FAA Firings, Recent Crashes Spark Airline Safety Fears
57:44 Share

Support for KQED Podcasts comes from Star One Credit Union, now offering real-time money movement with instant pay. Make transfers and payments instantly between financial institutions, online or through Star One's mobile app. Star One Credit Union, in your best interest. Support for KQED Podcasts comes from the Exploratorium After Dark. Adults 18 plus discover mind-bending programs and grab a drink every Thursday from 6 to 10 p.m.

Tickets at Exploratorium.edu slash After Dark. From KQED. From KQED in San Francisco, I'm Nina Kim. Coming up on Forum, workforce cuts at the Federal Aviation Administration are sparking concerns and questions about airline safety as they come just weeks after the fatal collision between an Army helicopter and an American Airlines jet.

The Trump administration says that nobody in a critical safety position has been fired, but former air traffic controllers and union officials say some positions were safety-related and add the agency has been short-staffed with aging technology for years. We look at what the recent firings mean for the FAA and what impact they could have on air travel after this news.

Welcome to Forum. I'm Mina Kim. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy is defending workforce cuts at the Federal Aviation Administration, telling Fox News yesterday that the people fired had been there less than a year or were in probationary roles, and that people in, quote, critical safety positions remain. For people to say that because we cut 352 people out of 46,000, that that's a risk to safety, give me a break.

Still, the cuts are sparking safety concerns because of chronic short staffing of air traffic controllers at the FAA, among other critical roles. The January 29 midair collision of a helicopter and passenger jet over D.C. that killed 67. And the documented high number of near misses involving commercial planes, including just now CNN reporting a near miss of a Southwest jet and private plane at Chicago Midway. Fortunately, the plane landed without incident.

Joining me now is Bay Area Congressmember Mark DeSogne, who sits on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and its subcommittee on aviation. He also authored last year's Safe Landings Act. Congressman Mark DeSogne, welcome to Forum.

Thanks for inviting me. It's a pleasure. Glad to have you, Congressman. So aviation safety has been a focus of yours as a lawmaker. So do you agree with Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, no risk to safety from the recent workforce cuts? No, I do not. We've been ramping up in a bipartisan way. We just had a very successful reauthorization of FAA because we were having more and more of these near misses. Prominent for the Bay Area was

about 10 years ago when an Air Canada flight came within 54 feet of landing at SFO on three full flights.

that were in the taxiway. So we were building it back up. We've hired 1,800 new air traffic controllers to have this happen. I think the secretary is either confused or misrepresenting our interpretation of what the hiring freeze does. Yes, for your Safe Landings Act legislation, you looked at research on aviation incidents and near misses over two decades.

years or and found out quite a bit about just how much that was happening, how frequently that was happening. So then what do we need to understand about the potential risks the recent firings at FAA create, Congressmember?

Well, first of all, we have to be assertive here in Congress. We approved that reauthorization, which included the level of funding for full-time positions. So what they did, I think, is illegal. So as in so many cases with this administration, we have to fight them that way in court. But also it'd be nice to go back to having this bipartisan effort to make sure we listen to the experts and do aviation safety, not on ideological grounds,

partisan viewpoints, but on what the experts and the research tells us will make sure that the flying public is safe. So then what recourse do fired aviation workers have? Can Congress move to protect their jobs? Are you?

We are. We are with the levers of power we have. We've lost the House by only three votes right now, the Senate, we're in the minority, Democrats are, and of course the current president. So with the authority we have, we've got to fight with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. And as I said, our reauthorization was very bipartisan. So we're having discussions with

with responsible Republicans saying, "Come on, you gotta help us protect the flying public. We're just getting better, and now these cuts are gonna put people at risk again." And that doesn't help anyone, and it's gonna lead to loss of life. We've been very fortunate

in spite of the tragedy at Reagan, that there haven't been even more incidents like that. So you are trying to work with your Republican colleagues because, as you say, this should be a bipartisan issue, aviation safety. What kind of reaction are you getting? A little discouraging right now. I think a lot of my Republican colleagues are intimidated.

the way the administration goes about their politics. They are threatened with primaries frequently. So we're working with them. The Transportation Infrastructure Committee historically has been the least partisan committee in the House and productive when it comes to expenditures around transportation and safety in particular.

So air traffic controllers were among the people who got the email from Musk's doge for weekly performance updates. This, of course, after workforce cuts. This also comes as the FAA has agreed to use Musk's Starlink system to upgrade its networks. Congressman, what's your reaction to this?

It's outrageous. It's a very clear conflict of interest, which is a nice way of saying it's extortion. It's unethical, immoral, and it's illegal. So it's just unbelievable the audacity of Mr. Musk and the president.

