AOPA and ATC Privatization
Chip Jones
Today, I got a membership renewal request via email from the organization.
Here is my response:
Dear AOPA,
The question arises. Why should an FAA enroute air traffic controller who
is neither a pilot nor an aircraft owner continue to financially support
AOPA? AOPA has publicly accused my labor organization (NATCA) of misleading
other AOPA members concerning the looming Congressional action on ATC
privatization.
AOPA has been running the following quotes on the AOPA website:
"AOPA members are asking about TV ads claiming that Congress is about to
privatize air traffic control. Others have been asked to sign post cards
misrepresenting both AOPA's position and what Congress has done. Both the
ads and the cards are the efforts of labor unions. And both are bending the
truth."
NATCA is not misleading the flying public on this issue. NATCA factually
reports that the Congress is about to authorize ATC privatization by
allowing the FAA to offer 69 FAA air traffic control towers to the lowest
private sector bidder. Some of these towers are among the busiest towers in
the nation. The pending FAA reauthorization bill's language is clear and
not subject to misinterpretation or wishful thinking. It will authorize the
FAA to contract out ATC services to the lowest bidder. Further, after the
year 2007, all FAA air traffic services will be on the table for possible
out sourcing. Privatization is privatization. There is no bending of the
truth involved.
"Make no mistake. AOPA is adamantly opposed to any effort to privatize air
traffic control or charge user fees for safety services," said AOPA
President Phil Boyer. "We have fought, and will continue to fight, attempts
to take the responsibility for aircraft separation and control away from the
federal government " and "If anybody tries to tell you that AOPA supports
privatizing ATC, you tell them that's a damned lie," Boyer said. "AOPA is
dedicated to the benefit of all general aviation, particularly GA pilots.
It's a much broader vision than that of a union leader."
What a bunch of hot air! That AOPA can swallow the rest of the current FAA
reauthorization bill before the Congress in spite of the clear language
authorizing ATC privatization seems to point to one of two things. Either
AOPA is extremely short sighted or else AOPA is bending the truth herself on
this issue. National ATC privatization is a clear threat to general
aviation interests, yet AOPA seems willing to allow such privatization to
begin, piece by piece, tower by tower, because the "rest of the bill" is
beneficial to GA. Not with my money...
I will gladly renew my AOPA dues if you can convince me that AOPA is on the
right side of the current ATC privatization issue.
Chip Jones
AOPA 04557674
Atlanta ARTCC
For even money, I'll betcha they don't even answer me...
Ron Natalie
"Chip Jones" <texas...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:__45b.16414
> The question arises. Why should an FAA enroute air traffic controller who
> is neither a pilot nor an aircraft owner continue to financially support
> AOPA?
I'm asking myself the same question.
G.R. Patterson III
--
George Patterson
A friend will help you move. A really good friend will help you move
the body.
G.R. Patterson III
Chip Jones wrote:
>
> For even money, I'll betcha they don't even answer me...
Hey, it's worth five bucks to me to find out. Betcha five that they answer
before 1 October.
Stan Gosnell
> My AOPA membership comes up for yearly renewal at the end of
> September. Today, I got a membership renewal request via email from
> the organization.
Chip, I long ago gave up on AOPA, and dropped my membership years ago. The
organization takes some positions I just don't understand and can't
support, and seems very short-sighted. I don't belong to the NRA, either,
so maybe I'm in the minority on all this.
--
Regards,
Stan
Snowbird
> My AOPA membership comes up for yearly renewal at the end of September.
> Today, I got a membership renewal request via email from the organization.
> Here is my response:
> For even money, I'll betcha they don't even answer me...
Well, let us know.
Cheers,
Sydney
Peter Duniho
news:__45b.16414$EW1....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> is neither a pilot nor an aircraft owner continue to financially support
> AOPA?
I'm with Ron. Given the name of the organization, why SHOULD you support
them? As a pilot, I appreciate your interest and support in AOPA and
piloting in general, but I have no idea why you would expect AOPA to act in
your ATC-related interests.
That said, how about pointing me in the direction of a reference that shows
the language NATCA is talking about. AOPA has a clear record regarding ATC
privitization, fighting it every time the issue shows up. Absent time to
look up and interpret the exact wording of the bill myself, I'm inclined to
believe AOPA when they say it doesn't privitize ATC.
Pete
PaulaJay1
<GLSNig...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> My AOPA membership comes up for yearly renewal at the end of
>> September. Today, I got a membership renewal request via email from
>> the organization.
>
>Chip, I long ago gave up on AOPA, and dropped my membership years ago. The
>organization takes some positions I just don't understand and can't
>support, and seems very short-sighted. I don't belong to the NRA, either,
>so maybe I'm in the minority on all this.
>
Stan,
You shouldn't expect an organization that has such a mix of members to always
take a position that you support. I feel the AOPA lobbies for our GA interests
most of the time, and heaven knows, there are powers that are not on our side.
Closing airports, TFRs, you name it. Washington is run by lobbies and money
interests and I want to be represented - even if not perfectly. Chip, on the
other hand, may have a point it that the AOPA may not represent him.
Chuck
Chip Jones
"Peter Duniho" <NpOeS...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote in message
news:vla4qft...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> I'm with Ron. Given the name of the organization, why SHOULD you support
> them?
LOL, I suppose I was naive enough to assume that AOPA's interests in
protecting GA's public access to the NAS went hand in hand with my public
service as a NAS ATC operator. Alas, I fear I was mistaken.
>As a pilot, I appreciate your interest and support in AOPA and
> piloting in general, but I have no idea why you would expect AOPA to act
in
> your ATC-related interests.
I never expected AOPA to act in my ATC-related interests. I pay union dues
to NATCA for that. In my imagination, my interests as a federal controller
serving the public sector and your interests as a GA pilot flying in public
airspace were sufficiently related to justify the expense of treasure from
my purse to protect *our* common interests. I can see now that is not the
case.
>
> That said, how about pointing me in the direction of a reference that
shows
> the language NATCA is talking about. AOPA has a clear record regarding
ATC
> privitization, fighting it every time the issue shows up.
Now that's a hoot! What do you consider fighting, Pete? They damn sure
have changed their tune once the Administration started twisting their arm.
Here are some links:
The FAA's spin:
http://www2.faa.gov/index.cfm/apa/1054/9B33A8F4-EE9B-49F6-9AEDE84D1DAB8708
From the House of Rep's:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.02115:
From the Senate:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN00824:
From the House-Senate Conference to "reconcile" (ie- rewrite, LOL) the two
above bills:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp108:FLD010:@1(hr240
NATCA's spin:
>Absent time to
> look up and interpret the exact wording of the bill myself, I'm inclined
to
> believe AOPA when they say it doesn't privitize ATC.
>
You are inclined to be wrong in that case. In fact, the entire Democratic
apparatus in the Congress seems to disagree with AOPA's position concerning
whether or not the reconciled "Vision 100- Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act" does or does not privatize ATC. Not a single Democrat
on the reconciliation committee signed the bill because ATC privatization
was strong-armed into the law by the Administration even though both Houses
of the Republican-controlled Congress expressly voted against ATC
privatization earlier this summer. See the above links.
Here is a transcript of a letter sent on August 20, 2003 from Sen.
Lautenberg and Congressman Oberstar to Mr. Mineta, US Secretary of
Transportation.
***
August 20, 2003
The Honorable Norman Mineta
Transportation Secretary
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 7th Street, S.W
Washington, DC 20590
Dear Mr. Secretary:
We write to express our grave concern about the recent conduct of the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in lobbying Congress for the authority
to privatize America's air traffic control (ATC) system.
Although the FAA has said that it had no intention of privatizing ATC
functions, it worked behind closed doors to gain authority to replace
federal controllers at 69 airport towers with contract employees of private
companies. Then, in an apparent private deal with the Alaska delegation, the
FAA agreed to be prohibited from privatizing Alaska airports. How, Mr.
Secretary, can you defend a system that has one standard for Alaska, and
another for the other 49 states? If privatization did not pose a threat to
safety and efficiency, why would the experienced legislators of the Alaska
delegation bother to exempt their own airports?
