海角大神

In the world of air travel, it sounds like a nightmare scenario.

The federal budget 鈥渟equester,鈥� Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Friday, would be a 鈥渃alamity鈥� that would force the Federal Aviation Administration to reduce hours at hundreds of control towers and airports and completely close dozens more, leading to gridlock in the skies and long delays and cancellations in the nation鈥檚 airports.

As part of the $85 billion across-the-board spending cuts known as the sequester, the Department of Transportation must cut $1 billion from its annual budget, of which about $600 million would be slashed from the FAA, which oversees air travel. According to Secretary LaHood, that translates into furloughs for most of the agency鈥檚 47,000 employees and closures of more than 100 air traffic control towers across the country 鈥� a situation LaHood, in a series of appearances over the weekend, said would be 鈥渧ery painful for the flying public.鈥�

鈥淚t is going to be chaos for air travelers,鈥� says Henry Harteveldt, a travel-industry analyst with advisory firm Hudson Crossing. 鈥淗undreds of control towers are slated to have either hours reduced or eliminated altogether. This is big.鈥澛�

And while the projected disruption to air travel is deeply concerning to many, the 鈥渟ky-is-falling鈥� scenario has some analysts skeptical about the administration鈥檚 use of the cutbacks in air transportation as a political football. After all, air travel delays are a popular weapon in the political debate because they impact so many Americans in a particularly irritating fashion.

鈥淭here may be some actions being done to create drama where there doesn鈥檛 need to be,鈥� says Mr. Harteveldt. 鈥淚t can be as bad as the FAA and TSA want to make it.鈥�

To what extent, then, is the dismal picture painted by LaHood fear-mongering designed to pressure lawmakers to reach a budget deal? Can the FAA target cuts in other areas to mitigate the impact for travelers, or are LaHood鈥檚 hands tied?

Congressional Republicans have accused the administration of using the air traffic control cuts to 鈥渃reate alarm.鈥�

鈥淏efore jumping to the conclusion that furloughs must be implemented, the administration and the agency need to sharpen their pencils and consider all the options,鈥� Sen. John Thune (R) and Reps. Bill Schuster (R) and Frank LoBiondo (R), said in a joint statement Friday.

According to聽, the group said there were other areas in which the FAA could instead cut 鈥渇at,鈥� like the more than $500 million spent each year on consultants, or the $200 million spent on supplies and travel.

LaHood has countered the claims, saying he has no choice but to reduce air-traffic staffing.

鈥淭he largest number of employees at DOT is at FAA, of which the largest number are FAA controllers," LaHood said Sunday on CNN鈥檚 鈥淪tate of the Union.鈥� "We are going to try and cut as much as we possibly can out of contracts and other things that we do. But in the end, there has to be some kind of furlough of air traffic control.鈥�

Michael Boyd, an aviation analyst with Boyd Group International, an aviation consulting and forecasting firm, says the move is 鈥渆ngineered to be as difficult as possible for the consumer.鈥�

鈥淩ay LaHood and his group will make it as hard as possible. They鈥檙e going to want to take this right to the consumer and make the consumer feel as much pain as possible,鈥� says Mr. Boyd. 鈥淭his is how you make a point.鈥� This is frankly a political program.鈥�

What鈥檚 more, says Harteveldt, cuts could be focused on less critical areas to lessen the impact for travelers.

鈥淚鈥檓 sure there are options available to them that would be considered discretionary 鈥� less important, less strategic areas 鈥� that could be examined and cut [without] 鈥� affecting frontline service and frontline personnel,鈥� he says.

Among the options cited by Harteveldt and Boyd are reducing spending on private contractors, management, and support staff, as well as temporarily suspending discretionary projects like personnel training and next-generation air traffic control systems.

鈥淭here is a concentrated effort to tell everyone how bad it will be,鈥� says Boyd. 鈥淚t doesn鈥檛 have to be.鈥�

Scott Lilly, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, disagrees. Not only are LaHood鈥檚 options limited under the law, he says, 鈥渋t could be even worse.鈥�

鈥淚t鈥檚 surprising to a lot of people, but the truth is these budgets don鈥檛 work the way you think they do,鈥� says Mr. Lilly, who worked in Congress for more than three decades, including as staff director of the House Appropriations Committee. 鈥淭here is a lot less latitude than you might suppose.鈥�

The 1985 Gramm-Rudman Act, which originally introduced the concept of automatic spending cuts, as well as the Budget Control Act of 2011, which introduced this sequester, stipulate how government programs must be cut if voluntary spending reductions are not agreed on. The legislation, says Lilly, mandates formulaic across-the-board cuts of approximately聽聽on all non-national security government programs, with some exceptions. That means the FAA must shoulder an equal percentage of the financial burden as other government agencies.

鈥淭he problem with programs like the FAA is that they鈥檙e almost all salaries,鈥� he adds, explaining that much of the budget is devoted to air traffic controllers鈥� salaries and control towers that are leased under fixed contracts.

What鈥檚 more, the FAA will have spent half of its budget for the fiscal year by March 30, when cuts would likely go into effect, which means the agency would have to enact even steeper cuts to achieve the necessary reductions over a shorter period of time.

As such, says Lilly, LaHood鈥檚 hands are effectively tied.

鈥淭here鈥檚 not a lot of flexibility,鈥� he says. 鈥淢y view is that this may be even worse for the FAA than what LaHood has described.鈥