Bush wants to close FAA facilities like the base closure initiative from the Reagan era...

See: http://tinyurl.com/32xsat

or:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...des%20Closures

"The FAA reauthorization legislation sent to Congress this month calls for establishment of a commission to recommend
the closing or consolidation of certain FAA facilities, similar in structure and mission to the Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) organization that was used to shutter scores of Defense Department installations."


One problem with this whole concept is that we need to keep these facilities open and viable. This is not like the
downsizing after the Cold War where we had all sorts of excess capacity. The nonsense coming out of this administration
astounds me!

Blueskies wrote:
See: http://tinyurl.com/32xsat

or:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...des%20Closures

"The FAA reauthorization legislation sent to Congress this month calls for establishment of a commission to recommend
the closing or consolidation of certain FAA facilities, similar in structure and mission to the Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) organization that was used to shutter scores of Defense Department installations."


One problem with this whole concept is that we need to keep these facilities open and viable. This is not like the
downsizing after the Cold War where we had all sorts of excess capacity. The nonsense coming out of this administration
astounds me!



So tell me why they need to stay open? From the story it looks like
they are going to study the issue and close what is not needed and
consolidate the work. Rather then calling this nonsense, I think it's
about time the federal government examine it's operations in light of
the current technology and the requirements for multiple facilities.
The cost of the system continues to go up, yet none of the users want to
pay that increasing cost, so looking at ways to reduce it looks good to me.

John Theune wrote:
Blueskies wrote:
See: http://tinyurl.com/32xsat

or:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...des%20Closures


"The FAA reauthorization legislation sent to Congress this month calls
for establishment of a commission to recommend the closing or
consolidation of certain FAA facilities, similar in structure and
mission to the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) organization that
was used to shutter scores of Defense Department installations."


One problem with this whole concept is that we need to keep these
facilities open and viable. This is not like the downsizing after the
Cold War where we had all sorts of excess capacity. The nonsense
coming out of this administration astounds me!



So tell me why they need to stay open? From the story it looks like
they are going to study the issue and close what is not needed and
consolidate the work. Rather then calling this nonsense, I think it's
about time the federal government examine it's operations in light of
the current technology and the requirements for multiple facilities. The
cost of the system continues to go up, yet none of the users want to pay
that increasing cost, so looking at ways to reduce it looks good to me.


Go ahead and place all your Air Traffic control in one
building in Kansas. The terrorists love easy targets for
maximum economic disruption. Sounds like more college boy
bean counter bull**** by clueless Government and FAA
Management. Grand Canyon times 10 looms closer and closer.
The bean counter rubber band will be snapping soon. Very soon.

Well known and especially pathetic troll... don't waste your time.

"John Theune" wrote in message news:%VWFh.1$jf1.0@trndny01...
: Blueskies wrote:
: See: http://tinyurl.com/32xsat
:
: or:
:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...des%20Closures
:
: "The FAA reauthorization legislation sent to Congress this month calls for establishment of a commission to
recommend
: the closing or consolidation of certain FAA facilities, similar in structure and mission to the Base Realignment and
: Closure (BRAC) organization that was used to shutter scores of Defense Department installations."
:
:
: One problem with this whole concept is that we need to keep these facilities open and viable. This is not like the
: downsizing after the Cold War where we had all sorts of excess capacity. The nonsense coming out of this
administration
: astounds me!
:
:
:
: So tell me why they need to stay open? From the story it looks like
: they are going to study the issue and close what is not needed and
: consolidate the work. Rather then calling this nonsense, I think it's
: about time the federal government examine it's operations in light of
: the current technology and the requirements for multiple facilities.
: The cost of the system continues to go up, yet none of the users want to
: pay that increasing cost, so looking at ways to reduce it looks good to me.


I was seeing the comments about selling facilities (read airports!) as especially interesting. I can only imagine Daily
'owning' O'Hare, or LAX going to the highest bidder.

Also, the way it is written it seems to severely limit the oversight by congress by putting apparently unreasonable
timing constraints on changes.

"The commission would then seek public comment on the FAA Administrator's proposals. Based on its analysis of the
Administrator's proposals, and any public comments, the commission would "make its independent recommendations to the
President for realignment and consolidation of aviation services or facilities," along with a report explaining and
justifying any of its recommendations that differ from those made by the Administrator. Copies of those recommendations
and reports also would be sent to the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, the House Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee and the Appropriations Committees in both houses.
The President then would have the option of approving or disapproving the commission's recommendations in whole or in
part and sending that decision, along with a report, to Congress. But Congress would end up with a very limited window
to review the President's recommendations for facility and services closures or realignments. The language in the
proposed bill says Congress could block the President's recommendations only by adopting a joint House-Senate resolution
within 60 days after transmittal of the President's report. The legislative branch also would lose its opportunity to
block the President's recommendations if it did not act before adjourning for the session during which the President's
report is transmitted."

One problem with this whole concept is that we need to keep these facilities open and viable. This is not like the
downsizing after the Cold War where we had all sorts of excess capacity. The nonsense coming out of this administration
astounds me!

Your comments mystify me. Have you *ever* looked at ANY government-
run program? 50% of it could be closed tomorrow, and NO ONE WOULD
NOTICE. Do you really think the FAA is any different?

From NASA, to the toll roads, to the levees in New Orleans, to the
lowliest parking garage, our gummint is laced with incompetence, lard,
and fraud. It is incredibly refreshing to read that *someone* is
actually suggesting that we close and consolidate some the FAA's
facilities.

The only thing I find disgusting is that the FAA has become so
politicized that no one feels strong enough to simply order
consolidation based on common sense. Instead, they feel they must
take the "safe" way out by using a "commission" to "suggest" what
facilities should be closed. As if any competent administrator
couldn't figure it out in a matter of weeks.

IMHO, this is yet another indication of how far out of control the
bureacrats have become.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck writes:

The only thing I find disgusting is that the FAA has become so
politicized that no one feels strong enough to simply order
consolidation based on common sense. Instead, they feel they must
take the "safe" way out by using a "commission" to "suggest" what
facilities should be closed. As if any competent administrator
couldn't figure it out in a matter of weeks.

The current Administrator's only "qualification" is longstanding friendship
with the President, something she has in common with most high-level
government appointees over the past seven years or so.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

The current Administrator's only "qualification" is longstanding friendship
with the President, something she has in common with most high-level
government appointees over the past seven years or so.

Try over the last 220 years or so.

Administrators are figureheads. The bureacrats that stay with the FAA
for decades are REALLY in charge.

This is true in every branch of our Gummint.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck writes:

Try over the last 220 years or so.

Administrators are figureheads. The bureacrats that stay with the FAA
for decades are REALLY in charge.

Until 1997, all FAA Administrators had been licensed pilots.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jay Honeck writes:

Try over the last 220 years or so.

Administrators are figureheads. The bureacrats that stay with the FAA
for decades are REALLY in charge.

Until 1997, all FAA Administrators had been licensed pilots.


Or until the edict went out from the PC goon squads to "Kiss
the Black Ass" and hire anything that is not white or has a
dick. That is why since Clinton and his bull-dike brigades
took over in 1992 knowing aviation or being a pilot is not
required to be FAA Administrator. Just be anything but a
white male.

Political Correctness-Tyranny with Manners