63°
DANBURY, Conn. — Danbury Airport's control tower will close April 7 as part of federal "sequestration" spending cuts, the Federal Aviation Administration announced Friday.
Will you still fly out of Danbury Airport even though the control tower is closed?
View ResultsWill you still fly out of Danbury Airport even though the control tower is closed?
-
Yes
32% -
No
22% -
I don't own a plane
46%
But pilots will still be able to fly in and out of the airport — they will just have to control landings and takeoffs among themselves, said Michael Safranek, Danbury's assistant airport administrator
"Picture a busy intersection in Danbury and remove the traffic lights and stop signs," Safranek said. "The intersection is still open, but now each car has to figure out who's going to go first."
Five other control towers in Connecticut will also close, including those at Sikorsky Memorial, Groton-New London, Hartford-Brainard, Tweed-New Haven and Waterbury-Oxford airports. The FAA had to cut $637 million from its budget.
“We heard from communities across the country about the importance of their towers and these were very tough decisions,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a press release. “Unfortunately we are faced with a series of difficult choices that we have to make to reach the required cuts under sequestration.”
More than 70,000 operations, or flights, come into Danbury every year, Safranek said. Now, 95 percent of those flights are coordinated by controllers.
Danbury's tower used contract air-traffic controllers, meaning they were certified but not employed by the Federal Aviation Administration. The tower cost about $536,000 a year to operate, Safranek said.
A similar tower with FAA-employed controllers costs about $2 million a year to operate, he said.
The cut in Danbury had been predicted earlier this month.
Comments (35)
Dems tax and spend, Republicans spend but don't tax... The Bush administration took on two wars, Medicare Part D, and tax cuts for the rich without having the revenue to pay for it... The idea of the tax cuts for the wealthy over the last decade did not work, especially since they were not paid for... If they had worked as expected, things would be better and more productive, not worse....
Thanks OSB. Exactly. Were we better off in 2008 than we were in 2000? Simple answer - no. You can't spend spend spend and not tax. Bush tried it and we are still feeling it. Its very simple economics, if you want to spend more money and not we more then you must make more. How does a Gov make more?
Simple, it taxes.
Why no-one can grasp this is beyond me.
Also, in times of economic hardship, it is the duty of the Government to find a way to help, public programs, infrastructure, etc..... are a necessity. Again, if people don't have jobs or money they can't buy stuff or go out and everybody suffers. Since the Bush era policies didn't create any jobs and just redistributed money to the top half another policy has to be put into effect. They (the big THEY) now have to pay for their massive fortunes, sorry, you might have to give back a few percent of your obscene profits. Boo freakin hooo..
Obama is the best president I have known. He is a not a divider like the village idiot Bush was, he is a real leader.Not tax and spend big government war criminal like Bush. No more tax breaks for big business on the back of the middle class
Little Timmy, I applaud that you are actually thinking but unfortunatly, most of your points are flawed. The Government does not want to take away the poor rich peoples hard earned income. they are asking that the income be taxed in such a way as to promote a fair ride for all. Lets go back to Reagan or even better, Clinton. What was the tax rate then? OK, give up? Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: over $250,000: 39.6% - over $288,350: 39.6%
Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 29.19% - 21.19%
And what happened during the Clinton years? Surplus, jobs, investment and innovation. So the capital gains were taxed at 5 to 14% higher - big deal. Did it make any difference in the lifestyles of the top earners? nope. Stop whining, pay taxes- nobody likes to but like going to the dentists regularly, it is a necessity or all your teeth fall out.
Hey John,
I agree but just so we get message right, Tax and Spend is a Republican talking point that means nothing. The way a government works is to tax - to raise money, and to spend that money on its people. Its not a bad thing, it is their function. Now spending it wisely, not on unwarranted foreign aggression, etc....
is another matter. Bush lied, people died - both Americans and Iraq citizens.
He is section 8, I highly doubt he pays anything. In fact, most of us are aware he collects. A lot. Hence why he loves Barry so much.
He does get drunk and post late night, those are funny to read. The spelling and grammar is like a 3 year old just learning to write.
Obama is the worst president I have known. He is a divider, a fos politician, not a leader. A tax and spend big government anti what America is about president. Free ice cream for everyone
REMEMBER THIS SEQUESTER IS A REDUCTION IN THE RATE OF RISE OF SPENDING. NOT A REDUCTION IN REAL SPENDING.
Recall the Democrat Majority Leader Senator Mr. Harry Reid of the United States Senate consumed 1425 days before he and his Democrat Party offered a budget.
So how do you all blame the Republicans, they only recently gained control of the United States House of Representatives and have offered many budgets which Mr. Reid steadfastly did not bring up for a vote.
Closing airport towers is spiteful and if the President was a good leader he could adjust spending.
The president is a Resident.
He is not a good leader, he a PR guy and nothing more
Obama cannot pass a budget. This is all his fault. He is a threat to America
Sounds like the socialist have achieved their goal in this one small act of many of drop dead politics - hurt the little man, then have them fight amongst themselves, it then gives you the money to continue to be "the man" who loves them with lavish gifts.
Wake up it is all a game. Elect people who have the nation interests at heart.
Our President - is he a leader or is he a person playing us like a harp.
A leader would take the problem and solve it, not sulk and willfully hurt people. Look at the pettiness of closing the White House for example. Think Harry Truman would have sunk that low.