Is any agency or Congress policing this, Musk's access to federal agencies that are supposed to be regulating him or whether or not he's personally benefiting? Are you able to without the help of your Republican colleagues? Well, we have to do it through the courts. It's what has us, what...

the most successful vehicle so far. We've been winning these cases over and over again and challenging these directives. And then again, we fight like hell here with the power that we have. And a lot of that has to do with working across the aisle and working with people. And then in the districts that are

competitive districts. Unfortunately, there aren't enough in this country right now, but making sure that the public knows across the country, but particularly where the majority will be told in just two years, less than two years, so we can get the House back and potentially the Senate. But we've got to be aggressive. This is outrageous what they're doing.

I want to ask you before I let you go about one piece of your Safe Landings Act that I was struck by. You included stronger whistleblower protections for aviation workers. Why? Well, because we have to hear from people. And unfortunately, there has been a culture at FAA, which both is we're proud of our aviation historical safety record. But in my view, people will become more

to just sticking with the status quo. So we want to hear from people when they see things that the public and the Congress needs to know. So we want to protect whistleblowers. Congress member Mark DeSaulnier, who represents the Bay Area and the East Bay, specifically also who sits on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and its subcommittee on aviation. Thank you so much for joining us. My pleasure. Thanks for having me on.

Joining us now is Todd Urie, a former air traffic controller for 13 years in Chicago. Todd, thanks so much for coming on Forum. Good to be with you. Good afternoon. So we were just hearing from Congressman DeSaulnier about what it's like to be an air traffic controller. And, you know, they are constantly monitoring activity in our skies and managing takeoffs and landings. Todd, tell me, what does the job require mentally and emotionally? Yeah.

Well, the job requires a good deal of technical expertise, certainly significant situational awareness, the ability to respond to the unpredictable, which is the only predictable thing about air traffic control is that every day is unpredictable.

And to do it in a way where you are always flexible in terms of how you may need to respond, because the moment you get locked into a routine is the moment that you're setting yourself up for a pretty difficult situation that compromises safety. We hear it's one of the most stressful jobs to have. What are its biggest stresses?

Well, I think the biggest stresses are that you live off of a constant adrenaline rush that comes in peaks and flows. At Chicago Center, one of the things that we noticed, I worked on the southwest side of the airspace. It actually serviced the flights going in and out of Chicago from actually the West Coast, from where you are.

And so what that does is we would recognize that about every two hours there's going to be a heightened sense of awareness. Your complexity is going to go up. It would get busy. The adrenaline would flow. But then if you add to it the difficulties that come with winter weather or more particularly in the summertime, thunderstorms that pop up in the middle of the day, it makes the stresses somewhat consistent because you never know what might be popping up that you can't necessarily see coming.

So then what effect, Todd, do you think these workforce cuts, these more than 350 jobs, these new demands for weekly reporting and so on, what effect do you think they're having on air traffic controllers? Well, let's start with the, you know, turn in your homework and tell us what you did. If you need air traffic controllers to tell you what you did last week, you clearly don't understand air traffic control. It's the biggest waste of

of effort to try to have several thousand controllers go down the list of what's going on in the national airspace system. So that's not helpful at all. These firings of probationary employees that had not been there for a year

As we understand it, there are supposedly new hires on the airways facility side. To understand air traffic control, the function, you have to recognize that there's the air traffic controllers themselves, and then there's the support team that services all of the equipment, the radar, the frequencies, the navigational aids. That's the technical side. We call that airways facilities. If these are new AF employees,

that's the short version for airways facilities, then at some point that's going to catch up with you. You need sufficient time to train new hires to get them fully certified.

So that as attrition is happening with retirements and or transfers or anything else, that you never go below kind of the optimal staffing level of fully certified airways facilities persons or controllers. If on the AF side, we can't respond to equipment outages, whether it's frequencies that sometimes go out,

navigational aids that sometimes go down. It then adds stress because now there's a bit of unreliability in the system and uncertainty in terms of how long it's going to take to make all of that equipment functional. And how critical is that role to air safety? There's nothing in air traffic control or airways facilities that is not essential to air safety.

All of it is critical. And so this notion, I appreciate the Congressman's comments and this notion about Starlink. Starlink is not going to address the core system. This, this,

this kind of diversion of kind of a Jedi mind trick to talk about something that is going to lead to modernization is not really impacting what the critical needs are within the national airspace system right now. And so, you know, we've got all of this extra stuff. It's noise in the system. But what I will say is that air traffic controllers, one of the things that we have to be able to do is block out irrelevant noise.

and stay focused on the assignment at hand. We're talking with Todd Urie, former air traffic controller, and we're talking with you, our listeners. Tell us, what questions do you have about what's happening at the FAA? Has any of this, the recent federal workforce cuts, the recent D.C. crash, affected your confidence in our aviation system? Do you work in aviation? Have you noticed safety issues? We want to hear from you. Stay with us. I'm Mina Kim.

