It Only Took A $5 Raise For The FAA To See A Surge In Air Traffic Controller Applicants
No one could've guessed that the presidential administration obsessed with culling the federal workforce and slashing government spending would make a dent in the air traffic controller shortage. It only took the country's deadliest air disaster in 24 years. The Federal Aviation Administration received over 10,000 applications for new air traffic controllers due to a recent recruiting push highlighted by several key changes, including a $5 per hour increase in trainee pay.
The FAA is desperately trying to hire 2,000 air traffic controllers this year. No one can learn how to coordinate planes around airspace with a week of training, no matter how qualified an applicant is. While the starting salary of $60,000 for graduates is a good enough draw for some, the financial and logistical hurdles are enough to deter people from applying. All accepted applicants must uproot their lives and move to the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City for three to five months. During this period, trainees were paid $17.61 per hour. The agency raised the hourly wage to $22.84 last month. The 30% increase acknowledged that the cost of living made it difficult for people to attend the academy.
Read more: John Oliver Explains How All Of Boeing's Problems Can Be Traced Back To Stock Buybacks And Incompetent Leadership
The FAA also tore down several barriers to shorten the hiring process by at least five months, according to Simple Flying. The highest scorers on the agency's Air Traffic Skills Assessment (ATSA) are now given priority entry into the academy. The aptitude test doesn't return precise scores but places applicants into four categories: Not Referred, Qualified, Well Qualified and Best Qualified. Those who fall into the latter two categories get priority. It makes sense to streamline the process because these applicants are more likely to graduate faster and get to work in a tower sooner.
While these reforms are much needed, let's not forget how we got here. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan ended a nationwide air traffic controller strike by summarily firing everyone. Only 1,300 employees were able to retain their jobs and other 11,700 open positions were filled with replacements. With controllers having a maximum recruitment age of 31 and a mandatory retirement age of 56, the bulk of the Reagan-era replacements were approaching retirement in the late 2010s. The COVID-19 pandemic even encouraged some to retire early, and no matter how hard Elon Musk begged, he couldn't drive a mass unretirement.
Want more like this? Join the Jalopnik newsletter to get the latest auto news sent straight to your inbox...
Read the original article on Jalopnik.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
11 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump administration issues rule undermining Biden car fuel efficiency rules
The Trump administration on Friday took a step to undermine Biden-era rules that tightened fuel efficiency requirements for cars and trucks. The Transportation Department published an interpretive rule that says that the Biden administration improperly considered electric vehicles as a way to make vehicle fleets more efficient While this determination does not formally end the Biden-era rule, the Trump administration indicated that while the rulemaking process plays out it may not enforce the Biden-era standards. 'Pending the rulemaking process for the establishment of replacement standards, [the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration] will exercise its enforcement authority with regard to all existing… standards in accordance with the interpretation set forth in this rule,' it stated. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, in a written statement, accused the previous administration of trying to push an electric vehicle 'mandate.' 'Under President Trump's leadership, we are making vehicles more affordable and easier to manufacture in the United States,' Duffy said. 'The previous administration illegally used [Corporate Average Fuel Economy] standards as an electric vehicle mandate.' The Biden administration issued a rule requiring cars to be about 2 percent more fuel efficient each year while heavy duty pickup trucks and vans would have to be 10 percent more efficient each year from 2030 to 2032 and 8 percent more efficient in the years after. President Trump has long talked about getting rid of the Biden administration's efforts to promote electric vehicles. He has argued that these efforts harm consumers' freedom to choose what kinds of cars they want to drive and could lead to strife for autoworkers. Democrats, meanwhile, have argued that shifting toward more electric vehicles would mitigate air pollution and climate change – and put the U.S. at the forefront of an emerging market. While Trump has long lamented the previous administration's electric vehicle policy, the release of the administration's determination comes just one day after an explosive feud emerged between the president and Tesla mogul Elon Musk. The Transportation Department rules came alongside a separate, more stringent regulation for vehicle tailpipe emissions from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that in practice has a greater effect on the vehicle market's fuel efficiency and is not impacted by the Trump administration's latest maneuver. However, the department's fuel economy rules would act as a backstop if the EPA rule was to be overturned. Republicans are attempting to eliminate that rule through their 'big, beautiful bill.'
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump wants a manufacturing boom. The industry is buckling.
