ACT NOW ! Shuster to gut FT/DT in FAA Bill
04-01-2011, 11:57 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: CRJ FO
Posts: 325
House passes bill (goes against rest rules)
House passes aviation bill, targets safety rules - USATODAY.com
WASHINGTON (AP) — A sweeping aviation bill that could thwart proposed new safety regulations, including one that would prevent tired pilots from flying, passed the House Friday.
The $59.7 billion Republican-drafted bill is a blueprint for Federal Aviation Administration programs for the next three and a half years. It cuts the agency's budget by $4 billion, money GOP lawmakers said the agency can do without. Democrats said the cuts would endanger air safety.
The bill passed on a 223 to 196 mostly party line vote. It would require the FAA to tailor regulations to different segments of the aviation industry rather than set across-the-board safety standards. It also would prohibit new safety regulations if the agency can't justify the costs to the industry.
Lawmakers also clashed over a labor provision in the bill that would make it more difficult for airline and railroad workers to unionize. The provision would overturn a National Mediation Board rule approved last year that allows employees in those industries to form a union by a simple majority of those voting. Under the old rule, workers who didn't vote were treated as "no" votes.
Republicans complain that the new rule reverses 75 years of precedent to favor labor unions. Democrats and union officials say the change puts airline and railroad elections under the same democratic rules required for unionizing all other companies.
Sixteen Republicans joined Democrats in an unsuccessful attempt to take the labor provision out the bill.
The White House warned in a statement Wednesday that President Barack Obama may veto the bill if the funding levels and the labor provision are retained. The Senate has passed a version of the bill that doesn't include the labor provision. Differences between the two remain to be negotiated.
Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., author of the provision on safety regulations, said it would only apply to future FAA regulations and wouldn't affect regulations the agency is already working on.
"I believe we are going to strengthen the rulemaking process and make the skies and aviation travel even safer than it is today," Shuster said.
But Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Ill., a former aviation subcommittee chairman, said the amendment is broadly written applying to all FAA regulations, both current and future, and would make the agency's already cumbersome rulemaking process even more difficult.
The FAA already has to weigh the cost of new regulations, but Shuster's provision would give more weight to economic factors. It also requires the agency determine the potential effect on the economy, including productivity and competitiveness.
The sensitivity of the issue was underscored by the narrowness of the 215 to 209 vote to add the provision to the bill.
FAA is at work on eight separate sets of new regulations required under a landmark aviation safety law enacted by Congress last year, including regulations that would adjust how many hours pilots can be required to work and how much rest time they must be given between flights.
Among those campaigning against Shuster's provision were the families of victims of a regional airline crash near Buffalo, two years ago and Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, the airline captain whose piloting skills were lauded after he ditched his plane into the Hudson River following a collision with a flock of geese. Sullenberger predicted in an interview with The Associated Press earlier this week that if enacted, the provision would cost lives.
The National Transportation Safety Board has been pushing for the new pilot fatigue regulations based on modern sleep research for two decades. But a broad swath of the aviation industry opposes FAA's proposal for updating work schedule regulations as too costly. FAA estimates the proposal would cost airlines $1.3 billion over the next 10 years, but airlines say it will actually cost many times that amount.
The regulations could be especially expensive for cargo airlines, which do much of their flying over night. Non-scheduled airlines, which transport 95% of U.S. troops and 40% of military cargo around the world, have said the proposed regulation would make it more difficult for them to complete flights.
The bill also contains a provision that would effectively block a regulation proposed by the Transportation Department aimed at preventing fires caused by air shipments of lithium batteries like those used in cameras, cellphones, laptops and countless other products. The batteries can short-circuit in flight and catch fire.
The proposed regulation has been the focus of an intense lobbying battle pitting pilots who warn that lives are at risk against U.S. industry and foreign governments, which say the regulation would increase costs of consumer goods.
The amendment would require the department to adopt international shipping standards that are weaker than the department's proposed regulation.
"Regulations that are not harmonized with international safety standards will disrupt the free flow of commerce and threaten jobs," said Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., chief sponsor of the bill.
The funding reductions come at a time when the agency had anticipated a larger, not smaller, budget. FAA is in the midst of a program to switch to a new air traffic system based on GPS technology instead of World War II-era radar technology. The program is expected to cost the government as much as $20 billion over the next decade and industry as much as $22 billion. Much of the rest of the world is either using satellite-based air navigation and air traffic control or planning to upgrade to GPS technology.
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to [email protected]. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.