You're listening to Forum. I'm Mina Kim. We're talking this hour about workforce cuts at the Federal Aviation Administration, which are sparking questions and concerns about airline safety. And we're talking about it with Todd Urie, a former air traffic controller for 13 years in Chicago. And with you, our listeners at 866-733-6786, 866-733-6786. Tell us what questions you have about what's happening at the FAA.

If any of the recent issues, the workforce cuts, the recent crashes, the near collisions we're hearing about affected your confidence in our aviation system. And if you work in aviation, what are your questions or concerns about what are going on? And have you noticed safety issues that you'd like to share? You can also post your comments on Blue Sky, Facebook, Instagram threads, and others at KQED Forum. You can email forum at kqed.org.

So, Todd, you say the staffing crisis, the short staffing that the FAA and, in particular, air traffic controllers have experienced actually started in the 80s. How so? Well, let's not forget, in 1981, after President Reagan took office, he fired a few, but it was basically all the air traffic controllers who had been in the FAA.

Todd, I think we're having a little bit of trouble with your connection. So we're just going to hold you there for a moment while we figure it out. In the meantime, we bring a couple more people into the conversation. Lori Aratani is a reporter focusing on transportation issues, including airports, airlines, the nation's railroad and subway systems for the Washington Post. Lori, really glad to have you.

Thanks for having me on. Also, Bill McGee is with a senior fellow for aviation and travel at the American Economic Liberties Project. Bill, glad to have you with us as well. Thanks very much, Mina. So I was just talking, Laurie, with Todd about how far back the air traffic control system

workforce shortage has been going on. And he was mentioning the 80s and was bringing up Reagan. Can you just remind us what happened and how long these types of staffing shortages have been going on? We'd love to get some more context on why we're seeing all of this now.

Yeah, Mr. Ury brings up a very good point. In 1981, President Reagan very famously and infamously fired the air traffic controllers after, I believe, a strike. And I think the system has been trying to recover ever since then. You know, and he's absolutely right in that the shortage of air traffic controllers is

goes back decades and it has been a stubborn problem that the FAA has tried to tackle but just hasn't been able to. You know you had all those air traffic controllers that were fired well even though you hired new traffic controllers on

mandatory retirement age for air traffic controllers so that created shortage I think in the two thousand five two thousand six window- we had something called sequestration- that sort of limited spending and in required budget cuts.

The pandemic also added to the problem, right? The Air Traffic Control Academy in Oklahoma City, where they train air traffic controllers, it's the only place in the U.S., had to shut down and that put them further behind. So this is a problem that's been decades in the making, you know, as Mr. Ury said, it's a

very difficult job. There's a lot of stress. And even at maximum hiring, the FAA reauthorization bill is trying to get 1,800 people through the academy. The dropout rate, people tell me, is anywhere from 30% to 50%. So even if you get 1,800 through, you may only get 900 out, and then more may drop out. So it's this problem that just continues. And I think now policymakers have

And I think now there's a new, hopefully there's a new effort. There will be new efforts to try and figure out how to improve the pipeline, how to improve the outcomes to get people through the system and into the towers to keep us safe. Yeah.

I'm also seeing from your reporting that a regular shift for an air traffic controller is eight hours a day, five days a week, but that the staffing shortages have meant that more than 40% of controllers routinely work 10 hour days and six days a week.

Yeah, it's mandatory over time to keep the system moving. And even at that, you're seeing instances where, you know, in the New York airspace, they're not able to fully staff the facilities up there. So they've had to cut the number of flights. I know airlines have tried to compensate by putting bigger aircraft out. But that's just one of those instances where there's just not enough controllers to ensure safety. And the FAA is always going to put safety first.

And I believe we have Todd Urie back on A More Civil Connection. Todd, are you with us? I'm with you. Kind of like the air traffic controllers. If you lose one frequency, you got to come up on another one. That's true. There are a lot of redundancies in the system. Did I read right that your father was one of the people fired in 1981? He was an air traffic controller.

I grew up in an air traffic control family. Both my father and my stepmother were controllers. My dad was fired in 81. He rehired in 96 after President Clinton raised the restriction for rehiring former PACO controllers to try to plug some of the gaps in the staffing because we were not catching up. And so, yeah, that's exactly right. I've been around air traffic control most of my life. And I understand that.

Part of the reason that you are speaking out now was because President Trump speculated that the D.C. midair collision between that Army helicopter and the American Airlines jet that took so many lives, speculated that DEI policies played a role in that crash. What was your reaction to that and why did that inspire you to speak out more? Well, first of all, it was offensive on its face because it started with a conclusion that was unfounded.

