Home › Opinion › Opinion
Editorial: Air safety bill still grounded
Reform unlikely until 2009
STORY TOOLS 
More from OpinionThere is a popular expression in politics and business — "to kick the can down the road." It means an unsolved problem will remain unsolved until a later date.
The Senate has deadlocked on a major reform of the national aviation system. The bill was not uncontroversial but it had much to recommend it and, as the thousands of canceled flights this spring showed, the country can't put off an overhaul of the Federal Aviation Administration and aging air traffic control system for very much longer.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W. Va., chairman of an aviation subcommittee, was exaggerating, but not by much, when he said, "The aviation system is on the verge of collapse."
The bill had money to modernize the air-traffic- control system, a way for airports to finance expansions, guarantees of air service to small communities and a passengers' "bill of rights" — the airlines have to provide food, water and bathrooms in the event of significant delays and they can't make you sit on the tarmac indefinitely.
The House passed the bill last year. But it stalled in the Senate over unrelated spending added by the Democrats — $1.7 billion in 9/11 money for New York City, $5 billion for the Highway Trust Fund and $1 billion in backing for rail infrastructure bonds.
The Republicans also complained that the Democratic leadership would not allow them to offer amendments for unrelated spending.
An attempt to cut off debate and move forward fell 11 votes short of the 60 needed. Sen. Rockefeller said the stalemate "defines what the American people find so inadequate about Congress." A hardy amen to that.
There is some sentiment for bringing the bill back to the floor minus the unrelated provisions. But the more likely course is to simply extend the current law into 2009.
Thus, the can is not only kicked down the road, it is kicked into next year.
Posted by lthrnek on May 12, 2008 at 5:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
An unsettling article for me to read while sitting here in Forth Worth waiting to begin my air travel back to Oxnard today. My only comfort is that I'll again be putting my life in the hands of a pilot who, most likely, once wore a military uniform.
Pretty much like the current election wouldn't you say?
Posted by Tom_Johnston on May 12, 2008 at 5:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually lthrnek, no, I would not say that.
George Bush wore a uniform, at least while he wasn't AWOL from the Guard.
His presidency has been no comfort to me, and increasingly not for a lot of people.
Military service is something to be commended, and might be a factor in the selection of a President, but there is much more than that to consider.
Posted by shaver_one on May 12, 2008 at 7:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Earmarks and Pork...
Dems and GOPers.
Congress...
You gotta love 'em.
If only
ya didn't hate 'em.
Posted by shaver_one on May 12, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
mm:
You mentioned the DoD twice.
DHS was a Democratic Party proposal that the Bush/Cheney Regime, at first, rejected.
The problems with DoJ were Bush's own making.
The damage from Katrina was predictable. Bush said: "Nobody could have ever forseen these problems." Did you see the TV-movie "Oil Storm"...released months PRIOR to Katrina?
A couple of years earlier, the Army Corps of Engineers had requested $2 billion to repair the NOLa levies. Now, it will cost the American taxpayer over $200 billion to repair the damage.
Posted by shaver_one on May 12, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Unless, of course, by Defence Department, you mean Border Security.
Posted by shaver_one on May 12, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dick Cheney was a bad choice before and after 9-11.
In fact, it was Dick Cheney who chose himself as VP.
Seriously. You should check out "Oil Storm". It would have been scary had it been 'after-the-fact'. But, this movie was made in 2004, and released months BEFORE 2005's Katrina.
I remember seeing "The China Syndrome". Everyone thought "what a fanciful idea." Then came Three-Mile Island 12 days later.
Posted by shaver_one on May 12, 2008 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Back on tack, then...
Airplane Safety: Too many airline companies, too many airplanes, too many flights.
Do we really need flights from LA to SF leaving every hour on the hour?
Posted by shaver_one on May 12, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Back on track, then...
Airplane Safety: Too many airline companies, too many airplanes, too many flights, too many empty seats.
Do we really need flights from LA to SF leaving every hour on the hour?
Posted by lthrnek on May 12, 2008 at 6:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I was talking about the election coming up. . . not the Bush debacle. We have to quit electing people who have little or no experience in running big organizations. The Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana are good examples and maybe even Mrs. Bush's little boy Georgie.
Anyway. . . back to the point. . . give me a military trained pilot anytime. I know how well trained they are!
By the way. . . I'm on the ground in Oxnard safe and sound. . . :-))
Posted by Tom_Johnston on May 12, 2008 at 10:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, lthrnek...I'd go for a military trained pilot in the next transport plane that I would fly I'd agree there.
As far as the election goes...yes, I'd give McCain more credit for his service...than I'd ever give George Bush.
When in comes to measuring the candidate, military service can factor in. George Bush Senior had the real chops...I can't deny him that and I respect him for that....his son however is another matter.
Military service is only one, of many, possible criteria to judge a candidate. It is just not the only one criteria to use.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.