Shutdown may cause Dassault Falcon layoffs (Updated)

Editor's note: Updated with comment from Dassault Falcon, and comment from the office of U.S. Rep. Tom Cotton, R-Dardanelle.

An estimated 250 workers at Dassault Falcon’s Little Rock operation may soon be sent home if the federal government shutdown continues. And Gov. Mike Beebe (D) is none too happy about that possibility.

Dassault Falcon, based in France, operates a “Completion Center” at the Little Rock National Airport (Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport) that retrofits corporate jets. On Oct. 2, a Dassault Falcon corporate jet (Falcon 2000S) retrofitted at the Little Rock operation was the 500th plane to be delivered.

But the company is unable to bring “green” aircraft to Little Rock from France because key Federal Aviation Administration personnel who issue the permits are furloughed because of the shutdown. For the same reason, the company is also unable to have retrofitted planes inspected before they depart the Little Rock center.

“It’s not the FAA’s fault,” Beebe said Monday (Oct. 7) when asked if his office was working with FAA on the issue. “It’s nobody’s fault except those policy makers who won’t get off their duff and stop this stuff. ... It’s hurting real people. It’s hurting real jobs.”

Jeff Griffin, vice president-finance for Dassault in Little Rock, said plane arrivals prior to Oct. 21 have been permitted.

“We could be in trouble in about three weeks if this thing (shutdown) goes on,” Griffin said. “We’ve gone to the FAA, and they are basically telling us they are there just to take care of safety and if someone gets hurt.”

Dassault employs 1,900 in central Arkansas, and in the past 12 months the operation has retrofitted 69 planes.

FAA FURLOUGHS
According to a report from Aviation Today, the FAA has furloughed more than 15,000 employees. The FAA also furloughed about 100 of 1,200 certification inspectors. However, those not furloughed are not allowed to work on new projects, permits or inspections.

“With only a small fraction of FAA certification engineers and inspectors on the job, the FAA will not initiate any new certification projects and will not be able to support smaller companies that rely on direct FAA support for design approvals. This will have immediate impact on small companies,” noted a statement from the Aerospace Industries Association.

The Aviation Today article also noted that the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) identified 12 deliveries scheduled for the first two days of October that have been delayed due to the furloughing of workers at the FAA Aircraft Registry office in Oklahoma City. GAMA has identified 123 aircraft deliveries by its member companies that are scheduled for delivery during the first half of October at an estimated value of $1.38 billion.

According to GAMA, there were 283 business jets shipped worldwide during the first six months of 2013, down 4.1% compared to the same period in 2012. GAMA said the eneral aviation (GA) market is beginning to recover from a slump that began in 2008.

“Billings for GA airplanes worldwide reached $10.4 billion, up 26.4 percent from the same period last year, when they totaled $8.2 billion. This marks the first time since 2008 that airplane revenues have exceeded $10 billion in the first six months of the year,” noted a GAMA report.

SUPPLIER LAYOFFS
Beebe has sought help from some members of Arkansas’ Congressional Delegation, but said he doubts there is much that can be done to return to work a subset of FAA employees.

Grant Tennille, executive director of the Arkansas Economic Development Commission, said a Dassault Falcon work stoppage also would result in numerous layoffs among other central Arkansas companies that support the retrofit operation.

Beebe said he and other Republican and Democratic Governors around the country are frustrated by how the shutdown is hurting their state economies.

“We cannot in the state of Arkansas, make up for the federal problem. We don’t have enough resources in the world to take up the slack for what the feds aren’t doing. ... And there is no reason for this. The american people deserve better than this,” Beebe said.

U.S. Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., also expressed frustration when asked to comment on the potential layoffs at Dassault

Advertisement:

"I'm disappointed that the partisanship in Congress has resulted in a government shutdown. What is most frustrating is that this inability to find common ground directly impacts the services Americans rely on and puts the livelihood of hardworking Arkansans, including those in the private sector, at risk. The shutdown is already impacting many Arkansas families and has the potential to inconvenience even more. A government shutdown has real implications for seniors, veterans, hardworking families and Arkansas businesses that rely on the services provided by federal agencies. We need to work together so we can eliminate this interruption in government services."

An official with the Arkansas office of U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., said because of the shutdown they are not "legally permitted to respond to press requests.”