And the investigation had not even begun. All of the people we lost in that crash, their bodies had not been recovered. And so it was really offensive and disrespectful as a general starting point. But then to assign this notion that somehow or other safety has been compromised or standards have been lowered,

is not only just problematic, it's false. As my colleague, your other guest, was rightly talking about the hiring, 1,800 dealing with attrition, some leave, some don't pass the academy, some don't get through training once they get to the facility, means that you've got to have sufficient runway, using kind of the metaphor, to get folks through training. When I hired in in 89,

I was probably in the cohort of the last third of those trying to make up for the losses from 1981. And it took from the time I got to Chicago Center to the time I was fully certified, three and a half years, and I was on the shorter end of the training timeline. And so we can't, before I go there, now that we've got these incremental hires,

from 1981, the mandatory retirement or if you're not going to retire, you cannot control live traffic after the age of 56. Even if you don't retire, you can go to an administrative position, but you cannot control live traffic without a waiver.

It means then that you've got these tranches of retirements or losses of folks that are highly trained, fully experienced, most experienced that you've got, and then you don't have enough new hires, as we would call them, finishing the developmental process.

so that you lose one certified professional controller, but you're replacing them with another fully certified professional controller. That's just not happening. And so the gap's going to get wider if we don't stop the losses on the front end, build in training efficiencies, and then let's stop this kind of spurious assignment that somehow only certain people are really, really qualified to be air traffic controllers. Have any of...

So these recent events, along with what you know about what it is to be an air traffic controller and the staffing issues, there are other acute issues too, but that's been the one that has been put forward as one of the biggest challenges. Have any of these issues affected your sense of safety when you fly, Todd?

No, as a matter of fact, I have a flight out of Baltimore in the morning into Chicago Midway. And as I tell my friends, knowing, yes, the challenges, but also recognizing that I

I think I heard a report from CNN that January was the safest month in history for commercial and general aviation in the national airspace system in the country. So there's always this tension, right? The system is safe. There are incidents. The incidents are often aberrations, but they cause us to be more vigilant in making sure that even those we try to eliminate.

And so what I'll do is I'll get on the flight in the morning. When I get to my seat, I will look and see where I am positioned on the plane in relation to emergency exits in the event that there's an issue.

but like a baby in a car seat. Once the engines start moving and the plane starts rolling, I'm probably going to sleep because I have confidence in the flight crew. I have confidence in my former colleagues who are doing the work in the air traffic control system, and I recognize the redundancy. So it has not affected my sense of safety or my commitment to flying. I will fly this week, and I'll probably fly next week too.

Todd Ury, a former air traffic controller for 13 years in Chicago. Thanks so much for talking to us. I really appreciate it. Thanks for having me. So we are still joined by Lori Aritani, reporter for The Washington Post, who focuses on transportation issues, and Bill McGee, senior fellow for aviation and travel at the American Aerospace.

Economic Liberties Project, and you, our listeners, are sharing how all of what you're hearing about what's happening at FAA among air traffic controllers and so on have affected your confidence in our aviation system, the questions that you have about it. Sue writes, last week I was about to book airline tickets for travel in March. Then I heard about the FAA personal cuts. I don't feel safe flying at this point. We changed our plans to a driving vacation, and this cost the airlines $1,000.

So, Bill, I want to ask you, what do you tell air travelers who might have concerns about flying right now? Well, I'm getting a lot of that recently. I've probably gotten more calls and texts and emails in the last couple of weeks than I have in many, many years.

You know, the fact is, I want to echo what Mr. Geary said and what others have said, that, look, statistically, we all know this is the safest transportation system possible. I'm speaking about commercial aviation, not necessarily private aviation. But statistically, you know, you can't even begin to compare it to the highways, for example, where unfortunately people are going to die today on highways all across the U.S. However,

And this is a big however. There are two ways of looking at safety. One is the record and the statistics, which obviously are important. But the other is looking at what experts call the safety net.

And I've been in and around the airline industry for, well, it's 40 years this year, since 1985. I worked in the airlines. I'm an FAA-licensed aircraft dispatcher. I dispatch flights for airlines. Then I became an author who wrote about the airlines and a journalist. And then for the last 25 years, I've been an advocate for airline passengers and safety.

And I can tell you that I have concerns I've never had before over the last month or so, because this is a system that is strained. It has been strained since the Reagan administration. The Reagan administration already came up in the context of air traffic controllers and

But there's another aspect to this, and it doesn't get discussed as much because it's not as high profile. And that is the critical job that the FAA does in inspecting the system, inspecting manufacturers like Boeing, inspecting airlines, inspecting the maintenance work on U.S. airlines that is currently outsourced to El Salvador and Singapore and China and Brazil.