And now, in an effort to win Congressional approval of the conference report
on Vision 100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act ("Conference Report"),
the FAA appears ready to use a similar scheme to exempt towers in other
states. It seems the Administration has different standards for air traffic
control towers depending on the votes the Administration needs to pass the
Conference Report. It has recently come to light in a report in the Tulsa
World that the FAA has promised Senator Nickles that the Riverside Airport
control tower in his home state of Oklahoma will not be privatized. It is
not surprising that Oklahomans are concerned about privatization, and that
concern was reflected in the support the Lautenberg amendment received from
Senator Inhofe. The Administration will need Senator Inhofe, and others of
the 11 Republicans who supported the Lautenberg amendment, to have a change
of heart in order to pass its plan to privatize air traffic services. Once
again we ask, if privatization poses no threats to safety and efficiency,
why are members of Congress demanding they be exempted from the program?
This is not the first instance of improper behavior on behalf of the
Administration on this issue. Shortly before Senate consideration of the
Lautenberg amendment in June, Administration officials sent a factually
incorrect e-mail to many Senate offices (except that of Senator Lautenberg)
in a failed attempt to lobby against the Lautenberg amendment. The e-mail
claimed the scope of the proposed Lautenberg provision was much broader than
it actually was. This instance was chronicled in a hearing by the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, on July 8.
Safe and efficient air travel for all Americans is a non-partisan commitment
from both the House and the Senate. The FAA is charged with protecting the
safety of air travel, not cutting political deals-especially when those
deals appear to be based on no sound safety or economic policy, but rather
political calculations. To that point, we are asking you to instruct the FAA
Administrator to report to Congress on any and all arrangements to exempt
FAA-run control towers from being contracted out. We assure you that failure
to report fully and promptly on this matter will lead to a loss in
confidence among ourselves and our colleagues in the Congress in the
leadership of the FAA.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Lautenberg
U.S. Senator
James L. Oberstar
Ranking Democratic Member
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure
***
Ah well, no problem for me personally. I don't fly a FLIB anyway and
Boeing/Acme/ATA will soon enough be signing my paycheck...
Chip, ZTL
Mark Kolber
<NpOeS...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote:
>
>That said, how about pointing me in the direction of a reference that shows
>the language NATCA is talking about.
SEC. 230. PROHIBITION ON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PRIVATIZATION.
(a) IN GENERAL.óUntil October 1, 2007, the Secretary of Transportation
may not authorize the transfer of the air traffic separation
and control functions operated by the Federal Aviation Administra-
tion on the date of enactment of this Act to a private entity or to
a public entity other than the United State Government.
(b) LIMITATION.óSubsection (a) shall not applyó
(1) to a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control
tower operated under the contract tower program on the date of
enactment of this Act;
(2) to any expansion of that program through new construction
under subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code; or
(3) to a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control
tower (other than towers in Alaska) identified in the Report of
the Department of Transportation Inspector General dated
April 12, 2000, and designated ëëContract Towers: Observations
on the Federal Aviation Administrationís Study of Expanding
the Programíí
Here's the conference report explanation:
119. PROHIBITION ON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PRIVATIZATION
House bill
Prohibits DOT from privatizing the functions performed by its
air traffic controllers who separate and control aircraft. States that
this prohibition does not apply to the functions performed at air
traffic control towers that are operated by private entities under
the FAAís contract tower program. This exemption covers the current
air traffic control towers that are part of the FAA contract
tower program and to non-towered airports and non-federal towers
that would qualify for participation in this program.
Senate amendment
Prohibits DOT from privatizing the functions performed by its
air traffic controllers who separate and control aircraft and the
functions of those who maintain and certify those systems. Section
shall not apply to an FAA tower operated under the contract tower
program as of the date of enactment.
Conference substitute
Prohibits DOT from privatizing air traffic control functions
associated with the separation and control of aircraft, but ensures
that the current contract tower program can continue and be expanded
to new towers and VFR towers. The prohibition sunsets
after 4 years.
And here is the Report of the Department of Transportation Inspector
General dated April 12, 2000, and designated "Contract Towers:
Observations on the Federal Aviation Administrationís Study of
Expanding the Program"
http://www.oig.dot.gov/item_details.php?item=95
Mark Kolber
APA/Denver, Colorado
www.midlifeflight.com
======================
email? Remove ".no.spam"
Scott Lowrey
> "Peter Duniho" <NpOeS...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote in message
> news:vla4qft...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > I'm with Ron. Given the name of the organization, why SHOULD you
support
> > them?
>
> LOL, I suppose I was naive enough to assume that AOPA's interests in
> protecting GA's public access to the NAS went hand in hand with my public
> service as a NAS ATC operator. Alas, I fear I was mistaken.
Hang in there, Chip. Is there a controller's association I can join? : )
-Scott
Capt. Doug
Upon first glance, it may seem that a controller's interest in this matter
would be self-preservation. However, Mr. Jones may well be one of us in the
future. So...
Let's look at the bigger picture. If 69 towers go private, safety may or may
not be compromised. However, what will be compromised is the ability of AOPA
members to fend off USER FEES in the future. The federal budget is in bad
shape. It's worse than the published figures. The Whitehouse administration
is working extremely hard for the economy to stay contained until the next
election is secure. After the election, the economy will break. The
administration will be more than happy to foist the cost of ATC services
onto all of us.
D.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Scott Lowrey" <sc...@no.spam.net> wrote in message
news:sYb5b.257396$Oz4.67873@rwcrnsc54...
>
> Hang in there, Chip. Is there a controller's association I can join? : )
>
ATCA, the Air Traffic Control Association.
Peter Duniho
> You are inclined to be wrong in that case. In fact, the entire Democratic
> apparatus in the Congress seems to disagree with AOPA's position
concerning
> whether or not the reconciled "Vision 100- Century of Aviation
> Reauthorization Act" does or does not privatize ATC. Not a single
Democrat
> on the reconciliation committee signed the bill because ATC privatization
> was strong-armed into the law by the Administration even though both
Houses
> of the Republican-controlled Congress expressly voted against ATC
> privatization earlier this summer. See the above links.
I asked for quotes. I know how to get the bill. But you're the one who's
saying it privitizes ATC. Show me where it says that.
I looked at the quotes Mark provided. All I see is language that
*prohibits* the privitization of ATC, but which makes clear that the
*existing* contract tower program is still legal.
Since you are so sure of yourself, perhaps you could explain what language
is found elsewhere in the bill that overrides the language presented so far.
Thanks,
Pete
Snowbird
Stan,
I guess I feel having a significant interest group lobbying for us
is important enough, that it's worth overlooking some positions
with which I disagree, or rather, making my disagreement clear.
Do you know any two people who agree on all significant positions
all of the time? Some disagreement just seems inevitable to me,
especially in a large organization.
Best,
Sydney
Chris W
> Stan,
>
> I guess I feel having a significant interest group lobbying for us
> is important enough, that it's worth overlooking some positions
> with which I disagree, or rather, making my disagreement clear.
>
> Do you know any two people who agree on all significant positions
> all of the time? Some disagreement just seems inevitable to me,
> especially in a large organization.
>
I have to second that. With out AOPA where would we be? Just because they aren't in my opinion
perfect, doesn't mean they don't deserve my support. They do a lot of good.
--
Chris Woodhouse
Oklahoma City
"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania
Snowbird
"Chip Jones" <texas...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<__45b.16414$EW1....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> The question arises. Why should an FAA enroute air traffic controller who
> is neither a pilot
You can fix that any day, Chip
Sydney
David H
Thank you for raising this issue. I saw AOPA's post on this issue their
website last week and was dismayed by what I saw: AOPA seemed to be going out
of their way to pick a fight with the controllers union, and seemed to be not
only siding with the administration, they seemed to be cozying up to them.
What most visitors to AOPA's website probably don't realize is that the story
that currently appears on their website is actually toned down quite a bit -
the original version was even worse. When I saw their first posting, it made
me grab the phone and call them asking what the hell they were thinking. They
did change the story soon after I finished my call (I copied the original
language so I could check to see if they changed theirs - they did), but the
overall tone of the story remains incedibly short-sighted, if you ask me.