U.S. Rep. Tom Cotton, R-Dardanelle, has been the most vocal proponent among Arkansas’ Congressional delegation in seeking to use the federal budget issue to delay or defund Obamacare.

Caroline Rabbitt, communications director of Cotton issued this statement when asked about the possible Dassault Falcon layoffs: "The House has voted to keep the government open, it's the Senate's refusal to give up their special Obamacare subsidy and delay the individual mandate for one year that shut down the government. It's only fair to give hard-working Arkansans the same break businesses and Members of Congress and their staffs are getting."

Five Star Votes: 
Average: 5 (3 votes)

Like This Article? Share It!

Comments

Federal shut down

Mr. Cotton, I'm not buying your spin. The ACA should have never been linked to passing the entire budget. Your proposed piecemeal approach looks like exactly what it is, a flailing attempt to keep yourselves from looking like idiots. Too late. As long as the Republican Party is split by fringe extremists, it will continue to be the party of no. Nazis were right wing extremists too, and that didn't work out so well for anybody.

shut down but not shut down

some people are exempt from the ACA and some are not so about 80% would be obligated and maybe 20% would be exempt from ACA? about 80% of the government is still operational and not shut down so we have about 20% actually on hold but we overspend incoming revenues by 25%. gee, it seems if we could cut another 5%, we would have a balanced budget, wouldn't we? if everyone was in favor of the ACA, and everyone had the same health care plan, then we would have a 100% happy healthy people with a balanced budget. with all these really smart politicians in Washington working for our benefit, one would suspect that they could agree to agree that spending money that you don't have isn't such a good thing and everyone could be healthy and happy with their ACA. confused by all of this nonsense? me too!
some people are exempt from the ACA and some are not so about 80% would be obligated and maybe 20% would be exempt from ACA? about 80% of the government is still operational and not shut down so we have about 20% actually on hold but we overspend incoming revenues by 25%. gee, it seems if we could cut another 5%, we would have a balanced budget, wouldn't we? if everyone was in favor of the ACA, and everyone had the same health care plan, then we would have a 100% happy healthy people with a balanced budget. with all these really smart politicians in Washington working for our benefit, one would suspect that they could agree to agree that spending money that you ...>> Read the entire comment.

The ACA, (Obamacare) Should be Linked to the Budget

If Obamacare is the law of the land, then why did Congress, the Supreme Court Justices, unions and big corporations receive an exemption from this law? If Obamacare is not good enough for Congress, the Justices, unions and big corporations, then why is it good enough for the American worker? The House holds the nations purse strings on spending and hopefully these guys will hold the line and continue to approve the nations critical funding by piecemeal until some common sense can return to the Senate and the Executive Branch.

Common Sense

So, what common sense says that anyone should have no access to affordable catastrophic health care? You ask why it is not good enough for the American worker? The watered down health care insurance aka Romneycare/Obamacare is better than nothing. Nothing is what the conservative faction proposes via postponements and delays. The AMA supports single payer health care. The Republicans prevented that from the start. Obama has compromised away what his initial goal was. Time is up. There is money for better standard of living for Americans other than and in addition to the 1 %. Tax the wealthy. The more you have to lose, the more you should pay in taxes to protect it....That's common sense.

Common Sense Allows Market Based Not Forced Plans

I think most people would agree our healthcare system was also broke pre-Obamacare. I think that is why this President was elected. But one has to ask, where was government before AHA? Why wasn’t the government participating as a referee, creating a competitive market place for healthcare? Why didn’t government interfere and require insurance companies accept pre-existing? Why didn’t government require insurance companies to accept individual policies at the same costs as large groups? Was it because the government wanted to take over the healthcare? Wasn’t the Presidents campaign, “ Americans could keep their present healthcare plan?” How well has keeping our own plans worked? Didn’t this President say Americans healthcare would be cheaper? How well has that worked? Who has been deceived here? No anonymous, common sense is about being honest and providing what was promised without forcing one plan to the average American people while exempting elitist groups.
I think most people would agree our healthcare system was also broke pre-Obamacare. I think that is why this President was elected. But one has to ask, where was government before AHA? Why wasn’t the government participating as a referee, creating a competitive market place for healthcare? Why didn’t government interfere and require insurance companies accept pre-existing? Why didn’t government require insurance companies to accept individual policies at the same costs as large groups? Was it because the government wanted to take over the healthcare? Wasn’t the Presidents campaign, “ Americans could keep their present healthcare plan?” How well ...>> Read the entire comment.