And we have had a shortage, believe it or not, of safety inspectors. These are the frontline folks that keep all of us safe. We've had a shortage of safety inspectors since the Reagan administration. But this isn't a political issue, really, because if you're talking about eight or nine presidencies, Democrats and Republicans, there's plenty of blame to go around. But it's really not about blame. It's about fixing it. So you already have a strange system. When people say, what happened with Boeing? How did this company that was this, you know,

you know, jewel for the United States for the better part of a century that, you know, helped us get to the moon and World War II, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. All of the first. How did it suddenly go so bad so quickly? Well, a big part of it is the fact that the FAA does not provide the same level of inspection.

And because they don't have the tools, I wrote a book, Attention All Passengers. It was very critical of the FAA, but I also recognized they can only do what they, excuse me, they can only respond to the resources they're given by Congress. There have been personnel shortages at the FAA, as I say, for decades. And so what have they done? They've come up with a plan B. They allow people

self-inspections by the airlines, by the repair centers, and by Boeing. So when you ask, you know, what happened to Boeing, a big part of it is you have Boeing employees. Think about this. Think about this conflict of interest. Boeing employees who get paid by Boeing, who are also supposed to be the eyes and ears of all of us on behalf of the FAA, they're called designees. It's a system that doesn't work. It's a conflict of interest.

So there's so many things that have been, the trend lines have been going in the wrong direction. The outsourcing of the maintenance, the lack of inspectors, of course, all the problems with their ATC and air traffic control staffing. But the worst part of this is to come in. I mean, this is a senseless program, Doge, let's be clear about it. But to start with the FAA of all agencies where there's virtually no waste that you can see, there are plenty of other places you could start like the Pentagon. But to come into the FAA,

And this is just absolutely absurd and foolish. And what have we heard from the White House on down for the last month in terms of aviation? We've heard about DEI, false claims. We've heard about waste. And we've heard about laying people off. And then we had the Secretary of Transportation say, well, it's only a small percentage. We can't afford to lose anyone at this point. We need to go in the opposite direction and be hiring.

Well, listeners are weighing in, Bill. And this listener on Discord writes, nothing screams efficiency like mass firing people in critical roles and then having to scramble to rehire them. The administration is selling the snake oil of savings and efficiency while they only have incompetence.

to fill the jar up with. Another listener on Discord writes,

and had only recently been hired. Another listener on Discord writes,

Lori, I just want to get to that a little bit longer. So Bill mentioned that there are sort of two ways to check safety, and one is the record. And let's say that, yes, the U.S. air travel system's record, it transports 3 million passengers a day. I mean, it has really maintained a fairly enviable safety record given its size and complexity, right? Yeah.

It has. And you have to remember that the last commercial aircraft crash we had was in 2009. So it's been many, many years since we've had one. You know, the system is very safe, but Bill is absolutely right, as was Mr. Ury. There are a lot of strains on the system, as we've seen, right? There is a safety net, but it's starting to fray in a lot of different places.

Yeah. So do you feel like, and of course, part of that safety has just been the fact that, and we've mentioned this before, there are a lot of redundancies to the system so that if something goes out, another one can step in if needed. But do you think we are hitting a tipping point, Lori? Yeah.

I think that this is an issue. I think that these crashes, you know, we've had several crashes in a very short succession. It's very rare. You know, in 2023, we started the year with a lot of these very scary near misses where planes came too close to each other on the runway. We're on the wrong one way. So I think.

you know, there are definite warning signs. And I think lawmakers are saying all the right things. But I think what we're going to need to see is action. You know, people are nervous. I'm just like Bill. You know, I have my editors coming to me and friends and neighbors asking, oh, is it safe to fly? And I know the statistics in my mind, right? I know that you are much more vulnerable driving to the airport than you are getting on the

Yes, people are nervous. And we're hearing from some of those people. Noel on Discord writes...

I especially want to avoid Washington National Airport when I fly. It sounds dumb to me to have so many military air exercises near the airport. Listeners, has any of the recent events, what's happening at the FAA, the workforce cuts, the recent crashes, the near misses we are hearing more and more about affected your confidence in our aviation system? What questions do you have about the FAA, how it works, how it's run, and what's happening there? If you work in aviation, we'd also love to hear from you. Have you noticed safety issues?

The email address, forum at kqed.org. Find us on our social channels at KQED Forum. Call us at 866-733-6786. Stay with us.

Welcome back to Forum. I'm Mina Kim. We're talking about workforce cuts at the Federal Aviation Administration, which are sparking questions and concerns about aviation safety. We're joined by Bill McGee, Senior Fellow for Aviation and Travel at the American Economic Liberties Project, and Lori Aratani, reporter focusing on transportation issues for The Washington Post. Lori.

