FAA layoffs may be halted
By The Associated Press
Published: Wednesday, April 24, 2013, 7:39 p.m.
WASHINGTON — Under growing pressure, the Obama administration signaled on Wednesday that it might accept legislation eliminating Federal Aviation Administration furloughs — blamed for lengthy delays affecting airline passengers — but leaving the remainder of $85 billion in across-the-board spending cuts in place.
Sen. Pat Toomey of Lehigh County has been one of the Republicans pressuring the White House. Members of the administration “back themselves into a bad position, where what they should have done is said: ‘Let's work with Congress.' ”
Sentiment has grown among Senate Democrats for legislation to ease the impact of FAA cuts.
“I think there was a meeting of the minds” on steps to remedy the situation, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said after key senators held a meeting Wednesday with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.
“There are too many delays, and common ... citizens are being affected,” LaHood said.
According to the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, 5,800 flights were delayed nationwide for the three-day period beginning Sunday, when the furloughs took effect. Some were caused by weather. The union said that compares with 2,500 delays for the same period a year ago.
White House press secretary Jay Carney said if Congress “wants to address specifically the problems caused by the sequester with the FAA, we would be open to looking at that. But that would be a Band-Aid measure.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- US Airways’ pornographic tweet won’t cost anyone a job
- 1986 Warhol self-portraits up for sale
- AC/DC not disbanding, lead singer Brian Johnson says
- Court upholds EPA emissions restrictions
- Denver wife killed 12 minutes into 911 call, sparking inquiry
- Obama, House Republicans trade accusations in thwarting immigration reform
- Tea Party flap averted fraud probe by IRS, Justice, emails show
- New York Police Department commissioner disarms post-9/11 intel program
- Recovery expert believes wreckage of missing plane located
- Vermont Senate OKs GMO labels as industry insists genetically modified crops are safe
- Hoax bomb case causes concerns in Boston