Here are the points about their initial story that I made when I called AOPA:
Throughout the story, they referred repeatedly to "union bosses." This is a
term often used by anti-union activists and likely to at the very least rub
people in the controllers unions the wrong way. I pointed out that Phil Boyer
probably wouldn't appreciate being referred to as "the pilot lobby boss" and
suggested they modulate their rhetoric a bit. After my call, they removed
several references to "union bosses" (changing them to people "in leadership
positions of unions representing FAA employees") but not all of them.
Regardless of your political affiliation or your overall views on the relative
merits and shortcomings of the labor movement, that this is not the language
that any organization uses to refer to their friends and allies. It's the
language you use to refer to your enemies and opponents. This may not make any
difference to you or me, but language counts, and most people in labor unions
are pretty sensitive to this sort of thing - it's a "codeword" they are very
familiar with (ask any union representative, they know what it means when
someone uses this term). It sets a really bad tone for future relations, and
it's completely unnecessary - what does it get you? Seems very petty and
misguided to me.
There was also a sentence that read, "But the ad uses some Clinton-like word
tricks." I questioned what Bill Clinton had to do with this issue, and pointed
out that many Americans (and presumably at least some AOPA members) might feel
that the present adminstration has its own well-documented record of deceit to
account for, and in any event it seemed stupid to me to inject partisan
politics into this issue where there didn't seem to be any. Going into a
fight, why the heck do you poke people (from whom you may need help) in the eye
and potentially alienate those who could othrwise be your allies?
My overall point was that while AOPA and the controllers unions (which AOPA
never identifies by name, which seemed odd) appear to have some differences of
opinion, we (pilots, and as our representative, AOPA) ought to be looking at
each other as allies, not adversaries. We all know that the present
administration is pushing hard for ATC privatization, and they're not going to
stop with just 69 towers. When the next battle comes, and it will as sure as
the sun will rise tomorrow, how strong is our alliance with the ATC unions
going to be? With this kind of juvenile pissing-match that AOPA seems engaged
in, do you think the ATC unions are going to stick their necks out for pilots?
MAYBE some of the union's statements were not 100% accurate - I don't know, I
haven't seen them (and AOPA doesn't offer any examples up as proof) but it
looks to me like Phil Boyer got tweaked off by something he saw ("if anybody
tells you that AOPA supports privatizing ATC, you tell them that's a damn
lie"). Great. Good job of finessing the diplomacy there, Phil. Look, we're
going to NEED these people on our side in the next round. Maybe we don't agree
on every single detail, but lets not work to make the divisions any greater
than they already are. Beating up on the controllers union may feel good for
the moment, but the next time the white house is looking for a piece of
government to sell off to the lowest bidder, don't you think it might be useful
if the head of the ATC union was inclined to take your call?
I think AOPA needs to really take a good, long, hard look at itself and how it
has mishandled relations with the controllers unions. This is politics 101,
and I expect a heck of a lot more nuance and sophistication from a group that
represents 400,000 pilots. It doesn't take a lifetime of experience lobbying
at the federal level to know how to finess tactical differences and come out
with a public position that at least makes it LOOK like you're standing
shoulder-to-shoulder with your natural allies. Unfortunately, AOPA's public
position on this strikes me as childish, amaturish, and ultimately
self-inflicted damage.
I hope other AOPA members will let them know that the folks in ATC are not the
enemy here and that AOPA had better stop bashing them if they expect them to
lend a hand the next time their help is needed...'cause it's going to be.
Just my 4 cents,
David Herman
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying forum:
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying
John Smith
> NATCA factually
> reports that the Congress is about to authorize ATC privatization by
> allowing the FAA to offer 69 FAA air traffic control towers to the lowest
> private sector bidder.
I bid $1 - is that low enough to get them? How about 1c? How about just
giving me the lot.
Surely you mean the highest bidder??????
Steven P. McNicoll
"John Smith" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:bj470b$l5n$1...@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
>
> I bid $1 - is that low enough to get them? How about 1c? How about just
> giving me the lot.
>
> Surely you mean the highest bidder??????
>
To the highest bidder? Hmmm..... I thought the reason for this
quasi-privatization was to save money, but it is the US government, after
all. You may be right.
tscottme
work for the flying community. But I've learned not to reflexively
support their positions on political subjects. I remember the battle
they waged about automated FSSs, how the closing of any FSS, staffed
with grizzled meteorologists, would lead to certain death and
destruction. They were wrong about AFSS and the automated weather
observing gear works pretty well. As many times as not, I find myself
wishing they would get out of the hysteria business and give better
reviews of the products in the magazine.
--
Scott
--------
"the Arabs should remember that they invaded and occupied important
parts of Europe hundreds of years before the Crusades wars. "
Zuheir Abdallah-columnist for the London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayat
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD55103
Chip Jones <texas...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:__45b.16414$EW1....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Mark Kolber
<NpOeS...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote:
>I looked at the quotes Mark provided. All I see is language that
>*prohibits* the privitization of ATC, but which makes clear that the
>*existing* contract tower program is still legal.
And can be expanded to new airports and a group of airports that are
being examined. And the prohibition automatically expires in 4 years.
NATCA is simply taking the position that the conference version uses
"prohibition" language while expanding privatization.
The original house version permitted privatization only for
(a) towers already in the contract program
(b) non-towred airports without towers that qualify for contract
towers
(c)airports with non-federal towers that qualify for contract towers
The original Senate version permitted privatization only for
(a) towers already in the contract program
The compromise version permits privatization only for
(a) towers already in the contract program
(b) non-towred airports without towers that qualify for contract
towers
(c) airports with non-federal towers that qualify for contract towers
(d) any new Towers
(e) a group of existing towers that are identified in the Inspector
General report about expanding the contract tower program
...and =any= tower is fare game in 4 years.
You can disagree with NATCA's view that the conference report
represents, for privatization, something akin to being "a little bit
pregnant", but it is as legitimate a reading of the information as
AOPA's "don't worry, overall, GA gains more than it loses in the bill"
stance.
Mark Kolber
wrote:
>Just my 4 cents,
Glad you aid that it was worth more than 2¢. Good points.
I think it ultimately comes down to this: The conference report that
NATCA is complaining about permits privatization to a larger degree
than the original House version and to a much larger degree than the
Senate version.
Ultimately NATCA's allegiance has to be to controllers. And, while I
haven't seen any numbers on this, I wouldn't doubt for a minute that
contract towers means less ATC jobs. So NATCA's position is
understandable and quite legitimate.
AOPA has a broader view. While from a GA standpoint, contact towers
probably are to ATC what HMOs are to medical care, our issues are
broader than privatization. AOPA probably feels that there are far
more benefits to GA in the overall bill and that it needs to be
passed. The privatization language is open enough to leave the battle
for another day.
The only thing that really concerns me is the adoption of the "slash
and burn" tone that has become an integral part of American politics.
But what the heck. That's what we ask for, isn't it?
Ron Natalie
Dan Luke
[excellent post snipped]
What a refreshing voice of reason. I hope you mailed Phil a copy.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
G.R. Patterson III
John Smith wrote:
>
> Surely you mean the highest bidder??????
No. The Feds are going to contract out the work in the towers. They will pay
some private company to do this work. Each contract will go to whatever company
proves they can do the job for the least amount of money. The "lowest bidder".
Chip Jones
"Mark Kolber" <midlife_fl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bgnblv8qgcoejfs44...@4ax.com...
[snipped]
>
> I think it ultimately comes down to this: The conference report that
> NATCA is complaining about permits privatization to a larger degree
> than the original House version and to a much larger degree than the
> Senate version.
Bingo. Both the House and the Senate voted on bills that *prohibited* ATC
privatization beyond the current contract tower program. The FAA lobbied
against the bills as passed. The White House threatened a veto. The House
and Senate bills went into the reconciliation process as an AOPA/NATCA
victory against ATC privatization.
During the reconciliation process, the conferees, under intense White House
pressure, re-wrote the language in such a way that FAA VFR towers not
currently privatized may be contracted out. There are 71 of those towers.