Listeners, what questions do you have about what's happening at the FAA? How are you feeling about the state of airline safety today? Do you work in aviation as a pilot, an air traffic controller, whatever role that is related to

Please tell us what your thoughts and concerns are. The email address is forum at kqed.org. You can find us on our social channels at KQED Forum, and you can call us at 866-733-6786. Casey writes on Discord, nothing the current administration has done is thoughtful. It's all mess around and find out, and yet their messaging is working on the right. How do we talk about something so basic as the idea that staffing levels matter for transportation safety in a way that penetrates people's

or that pushes legislators in SWIN districts to not tow the party line. So, Lori, even if Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and other administration officials are saying that they're not worried about safety risks from the workforce cuts and so on, there certainly have been a slew of new safety rules put in place in D.C. whenever the president is on the air, in the air, right?

Yes, this is a new world. You know, one of the things about the airspace that this terrible crash happened in is that it's some of the most complex and security sensitive. There's a lot of movement, a lot of helicopters, police helicopters, a lot of commercial airline flights. And now...

Shortly after the crash, Secretary Duffy had put some restrictions in place for helicopter traffic that limits it to certain categories and you have to get clearance. And now we recently reported in today's paper actually about new restrictions when Marine One, which is the helicopter that transports President Trump, is in the air.

now they can no longer use something called visual separation, which helicopter pilots would use to keep commercial airplanes, you know, in their view. Now, when the president travels via air for, be a Marine one, all air traffic at, at,

national airport has to stop, right? So no takeoffs, no landing. And that's had this ripple effect that I think points to some of the pressures in the system. When you don't have planes that are able to land, they've had to divert to other airports, to other airports in other states. There've been all these delays. And a lot of times there are connecting flights and things like that. So even a disruption at a small airport, right? Um,

ripples throughout the system and causes issues throughout the system. Bill, are you hearing about these some impacts that passengers are already feeling maybe in the form of delays or rerouting or so on?

Yes, I am. In fact, I just heard from a friend the other day that this happened, too. I'm also hearing from, my organization is based in Washington, although I'm based in New York, and I'm hearing from a lot of folks in Washington that they're doing what was unthinkable a month ago. They're going to Dulles instead of DCA, right? That's a...

sort of an in-joke in Washington that everyone loves DCA. Well, the problem with DCA is that it has become a political football over the years. And I'm very familiar with that airport because I dispatch flights to it hourly. I worked for the Pan Am shuttle before it became the Delta shuttle back in the early 90s. So we're talking 35 years ago. Many of the same problems existed. It had the runway that was in use when that terrible tragedy happened last month was run by

33, which is about 5,200 feet long. It's one of the shortest runways of any commercial airport in the United States. And so you have a short, a very small facility. You have tremendous, as Laurie pointed out, you have tremendous issues related to secure airspace. The Pentagon is on one side. You know, the White House is not far away. You have

You know, helicopter traffic up and down the Potomac. It is a very, very difficult airport to get in and out of. But the worst part of it is, believe it or not, as congested as that airport is, it's what's called a slot controlled airport, meaning the FAA decrees what airlines will go in and out of it. We have seen an increase.

in slots over the years. It really should be going in the opposite direction, a decrease. In every way possible, you talk to pilots, you talk to air traffic controllers, you talk to dispatchers, they will all tell you it's one of the most difficult airports in the United States. So do you think that if we try to improve safety or make tighter or more stringent rules, as Laurie was describing, have been put in place in D.C. for DCA flights, do you see that

having an impact more broadly across the system? And if so, like a negative potential impact on consumers and travelers? And if so, how do you think we should strike this balance between improving safety and also enabling, you know, our system to function of flights and people getting where they need to go?

Right. Well, it's a long-time challenge to balance safety and efficiency and cost.

But from my perspective, the bottom line is safety always comes first. It really is that simple. It is a black and white issue to me. If there is any thought that there is a reasonable threat to safety, then you have to err on the side of whatever the effects are on efficiency and cost. Last year, we saw Undersecretary Buttigieg

that Laurie referenced this earlier, that there were restrictions put on airports in the New York area and other parts of the country in Florida, because there simply weren't enough air traffic controllers. Now, nobody wants to be told, well, your flight's been canceled because we don't have enough controllers and your vacation has to be postponed or rescheduled or canceled.