Make Up Your Mind

Jack-please make up your mind. All you ever do is post that the government needs to stay out of business and let free enterprise work. Now suddenly you are saying that the free enterprise system is broken with respect to health care and are asking why the government did not intervene to force the free enterprise system to do certain things. You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth Jack.

No, Make Up Your Mind, Government Has A Role!

I have been consistent. Government needs to be the REFEREE, but some just don't get fair play, or understand the referee concept, so I may be speaking above your head. Government has a role and that is to be a referee, creating fair and competitive play.

health costs

great questions jack! why didn't the government allow people to shop for insurance across state lines for competitive bids to control costs? could it be that they want health care costs to sky rocket for some dubious reasons? there is a whole lot more to this outrageous twisted plan then meets the eye! does anyone remember the VP Biden slip into the open microphone saying "this is a big F----ng deal?

Actually

The state line issue is to prevent the race to the bottom that many states experienced via usury laws. Each state has different coverage requirements, some require insurance companies to cover immunizations, some don't, some cover autism, some require cancer medications and many don't. So the fear is the with cross state insurance traffic states will start lessening the requirements (to attract insurance companies to headquarter out of their state to have less regs, to do any different would be downright anti-capitalistic) until you end up with all the insurance companies in the one state that has no mandates on coverage. Thus you would end up with a race to the bottom on who can offer the least amount of insurance coverage. Also you get into a State's rights issue when each state has its own mandates and coverages and then have a federal program saying we don't care about your particular state requirements, this insurance company can sell to your citizens.
The state line issue is to prevent the race to the bottom that many states experienced via usury laws. Each state has different coverage requirements, some require insurance companies to cover immunizations, some don't, some cover autism, some require cancer medications and many don't. So the fear is the with cross state insurance traffic states will start lessening the requirements (to attract insurance companies to headquarter out of their state to have less regs, to do any different would be downright anti-capitalistic) until you end up with all the insurance companies in the one state that has no mandates on coverage. Thus you would end up with a race to the ...>> Read the entire comment.

ok numbersix

are you saying that my Oklahoma driver license is no good in Arkansas because some traffic laws may very? any insurance company in any state can adjust their policies to meet state requirements and this would open the market place for all to shop nation wide for an acceptable policy and help reduce insurance costs with maybe a race to the top at less cost.

Okie get with it

Actually it is only good for you on a temporary basis in Arkansas. If you move to Arkansas then you are required to get an Arkansas license. Your Okie license is only good on a temporary basis. And furthermore it is only accepted even on the temporary basis by the States agreement. The feds can't force a state to accept another states DL. It's federalism in action. However that digresses from the main point, which you have missed completely. The main driving point behind the whole "sell insurance across state lines" push by conservative think tanks and politicians, is because they want insurance companies to sell an Oklahoma policy into New York and thus not have to comply with the New York coverage requirements. Yes it would be cheaper but not because of "free market" competition but because they would be selling a lesser product and actually be ignoring the states own regulations under cover of a Federal law. The reasoning is because they think the state coverage requirements are onerous and responsible for higher prices, thus with the across state line proposals coming from the Feds they can ameliorate the states regulatory power. So you missed the rest of the story and only picked up on the "talking point" of across state line insurance sales without the real reasoning behind the push which is to actually lessen coverage. Interesting to note though is that under the ACA, individual states can enter into compacts with other states and allow insurance companies to sell across state lines amongst the member states, but the insurance companies would be subject to extra scrutiny and a minimum amount of coverage requirement.
Actually it is only good for you on a temporary basis in Arkansas. If you move to Arkansas then you are required to get an Arkansas license. Your Okie license is only good on a temporary basis. And furthermore it is only accepted even on the temporary basis by the States agreement. The feds can't force a state to accept another states DL. It's federalism in action. However that digresses from the main point, which you have missed completely. The main driving point behind the whole "sell insurance across state lines" push by conservative think tanks and politicians, is because they want insurance companies to sell an Oklahoma policy into New York and thus not have to ...>> Read the entire comment.