2 of them are in Alaska (PAMR and PAJN). The Administration agreed that the
two Alaska towers in contention (both in the home state of Don Young, R-
Alaska chairman of the reconcioliation conference) could stay FAA, leaving
the other 69 to be contracted out. Also, rather than indefinitely
prohibiting by law further outsourcing of other Federal ATC services (like
Tracons and Centers), the reconciliation conference put into effect a
"sunset clause", making 2007 the year that wholesale privatization of the
system becomes possible.
This disturbs controllers because both the Republican House and the
Republican Senate voted decisively vefore the summer recess to prohibit ATC
privatization. The Reconciliation team inserted the new language when they
"reconciled" the two bills, LOL. Further disturbing controllers is that
AOPA abandoned the fight at this point because other provisions of the
reconciled bill are GA friendly.
>
> Ultimately NATCA's allegiance has to be to controllers. And, while I
> haven't seen any numbers on this, I wouldn't doubt for a minute that
> contract towers means less ATC jobs. So NATCA's position is
> understandable and quite legitimate.
This is true too. As a Center guy. I really don't have much of a job
problem if every tower and every tracon in America goes private. I still
get paid. I don't even have a problem if my Center goes private. I have
the job skills, I am very very good at what I do, and I will get paid. If
we go by personal performance, I get paid. If every GA aircraft in America
gets grounded because of exhorbitant ATC user fees in the next decade, what
do I care? I get paid. The question to me is, who will sign my paycheck at
the ARTCC? This is important to me because I truely believe that the NAS
belongs to the nation (rather than the commercial users) much like the
interstate highway system belongs to car drivers and the Intracoastal Water
Way belongs to boaters. This should be important to you if you fly business
aviation or general aviation, because the Boeings, Lock-marts, airlines and
ATA's of this nation don't give a rat's ass about your love of personal
flying and they'd love nothing better than to user fee you right out of
their way. Let them sign my paycheck, and I quit working for you and begin
to work for them. Nothing personal...
>
> AOPA has a broader view. While from a GA standpoint, contact towers
> probably are to ATC what HMOs are to medical care, our issues are
> broader than privatization. AOPA probably feels that there are far
> more benefits to GA in the overall bill and that it needs to be
> passed. The privatization language is open enough to leave the battle
> for another day.
I'm sqauwking now. We appear to me to be at a juncture in this debate
similar to the old saying about the Nazi's in Germany. You know the adage.
"They came for the Gypsies, and I said nothing. Then they came for the
homosexuals, and I said nothing. Then they came for the Jews, and I said
nothing. And then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for
me..." This is NATCA's basic position. I am amazed that AOPA can't read
the same writing on the wall while there is still time to save the day.
Fighting this battle on the field of 2007, we will be 69 ATC towers closer
to ATC user fees.
Chip, ZTL
Chip Jones
"John Smith" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:bj470b$l5n$1...@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
Err, no. I mean *lowest* bidder. The idea is to save money. The FAA (and
your taxes) pays for the infrastructure. The *low* bidder runs the ATC
facility for the cheapest price. The way the contractor saves money is to
slash salaries and cut staffing. ATC "on the cheap" is literally what is
going on.
Chip, ZTL
Peter Duniho
> And can be expanded to new airports and a group of airports that are
> being examined.
As far as I know, nothing in the contract tower program previously
prohibited such expansion. How does this bill make things *worse*?
> And the prohibition automatically expires in 4 years.
Not an uncommon clause in any variety of lawmaking.
Recall that the agreements intended to protect Meigs Field had similar
clauses. No one was going around claiming that, because of those clauses,
the agreements were actually intended to shut the airport down.
Pete
Chip Jones
"Peter Duniho" <NpOeS...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote in message
[snipped]
>
> > And the prohibition automatically expires in 4 years.
>
> Not an uncommon clause in any variety of lawmaking.
But not something that was in either the House bill or the Senate bill that
was being reconciled.
>
> Recall that the agreements intended to protect Meigs Field had similar
> clauses. No one was going around claiming that, because of those clauses,
> the agreements were actually intended to shut the airport down.
>
What an interesting point to bring up. Let's see, and KCGX is what now,
other than permanently *closed*?
Chip, ZTL
Chip Jones
"Snowbird" <snowb...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e1449182.03090...@posting.google.com...
Yep. I guess I'd better hurry while I can still afford it! :-)
Chip, ZTL
Tarver Engineering
The fact remains, ATC is statistically the largest killer of common carrier
passengers, except terrorists. Failure to maintain seperation cost the
system a fortune in 737 PCUs that had no problem. Automation is something
ATC Union has blocked for 30 years and it is time to correct the problem.
Tarver Engineering
>
> "John Smith" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:bj470b$l5n$1...@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
> > [snipped]
> >
> > > NATCA factually
> > > reports that the Congress is about to authorize ATC privatization by
> > > allowing the FAA to offer 69 FAA air traffic control towers to the
> lowest
> > > private sector bidder.
> >
> > I bid $1 - is that low enough to get them? How about 1c? How about just
> > giving me the lot.
> >
> > Surely you mean the highest bidder??????
>
>
> Err, no. I mean *lowest* bidder. The idea is to save money. The FAA
(and
> your taxes) pays for the infrastructure.
No, the idea is to find a way around ATC unions blocking automation.
Peter Duniho
> But not something that was in either the House bill or the Senate bill
that
> was being reconciled.
So? What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?
> What an interesting point to bring up. Let's see, and KCGX is what now,
> other than permanently *closed*?
For reasons completely unrelated to the original agreements. The "sunset"
language in the original agreements had NOTHING to do with the closure of
Meigs. In fact, everyone agrees that the closure of Meigs was *CONTRARY TO*
the agreements that included the sunset language.
Surely you can see the difference. Surely you're not trying to say that the
existence of sunset language in the Meigs agreement, along with the
subsequent closure of the field support your assertions regarding this bill.
Right? If not, then I suppose I'm starting to get an idea of why you're so
upset about this bill.
Pete
Chip Jones
"Peter Duniho" <NpOeS...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote in message
>
> I asked for quotes. I know how to get the bill. But you're the one who's
> saying it privitizes ATC. Show me where it says that.
>
> I looked at the quotes Mark provided. All I see is language that
> *prohibits* the privitization of ATC, but which makes clear that the
> *existing* contract tower program is still legal.
>
> Since you are so sure of yourself, perhaps you could explain what language
> is found elsewhere in the bill that overrides the language presented so
far.
>
Here is a synopisis.
119. PROHIBITION ON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PRIVATIZATION
House bill
Prohibits DOT from privatizing the functions performed by its air traffic
controllers who separate and control aircraft. States that this prohibition
does not apply to the functions performed at air traffic control towers that
are operated by private entities under the FAA's contract tower program.
This exemption covers the current air traffic control towers that are part
of the FAA contract tower program and to non-towered airports and
non-federal towers that would qualify for participation in this program.
Senate amendment
Prohibits DOT from privatizing the functions performed by its air traffic
controllers who separate and control aircraft and the functions of those who
maintain and certify those systems. Section shall not apply to an FAA tower
operated under the contract tower program as of the date of enactment.
Conference substitute
Prohibits DOT from privatizing air traffic control functions associated with
the separation and control of aircraft, but ensures that the current
contract tower program can continue and be expanded to new towers and VFR
towers. The prohibition sunsets after 4 years.
You can verify the accuracy of this synopsis by researching the House Bill,
the Senate version of the language, and then the Conference substitute that
will soon become law if NATCA loses her fight in the next few days. Or you
can believe AOPA.
Chip, ZTL
Ron Natalie
"Chip Jones" <texas...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:POo5b.26667
> 119. PROHIBITION ON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PRIVATIZATION
The converence report (which has yet to be acted on):
(a) IN GENERAL- Until October 1, 2007, the Secretary of Transportation may not authorize the transfer of the air traffic separation
and control functions operated by the Federal Aviation Administration on the date of enactment of this Act to a private entity or to
a public entity other than the United State Government.
(b) LIMITATION- Subsection (a) shall not apply--
(1) to a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control tower operated under the contract tower program on the date of
enactment of this Act;
(2) to any expansion of that program through new construction under subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code; or
(3) to a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control tower (other than towers in Alaska) identified in the Report of the
Department of Transportation Inspector General dated April 12, 2000, and designated `Contract Towers: Observations on the Federal
Aviation Administration's Study of Expanding the Program'.