WASHINGTON (AP) — A sweeping aviation bill that could thwart proposed new safety regulations, including one that would prevent tired pilots from flying, passed the House Friday.
The $59.7 billion Republican-drafted bill is a blueprint for Federal Aviation Administration programs for the next three and a half years. It cuts the agency's budget by $4 billion, money GOP lawmakers said the agency can do without. Democrats said the cuts would endanger air safety.
The bill passed on a 223 to 196 mostly party line vote. It would require the FAA to tailor regulations to different segments of the aviation industry rather than set across-the-board safety standards. It also would prohibit new safety regulations if the agency can't justify the costs to the industry.
Lawmakers also clashed over a labor provision in the bill that would make it more difficult for airline and railroad workers to unionize. The provision would overturn a National Mediation Board rule approved last year that allows employees in those industries to form a union by a simple majority of those voting. Under the old rule, workers who didn't vote were treated as "no" votes.
Republicans complain that the new rule reverses 75 years of precedent to favor labor unions. Democrats and union officials say the change puts airline and railroad elections under the same democratic rules required for unionizing all other companies.
Sixteen Republicans joined Democrats in an unsuccessful attempt to take the labor provision out the bill.
The White House warned in a statement Wednesday that President Barack Obama may veto the bill if the funding levels and the labor provision are retained. The Senate has passed a version of the bill that doesn't include the labor provision. Differences between the two remain to be negotiated.
Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., author of the provision on safety regulations, said it would only apply to future FAA regulations and wouldn't affect regulations the agency is already working on.
"I believe we are going to strengthen the rulemaking process and make the skies and aviation travel even safer than it is today," Shuster said.
But Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Ill., a former aviation subcommittee chairman, said the amendment is broadly written applying to all FAA regulations, both current and future, and would make the agency's already cumbersome rulemaking process even more difficult.
The FAA already has to weigh the cost of new regulations, but Shuster's provision would give more weight to economic factors. It also requires the agency determine the potential effect on the economy, including productivity and competitiveness.
The sensitivity of the issue was underscored by the narrowness of the 215 to 209 vote to add the provision to the bill.
FAA is at work on eight separate sets of new regulations required under a landmark aviation safety law enacted by Congress last year, including regulations that would adjust how many hours pilots can be required to work and how much rest time they must be given between flights.
Among those campaigning against Shuster's provision were the families of victims of a regional airline crash near Buffalo, two years ago and Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, the airline captain whose piloting skills were lauded after he ditched his plane into the Hudson River following a collision with a flock of geese. Sullenberger predicted in an interview with The Associated Press earlier this week that if enacted, the provision would cost lives.
The National Transportation Safety Board has been pushing for the new pilot fatigue regulations based on modern sleep research for two decades. But a broad swath of the aviation industry opposes FAA's proposal for updating work schedule regulations as too costly. FAA estimates the proposal would cost airlines $1.3 billion over the next 10 years, but airlines say it will actually cost many times that amount.
The regulations could be especially expensive for cargo airlines, which do much of their flying over night. Non-scheduled airlines, which transport 95% of U.S. troops and 40% of military cargo around the world, have said the proposed regulation would make it more difficult for them to complete flights.
The bill also contains a provision that would effectively block a regulation proposed by the Transportation Department aimed at preventing fires caused by air shipments of lithium batteries like those used in cameras, cellphones, laptops and countless other products. The batteries can short-circuit in flight and catch fire.
The proposed regulation has been the focus of an intense lobbying battle pitting pilots who warn that lives are at risk against U.S. industry and foreign governments, which say the regulation would increase costs of consumer goods.
The amendment would require the department to adopt international shipping standards that are weaker than the department's proposed regulation.
"Regulations that are not harmonized with international safety standards will disrupt the free flow of commerce and threaten jobs," said Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., chief sponsor of the bill.
The funding reductions come at a time when the agency had anticipated a larger, not smaller, budget. FAA is in the midst of a program to switch to a new air traffic system based on GPS technology instead of World War II-era radar technology. The program is expected to cost the government as much as $20 billion over the next decade and industry as much as $22 billion. Much of the rest of the world is either using satellite-based air navigation and air traffic control or planning to upgrade to GPS technology.
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to [email protected]. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.
04-02-2011, 12:19 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 747
Posts: 731
Unbelievable .. wouldn't expect anything else. Always side with management and these huge corporations, screw the work force. I can't believe people voted for these thugs in ties. It's all about the money, nobody gives a f...
I hope this thing gets shut down.
I hope this thing gets shut down.