dissertation NumberSix

okie never said that they wanted an Arkansas license or wanted to live in Arkansas so the Oklahoma license belonging to an Oklahoma resident is good in any state any time they travel in that state. it seems that you missed that point! he also said any insurance company in any state could adjust their insurance policy to meet any state requirement that the policy was sold in. you missed that point. additionally, we all know that the ACA is a disaster at this point and needs a lot of work before being mandated on the American public. the wise choice is to step back, take a deep breath, correct the problems within ACA, publish all rules and regulations, and then gradually try to get a plan working that would cover every citizen equally, including the Washington elite that don't want any part of the ACA.
okie never said that they wanted an Arkansas license or wanted to live in Arkansas so the Oklahoma license belonging to an Oklahoma resident is good in any state any time they travel in that state. it seems that you missed that point! he also said any insurance company in any state could adjust their insurance policy to meet any state requirement that the policy was sold in. you missed that point. additionally, we all know that the ACA is a disaster at this point and needs a lot of work before being mandated on the American public. the wise choice is to step back, take a deep breath, correct the problems within ACA, publish all rules and regulations, and then ...>> Read the entire comment.

You still don't grasp it

You do realize that businesses wishing to do business in a state have to register with the state and legally domesticate themselves, correct. Much more onerous than merely passing through in the DL example. Businesses aren't just allowed to surreptitiously do business in a state with no state regulation. Hopefully you also realize that insurance companies that wish to comply with each states regulations actually do so currently, thus why blue cross blue shield has subsidiaries in most states as does United Healthcare, Aetna, Humana, etc. So yet again you are still missing out completely that a federal "sell across state line" scheme is actually taking away individual states rights. The across state lines premise is based on not having to comply with the state insurance mandates.
You do realize that businesses wishing to do business in a state have to register with the state and legally domesticate themselves, correct. Much more onerous than merely passing through in the DL example. Businesses aren't just allowed to surreptitiously do business in a state with no state regulation. Hopefully you also realize that insurance companies that wish to comply with each states regulations actually do so currently, thus why blue cross blue shield has subsidiaries in most states as does United Healthcare, Aetna, Humana, etc. So yet again you are still missing out completely that a federal "sell across state line" scheme is actually taking away ...>> Read the entire comment.

NumberSix and free markets

are you saying that government would provide "extra scrutiny" on insurance companies? it brings back memories of the extra scrutiny on Bernie Madoff by the Security Exchange Commission boys. good luck with your trust in the ACA and good luck trying to log in on their web-site! Wooopie

Single payer

So you are for single payer obviously. Because you are agreeing that scrutiny or not, insurance companies are going to pull a Madoff on the citizens. Thus why until single payer we have to regulate them and if they want to participate in a cross border insurance sell then the feds are going to make sure that the race to the bottom occurs while the states only allow it by their own choice and with other states they are willing to be lumped into with.

believing NumberSix

the ACA is the best thing since ice-cream! I also believed our ex-president when he said "I did not have sex with that woman", and the other ex-president who said "I'm not a crook". something just doesn't smell right with the ACA and it needs a lot more investigation and explanation before the trial run so hopefully the year delay will be a reality.

pick 6 with NumberSix

if your ACA is such a great deal for everyone, why are these 6 exempt from the Law of the Land? the president and his family, the Senate, the Congress, Senate and Congressional staffers, Big Labor Unions, Big Corporations? are you saying that the ACA is just for the peasants of America? don't we have laws against discrimination in America?

Stop the lies

Why don't you go fact check your exemption story? Because most people have actually read the news and understand whats going on. All you are spreading is mistruths. Even faux news has stopped running that shenanigan. Here is a fact, why was the Republican party for the ACA since 1989 but when it got put into place by a Dem president they all of a sudden hated it?

hot dogs and weiners

Some of this super ACA propaganda from NumberSix is starting to look like screams from a under cooked Hot Dog or maybe that Weiner guy from New York City that ran for Mayor! Give the people a break NumberSix because your hot air won't sell this debacle! the Republicans or Democrats are not part of this insanity because it can only be placed at the feet of an ideologue neighborhood organizer from the far North that may replace Jimmy Carter as the worst leader in the history of America.

now thats really funny

just fell off my chair laughing at the "hot dogs and wieners" comment! sorry NumberSix because I am not laughing at you but you must admit that someone has a great sense of humor. TGIF to all and go Hogs!