What is added is the sunset limitation. This is really not much of an issue as it's off 3 fiscal
years and most likely would be modified by a subsequent reauthorization bill. It's purely wishful
thinking on someone's part that it wouldn't be modified before then.
So that brings us the new langauge added as item (b)(3) above. The referenced document
is here: http://www.oig.dot.gov/show_pdf.php?id=95 Essentially, this opens up 71 VFR
towers to possible consideration for contracting out.
However, none of this is really how most people (other than the federal ATC employees
and their union) define the core privatization issue. AOPA clearly has to pick their battles
on where they throw their weight. The possible subbing out of controller jobs in these
facilities is just not worth them fighting over and the influence this has on their membership
(GA pilots/owners) is negligable.
If NATCA forces the conference report down, then we're likely to hurt badly as it will possibly
hold up the reauthorization bill past the fiscal year deadlines.
Tarver Engineering
"Ron Natalie" <r...@sensor.com> wrote in message
news:3f56252a$0$23265$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "Chip Jones" <texas...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:POo5b.26667
> > 119. PROHIBITION ON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PRIVATIZATION
<snip>
> However, none of this is really how most people (other than the federal
ATC employees
> and their union) define the core privatization issue. AOPA clearly has
to pick their battles
> on where they throw their weight. The possible subbing out of
controller jobs in these
> facilities is just not worth them fighting over and the influence this has
on their membership
> (GA pilots/owners) is negligable.
>
> If NATCA forces the conference report down, then we're likely to hurt
badly as it will possibly
> hold up the reauthorization bill past the fiscal year deadlines.
And so, GA may either support ATC unions, or their own best interests. On
the airplane side, pilot's unions supported automation (possibly because
they die whan "shit happens"), when in the early 70's both aircraft and ATC
were to be automated. The guys in the Towers were for some time shielded by
an incompetent Chicago ACO, but with the reform of the aircraft ACOs, ATC
has become the major contributor to preventable commercial carrier
catastrophic events.
Consider:
1: Without automation instituted in aircraft in 1972, operator error would
be killing 5000 passengers a year. (interpolated from pre 1972 numbers)
2: With the elimination of those operator error events, aircraft ACOs found
themselves the major contributor to aircraft catastrophic events. In 1997,
the Congress took action to end these events through changes in the
"Designee" system. Since that time, the certification system has eliminated
their portion of catastrophic events; thus producing a pair of zero killed
years.
3: Blakey has tied USAir 427 to the A-300 crash in Rockaway as seperation
errors. While aircraft have improved through proactive regulation.
Chip Jones
"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote in message
news:3f56...@news.sti.net...
No, the latter is the motive of contractors like *you*, Tarver, not for the
*actual* real-life users and operators of the safest ATC system in the
world...
Chip, ZTL
Chip Jones
"Ron Natalie" <r...@sensor.com> wrote in message
news:3f56252a$0$23265$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>
> > 119. PROHIBITION ON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PRIVATIZATION
> > \
> The converence report (which has yet to be acted on):
>
> (a) IN GENERAL- Until October 1, 2007, the Secretary of Transportation may
not authorize the transfer of the air traffic separation
> and control functions operated by the Federal Aviation Administration on
the date of enactment of this Act to a private entity or to
> a public entity other than the United State Government.
> (b) LIMITATION- Subsection (a) shall not apply--
> (1) to a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control tower
operated under the contract tower program on the date of
> enactment of this Act;
> (2) to any expansion of that program through new construction under
subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code; or
> (3) to a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control tower (other
than towers in Alaska) identified in the Report of the
> Department of Transportation Inspector General dated April 12, 2000, and
designated `Contract Towers: Observations on the Federal
> Aviation Administration's Study of Expanding the Program'.
>
>
> What is added is the sunset limitation. This is really not much of an
issue as it's off 3 fiscal
> years and most likely would be modified by a subsequent reauthorization
bill. It's purely wishful
> thinking on someone's part that it wouldn't be modified before then.
I disagree. The sunset limitation was added during the conference. Both
the House and the Senate Bill expressly forbade ATC privatization
indefinitely. This battle was fought and won by both NATCA and AOPA in both
houses of the Congress. The addition of sunset language in Conference that
did not exist in either version of the Bill is extraordinary.
>
> So that brings us the new langauge added as item (b)(3) above. The
referenced document
> is here: http://www.oig.dot.gov/show_pdf.php?id=95 Essentially, this
opens up 71 VFR
> towers to possible consideration for contracting out.
Negative. Essentially, this opens up 69 VFR towers to contracting out, not
71. All 71 towers have already been considered. However, Don Young (R-AK)
was chairman of the reconciliation Conference. The FAA and the
Administration agreed to take the two Alaska FAA VFR towers off of the
privatization table. Why? What makes the provision of VFR tower ATC
services in Alaska any different than the provision of VFR tower ATC
services in the Lower 48 or Hawaii?
>
> However, none of this is really how most people (other than the federal
ATC employees
> and their union) define the core privatization issue.
How then do you pilots define the "core" privatization issue if not the
provision of contract ATC services versus government ATC services?
>AOPA clearly has to pick their battles
> on where they throw their weight. The possible subbing out of
controller jobs in these
> facilities is just not worth them fighting over and the influence this has
on their membership
> (GA pilots/owners) is negligable.
In the short term, it is negligible for AOPA. I dount the hundred or so
AOPA/NATCA members who have cancelled their AOPA memberships are even a drop
in the AOPA bucket. In the long term however, it is extremely negative.
The only way the corporate raiders of the aviation world can manage to
privatize the American ATC system is going to be piece by piece. The
President has laid the groundwork for 2007 and beyond by declaring ATC an
inherintly commercial activity. By shedding the smaller pieces of the NAS
between now and 2007 (things like unionized federal VFR towers, unionized
federal FSS functions, unionized airways facilities personnel etc) the
Administration will have a far easier time selling off the bigger pieces
later. After all, the services on the block right now do not negatively
effect the big-boy commercial users like the airlines or the big government
contractors. Later on, when the bigger parts go up for grabs late this
decade, AOPA's concerns will be drowned out by the corporate bottom lines of
airlines looking to take advantage of a commercial ATC system, and by the
profit margins of the big name private contractors who will be providing it.
>
> If NATCA forces the conference report down, then we're likely to hurt
badly as it will possibly
> hold up the reauthorization bill past the fiscal year deadlines.
>
According to AOPA's statement concerning their new position on FAA
reauthorization, [NATCA] "Union leaders don't necessarily care about the
cost of flying, or GA airports, or pilot regulation, or airspace
restrictions unless there are union jobs attached. They look at what's good
for organized labor, not what's good for aviation or the taxpayer." But of
course, no offense is intended, dear controllers. After all, "AOPA
certainly has no gripe with the dedicated, hard-working air traffic
controllers who supply needed services to the entire aviation community."
How offensive and odious those remarks are to those of us who defend GA from
*within* the system! On the one hand, federal controllers are greedy
government employees looking to line their own pockets at the expense of the
flying public, and then in the next breath they are altruistic hard workers
struggling in the trenches for GA. Which is it, AOPA?
When the bell tolls for American GA in 2007, don't look to your local air
traffic controllers for anti-user fee support. Sadly, they'll all be
working for some fat-cat, unscrupulous government contractor instead of your
government's FAA. In the end, we all get what we pay for...
Chip, ZTL
Tarver Engineering
I am not offering engineering services to ATC. In fact, I am also not a
contractor, so even your personal attack is poorly aimed, Chip.
ATC unions have blocked automation for 30 years, but it was not until lately
that the catastrophic events generated by ATC seperation error became the
majority of the total body count.
Tarver Engineering
An excellent idea, however.
Ron Natalie
"Chip Jones" <texas...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:0oq5b.26774
> I disagree. The sunset limitation was added during the conference. Both
> the House and the Senate Bill expressly forbade ATC privatization
> indefinitely.
No, it just forbade the FAA from further ATC privatization until further act of congress.
> Negative. Essentially, this opens up 69 VFR towers to contracting out, not
> 71. All 71 towers have already been considered.