President Donald Trump is vowing to spark a manufacturing boom with tariffs to protect American workers and industry. So far, it's manufacturers that have borne the brunt of the pain. The president's surprise decision to raise tariffs on imported steel and aluminum to 50 percent will hit domestic manufacturing just as a new report shows the industry is already contracting. Uncertainty about where tariff rates will ultimately land — or where they'll be applied — has forced businesses to make hard decisions that could cut into both profits and hiring. And a leading trade group on Thursday called on Trump to give the companies a break on the tariffs. 'For a president who is intent on building U.S. manufacturing, the tariff strategy he's laid out is remarkably short-sighted,' said Gordon Hanson, a Harvard Kennedy School professor whose groundbreaking 2016 research work, 'The China Shock,' was among the first to sound the alarm about the threat to American industry. 'It fails to recognize what modern supply chains look like.' 'Even if you're intent on reshoring parts of manufacturing, you can't do it all,' he said. 'Steel and aluminum are part of that.' If Trump's tariffs fail to result in a manufacturing renaissance — a central focus of his presidential campaign — it could weaken the prospects of a GOP coalition that's increasingly reliant on working-class voters who supported his protectionist trade policies. But as unanticipated tariffs continue to drive up input costs for companies that need steel and aluminum for production, the warning signs emanating from manufacturers are getting louder. An index published this week by the Institute for Supply Management, which tracks manufacturing, slipped for the third straight month in May as companies made plans to scale back production. A quarterly survey conducted by the National Association of Manufacturers reported the steepest drop in optimism since the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, with trade uncertainty and raw material costs cited as top concerns. Federal Reserve data this month reported weaker manufacturing output. The manufacturers' association on Thursday urged Trump to develop a 'speed pass' that would allow companies to avoid costly new duties on imported raw materials and components that are essential to U.S. producers. 'The steel and aluminum tariffs are almost custom-made to hurt American manufacturing,' said Ernie Tedeschi, a former top Biden administration economist who's now with the Yale Budget Lab. Trump and top administration officials argue that tariffs will encourage investment in domestic manufacturers, which should lead to better-paying jobs, a more resilient economy and more secure supply chains. Exports climbed in April as the president's tariffs took hold, which contributed to an eye-popping decline in the U.S. trade deficit. Indeed, the overall economy remains solid, and businesses are continuing to hire, according to Friday's jobs report for May. Despite the trade headwinds, employment in the manufacturing sector has remained steady since Trump took office. 'As the president says, if you don't make steel, you can't fight a war. He's protecting that industry and bringing it back,' Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told Senate lawmakers this week. 'You're going to see more steel and aluminum furnaces and mills in the history of this country get built over the next three years.' The White House did not respond to a request for comment. Trump welcomed the monthly jobs report, posting on Truth Social:'AMERICA IS HOT! SIX MONTHS AGO IT WAS COLD AS ICE! BORDER IS CLOSED, PRICES ARE DOWN. WAGES ARE UP!' Still, domestic manufacturers who rely on international supply chains for critical steel and aluminum inputs will face tough choices if they want to maintain their profits while keeping output steady. 'Higher costs are expected. Higher input prices. The question is, what do you do with those costs? How much can you pass along to the consumer? How much can you negotiate with your suppliers?' said Andrew Siciliano, a partner at KPMG who leads the consulting firm's trade and customs practice. The challenges posed by the increase in steel and aluminum tariffs are particularly acute because it's far from clear whether domestic suppliers will be able to meet the demands of domestic manufacturers. Almost half the aluminum used in the U.S. last year came from foreign sources, according to federal data, and roughly a quarter of all steel is imported. Either way, 'input costs are going to be higher,' Siciliano said. 'If they pass it on, it could affect demand. If they don't pass it on, it could affect profitability.' That isn't to say manufacturers won't benefit from tariffs in the long term. To the extent that Trump's overall tariff regime limits imports, U.S.-based industrial production could expand to address unmet demand. The Budget Lab's analysis of Trump's tariff regime — which includes the 50 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum — projects that manufacturing output could grow by 1.3 percent over the next five years if existing import duties are left in place. But Tedeschi cautioned that growth may exclude segments like electronic and semiconductor production — which tend to generate higher incomes for workers. Meanwhile, output in other sectors like construction or agriculture would likely contract. Julia Coronado, founder of MacroPolicy Perspectives, also said the flurry of new import duties may prompt some manufacturers to actually move their manufacturing facilities offshore rather than subject their supply chains and production processes to multiple tariffs. 'If I have to assemble a bunch of parts and inputs, why don't I just don't do that on the Canadian or Mexican side of the border and then pay the tariff on the final good?' she said. An even bigger challenge may involve finding and training workers who can staff up any facilities that reshore. Most Americans work in the service sector and, to the extent tariffs lead to reshoring, those facilities will likely rely heavily on automation, according to economists at the Bank of America Institute. Finding qualified workers in the U.S. is either too difficult or too expensive. 'Whatever manufacturing production comes back to the U.S. will require far fewer jobs than 30 or 40 years ago,' Hanson said. 'It's just the way the world has gone."
