ALPA Magazine Aricle
03-05-2013, 08:35 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 355
Just got my March Issue of the ALPA magazine. Page 37 has a full page article on the impact of sequestration quoting such unbiased sources as Rep. Nita Lowney (D-N.Y.), Ray LaHood, U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary, Paul Rinaldi, NATCA President, and a source from the Obama Administration. According to this article, if sequestration is allowed to happen, the airline industry and the economy could be devestated and could grind to a halt. I thought we donated to the PAC to cover the cost of getting such slanted news out to the world and our dues money was not to be used for this sort of thing.
Why did the ALPA magazine not seek out some other individuals for a more balanced perspective on this issue? Guess that was a dumb question!!!
Why did the ALPA magazine not seek out some other individuals for a more balanced perspective on this issue? Guess that was a dumb question!!!
Where on page 37 does it say that, economy could be devastated and could grind to a halt" ?
The FAA administrator’s quote, “Sequestration would force the FAA to cut back on operating costs by reducing the core services we provide.”
The DoT Secretary's quote was, “The furlough of a large number of air traffic controllers and technicians will require a reduction in air traffic to a level that can be safely managed by the remaining staff. . . . The result will be felt across the country, as the volume of travel must be decreased.”
NATCA's president's quote, "...these cuts will be detrimental to our national airspace system and the economy."
All these appear to be rational impact statements resulting from reducing the budget of the DoT.
The ranking House Appropriations Committee chair quotes, "“Allowing these automatic cuts to take place will mean fewer flights, longer delays, and more inconvenience for air travelers, and the loss of billions of dollars in economic activity.”
This quote seems to be more of an opinion compared to the others quoted above (on pg. 37), as the FAA reported pax carriers reported a net operating income of $5.8B in 2011. So the quantification of "billions of dollars" in economic activity could be very loosely extrapolated as the totality of the aggregate impact -which would, at best, be very rough guess that could be biased on whatever ground rules and asssumptions used. Compared to teh straight statements of fact by the DoT FAA & NATCA.
The reality is that cuts will have an adverse impact on total economic activity derived from or related to commercial aviation. At this time, I personally don't think anyone can accurately forecast the dollar value of the aggregrate economic impact.
“Why did the ALPA magazine not seek out some other individuals for a more balanced perspective on this issue?”
The DoT secretary is a cabinet executive responsible for the manning training and equipping of the agencies under him. It’s his department that has a prescribed job to do- given the resources “appropriated”.
The FAA administrator reports to the secretary DoT, and his mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system under his budget.
The House Appropriations Committee, of which Ms. Lowey is the ranking member -in addition to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, is in charge of setting the specific expenditures of money by the government of the United States.
Who do you think has more factual information and insight to the government regulatory and resourcing bodies than the head of the cabinet (DoT), administrator (FAA), and appropriator (ranking member of appropriations)?
I’m sure that ALPA could find blowhards on both side of the political spectrum, but statements from the head of the organizations that administer the services & provide the levels of resourcing are the most authoritative and factual sources.
If your mortage lender wanted to know your debt to equity, income, and expenses wouldn’t you prefer he asked “you” the owner of those activities, or should he ask your neighbor, bartender, minister or soccer coach for balanced “opinions” of your affairs.
03-05-2013, 08:54 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 174
"The sky is falling, the sky is falling" but it didn't and wall srteet seems to like something about the spending cuts? If Barry won't cut the gravy train then someone has to man up, stand up and do the right thing even if it is unpopular. Funny thing is the whole sequestration idea was proposed by Barry and the boys a couple of years ago when were were terrified to go plunging off another financial cliff, remember???
Maybe Harry Reid and the Senate might consider putting together some sort of budget proposal? Shameful to run a government like this! Sure would not happen in the private sector, but then Barry wouldn't know about that either because he has never been in the real world with a real job.
Maybe Harry Reid and the Senate might consider putting together some sort of budget proposal? Shameful to run a government like this! Sure would not happen in the private sector, but then Barry wouldn't know about that either because he has never been in the real world with a real job.
03-05-2013, 09:36 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Been here two months, 23 posts, and you're making your mark already.
I ask you again, what possible productive outcome are you trying to accomplish with your post.
And ALPA's not a "news/information source." It's a bargaining organization and an advocacy group. I don't pay my dues for them to be unbiased.
"Unvarnished"? You almost got me thinking that our Ford/Harrison law clerk was back on here. But you speak of "My negotiating committee speaks for me." So if you are our fair 3L back again with a new screen name, bravo.
