FAA reauthorization, AGE 65 passing odds

[luckytohaveajob]

This year? Maybe
Next year? No way!
Let hope Paul Emens runs out of time at the end of next year and starts golfing.

As reported by AIN:

Will FAA Bill Pass This Year? Flip a Coin…
“In Washington, D.C., no bad idea ever dies,” National Association of State Aviation Officials president and CEO Henry Ogrodzinski said of aviation user fees yesterday at the American Association of Airport Executives General Aviation Issues Conference in Naples, Fla. “Even if a good [FAA reauthorization] bill passes this time, user fees will still come up next time.” And next time isn’t that far away, since the two FAA bills currently in play–H.R.2881 and S.1300–reauthorize the agency for only four years, versus the traditional 10 years. However, passage of these bills is anything but assured; the House and Senate are no closer to consensus, and the extension that is keeping the FAA in business expires November 16. “It’s likely that another extension will be passed,” noted AOPA vice president of airports Bill Dunn, “and if these extensions continue into March then we’ll have more extensions to keep the status quo until the new administration is in place in 2009.” GAMA vice president Brian Riley gives only a 50-50 chance that an FAA reauthorization bill will be passed this year, and a near-zero chance next year since it’s an election year.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

New Brass

I wonder what Bobby's position on age 65 is currently?

President Bush today nominated Bobby Sturgell to be the next FAA Administrator. Sturgell, a former United Airlines pilot and naval aviator, has been the acting FAA Administrator since Marion Blakey left when her term ended on September 14. In a statement, DOT Secretary Mary Peters urged the Senate “to swiftly consider Bobby’s nomination and confirm him to a full five-year term.”

 

[ferlo]

Since he's not personally effected by it anymore, I bet he's all for the change.

 

[skywdriver]

The bill won't pass this year, the administration already said they would veto it even if a version passes both houses (since they vetoed the child insurance bill because it was too expensive, this one will hardly bring any negative press compared to the other, no brainer, veto). With the turnover in the FAA as well, it will probably be a long time before this thing finally makes it through. Lets face it, it is a legal nightmare. Nobody wants to touch it, I can't blame them.

 

[Daddy]

Well said, sky...I think vetoing child health insurance will solidify a veto on other spending bills. If Bush does anything but veto every other bloated spending bill (which this most certainly is), the republicans get painted like they're heartless and dont care about poor children who cant get good medical care...aint gonna happen. Think about it...leave the poor huddled masses in the street and upgrade our FAA which everyone hates anyway? No farging way man!

 

[Benhuntn]

"farging" That is a cool word man. Mind if I use it sometime?

 

[AA717driver]

Bush should have started vetoing bloated spending bills about 6 1/2 years ago.

The Republicans might still have a majority in both houses if he had. TC

 

[Andy]

Info on Sturgell:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/10/23/faa.nomination.ap/
He's 48.

http://politicalgraveyard.com/bio/stubblefield-styles.html
He had (has) political ambitions

Unable to find any articles indicating where he stands on age 65.

As far as the FAA Reauthorization Bill, it's dead for this session of Congress.

 

[GuppyWN]

There is a big difference in FAA Reauthorization being dead and the possibility that age 60 being pulled out and voted on as a stand alone. THAT'S what has me worried.

Gup

 

[Huck]

Bush should have started vetoing bloated spending bills about 6 1/2 years ago.

To paraphrase Truman: give the people a choice between a big spender and a big spender, and they'll pick the big spender every time....