Our Mission
Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.

Mission

The original mission was to support both thus the reason an act of congress had it removed.

 

How are private sector employees even relevant to this conversation? (hint: they're not)

USMCFLYR: You're a good man, who has put me in my place at least once, and I respect you. But just because you're an FAA employee, that doesn't mean we should be sad that a bunch of irrelevant government employees are going to be temporarily losing their positions. If those people on the list for possible furlough had anything to do with the safety of air travel (the duty of the FAA) in the United States, every last airplane in this country would be grounded instantly. But since they're not, they are, by definition, dead-weight. This is a (most likely temporary) victory for the taxpayer, for all airline employees and their customers, and for this country.

A more comparable example to what is possibly going to happen at the FAA would be United Airlines having to lay off a group of scientists that study ocean currents, and in that case, it would STILL be all high-fives on here because then there might actually be a contract by December for the employees that actually help the airline make money....

With all of that said, I do not wish job loss upon you (I've been there, done that), but I have the feeling that if someone like you loses his job, he will be able to get back on his feet quite quickly.

 

The FAA is full of "Bridge to nowhere" type programs.

http://www.natca.org/press_releases.aspx?aID=1823

$68,000 for four desks seems slightly on the high side. Not to mention the Xbox and PS3 some of the places got.

 

Just scanning that list, it appears that there may be some valid expenditures - Sprinkler system, computers, filing cabinets, etc. Granted 68K/4 for desks is an outrage, but I think that list has been padded just to make it look bad.

73M - Gov't employee who is audited by an outside party every 2-4 years.

 

Wow.. they use the word efficiency in both the mission and vision.. and have failed on both counts quite handily.

 

threeighteen -

Private sector employees are a part of the conversation because I was addressing the sentiment that some on this board had towards 4,000 PEOPLE being out of their jobs. The SENTIMENT is wrong and insulting. Most of the conversation on this topic has been with an overbloated government agency. If that is the case, then the power is in every person's hand to do what is necessary to trim that fat. That is as far into that conversation as I will venture. And if that fat is trimmed, then the sentiment to those losing their jobs still shouldn't be internet warriors appaulding the situation anymore than I would still get my airline flight from OKC to DFW after some airline furloughing hundreds of pilots for example and then touting the fact that they must have been surplus pilots because I'm still getting to where I want to go.

Temporary loss of jobs. I hope so.
Are these people irrelevant? No threeighteen....and to suggest that these people and their families are is just cold hearted. I can guaranteed you this. If you or your co-workers ever find yourself furloughed, you won't find me on your thread calling you irrelevant, surplus, or bloated.
Btw - I'm delayed this morning because one of those irrelevant employees has to be replaced on my crew and now a few airfields in Northern Texas will do without their required safety checks, commissionings for an undetermined amount if time. So I have some real life experience that say that your assertions above, at least in my little part of the world, are false.

USMCFLYR

 

I come here jayray, as a 35 year user of the system. As someone who has watched the FAA turn a blind eye to safety when profits were going to be impacted. As someone who flew over a smoking hole in the Everglades that once was a Valujet DC-9...who sat in a meeting with the FAA Administrator who refused to take action after over 800 documented and independently verified cases of pencil whipping at EAL; and his comment was merely, "I hope you don't kill anyone"...as someone who knows the only pilot who overcame a rudder hardover on a 737 and suffered the attacks of the FAA and suppliers who tried to claim he did it on purpose...

Buy a pen and write a new mission statement? The FAA is like a child of a divorce. One parent wants the kid to wear a helmet and kneepads while riding a bike and the other wants to buy the kid a dragster...unless and until the two goals...fostering safety and fostering profits...are split, the FAA will always have problems.

That said, the current funding issue has nothing to do with any of that. It's about one congressman and the industry sticking their nose into the rights of industry employees rights to organize. The FAA budget should not be held hostage for that.

 

"It's all over the news that the airlines have received a huge tax break because they no longer have to pay excise taxes on their tickets. This could have saved passengers about $60 on the price of many airline tickets if the benefit was passed on to the consumer.

Unfortunately, airlines are doing exactly what nearly all the rich individuals and companies do when they get a windfall tax break: they're keeping it. That's right. They're not passing the price break on to the consumer, they're not hiring more workers, they're not upgrading their equipment and purchasing new planes.

They're pocketing the savings.

The wealthy individuals and companies in this country that are getting all the current tax breaks (and screaming for more) are doing the same thing. There is very little "trickle-down" --* instead their is "stock-up" the savings.

Remember this example when you hear and read about the benefits of giving tax breaks to the rich."

 

It's why I always love the argument that we shouldn't be taxing the job creators of the country. It makes no sense to me because a millionaire or billionaire is just going to pocket the money. Things are uncertain so the people who actually spend the money (because they need to to survive daily life) are cutting back as much as they can and only spending what they need to. A tax break for the millionaire/billionaire will just result in more money in his pocket or bank account without the NEED to spend it. This person may invest in more stock, etc. but giving that money to other corporations isn't exactly spurring hiring either as corporations are sitting on trillions in cash waiting for the uncertainty to be over.

Give the middle class people more in their pockets and they will spend this discretionary income even just a little. That creates more demand and puts more money into stores, corporations who will then see the need to order more and hire more workers.

Trickle-down doesn't work. If I was a millionaire business owner I wouldn't hire someone just because I got a tax break or paid less in taxes. If the demand isn't there to hire someone what would I be hiring them for? Results in less efficiency and more costs with nothing to offset it. No, I'd wait to see demand for my products and business pick up before I hired anyone.

 

FAA Mission Statement: We're not happy until you're not happy.

A friend of mine had lung cancer. He currently has to take a type of medication that blocks an enzyme from being produced which helps prevent the cancer from coming back. The FAA has revoked his medical and told him he has no chance of ever getting it back. This of course is for safety. Yet if had a heart attack he'd be flying now. When is the last time a pilot with cancer went flying and instantly died?

This is the same FAA that pulled Art Hoover's medical.
The same FAA that cost American Airlines millions because a wire bundle was a 1/2 inch off.

The same FAA that revoked an Eagle captain's medical because his lungs don't have the capacity to take a breathalyzer. He offered to take blood or urine tests instead but the mighty FAA said no dice.


I hate to see anyone lose their job but in this case I'm torn.