I ask you again, what possible productive outcome are you trying to accomplish with your post.
And ALPA's not a "news/information source." It's a bargaining organization and an advocacy group. I don't pay my dues for them to be unbiased.
"Unvarnished"? You almost got me thinking that our Ford/Harrison law clerk was back on here. But you speak of "My negotiating committee speaks for me." So if you are our fair 3L back again with a new screen name, bravo.
Last edited by FDXLAG; 03-05-2013 at 09:50 PM.
03-06-2013, 04:46 AM
#14
Part Time Employee
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
03-06-2013, 04:59 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: What day is it?
Posts: 963
"The sky is falling, the sky is falling" but it didn't and wall srteet seems to like something about the spending cuts? If Barry won't cut the gravy train then someone has to man up, stand up and do the right thing even if it is unpopular. Funny thing is the whole sequestration idea was proposed by Barry and the boys a couple of years ago when were were terrified to go plunging off another financial cliff, remember???
Maybe Harry Reid and the Senate might consider putting together some sort of budget proposal? Shameful to run a government like this! Sure would not happen in the private sector, but then Barry wouldn't know about that either because he has never been in the real world with a real job.
Maybe Harry Reid and the Senate might consider putting together some sort of budget proposal? Shameful to run a government like this! Sure would not happen in the private sector, but then Barry wouldn't know about that either because he has never been in the real world with a real job.
And if you read the news instead of the soundbites on TV, you'd know that there have been several bills proposed by the Democrats in the House; all shot down in committee and never allowed to the floor for deabte.
Amazing what you can find out when you open your eyes and don't count on Fox for your reality.
03-06-2013, 06:03 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Retired
Posts: 404
"According to this article, if sequestration is allowed to happen, the airline industry and the economy could be devastated and could grind to a halt"
Where on page 37 does it say that, economy could be devastated and could grind to a halt" ?
The FAA administrator’s quote, “Sequestration would force the FAA to cut back on operating costs by reducing the core services we provide.”
The DoT Secretary's quote was, “The furlough of a large number of air traffic controllers and technicians will require a reduction in air traffic to a level that can be safely managed by the remaining staff. . . . The result will be felt across the country, as the volume of travel must be decreased.”
NATCA's president's quote, "...these cuts will be detrimental to our national airspace system and the economy."
All these appear to be rational impact statements resulting from reducing the budget of the DoT.
The ranking House Appropriations Committee chair quotes, "“Allowing these automatic cuts to take place will mean fewer flights, longer delays, and more inconvenience for air travelers, and the loss of billions of dollars in economic activity.”
This quote seems to be more of an opinion compared to the others quoted above (on pg. 37), as the FAA reported pax carriers reported a net operating income of $5.8B in 2011. So the quantification of "billions of dollars" in economic activity could be very loosely extrapolated as the totality of the aggregate impact -which would, at best, be very rough guess that could be biased on whatever ground rules and asssumptions used. Compared to teh straight statements of fact by the DoT FAA & NATCA.
The reality is that cuts will have an adverse impact on total economic activity derived from or related to commercial aviation. At this time, I personally don't think anyone can accurately forecast the dollar value of the aggregrate economic impact.
“Why did the ALPA magazine not seek out some other individuals for a more balanced perspective on this issue?”
The DoT secretary is a cabinet executive responsible for the manning training and equipping of the agencies under him. It’s his department that has a prescribed job to do- given the resources “appropriated”.
The FAA administrator reports to the secretary DoT, and his mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system under his budget.
The House Appropriations Committee, of which Ms. Lowey is the ranking member -in addition to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, is in charge of setting the specific expenditures of money by the government of the United States.
Who do you think has more factual information and insight to the government regulatory and resourcing bodies than the head of the cabinet (DoT), administrator (FAA), and appropriator (ranking member of appropriations)?
I’m sure that ALPA could find blowhards on both side of the political spectrum, but statements from the head of the organizations that administer the services & provide the levels of resourcing are the most authoritative and factual sources.
If your mortage lender wanted to know your debt to equity, income, and expenses wouldn’t you prefer he asked “you” the owner of those activities, or should he ask your neighbor, bartender, minister or soccer coach for balanced “opinions” of your affairs.
Where on page 37 does it say that, economy could be devastated and could grind to a halt" ?
The FAA administrator’s quote, “Sequestration would force the FAA to cut back on operating costs by reducing the core services we provide.”