04-02-2011, 02:33 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 191
See how YOUR rep voted!
If you want to know how your rep voted go here:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll218.xml
I sent my congressman a nasty email informing him that I regretted voting him into office and he has forever lost my vote unless he rectify's this. I recommend you do the same!
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll218.xml
I sent my congressman a nasty email informing him that I regretted voting him into office and he has forever lost my vote unless he rectify's this. I recommend you do the same!
04-02-2011, 02:47 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Home with my family playing with my daughter as much as possible
Posts: 591
National Pilot Safety Day
I believe that this bill needs to go to the Senate next...and a day before the vote happens...I call for National Pilot Safety Day...we have to stand together and make this bill stops dead in it's tracks!!!
04-02-2011, 05:05 AM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: What day is it?
Posts: 963
Originally Posted by Past V1
I believe that this bill needs to go to the Senate next...and a day before the vote happens...I call for National Pilot Safety Day...we have to stand together and make this bill stops dead in it's tracks!!!
We as pilots have a few more friends in the Senate and hopefully they will prevail. What's critical now is a push to our Senators and Congressmen to make sure they know that we expect them to make our wishes known to the conference committee and the offensive parts of the House bill never make it to the final version.
Drop them an email...send them a fax...do it every day. Find out who their legislative coordinator is and send them emails too. If you happen to live near one of their local district offices, stop by and speak with their staffers...politely, of course. In uniform always helps.
If you don't know who your legislators are, go to these two sites:
www.house.gov
or
www.senate.gov
We only have a few short days. Make them count.
04-02-2011, 05:12 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: What day is it?
Posts: 963
Originally Posted by Al Czervik
So...this could kill the rest rules? Thought those were "sorta" set in stone.
Shuster and the industry cooked this up because they knew the plan by Don Young of Alaska to reintroduce the Inhofe amendment language was not going to happen.
Get those pens and pencils out now and write your congressional reps. This pile of manure and the Senate bill (much better) are now in conference committee being reconciled into a final single bill for the full Congress to vote on. Make you voice count.
04-02-2011, 05:59 AM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: 737 CAPT
Posts: 1,888
So...this could kill the rest rules? Thought those were "sorta" set in stone.
Not quite. The rule is being discussed, but if this passes, the FAA will be forced to do a cost/benefit analysis to see of it will cost the airlines money. And if it does...buh bye new rules.
Shuster and the industry cooked this up because they knew the plan by Don Young of Alaska to reintroduce the Inhofe amendment language was not going to happen.
Get those pens and pencils out now and write your congressional reps. This pile of manure and the Senate bill (much better) are now in conference committee being reconciled into a final single bill for the full Congress to vote on. Make you voice count.
Shuster and the industry cooked this up because they knew the plan by Don Young of Alaska to reintroduce the Inhofe amendment language was not going to happen.
Get those pens and pencils out now and write your congressional reps. This pile of manure and the Senate bill (much better) are now in conference committee being reconciled into a final single bill for the full Congress to vote on. Make you voice count.
An amendment by Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), which passed by a vote of 215-209, would require the FAA to consider additional cost/benefit analyses and industry-specific assessments before issuing a regulation. While Rep. Shuster and Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee, maintain that the amendment will not apply to the pending flight/duty and rest rules, ALPA is concerned that the effect of this amendment may be to stall the pending rule, which is required by Aug. 1, 2011. ALPA will work through the conference process to clarify Rep. Shuster’s commitment that the amendment will not apply to pending rules
04-02-2011, 06:08 AM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: 737 CAPT
Posts: 1,888
From Friday's ALPA FastRead:
An amendment by Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), which passed by a vote of 215-209, would require the FAA to consider additional cost/benefit analyses and industry-specific assessments before issuing a regulation. While Rep. Shuster and Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee, maintain that the amendment will not apply to the pending flight/duty and rest rules, ALPA is concerned that the effect of this amendment may be to stall the pending rule, which is required by Aug. 1, 2011. ALPA will work through the conference process to clarify Rep. Shuster’s commitment that the amendment will not apply to pending rules.
An amendment by Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), which passed by a vote of 215-209, would require the FAA to consider additional cost/benefit analyses and industry-specific assessments before issuing a regulation. While Rep. Shuster and Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee, maintain that the amendment will not apply to the pending flight/duty and rest rules, ALPA is concerned that the effect of this amendment may be to stall the pending rule, which is required by Aug. 1, 2011. ALPA will work through the conference process to clarify Rep. Shuster’s commitment that the amendment will not apply to pending rules.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
