ford's administration or earlier as I can't recall them ever doing so during my lifetime. And during every single time they've been in control spending has gone through the roof.

      But, what's worse is that the spending hasn't been on anything which benefited the average citizen, it's mostly on things that benefit the rich. The actual working class makes less now than they did 30 years ago, even as the rich have gained even more.

    14. Re:Sequestration is a gimmick by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except what's actually happening here is that I need a baked potato and a side of beans to survive, I'm *planning* on eating five double cheeseburgers, instead . . . and I only *get* two double cheeseburgers. That doesn't mean I cut my calorie consumption by 60%.

    15. Re:Sequestration is a gimmick by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's amazing how ignorant people are of how much they actually pay in taxes.

      State income tax. Federal income tax. Sales tax. Property tax (including automobiles, etc). Don't forget all the other assorted fees that you pay, not realizing "fee" is just a nice word for "tax".

      Oh, and you might as well consider things like Social Security as a "tax", because it'll either be gone before you can claim it in forty years or if you have a decent career, it won't be afforded to you in forty years, I'm sure.

    16. Re:Sequestration is a gimmick by SpeZek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In America? No, they cut band and art before they cut athletics.

    17. Re:Sequestration is a gimmick by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, that's pretty fucking rich. A little over 9 times the poverty level, and about 4 times the GDP per capita. It won't get you a mansion on a private island, but you won't be hurting for anything either.

    18. Re:Sequestration is a gimmick by MTEK · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And when you're in the gov't, you make sure your dept spends every penny it was allocated or watch your budget decrease in subsequent years. If and when your budget is decreased, you make sure it causes all sorts of pain for the higher-ups who made the decision. Bonus points if your dept can inconvenience the general public.

  2. Damned if they do, damned if they don't... by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's interesting that the airlines are allowing customers to make changes to their itineraries at no charge to work around the problem. On the one hand this is good customer service, but on the other hand it would probably help the airlines to some degree if they instead said "Flight's cancelled. Don't like it? Call your congressman." As long as the airlines continue to accommodate those inconvenienced, then those truly responsible for this mess don't get blamed.

  3. The government's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If the government stopped trying to control air traffic, we wouldn't have these delays. Sure, some airplanes would crash, but other flights would go much faster. Let the free market rule!

  4. Re:Well, duh by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the BIG issue is that NO ONE offered cuts, both sides offered "cuts from projected spending" in otherwords, both sides offered up more spending than the previous year.

    I know know about the rest of you guys, but to me, if i spend 10 bucks today and only 12 bucks tomorrow when i thought i was going to spend 15, thats still an increase, not a cut! sadly the government, both republican or demorcratic, thinks otherwise/

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  5. Re:Sequestration is what the pubs want by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's along those lines, yeah, though I think the strategy is morphing a bit.

    That term, "starve the beast", is associated with Grover Norquist's idea that if Republicans managed to hold a hard line on taxes, by pushing for tax cuts and demanding party discipline over refusing any tax rises, it would starve the government of money, and it would be forced to shrink, even if people didn't want to vote for program cuts.

    He underestimated the government's ability to borrow, however, so what actually happened for quite some time was that taxes were cut while spending simultaneously rose. That backfired by actually increasing the popularity of many government programs for two decades or so. People got the programs and low taxes, which is what everyone wants! A number of GOP types are still trying to make that strategy work; the manufactured fights over the debt ceiling, and the sequester here, are an attempt to "starve the beast".

    However not all GOPers think that's a good strategy anymore. The new twist over the past few years is trying to reduce confidence in government by deliberately running it badly. The idea is that people will vote for a smaller government if they think government doesn't work well, and the best way to make them think government doesn't work well is to make it not work well.

  6. Easy Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    End the TSA. Used the money saved to hire back air traffic controllers to 120% of the original volume.

    Fewer jerks gate-raping us, more well-rested air traffic controllers making sure we don't collide in mid-air.

    Seems like a win-win to me.

    1. Re:Easy Solution by TheEyes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Privatize everything. Its the only way to save air travel and bring airlines back to profitability.

      Which is the same thing, in the private sector, as saying, "Outsource everything. The companies we send our jobs to will always have our best interests at heart."

      Look, we've tried the whole government outsourcing thing. It doesn't work; the companies we outsource to just hire substandard workers and do less work while charging the government ever increasing fees to do what once was done efficiently and well. It's the reason we don't have private police or fire departments anymore. Sure, the TSA needs some serious reforms, but privatizing the whole thing will leave us with a bigger mess than we have now.

  7. Re:Which programs? by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We waste a ton of money on nonsensical programs that should (and would) be done by the private sector.

    For example, look at the airline security theater, don't you think that its in American Airlines, United and Delta's best interest to provide enough security to remove the threat of hijackings but not need a full cavity search? Instead, we have the FAA providing asinine rules on what you can and can't take on board a plane, rather than delegating those decisions to the airlines. Because of the FAA restrictions, flying is pretty terrible, because of that fewer people are flying, because fewer people are flying airlines have to cut costs which makes flying even worse, which makes fewer people fly and so on. If airlines (or airports) could be in charge of their own security, we'd be safer (we'd be looking at actual security and not security theater) and flying would be a much more pleasant experience.