Right, I forgot to deduct the two Alaskan towers.
> What makes the provision of VFR tower ATC
> services in Alaska any different than the provision of VFR tower ATC
> services in the Lower 48 or Hawaii?
Congressional wheeling and dealing. Same reason why West Virginia had
so many dedicated (i.e. non AFSS) FSS's and control towers at places that
didn't really warrant them up until rather recently.
> How then do you pilots define the "core" privatization issue if not the
> provision of contract ATC services versus government ATC services?
Contracting out the performance of tasks is a different issue than establishing
a seperate PBO or other non-direct government agency to control the skies.
Chip Jones
>
> "Chip Jones" <texas...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:0oq5b.26774
> > I disagree. The sunset limitation was added during the conference.
Both
> > the House and the Senate Bill expressly forbade ATC privatization
> > indefinitely.
>
> No, it just forbade the FAA from further ATC privatization until further
act of congress.
Well, I guess we're just approaching the same question from different
directions. To me, "indefinitely" and "until further act of Congress" is
one and the same, and neither equates to a sunset provision. Congress voted
that the FAA was to be *prohibited* from further privatizing ATC without an
act of Congress, ie- privatization was made illegal indefinitley. How
unlike the language into which the two versions were "reconciled" by Don
Young's Administration hitmen.
>
> > Negative. Essentially, this opens up 69 VFR towers to contracting out,
not
> > 71. All 71 towers have already been considered.
>
> Right, I forgot to deduct the two Alaskan towers.
LOL, The Alaska Congressional delegation dang sure didn't!
>
> > What makes the provision of VFR tower ATC
> > services in Alaska any different than the provision of VFR tower ATC
> > services in the Lower 48 or Hawaii?
>
> Congressional wheeling and dealing. Same reason why West Virginia had
> so many dedicated (i.e. non AFSS) FSS's and control towers at places that
> didn't really warrant them up until rather recently.
But if the bottom line is air safety, isn't that a bipartisan issue?
Congress certainly thought so when they passed the original versions of the
unreconciled Bills. And if the bottom line isn't air safety, then why would
Don Young specifically take Juneau and Merril towers off of the contract
list, a list that includes busier places like Van Nuys and Boeing Field?
What advantage does having an FAA-run tower bring to Alaska constituents
other than air safety on the airport? It's not like these two Alaska towers
employ hundreds of Alaskans. I don't know about Merrill, but Juneau only
employs about 12 federal controllers I am told. Not exactly a major job
source even in Alaska.
>
> > How then do you pilots define the "core" privatization issue if not the
> > provision of contract ATC services versus government ATC services?
>
> Contracting out the performance of tasks is a different issue than
establishing
> a seperate PBO or other non-direct government agency to control the skies.
>
Actually, isn't that *exactly* what happens at a contract ATC facility?
The task of Air Traffic Control, performed by an air traffic controller, is
provided to the public by a non-direct, private, for-profit corporate entity
exercising control over a piece of the National Airspace System sky. That's
pretty much the "core" of the privatization issue and it's right upon AOPA,
right now. Not the year 2007 or later... It seems pretty basic to me that
there is no difference between privatizing a single federal tower and the
whole national ATC system except a difference in degree. I also believe
that the toleration of the one makes the other inevitable. It doesn't get
more "core" than that, IMO.
Chip, ZTL
Tarver Engineering
Yep, that is why there is a sunset provision.
> Congress certainly thought so when they passed the original versions of
the
> unreconciled Bills. And if the bottom line isn't air safety, then why
would
> Don Young specifically take Juneau and Merril towers off of the contract
> list, a list that includes busier places like Van Nuys and Boeing Field?
Money.
> What advantage does having an FAA-run tower bring to Alaska constituents
> other than air safety on the airport? It's not like these two Alaska
towers
> employ hundreds of Alaskans. I don't know about Merrill, but Juneau only
> employs about 12 federal controllers I am told. Not exactly a major job
> source even in Alaska.
Jobs.
> > > How then do you pilots define the "core" privatization issue if not
the
> > > provision of contract ATC services versus government ATC services?
> >
> > Contracting out the performance of tasks is a different issue than
establishing
> > a seperate PBO or other non-direct government agency to control the
skies.
> Actually, isn't that *exactly* what happens at a contract ATC facility?
Eventually.
> The task of Air Traffic Control, performed by an air traffic controller,
is
> provided to the public by a non-direct, private, for-profit corporate
entity
> exercising control over a piece of the National Airspace System sky.
Yes, but without a powerful public employees union to block improvements.
(ie RIF)
> That's
> pretty much the "core" of the privatization issue and it's right upon
AOPA,
> right now. Not the year 2007 or later... It seems pretty basic to me
that
> there is no difference between privatizing a single federal tower and the
> whole national ATC system except a difference in degree. I also believe
> that the toleration of the one makes the other inevitable. It doesn't get
> more "core" than that, IMO.
AOPA has a larger constituancy than ATC. The fact that AOPA acted in the
best interest of GA, by making an advantagous political deal, is not
surprising.
David H
where ATC services HAVE been privatized?
Want to see what things will be like if/when this administration has its way?
Look to Canada, New Zealand, etc. Without exception, everything I've seen
about privatized ATC services esewhere paints a very, very unpleasant picture.
I see absolutely zero benefits (other than money going into the contractor's
pockets - and that only benefits them, at a cost to everyone else).
Ask pilots who have gone through the privatization process how they have liked
it. Without exception, everyone I've heard from says the same thing: sure,
there might be a few shortcomings in the present system (hey, what system of
ANYTHING is perfect?), but you are much, MUCH better off with the existing
system run by the government. Is there ANYONE (except for the people who have
personally benefitted financially) who have gone through a switch from a
government-run ATC system to a privatized one who think it has improved
things? I haven't heard a single voice supporting that position. On the other
hand, I have heard many, many others who all say the same thing: you Yanks
would be absolutely CRAZY to get rid of the wonderful system you now have and
throw it away in favor of a system whose primary goal is to generate revenue
and keep costs down.
Rather than unrealistic, ideological fantasies (i.e. anything the government
does is always bad, and anything the private sector does is always better) I'd
like to hear what specifically is wrong with the current system, and exactly
how selling it off to the low bidder is going to address that. Absent those
details and a convincing, fact-based analysis showing how a privatized systsm
would benefit us all, this simply looks like nothing more than a good,
old-fashioned money grab to me.
David H
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying forum:
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying
xyzzy
> Fighting this battle on the field of 2007, we will be 69 ATC towers closer
> to ATC user fees.
Or alternatively, in 2007 maybe we'll have a President and/or a Congress
from the party that doesn't think the way to run the country is to give
it all away to large corporations. Maybe they figure it's a losing
battle now, they should get the best they can, and then gear up for the
fight in 2007 when we've been aware of the threat for 4 years and
hopefully will have a better political climate.
Ron Natalie
"Chip Jones" <texas...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:bir5b.26821
> What advantage does having an FAA-run tower bring to Alaska constituents
> other than air safety on the airport? It's not like these two Alaska towers
> employ hundreds of Alaskans. I don't know about Merrill, but Juneau only
> employs about 12 federal controllers I am told. Not exactly a major job
> source even in Alaska.
I can't say if safety is or is not the issue. But is clear that Senator Young thought
that it would play better in his home state if he kept them on the federal dole. Maybe
one of the controllers is kin to a major contributor, who knows, it certainly smacks
of politicking rather than the public interest.
> Actually, isn't that *exactly* what happens at a contract ATC facility?
No, no more than contracting out DUAT is, nor anything else ATC contracts out.
Despite all the hoohah, AOPA's concern is not whether the PBO can do a good job
or if there is a safety concern, what they are concerned about is that privatization
makes it easier to bring up the ugly user fee issue to fund it.
Chip Jones
[snipped]
>
> Yes, but without a powerful public employees union to block improvements.
> (ie RIF)
>
Now that's a scream, John! Do you remember August of 1981? A pleasant
little group of unselfish, altruistic Americans who called themselves PATCO?
Think they're gone from the ATC scene? Think again. Who do you think
represents all of those private *contract* towers these days? Not NATCA.