The DoT Secretary's quote was, “The furlough of a large number of air traffic controllers and technicians will require a reduction in air traffic to a level that can be safely managed by the remaining staff. . . . The result will be felt across the country, as the volume of travel must be decreased.”
NATCA's president's quote, "...these cuts will be detrimental to our national airspace system and the economy."
All these appear to be rational impact statements resulting from reducing the budget of the DoT.
The ranking House Appropriations Committee chair quotes, "“Allowing these automatic cuts to take place will mean fewer flights, longer delays, and more inconvenience for air travelers, and the loss of billions of dollars in economic activity.”
This quote seems to be more of an opinion compared to the others quoted above (on pg. 37), as the FAA reported pax carriers reported a net operating income of $5.8B in 2011. So the quantification of "billions of dollars" in economic activity could be very loosely extrapolated as the totality of the aggregate impact -which would, at best, be very rough guess that could be biased on whatever ground rules and asssumptions used. Compared to teh straight statements of fact by the DoT FAA & NATCA.
The reality is that cuts will have an adverse impact on total economic activity derived from or related to commercial aviation. At this time, I personally don't think anyone can accurately forecast the dollar value of the aggregrate economic impact.
“Why did the ALPA magazine not seek out some other individuals for a more balanced perspective on this issue?”
The DoT secretary is a cabinet executive responsible for the manning training and equipping of the agencies under him. It’s his department that has a prescribed job to do- given the resources “appropriated”.
The FAA administrator reports to the secretary DoT, and his mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system under his budget.
The House Appropriations Committee, of which Ms. Lowey is the ranking member -in addition to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, is in charge of setting the specific expenditures of money by the government of the United States.
Who do you think has more factual information and insight to the government regulatory and resourcing bodies than the head of the cabinet (DoT), administrator (FAA), and appropriator (ranking member of appropriations)?
I’m sure that ALPA could find blowhards on both side of the political spectrum, but statements from the head of the organizations that administer the services & provide the levels of resourcing are the most authoritative and factual sources.
If your mortage lender wanted to know your debt to equity, income, and expenses wouldn’t you prefer he asked “you” the owner of those activities, or should he ask your neighbor, bartender, minister or soccer coach for balanced “opinions” of your affairs.
Why is the head of the FAA closing a huge number of contractor operated towers and not a proportionate number of FAA (NATCA) manned towers?
The heads of all of these agencies have their marching orders and they came from very high up the food chain. Just my opinion as a taxpayer and concerned citizen.
03-06-2013, 06:22 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: MD-11
Posts: 395
If it’s not a “news" organization, then why is it publishing an opinion piece on a politically charged, news topic? Can’t have it both ways. The problem, as I see it, with ALPA National’s PAC, is that it is 75% slanted toward liberal politics, the very political theories that, put into practice, are killing our economy, and destroying our culture. Putting a poorly researched, one sided, liberal article in a professional magazine only invites criticism, in this case, well deserved criticism.
03-06-2013, 06:25 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: MD-11
Posts: 395
Gee...maybe you should go back to high school civics and government classes. Then you'd learn that by law the House must put forth the appropriations bills and once passed, they proceed to the Senate. And that if they aren't enacted by the end of the term, they drop dead and the process has to start all over again.
And if you read the news instead of the soundbites on TV, you'd know that there have been several bills proposed by the Democrats in the House; all shot down in committee and never allowed to the floor for deabte.
Amazing what you can find out when you open your eyes and don't count on Fox for your reality.
And if you read the news instead of the soundbites on TV, you'd know that there have been several bills proposed by the Democrats in the House; all shot down in committee and never allowed to the floor for deabte.
Amazing what you can find out when you open your eyes and don't count on Fox for your reality.
03-06-2013, 07:22 AM
#19
Gets Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Nordskog Industries Field Technician
Posts: 688
"According to this article, if sequestration is allowed to happen, the airline industry and the economy could be devastated and could grind to a halt"
Where on page 37 does it say that, economy could be devastated and could grind to a halt" ?
The FAA administrator’s quote, “Sequestration would force the FAA to cut back on operating costs by reducing the core services we provide.”
The DoT Secretary's quote was, “The furlough of a large number of air traffic controllers and technicians will require a reduction in air traffic to a level that can be safely managed by the remaining staff. . . . The result will be felt across the country, as the volume of travel must be decreased.”
NATCA's president's quote, "...these cuts will be detrimental to our national airspace system and the economy."
All these appear to be rational impact statements resulting from reducing the budget of the DoT.
