My error, I was confusing another article -- and as others mention TSA is not part of DoT.

However, the same timeline applies. If (and seems likely) sequestration occurs, the government must first sent out notice providing warning of the cut in hours. This will delay the actual impacts for weeks, months ... hence the lack major concern if sequestration temporarily occurs. Your travels on 2 March will not be impacted.

If things don't get worked out by some point, yes there will be problems and the airlines will deal with it as the problems actually start to happen.

As the discussion shows, any possible effects of an unresolved sequester deadline passing could affect all carriers and their passengers and would not be specific to United. I'll join this discussion with an existing, active thread in the TravelBuzz forum on the same concern. Ocn Vw 1K, Moderator.

United might see diminished government employee traffic as a result of the general budgetary uncertainty, sequestration, and federal furloughs. Also, fewer government employees traveling on YCA fares may equal easier upgrades for non-government travelers on United through IAD.

That is possible, OTOH, many government travelers will know the timelines and requirements which must be followed before layoffs or furloughs could occur, and those travelers would continue to book in the near term. By the time that sequestration effects could occur, odds are great that the issue will be resolved -- at least for the time being.

Also, other airlines besides UA have gov't. contract fares in a number of markets; so, if there is any uncertainty about gov't. travel, it would (also) affect those carriers, not just UA.

Folks, as far as I can tell the annual budget is 3.8 Trillion dollars. That's 3,800,000,000,000. Divided by the 12 months in a fiscal year, it's about 316 Billion a month. The sequester could mean auto cuts of 85 Billion over 7 months....or about 7 billion a month annualized on the budget..so....it's about 2.2% cut if I did my math right? I used a Wikipedia article as my budget source, it could be flawed.

The main point is...seriously? What if you cut your home budget by 2.2%? So for a person making $100k a year for simple % math, that would mean a $2,200 spending decrease, or about 183 bucks a month. Seriously? Our govt needs a serious wake up call. All of 'em repubs and dems alike. It's sick really. All the hyper press manipulation and lack of any discipline whatsoever on the part of our elected officials- along with very little discernment among the avg person = what a mess and I get sick of the hype.

If you were the person making $100k a year, what would it look like to spend $131k every year. Year after year. That's the same ratio our govt is doing. And now Lahood says if we allow 2.2% cut the country's infrastructure will fall apart. Really? And let's note that the 2.2% isn't constrained to only his budget...so we are only asking Lahood and other elected officials to do what almost every business and home in this country have had to do over the last 5 years: cut your spending budget and exercise fiscal restraint!!!

It's laughable really that they can't do it, and sickening all at the same time. Sick.

no, discretional (?) spending will be cut by 7%. that's stuff like tsa personal(which most ft'ers seem tho think are worthless), control tower people, and i don't keep track of the rest. estimates are 1.5 to 2,0 hr delays.

I thought the entire airline industry was supported by dedicated taxes. Don't we pay a 9-11 tax? Is the federal government providing additional tax revenue on top of all the taxes that are raised from the passengers, jet fuel and the like?

Prior to layoffs or furloughs going into effect, many agencies may reduce employee travel in order to save. But, all in all, its a big unknown.

I don't understand why there are any impacts since even with the sequester the budget is 15 Billion more than last year?

Exactly. I get so fed up with the propaganda our govt spreads. I never know when they are lying or telling the truth. I'm left to make guesses, and in this case my guess is its a bunch of hot air. I say let the cuts kick in, it's such a sorry state of affairs our elected pols have done that I don't even care where they cut anymore. Just stop the wasteful spending. For the sake of our kids and our grandkids.

I'm not sure that reckless and willy-nilly spending cuts are going to be beneficial to anyone, or their children, or their grandchildren. Have you missed out on the results of the EU/UK cuts the last few years?

I'd hardly characterize chopping TSA funding as reckless or willy-nilly.

I'd welcome defunding the entire agency and returning all security responsibilities to the airlines and airports.

ARen't we talking about the FAA and ATC and flight delays? Or even potentially airport shutterings? I think almost everyone on this site, even those who rarely post outside of their normal forums (like me with Europe) know about your issues with the TSA.

No, the link provided by the OP has this tidbit:

"The Transportation Security Administration would also face unspecified furloughs that will "substantially increase passenger wait times at airport security checkpoints," according to Janet Napolitano, secretary of Homeland Security.

Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee estimated that TSA would furlough its workforce seven days, which would add an hour to checkpoint lines."

And I'm hardly the only person on this site or elsewhere who will be very pleased when the TSA is evicted from USA airports.

Moderator note.
 

I've deleted several recent posts which are a back-and-forth private argument among two members. Let's stay on the high road, please and debate the topic and not each other. Thanks, Ocn Vw 1K, Moderator, TravelBuzz.