Yep, PATCO, the one and only. The ones who said "America can't fire us
all..." Big labor is into ATC no matter whether public or private, it just
depends on which flavor of labor you prefer. You see, PATCO wants to see
privatization too- it's right up their alley (more little bargaining units
to represent...) Personally, I think NATCA has a much better track record
of public service than PATCO, but it's your call, bro. I'd be happy to post
a link to the PATCO site if you want to read about what a great job private
ATC providers do with all that federal contract money they receive from FAA.
Chip, ZTL
Ron Natalie
"Chip Jones" <texas...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:k%r5b.26989
> Now that's a scream, John! Do you remember August of 1981? A pleasant
> little group of unselfish, altruistic Americans who called themselves PATCO?
As opposed to the the corrupt, lying schemers called PATCO managment who
lied to their members and cooked the strike vote to convince them that the
larger brotherhood had decided that the strike was a good idea?
Ron Natalie
"Chip Jones" <texas...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:k%r5b.26989$Om1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Personally, I think NATCA has a much better track record
> of public service than PATCO, but it's your call, bro. I'd be happy to post
> a link to the PATCO site if you want to read about what a great job private
> ATC providers do with all that federal contract money they receive from FAA.
Well, PATCO only exists for these guys because NATCA considers them to be
the enemy and won't represent or otherwise cooperate with them. Of course
defending your jobs with inflated claims of public safety and other nonsense
is probably contrary to being able to accept them for representation.
Tarver Engineering
>
> "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote in message
> news:3f56...@news.sti.net...
>
> [snipped]
>
> >
> > Yes, but without a powerful public employees union to block
improvements.
> > (ie RIF)
> >
>
> Now that's a scream, John! Do you remember August of 1981?
Sure.
> A pleasant
> little group of unselfish, altruistic Americans who called themselves
PATCO?
> Think they're gone from the ATC scene? Think again. Who do you think
> represents all of those private *contract* towers these days? Not NATCA.
> Yep, PATCO, the one and only.
Nothing has changed, in 30 years.
> The ones who said "America can't fire us
> all..." Big labor is into ATC no matter whether public or private, it
just
> depends on which flavor of labor you prefer.
A choice gives much more latitude.
> You see, PATCO wants to see
> privatization too- it's right up their alley (more little bargaining units
> to represent...) Personally, I think NATCA has a much better track record
> of public service than PATCO, but it's your call, bro. I'd be happy to
post
> a link to the PATCO site if you want to read about what a great job
private
> ATC providers do with all that federal contract money they receive from
FAA.
Good work on the part of PATCO to protect their interests, but civil service
law does not protect contractors.
Tarver Engineering
Are you claiming PATCO is corrupt?
Ron Natalie
"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote in message news:3f56...@news.sti.net...
>
> Are you claiming PATCO is corrupt?
>
I am claiming that in 1981 PATCO management misrepresented things to
the membership that caused them to strike when they might not otherwise
have, they then weaseled themselves to the LRB to disgrace themselves
futher. I have no clue if the management of that era still has any involvement
in today's PATCO.
Chip Jones
The one and the same.... :-)
Chip, ZTL
Stan Gosnell
> I'm with Ron. Given the name of the organization, why SHOULD you
> support them? As a pilot, I appreciate your interest and support in
> AOPA and piloting in general, but I have no idea why you would expect
> AOPA to act in your ATC-related interests.
Because efficient ATC service is always in the pilots' interest.
--
Regards,
Stan
Stan Gosnell
> I have to second that. With out AOPA where would we be? Just because
> they aren't in my opinion perfect, doesn't mean they don't deserve my
> support. They do a lot of good.
Well, you're certainly free to support them in any way you like. I choose
to spend my money elsewhere.
--
Regards,
Stan
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> My AOPA membership comes up for yearly renewal at the end of September.
> Today, I got a membership renewal request via email from the organization.
>
> Here is my response:
>
>
>
> Dear AOPA,
>
> The question arises. Why should an FAA enroute air traffic controller who
> is neither a pilot nor an aircraft owner continue to financially support
> AOPA? AOPA has publicly accused my labor organization (NATCA) of
misleading
> other AOPA members concerning the looming Congressional action on ATC
> privatization.
>
> AOPA has been running the following quotes on the AOPA website:
>
> "AOPA members are asking about TV ads claiming that Congress is about to
> privatize air traffic control. Others have been asked to sign post cards
> misrepresenting both AOPA's position and what Congress has done. Both the
> ads and the cards are the efforts of labor unions. And both are bending
the
> truth."
>
> NATCA is not misleading the flying public on this issue. NATCA factually
> reports that the Congress is about to authorize ATC privatization by
> allowing the FAA to offer 69 FAA air traffic control towers to the lowest
in
> the nation. The pending FAA reauthorization bill's language is clear and
> not subject to misinterpretation or wishful thinking. It will authorize
the
> FAA to contract out ATC services to the lowest bidder. Further, after the
> year 2007, all FAA air traffic services will be on the table for possible
> out sourcing. Privatization is privatization. There is no bending of the
> truth involved.
>
> "Make no mistake. AOPA is adamantly opposed to any effort to privatize air
> traffic control or charge user fees for safety services," said AOPA
> President Phil Boyer. "We have fought, and will continue to fight,
attempts
> to take the responsibility for aircraft separation and control away from
the
> federal government " and "If anybody tries to tell you that AOPA supports
> privatizing ATC, you tell them that's a damned lie," Boyer said. "AOPA is
> dedicated to the benefit of all general aviation, particularly GA pilots.
> It's a much broader vision than that of a union leader."
>
> What a bunch of hot air! That AOPA can swallow the rest of the current
FAA
> reauthorization bill before the Congress in spite of the clear language
> authorizing ATC privatization seems to point to one of two things. Either
> AOPA is extremely short sighted or else AOPA is bending the truth herself
on
> this issue. National ATC privatization is a clear threat to general
> aviation interests, yet AOPA seems willing to allow such privatization to
> begin, piece by piece, tower by tower, because the "rest of the bill" is
> beneficial to GA. Not with my money...
>
> I will gladly renew my AOPA dues if you can convince me that AOPA is on
the
> right side of the current ATC privatization issue.
>
> Chip Jones
> AOPA 04557674
> Atlanta ARTCC
>
>
> For even money, I'll betcha they don't even answer me...
>
What exactly did NATCA say in these TV ads and post cards?
Steven P. McNicoll
"tscottme" <blah...@blah.net> wrote in message
news:YV-dnUxMTd_...@comcast.com...
>
> Being an AOPA member since the mid 1980s I think they do a lot of good
> work for the flying community. But I've learned not to reflexively
> support their positions on political subjects. I remember the battle
> they waged about automated FSSs, how the closing of any FSS, staffed
> with grizzled meteorologists, would lead to certain death and
> destruction.
>
I don't believe there have ever been meteorologists staffing FSSs, grizzled
or otherwise.
Mike Rapoport
that they recieve. Everybody else likes it.
"the people who have personally benefitted financially" are the pilots and
controllers.
Mike
MU-2
"David H" <dav...@dNrOiSzPzAlMe.com> wrote in message
news:3F5647B9...@dNrOiSzPzAlMe.com...
Chip Jones
"Steven P. McNicoll" <ronca...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:lwx5b.8882$Lk5....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
> What exactly did NATCA say in these TV ads and post cards?
>
At the risk of spamming the group, the best way to answer this question is
to point you to the actual adds and let you see and hear them for
yourself. Here is a link to the NATCA national media site, which has the
exact videos, radio spots and print adds:
http://www.natca.org/mediacenter/private_ads.msp .
NATCA ran a targeted media blitz on TV, radio and in print. I am unaware
of the postcards that Phil Boyer mentions on the AOPA site. I believe that
these adds ran in several states represented by Republicans who had voted
against ATC privatization before the Conference sabotaged the ratified
language in favor of outsourcing.
Chip, ZTL
Stan Gosnell
news:eLy5b.8959$Lk5....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> The pilots don't like it because they are forced to pay for the
> services that they recieve. Everybody else likes it.
>
> "the people who have personally benefitted financially" are the
> pilots and controllers.