The ranking House Appropriations Committee chair quotes, "“Allowing these automatic cuts to take place will mean fewer flights, longer delays, and more inconvenience for air travelers, and the loss of billions of dollars in economic activity.”
This quote seems to be more of an opinion compared to the others quoted above (on pg. 37), as the FAA reported pax carriers reported a net operating income of $5.8B in 2011. So the quantification of "billions of dollars" in economic activity could be very loosely extrapolated as the totality of the aggregate impact -which would, at best, be very rough guess that could be biased on whatever ground rules and asssumptions used. Compared to teh straight statements of fact by the DoT FAA & NATCA.
The reality is that cuts will have an adverse impact on total economic activity derived from or related to commercial aviation. At this time, I personally don't think anyone can accurately forecast the dollar value of the aggregrate economic impact.
“Why did the ALPA magazine not seek out some other individuals for a more balanced perspective on this issue?”
The DoT secretary is a cabinet executive responsible for the manning training and equipping of the agencies under him. It’s his department that has a prescribed job to do- given the resources “appropriated”.
The FAA administrator reports to the secretary DoT, and his mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system under his budget.
The House Appropriations Committee, of which Ms. Lowey is the ranking member -in addition to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, is in charge of setting the specific expenditures of money by the government of the United States.
Who do you think has more factual information and insight to the government regulatory and resourcing bodies than the head of the cabinet (DoT), administrator (FAA), and appropriator (ranking member of appropriations)?
I’m sure that ALPA could find blowhards on both side of the political spectrum, but statements from the head of the organizations that administer the services & provide the levels of resourcing are the most authoritative and factual sources.
If your mortage lender wanted to know your debt to equity, income, and expenses wouldn’t you prefer he asked “you” the owner of those activities, or should he ask your neighbor, bartender, minister or soccer coach for balanced “opinions” of your affairs.
Where on page 37 does it say that, economy could be devastated and could grind to a halt" ?
The FAA administrator’s quote, “Sequestration would force the FAA to cut back on operating costs by reducing the core services we provide.”
The DoT Secretary's quote was, “The furlough of a large number of air traffic controllers and technicians will require a reduction in air traffic to a level that can be safely managed by the remaining staff. . . . The result will be felt across the country, as the volume of travel must be decreased.”
NATCA's president's quote, "...these cuts will be detrimental to our national airspace system and the economy."
All these appear to be rational impact statements resulting from reducing the budget of the DoT.
The ranking House Appropriations Committee chair quotes, "“Allowing these automatic cuts to take place will mean fewer flights, longer delays, and more inconvenience for air travelers, and the loss of billions of dollars in economic activity.”
This quote seems to be more of an opinion compared to the others quoted above (on pg. 37), as the FAA reported pax carriers reported a net operating income of $5.8B in 2011. So the quantification of "billions of dollars" in economic activity could be very loosely extrapolated as the totality of the aggregate impact -which would, at best, be very rough guess that could be biased on whatever ground rules and asssumptions used. Compared to teh straight statements of fact by the DoT FAA & NATCA.
The reality is that cuts will have an adverse impact on total economic activity derived from or related to commercial aviation. At this time, I personally don't think anyone can accurately forecast the dollar value of the aggregrate economic impact.
“Why did the ALPA magazine not seek out some other individuals for a more balanced perspective on this issue?”
The DoT secretary is a cabinet executive responsible for the manning training and equipping of the agencies under him. It’s his department that has a prescribed job to do- given the resources “appropriated”.
The FAA administrator reports to the secretary DoT, and his mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system under his budget.
The House Appropriations Committee, of which Ms. Lowey is the ranking member -in addition to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, is in charge of setting the specific expenditures of money by the government of the United States.
Who do you think has more factual information and insight to the government regulatory and resourcing bodies than the head of the cabinet (DoT), administrator (FAA), and appropriator (ranking member of appropriations)?
I’m sure that ALPA could find blowhards on both side of the political spectrum, but statements from the head of the organizations that administer the services & provide the levels of resourcing are the most authoritative and factual sources.
If your mortage lender wanted to know your debt to equity, income, and expenses wouldn’t you prefer he asked “you” the owner of those activities, or should he ask your neighbor, bartender, minister or soccer coach for balanced “opinions” of your affairs.
03-06-2013, 08:14 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,199
So basically the OP over exaggerated and misquoted an article from a labor union publication in order to fire up some folks and drum up some good old fashioned right wing fear and cry babying? It's life imitating art, the faux news watcher creates his own faux news. Beautiful really.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