But the bottom line is the alternative is not acceptable. So, you know, we need to have a big picture discussion about all of these issues. That's why my organization, American Economic Liberties Project, last year, we put out a white paper called How to Fix Flying, where we looked at all of these issues, but

there is a need for a macro discussion about the industry. That hasn't happened in 50 years since the airline industry was deregulated in 1978. And from our perspective, deregulation and consolidation, all of the mergers that we've seen, they have both been the failures that have led us to the problems we're looking at now, even affecting safety in some ways, because there is now this sort of mad race to the bottom on cost, on things that in the past were not

something that were looked at as cost items, like maintenance of aircraft and sending aircraft to El Salvador and to Singapore and China and Brazil. So there's a lot going on here. And, you know, safety experts like to use the term, I don't know if you're familiar with it, Mina, but it's called the Swiss cheese theory. You know, if you hold a slice of Swiss cheese up to a light, you can see through the holes, right? If you put another one behind it, you see fewer holes. Eventually, if you have 10 slices of Swiss cheese, there won't be any holes.

Well, I will say, and I've never spoken like this in all the years that I've been advocating, I will say that the President of the United States and the Secretary of Transportation and the hired guns that they're bringing in to eliminate workforce in the federal government, that they are pulling more and more slices away.

And light is going to start showing through. And I am not, I can assure you, I'm not someone that is ever hysterical about these issues. I'm the person that always calms others down and says, no, you know, it's a safe system. But

But the fact is, I just find it absolutely absurd that we are actually dealing more staffing away from the FAA, whether it's air traffic controllers or inspectors or any of the other critical safety-related jobs there. Because, you know, as Mr. Erie pointed out, so many of these jobs, they're not flashy and people don't know them because they're working in cubicles where we never see them, but they're supporting the safety of the system. And just to come in like this, it's more than reckless. It's just, it's absolutely egregious.

Wow. Let me go to caller Tom in Sacramento. Hi, Tom. You're on.

Hi. Yeah, I agree with the last statement that these mass layoffs, it's really only the only consideration given to this is economics and nothing else. You know, whether you're talking about air traffic controllers, whether you're talking about, you know, reducing the staff of the National Park Service or the Environmental Protection Agency or any one of the other bureaucracies that the Trump administration is targeting, you

One truism is there. Mass layoffs affect the quality of products and services. They add to unemployment, and they usually compromise public safety, period. Thanks, Tom. We're hearing from you, our listeners, about your questions and concerns about what's happening at the FAA, whether it's affected your confidence in our aviation system, and whether you work in aviation.

And we have a listener who writes, I am a captain for a major airline and regularly operate flights throughout the United States. Safety is our primary concern as pilots. And as a group, we are vigilant about keeping the flying public safe. We work in partnership with air traffic controllers in order to operate effectively and safely. They are an outstanding group of professionals.

There has been a noticeable increase in controllers working multiple frequencies and making more errors due to increased workload, which demonstrates the current existing shortage of controllers. We do not need cuts in their workforce. They are already short-staffed. Laurie Peet on Blue Sky writes, where is the Airline Pilots Association on this? Do you have any insights?

I think the pilots are just as this pilot said, right? They're just as committed to the safety as the system and doing everything that they can. I mean, that's one of the things that strikes me in talking to federal workers who've been affected by some of these job cuts.

and just people that work in the system. You know, everybody is dedicated to making sure that travelers get from point A to point B safely. And they're doing their best that they can. But as Bill points out, at some point, you know, you worry that something has to give. But I know that pilots, I know that flight attendants, you know, anyone that works in this space is dedicated to safety. And airlines are too, right? It is a profit-driven program.

enterprise, right? Airlines are about profits, but no one's going to fly if they're afraid to fly, right? You have that person that messaged in that said, you know, they thought they would fly, but they decided to drive instead. So, you know, the focus has to be on safety. And I think that's where it's at. But also,

You know, the FAA needs resources, right? We need controllers who are qualified and not working six-day weeks, 10 hours a day on a regular basis. You know, that's got to add to the stress and the strain.

Laurie Artani is a reporter focusing on transportation issues, including airports and airlines for The Washington Post. Bill McGee, a senior fellow for aviation and travel at the American Economic Liberties Project. We were joined earlier by Todd Urie, a former air traffic controller for 13 years in Chicago, and by Congressman Mark DeSone, representing California's Bay Area, the East Bay, and author of the Safe Landings Act report.

He also sits on the Transportation Committee and specifically the Aviation Subcommittee. I want to remind listeners this is a fundraising period for many public radio stations. You are listening to Forum. I'm Mina Kim. This listener writes...

I wasn't worried, but I'm starting to worry now. As folks have stated, the FAA is under extreme pressure already and makes Musk pay the price for his SpaceX failures. It's clearly to his benefit for the FAA to be gutted, and we, the flying public, will pay the price. Another listener on Blue Sky writes, is Elon Musk making cuts to the FAA to undermine it, then privatize when it fails? Bill, I know this is all speculative and concerning, but I'm wondering, do you have any thoughts on this or insights on this?

