Blumenthal Makes Pitch To Save Air Traffic Control Towers
by Hugh McQuaid | Mar 18, 2013 2:38pm
Google
(5) Comments | Commenting has expired
Hugh McQuaid Photo
U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal
U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal visited Hartford’s Brainard Airport on Monday to announce an effort to shield contracted air traffic control towers from closure under across-the-board federal spending cuts called sequestration.
Like other federal agencies, the Federal Aviation Administration is slated for a 5 percent cut. However, Blumenthal said the agency has opted to cut by 75 percent its funding for air traffic control towers run by private companies.
“All our amendment does is say the 5 percent should apply to cuts to the control towers as well as all the other [FAA] operations,” he said.
Blumenthal said it was a “mystery” to him why the agency has decided to hit the program with what amounts to a $50 million cut. But the result would be the closure of air traffic control towers like the ones at Brainard and Tweed Airport in New Haven, where Blumenthal said that about 120 full- and part-time jobs would be lost.
“Jobs are so dependent on the air traffic control towers, along with local economies,” he said. “. . . The ripple effects of these closures is tremendous and it matters to our state and to other states that are involved.”
Terry Keller, a flight instructor at Brainard, said the closure of the tower would also raise some safety concerns. Keller compared the closure of a tower to traffic light outages during recent storms.
“It wasn’t chaos necessarily, but it was certainly less efficient and we had a higher risk for all the drivers,” he said. “At an airport where there’s not a control tower and there used to be, there’s going to be a higher level of risk through the reduced level of services as the pilots all try to mix together.”
Mark Roderick, an air traffic controller at Brainard, was hesitant to “pull the safety card.” He said he didn’t want to undermine the public’s confidence in what he said was still the world’s safest air traffic control system. But he said it would do nothing to enhance safety and will slow things down for air passengers.
“These people don’t want to come out here and waste time out on the Tarmac this July when it’s 90 out here and you’ve got six airplanes out here waiting to go. Without a control tower, they’re going to be talking to each other on a common frequency. It’s going to make it pretty congested,” he said. “. . . People don’t buy airplanes to go slow.”
On a personal level, Roderick said he would lose the job he has been working since 2006.
“Basically, the funding will stop for the contract towers and we will no longer report for duty,” he said. “The job is over in effect, and we’re basically laid off, if you will. It’s quite a cut in salary.”
Roderick said he hoped Blumenthal’s effort will galvanize the aviation community and convince Congress to keep the towers open.
“This is not a partisan issue. I want to stay away from the politics to the extent possible. We provide a service to the flying public and hopefully the spinoff generated is positive,” he said.
Blumenthal said because his amendment would not cost the FAA anything beyond what it is already spending, it has broad support.
“[Republicans] are totally on board with this amendment because the money is there. It’s deficit neutral,” he said. “The FAA has had this money appropriated in past years for capital and research expenditures but hasn’t used it.”
The cuts are scheduled to go into effect on April 7, according to Blumenthal. In addition to Brainard and Tweed, the cuts would impact four other airports in Connecticut including Stratford’s Sikorsky Airport, Danbury Airport, Groton-New London Airport and Waterbury-Oxford Airport.
In a statement, state Sen. Michael McLachlan, R-Danbury, thanked the state’s congressional delegation for working on behalf of his town’s airport.
“Six people are employed at the Danbury tower, and that’s six more people who are faced with going without work in a time when they are already sacrificing a great deal,” he said. “The funding cut also takes away revenue from municipalities, because there are several aviation businesses at these smaller contract airports.”
Tags: sequestration, brainard airport, air traffic control towers, federal aviation administration, Blumenthal, hugh mcquaid, dh
(5) Comments
posted by: Noteworthy | March 18, 2013 4:26pm
Blumenthal may wonder why the FAA took the cuts from the contract towers - I don’t and I’m not a Senator. First, they are contract employees, not part of a protected union class. Second, they are secondary or terciary airports with limited service and smaller impact vs. taking it from air traffic controllers in NYC or BDL. Third, this is not a safety issue nor is it an economic one. The planes will continue to fly and most of the workers will continue to work. Hence, no impact. By the way, if this was such grave concern, Mr. Blumenthal may well have thought about that when he voted for sequester in the critical vote. In any case, good god almighty, there was 16 months to figure this out and avoid it. Blumenthal, the CT delegation, Obama and all of Congress did nothing. Now it’s a problem?
See: http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/36154
posted by: Hebee | March 18, 2013 7:59pm
I saw a recent photo of Chris Murphy, Bluemy and Rosa DeLauro having a press conference at Tweed Airport. I assume they really want the airport to stay open so they won’t need to wait in the long lines at Bradley on their weekly D.C. commute.
posted by: Amanda Bloom | March 19, 2013 9:21am
This is definitely a safety issue, especially at the airport in my hometown, Danbury. Danbury Airport is surrounded by hilly terrain, making approach difficult for any pilot, especially those who haven’t visited the airport before. It’s also significantly busy, even on a weekday. I would be nervously watching the skies if the control tower closed.
posted by: Highfly | March 19, 2013 10:37am
Anyone who thinks the closure of contract towers is not a safety factor is a fool who knows nothing about air traffic control…which takes us to the root of the problem; inexperienced and uninformed people in the decision making process.
posted by: Noteworthy | March 19, 2013 2:14pm
People fly in and out of airports all the time, without an air traffic controller. You want to keep a controller in New Haven and Danbury, and do what? Cut a couple from Bradley or NYC? These small airports operate for the benefit of so few people, it is not worth the expense. Private planes will continue to fly and so will commercial flights - they already do at Tweed where the late night flights and all late flights land with no controller on duty.