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jessica Ramos endorsing Andrew Cuomo for NYC mayor weeks after questioning his ‘mental acuity'
NEW YORK — In an extraordinary about-face, back-of-the-pack mayoral candidate Jessica Ramos is endorsing her front-running rival Andrew Cuomo — just weeks after questioning his 'mental acuity' and comparing his mental state to former President Joe Biden's. Ramos, a Queens state senator who was also among scores of lawmakers to call for Cuomo's 2021 resignation as governor over sexual misconduct accusations, is expected to formally throw her political weight behind his mayoral bid at a press conference in Manhattan on Friday morning, sources confirmed to the Daily News. Ramos and her campaign didn't immediately return multiple calls. But she told the New York Times, which first reported her surprising decision, that she's going with Cuomo because 'he's the one best positioned right now to protect this city.' Cuomo, who's polling as the favorite to win the June 24 Democratic mayoral primary, 'knows how to hold the line and deliver under pressure,' she added, citing uncertainty caused by President Donald Trump. Ramos, who identifies as a progressive Democrat, said she's not dropping out and her name will still appear on the primary ballot. But her endorsement of the centrist Cuomo is an effective acknowledgement she has no path to victory. Most polls of the mayoral race have shown Ramos pulling 1% or less in support. On the fundraising side, she hasn't taken in enough cash to qualify for matching funds and her latest filing from last month showed she had just about $9,000 in her war chest. The Cuomo nod marks a drastic flip-flop for Ramos, who said in April she believes Cuomo's 'mental acuity is in decline.' 'I don't think the City of New York can afford a Joe Biden moment,' she said at the time, referring to the former president who ended his reelection bid last year after serious concerns emerged about his mental fitness. 'I think that there are real reasons why [Cuomo is] not answering questions.' In response to her mental fitness broadsides against Cuomo, his spokesman Rich Azzopardi shot back in April: 'Was she sober when she said it?' Azzopardi didn't immediately return a request for comment Friday. Ramos has been a harsh critic of the centrist Cuomo on a number of other fronts, too. 'People may want to be courteous to Cuomo's face but they don't forget the people he sent to die, the women he touched or the people he left in our streets needing mental health care and housing,' Ramos wrote on X in March, referring to accusations that Cuomo mismanaged the COVID pandemic, sexually harassed more than 10 women and shuttered psychiatric institutions statewide as governor. Cuomo has denied the sexual harassment and pandemic mismanagement claims. Ramos' change of heart comes just days after the progressive Working Families Party ranked her its No. 5 candidate as part of an anti-Cuomo mayoral endorsement slate. On Friday, the party, which has had a rocky relationship with Ramos over the years, said it's 'sad and disappointed' by Ramos' announcement, but vowed to not 'be distracted by this desperate move.' Party leaders declined to immediately say whether they will formally remove Ramos from the slate. Ramos, the chair of the State Senate's Labor Committee, was the first woman to enter the 2025 mayoral race and had hoped to build a coalition rooted in union and Latino communities. But she never gained momentum on the campaign trail, as other progressives in the race, like runner-up candidate Zohran Mamdani, capitalized on a surge in enthusiasm for left-wing politics among young voters. During the first mayoral debate this week, Ramos lobbed a barb at Mamdani, Cuomo's top rival in the race, saying she wished she had run for mayor in 2021. 'I thought I needed more experience, but turns out you just need to make good videos,' she said, a reference to Mamdani's social media strategy. -----------