Dems and repubs

those dems called reid, Pelosi, and barack could probably get things right if the spent a little more time at Shenanigan's Pub! the fact is that if they revisited Shenanigan's, they could become active Repubs! cheers to all!

Rhetorical Questions, Free Market Hyperbole

Get real, Jack. The private insurance industry cartel has fought against Universal Health Care for decades. Wars, booms and busts have put health care issues on the back burner, all the while healthcare cost increases to the consumer have outpaced virtually every other cost of living (and dying). Free markets are not necessarily free either. Monopolies exist in reality even though legally and technically they may not. The compromise which has finally come to a head is that rather than risk losing any semblance of a beginning to healthcare affordability for every American via insurance, the negotiated settlement which is now law (the ACA)is what we have. It at least provides for catastrophic illness insurance which would exceed any deductible very quickly. It is long past due for America to stop kicking the can down the road. http://www.pnhp.org/facts/a-brief-history-universal-health-care-efforts-in-the-us

Where was the government? Seriously?

Before the AHA, "The Government" was allowing insurance companies to dictate the terms of health care policy. Surprisingly (not!), the terms they dictated were (and are) really, really favorable for health insurance providers, yet really really crappy for ordinary citizens who occasionally get sick. The REPUBLICAN government pre-AHA was happy to let regular folks go bankrupt trying to deal with their own health care problems, because the concerns of regular folks are NEVER the concerns of the mainstream Republican party. You may recall that Bill Clinton also attempted to deal with the health insurance FIASCO, but "HillaryCare" (as it was referred to then) also got shot down by Republican legislators too beholden to the deep pockets of the health insurance lobby to care one single bit about regulating insurance markets so that regular people are able to afford the most basic health insurance. Regulation is a dirty, dirty word to all conservative entities: they are more interested in maximizing corporate profit (and then letting those corporate profits languish in tax shelters so that they don't get "redistributed") than in protecting the rights of private (non-wealthy) citizens. If everyone always acted morally and ethically and with the best interests of our society at heart, we wouldn't need any government regulation. But since that isn't the case, or even close, thank goodness for the AHA!

Don't forget

Lest we forget that the basic premise of the ACA including the private mandate was actually the Republican alternative proposed during the 90's fight over healthcare. It was further promoted by Newt and his conservative think tank in the early 00's and of course implemented by a Republican governor who became his parties presidential nominee. I find the whole antihealthcare kick by the GOP and urging young people not to get coverage as a scourge on society. They are on this kick merely for political motives because they don't like the president who whooped them twice in the elections. Preventative care begins at any age, accidents happen at any age, promoting the idea that young people don't need affordable coverage just keeps them running up bills in the ER or declaring bankruptcy or struggling under medical bills more onerous than student loans. They are so against private mandates and insurance maybe the GOP will start eliminating mandatory car insurance laws.

WA state had 10,000 people sign up on day 1 but...

9400 of those were getting it free and WA state is in fact one of the more liberal places in the nation. This is not hardly indicative of any great thrill like the Democrats are saying. Way I see it is I'm dragging my hind quarter back to my vehicle as early as I can while the poor guy is headed for the hot tub back there. No way should the one's getting it free get a cadillac plan while the ones that pay get far far less. One way or the other..this is not going to fly for long.

Fact check

Most everything you are espousing has already been fact checked and is pants on fire incorrect. Why don't you lay off the faux news channel and actually read up on the interaction of the Grassley amendement and the FEHBP.

left wingers

if the Republican Party "is split by fringe extremists" and "Nazis were right wing extremists", what would you call a left wing democrat? calling a republican a Nazis is pretty extreme so that must mean that you are a "fringe extremist!" name calling never gets the job done so do you have a solution or do you prefer to just be an extremist?

The Democarts have learned their lesson..

..the last time they negotiated they didn't get everything they wanted! Obama is finally willing to accept a short term fix so it will get passed soon now. I still can't figure out who's so excited about Obamacare excepts the one's getting the Cadillac plan totally free.

short term fix

sometimes a "short term fix" can become a long term nightmare so hang on to you purse or wallet!