Why did the FAA decide to cut air traffic controller hours and to close control towers when faced with the need to cut some $600 million dollars (4%) of their approximately $15 billion annual funding due to the sequester? Could this be an example of Obama sequester politics at its ugliest, and most dangerous?
The FAA spends in many areas including air traffic control, airport improvement projects like runway and lighting construction, land acquisition, airport planning, aircraft and airman certification, aircraft accident investigation, etc. Faced with the need to cut 4% of their budget dictated by the sequester, could they not have found construction projects or planning or certification activities to have cut that would not have necessitated reducing the safety of the air traffic system? What do you think?
Closing control towers and furloughing air traffic controllers may compromise safety and lead to flight delays. Tower closures at 149 of the 251 privately contracted control towers only reduced FAA expenditures by $50 million dollars; 8% of the total $600 million. This disproportionate cut can only be understood as politically motivated. Putting a hold on one runway construction project should have more than paid for this $50 million without impacting daily safe aircraft operations. Cutting air traffic controller hours at busy hub 
airports will produce delays as the fewer controllers requires increased spacing between airplanes, reducing the frequency of landings and takeoffs at these busy airports leading to public outcry. If the FAA had instead cut funding for construction projects they could have saved a healthy percentage of the $600 millions to balance their budget, and not needed to cut controller hours, causing these delays.The only conclusion that can be drawn is that this decision by the FAA to make cuts in controller hours rather than in construction projects was politically motivated, dictated by the Obama Administration.
Some might ask why controllers could not have been moved around to prevent the flight delays. The control system is divided into airport control towers, terminal approach control areas around busy airports (controlling the safe flow of aircraft into and out of these airports), and the en route system (the rest of the US airspace between these terminal areas). It takes specific training to safely control the flow in each of these areas, so a controller trained and certified to be competent controlling flow in less densely traveled airspace may not be able to handle the movement in higher density areas without further training.
In addition, since fewer than 8% of airports today have manned control towers, The FAA relies on pilot training to control their own landing and takeoff operations at smaller airports by communicating with each other over the radio. All pilots have this training and use it regularly. Controllers are concentrated in the areas of busiest air traffic, so the FAA decision to cut the controller portion of their budget, instead of making the majority of the cuts out of the construction and certification portions of their budget had to be politically motivated to cause the most public discomfort. Either this is government mismanagement at its worst, or politics at its ugliest.
The sequester was an ugly political decision designed to make the Congress enact thoughtful budget cuts. They failed to do so revealing their inadequacy at political leadership engendered by their inability to compromise and/or their fear of risking losing reelection. The FAA decisions regarding what portion of their budget would sustain the reduction in funding may be further evidence of the Obama administrations contribution to this inadequacy, risking harm and engendering anger in the public due to delays. How long can we support this political incompetence in Washington?
Politics Magazine