Why does everyone blame Republicans? If Democrats learned that compromise meant give and take things might get done. Republicans ALWAYS give and this is where we are, due to Democrats taking until theres nothing left. Obamas a socialist plain & simple and if he cannot get HIS way by manipulation & lies he'll just let everything fall apart & blame the other guy.
Ken
your post should read
Why does everyone blame Democrats? If Republicans learned that compromise meant give and take things might get done. Democrats ALWAYS give and this is where we are, due to Republicans taking until theres nothing left. The Republican are socialist and war criminals plain & simple and if THEY cannot get THEIR way by manipulation & lies they just let everything fall apart & blame the other guy.
Actually, it goes both ways, which is why all of the rhetoric about Democrats are great, Republicans are great is ridiculous. They are all politicians. They are all working for themselves rather than the American people. The sooner some of you wake up and realize that, the sooner this country can start moving in the right direction. Now, for the embarrassment of Democrats here, feel free to continue your name calling and immaturity. I seriously need to switch parties in order not to get confused with some of you. Used to be a time when Democrats represented the working Americans and represented freedom and personal rights. Based on some of the comments here, it is sad to see how far my chosen political party has fallen.
This is all due to the filthy Republican obstructionist.
Under sequestration, the Department of Transportation budget increased, just not as fast as planned.
LaHood's comments are pure posturing.
Recall, everyone, these are largely private aircraft using the field. There is an easy solution. The private planes using the field can pay $8 per takeoff and landing. That, multiplied by the 70k movements, will cover the cost of operating the tower.
If you can afford to burn hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars of fuel in the air, you can certainly afford this small levy.
LaHood's comments are garbage. If he cared, he'd propose solutions. $8 per movement is trivial compared to the cost of operating a private aircraft.
Why the drama?
There are a large number of Airports around the country that service a large number of smaller aircraft flights and have no control towers.While it is nice to have someone on the ground, pilots can communicate with each other and use VFR as needed. Seasonal airports are another example. Ever fly in Alaska?
Many times. Danbury is not seasonal and it takes in larger aircraft as well -commuter planes, small private jets, etc.. not just hobbyist's. Its also located in a fairly densely populated area, so as opposed to Alaska and other small airports around the country that might be located in largely industrial or rural areas, the chance of bad things happening if there is an accident is magnified. The mall, the waldorf school, several large corporations and now whole foods are literally right next door. lets see what happens when there is an accident there.
You have a point about small rural seasonal airports, this isn't one of them.
Sikorsky is also on the list of possible control tower closings. Volo has a number of private jets hangered there. The last crash there that I heard about was when a pilot came in too low and clipped the runway fence. However, I do know that they installed a photo surveillance camera to catch the tail numbers of the pilots who were doing touch and gos and other aircraft that were landing after the tower closed. The owners were subsequently billed for their use of the airport. Let's just say that was not well received by the pilots and aircraft owners. Gonna be interesting to see how this works out.
I do not disagree with you at all on the populated areas.In my recent memory however the crashes I am aware of did not result from planes running into each other.I think one came down alone in Danbury in the recent past?,ATC would not have helped. In Boca last week, the plane lost power., ATC would not have helped in that situation. I have no idea what the traffic numbers are out of Danbury. I fly a lot in FL over the east coast and the small airports around here have approaches that pass over lot of population .The recent jet crash up by Detriot has not been determined, but it did not hit another plane. I do however recall the copter and the aircraft out of Teterboro the collided over the Hudson. I am not sure if they were under ATC . Finally I understand a budget was passed this AM (5:00), so at least we know congress is not asleep all the time.!!
Not shallow, just the truth. So what if they spent money on portraits, money is spent in a variety of ways that aren't always to the peoples best interest. Take a picture - cheaper and still does the job. i'm not talking about the military, the dept of agriculture or the office of who gives a crap. There have been portraits done since the beginning of the union and back farther in history. Pick another place to rail against.
I am talking about airports that are used on a daily basis, without air traffic control you put lives at risk. There are lots of bad places to spend money, this isn't one of them. As far as charging per flight, ok, pay as you go. You still need a budget to work from. Any business needs funding to maintain itself. Pay as you go for a staffed position isn't an option but a per flight charge - if there already isn't one is not a bad idea - pay down the debt. Just like tolls on the interstate. Bring those back as well.
Regardless of party affiliation, the government spends way too much money inefficiently. How many examples do you need? To blame this fully on republicans is such shallow thinking...here you go
The Environmental Protection Agency spent nearly $40,000 on a portrait of Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, while a painting of Air Force Secretary Michael B. Donley will cost $41,200, according to federal purchasing records. The price tag for a 3-by-4-foot oil portrait of Agriculture Department Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack: $22,500.
All told, the government has paid out at least $180,000 for official portraits since last year, according to a review by The Washington Times of spending records at federal agencies and military offices across government.
The airport is a luxury not a necessity. Simply charge $7.75 per flight and you can fund the tower.
this is just insane. republicans will have this blood on their hands
?
Obama's administration penned the sequestration deal
Sequestration: The term has been adapted by Congress in more recent years to describe a new fiscal policy procedure originally provided for in the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Act of 1985 -- an effort to reform Congressional voting procedures so as to make the size of the Federal government's budget deficit a matter of conscious choice.
Obama? he aint't the villain here, its your Republican controlled Congress that won't talk to anybody. Little children.
So true lastcardjb so true..
One correction
it should read
" filthy Republican controlled Congress"
Nope, no animosity, I try and read/watch the news and glean the truth , or what is as close to the truth as possible. Just stating facts.