    We've got a terribly bloated military focused on offense rather than defense. Because of this, we end up creating more enemies which makes us be less safe in the long run. We're spending billions of dollars on unneeded overseas military bases. Sure, it might make sense to have a base or two in a foreign country, especially in some of the "hotter" regions of the world, but do we really need over 10 bases in Japan? Do we really need bases in Spain, Italy, the UK, Bulgaria, Bahrain, Singapore, the UAE, and many, many, other countries? No.

    We've got a messed up welfare system, a screwed up financial system, a mess with farm subsidies and just about everything the government touches turns into a bureaucratic hellhole.

    No, we're not going to get rid of the national debt by cutting PBS, we're not going to save much money by closing the Washington Monument for tours. But there is a ton of waste, but its in the stuff that the politicians don't want to touch (welfare, the military, farm subsidies, financial sector, etc.) because the public is either ignorant about it or enjoys getting free money at the expense of everyone else.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  8. Summary is Wrong by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hi. I'm a contractor working for the FAA.

    ALL controllers are having their hours reduced by 10%. This comes out to 1 day per 2 week pay period, or the approximately two days per month in the summary. It's not 10% of controllers being affected, it's all controllers being affected by 10%.

    And for those of you saying "Why didn't they cut other, less important budgets?"

    Well, it doesn't work that way. Every account was cut 10% across the entire FAA. This is incredibly stupid, by the way, since the much of the FAA's labor is paid for via levies on airline tickets, and so it shouldn't be affected by these general fund shenanigans (as an aside, this is why we got furloughed two years ago, because Congress wouldn't renew the airline ticket levies for political reasons). But, hey, Congress... You get what you pay for.

    --
    Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
    Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
  9. Re:Two separate fights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    i work for the DoD as a civilian. our theater command met its budget cut requirements, yet we are still about to go to four-day work weeks. and yeah, we take out my own trash and there is a bathroom cleaning schedule.
    meanwhile, we have "certain" (code for "important") people flying their asses all around the theater (commercial flights) for three weeks straight, getting paid full TDY, etc... why use that expensive video teleconference suite when you can fly to hawaii, bank some per diem, and accumulate frequent flyer miles?

    everything is for show. ever since the GSA vegas debacle, public spending has been curbed, but still runs rampant in private. i used to have pride in working for the government and armed forces, now i am demoralized, ashamed, and actively looking for non-civilian non-government jobs.

  10. Re:Sequestration is what the pubs want by thoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well yes it does make you a hate non thinking loon. If the debt were so important, where the FUCK were you before we invaded Iraq? Or passed Medicare Schedule D, otherwise known as that massive giveaway to big pharma?

    Why it is republicans are only concerned about the debt when democrats are in charge? When the GOP is in charge, you get massive bloat and spending.

  11. Re:Two separate fights by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    SS and Medicare are self funding. The taxes earmarked for them pay for them. Yes, if you cut the program and raised taxes to cover the difference, revenue would increase without changing paychecks, but if you eliminate SS taxes when you eliminate SS program, then you'd end up worse off. SS and Medicare are self funding and not running debt/deficit. The problem is the general fund is used mostly for military and debt. The only "discretionary" item that makes a difference is the military. Close all overseas bases (sell them off, or mothball) and eliminate the standing military, and you'll have the budget almost balanced. Drop obamacare for single-payer, and you'll have a surplus. Keep taxes where they are until the surplus pays off the debt (100 years or so, unless we raise interest rates to 10% or more), and then drop taxes by 30% and you'll still have a surplus..

  12. Re:Which programs? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Security was done by the private sector, it was shoddy as hell and 9/11 was a direct result.

    Wrong.

    9/11 had nothing to do with airport security. It's this sort of thinking that perpetuates the TSA gong show.

    9/11 succeeded for two reasons -

    1) Prior to 9/11, airline crews were trained to cooperate with hijackers - So the suicidal hijackers were able to easily take over the planes. Confiscating water bottles and groping grannies wouldn't have made a lick of difference here.

    2) Intelligence failures. The intelligence services failed to cooperate and failed to detect and prevent the terrorist hijackings.

    Neither had anything to do with nude-o-scopes and confiscating nail clippers.

  13. Re:Sequestration my butt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    What? Who mods up this shit?

    2011 budget - $9.79 billion (http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/faa_fy_2011_budget_estimate.pdf)
    2013 budget - $9.70 billion (http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/faa_%20fy_%202013_budget_estimate.pdf)

    1% real reduction, or about a 5.5% reduction adjusting for inflation. And that's before the sequester.

    2011-2012 flights - 738,143
    2012-2013 flights - 743,569 (http://apps.bts.gov/xml/air_traffic/src/index.xml)

    Traffic increased about 0.75%.