Well, it's certainly something that needs to be looked at. I know that the Democrats in Congress, as the representative said earlier, are in the minority. But the fact is, this is worthy of an investigation. This is such a blatant conflict of interest here. It really takes two forms. One, we were talking earlier about the Sarling contract. There's a clear conflict of interest, right? But then you also have the fact that the FAA oversees one of Elon Musk's companies, SpaceX.

which has had numerous problems. And there were two separate investigations just in the last year. There was one that was opened in 2024. And then three days before Inauguration Day on January 17th of this year, a second investigation

investigation was opened up having to do with debris falling on Turks and Caicos from one of the SpaceX aircraft. This is not acceptable to have someone who, A, can financially benefit from this, involved in this firing of people, but also, B, someone whose own companies are overseen by the FAA. Now, back in 2014,

Congress put into the FAA Reauthorization Act that the FAA administrator would serve a five-year term. The idea was that safety is so critical that it should rise above politics, so the FAA administrator would overlap any presidential transitions. Well, what have we seen? We saw that Michael Whitaker, the FAA administrator, who was appointed under President Biden and Secretary Buttigieg,

He quit shortly before the Trump administration. It was clear he was not welcome in this administration. And that is exactly what we were supposed to avoid. But it seems political pressure was brought to bear. He's the one that launched the investigation of SpaceX. So there are a lot of unanswered questions that have to be addressed here. But once again, we do not have an FAA administrator. We have an acting administrator. We saw this during the Boeing MAX crashes in the first Trump administration where there was no FAA administrator.

The acting administrator can certainly handle crises day to day, but they do not have any big picture authority to look at things like hiring. So let's start there. If you really want to address these problems, why don't we get an FAA administrator in the office?

Laurie, can I also ask you to comment on what's happening right now with Starlink being tested as a replacement for IT systems and how unprecedented this is, given my understanding is that Verizon already has an existing contract, no?

Well, I think that's what we're trying to run down in our reporting. I know that Bloomberg has, has reported that there have been Starlink terminals that have been installed at, um, a few FAA facilities. It's not clear whether, uh,

Elon Musk actually has a contract or whether this is actually replacing the $2.4 billion contract that Verizon signed with the FAA in 2023. So there's more to come on that. That's one of the many stories that we have been chasing since the change in administration, you know, that's going to affect how

you know, air safety, potentially air safety, how people travel. You know, as Bill points out, there are these conflicts of interest. You know, DOT, we've talked a lot about FAA, which is a sub-agency of the Department of Transportation, but the Department of Transportation also includes NHTSA, which oversees Tesla, which is another of Elon Musk's companies. Mm.

Yeah. This listener writes, how old is the ATC hardware and software these days? And there's no denying that there does need to be upgrades, right? It's a really old system, right, Lori? It is a very old system. People joke that it's put together by, you know, held together by rubber bands and glue and paper clips. You know, in some towers, they still use paper strips. Also, someone told me that in some towers, they still use floppy disks.

And I don't know how many of your listeners still know what floppy disks are, but there are a lot of new air traffic controllers who are coming into the system that have never seen one of those. So, yes, it is a system that is in desperate need of upgrading. You know, I know that we had done some reporting in which, you know, the FAA does get money to upgrade the system, but you need to upgrade the system, but you have to upkeep the current system. And sometimes...

They spend so much money trying to keep the old system together that there's not a lot of money left for upgrades. So they've got to figure out a better balance and a better way. You know, President Trump and Secretary Duffy have talked about bringing Elon Musk in. I think there are a lot of people that are leery of that, given the conflict of interest. I know that several Democratic members of Congress have stood up and raised a big red flag on this.

Greg writes, how has the near miss count evolved in recent years? Are there better statistics for this than actual crutches? They have evolved, right, Lori, quite a bit. They have. I mean, we had this terrible start to 2023 where we had a whole spate of near misses in the first few months. I think there were maybe five in two months. You know, they did a safety stand down and the number have increased.

have decreased, right, the number of serious near misses, but there still have been incidents. And as you mentioned today, right, we had this incident, I believe, at Chicago Midway involving the Southwest jet and a private plane. So this is still, you know, an issue. I mean, we're lucky that it is a near miss. We don't want

You know, we're lucky, but again, these things shouldn't be happening. Yeah.

Suzanne writes, I find I'm constantly feeling more daily stress as a government retiree from just following the Trump administration changes. I can only imagine there's additional stress from the chaotic and irrational actions affecting air traffic controllers and other FAA employees. Well, Lori Artani of The Washington Post, thank you. And also Bill McGee, senior fellow for aviation and travel at American Economic Liberties Project. My thanks to you as well. And to Caroline Smith, Susie Britton and Dan Zoll for producing these segments.

And as always to our listeners, this is Forum. I'm Mina Kim.