And those few citizens who buy airline tickets. If the airlines had to pay
for ATC services, do you really think they wouldn't pass those charges on
to the passengers? As it is, the cost is spread out among everyone who
pays taxes, and the burden to any one individual is negligible.
--
Regards,
Stan
ArtP
wrote:
>And those few citizens who buy airline tickets. If the airlines had to pay
>for ATC services, do you really think they wouldn't pass those charges on
>to the passengers?
Since it won't cost much more for ATC to handle a 747 than a Cessna,
the cost per passenger won't be very much.
> As it is, the cost is spread out among everyone who
>pays taxes, and the burden to any one individual is negligible.
If the government paid for my house the burden on any one individual
would be negligible.
David Megginson
> Want to see what things will be like if/when this administration has
> its way? Look to Canada, New Zealand, etc. Without exception,
> everything I've seen about privatized ATC services esewhere paints a
> very, very unpleasant picture. I see absolutely zero benefits
> (other than money going into the contractor's pockets - and that
> only benefits them, at a cost to everyone else).
I have no experience with New Zealand, but please don't use Canada as
a weapon in this dispute.
As an instrument-rated Canadian pilot and aircraft owner, I have no
complaints at all about Nav Canada. The fee for private light
aircraft (about USD 45/year) is too small to be a problem, especially
in a country where no jurisdiction charges property or use taxes on
aircraft (unlike some U.S. states).
Service is good, and we have better coordination between ATC and FSS
than you have in the U.S.: for example, a control tower will
automatically receive a copy of your VFR flight plan and close it for
you when you land. The controllers and specialists have new, modern
equipment, but otherwise are pretty-much the same in Canada and the
U.S., from my limited U.S. experience (I had some shoddy treatment
from one controller at NY approach, but I wouldn't assume that he was
typical of the whole U.S. system).
Of course, that's from the private pilot's perspective. The Nav
Canada fee is much more of a burden for the airlines, and controllers
are not happy with working hours and pay (I don't know if it's better
or worse than the socialized ATC in the U.S.). Nav Canada has also
been scaling back local FSS's so that they have responsibility only
for their local airports and control zones -- briefings, flight plans,
and enroute now go through a few big regional FIC's. I never did
face-to-face briefings at a small airport anyway, but I know that some
pilots miss them.
So, I guess that the negative is the small fee, and the positive is a
major investment in new equipment (vs. the old, broken stuff that many
U.S. controllers complain about) and slightly better FSS/ATC
coordination. Everything else is pretty much the same as in the
U.S. -- private ATC hasn't been a triumph or a disaster in Canada.
All the best,
David
David Megginson
>>And those few citizens who buy airline tickets. If the airlines had
>>to pay for ATC services, do you really think they wouldn't pass
>>those charges on to the passengers?
>
> Since it won't cost much more for ATC to handle a 747 than a Cessna,
> the cost per passenger won't be very much.
That turns out not to be the case. COPA in Canada lobbied very
successfully to keep the Nav Canada fee low for light aircraft (about
USD 45/year), but it is orders of magnitude higher for the air
carriers -- I think that it adds a few dollars to every ticket. That,
together with a post-September-11 so-called security tax (not,
obviously, used for security) and other taxes, make life hard for the
airlines and their passengers. While privatized ATC hasn't been a
real problem for private aircraft owners, it does affect the airlines
quite a bit. It's purely an economic problem, though, not a safety
one.
All the best,
David
Dave Butler
> I am unaware
> of the postcards that Phil Boyer mentions on the AOPA site.
I assumed he was talking about the cards that NAATS was having people complete
and sign at their booth at Oshkosh. They had a form for you to sign with parts
destined for your legislators, and one part for Phil Boyer. Hmmm. Maybe that
wasn't about the reauthorization bill.
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.
--
Dave Butler, software engineer 919-392-4367
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
Tom S.
"Mike Rapoport" <rapopor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eLy5b.8959$Lk5....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> The pilots don't like it because they are forced to pay for the services
> that they recieve. Everybody else likes it.
That would make them just like about 98% of the population.
>
> "the people who have personally benefitted financially" are the pilots
and
> controllers.
And the bureaucrats...
> Mike
> MU-2
j...@obilivan.net
John Smith wrote:
> [snipped]
>
> > NATCA factually
> > reports that the Congress is about to authorize ATC privatization by
> > allowing the FAA to offer 69 FAA air traffic control towers to the lowest
> > private sector bidder.
>
> I bid $1 - is that low enough to get them? How about 1c? How about just
> giving me the lot.
>
> Surely you mean the highest bidder??????
If they accept the highest bid I am sure to get the job.~
They usually take the lowest bid from a *qualified* bidder, who has agreed to
perform a very long, detailed list of tasks. $1 wouldn't quite cut it.
j...@obilivan.net
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
> proves they can do the job for the least amount of money. The "lowest bidder".
>
Lowest *qualified* bidder.
j...@obilivan.net
Chip Jones wrote:Err, no. I mean *lowest* bidder. The idea is to save money.
The FAA (and
> your taxes) pays for the infrastructure. The *low* bidder runs the ATC
> facility for the cheapest price. The way the contractor saves money is to
> slash salaries and cut staffing. ATC "on the cheap" is literally what is
> going on.
What is "cheap" to you may very well be reasonable to someone else. Once you
go down the slippery slope of glittering generalities, it simply becomes a
pissing contest.
Some thing Jane gave the store away to NATCA. I deal with a lot of AFS and AVN
folks and they certainly harbor more and more resentment towards ATS. Whatever
else goes on, that is not healthy for the FAA as an organization.
Mike Rapoport
"Stan Gosnell" <GLSNig...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93EBEE8...@216.39.221.8...
As it is, the cost is spread out among everyone who
> pays taxes, and the burden to any one individual is negligible.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Stan
>
This is how we get pork in the budget.
Mike
MU-2
Everett M. Greene
> John Smith wrote:
> >
> > Surely you mean the highest bidder??????
>
> some private company to do this work. Each contract will go to whatever company
> proves they can do the job for the least amount of money. The "lowest bidder".
One of the things that never seems to get factored into the
equation is how many government personnel are going to be
involved in admininstering the contract(s). When you get
into nebulous things such as "best qualified", the number
of people involved in evaluating the bids becomes quite
large in a big hurry and the evaluation takes quite a long
time. Sometimes the evaluation process is so complex that
contractors are hired to assist in the evaluation of other
contractors. You can extrapolate this to the point where
there government is spending as much administering a "private"
ATC as it presently spends on operating it itself.
Oh, and the contract usually ends up being awarded to the
corporation with the best political connections independent
of the government's evaluation of "best qualified".
Then there are the technical factors: Who owns the
facilities? What will be the period for the contract(s)?
Who assumes liability for contractor mistakes? Who will
train and certify the controllers? Who will monitor the
contractors' performance? What are the performance
criteria? How do you evaluate "quality of service"?
Everett M. Greene
[snip]
> ATC unions have blocked automation for 30 years, but it was not until lately
> that the catastrophic events generated by ATC seperation error became the
> majority of the total body count.
Could we be more specific? Air traffic separation incidents
resulting in a body count implies aircraft collisions. The
only one I can recall is a runway incursion error at LAX a
few years ago. Are there others?
Tarver Engineering
"Everett M. Greene" <moj...@iwvisp.com> wrote in message
news:20030904.7...@mojaveg.iwvisp.com...
The A-300 at Rockaway and USAir 427 have been identified by the
Administrator as seperation incidents. There is no need for a collision,
just proximity. Following too close can cause "flow separation" due to
turbulance and that flow seperation is known to have caused "rudder
reversal" for the A-300 at Rockaway. USAir 427 is a nearly identical event,
except there was no DFDR to prove the rudder reversed; but only the rudder
pedals pounded through the floor. The system paid a high price for 737
rudder PCU replacement, that was probably specious in nature.
Similar to small GA icing incidents. (ie rudder flow seperation)
Tarver Engineering
<snip>
> Oh, and the contract usually ends up being awarded to the
> corporation with the best political connections independent
> of the government's evaluation of "best qualified".
You got that right, Everett.
Andrew Gideon
>
> Oh, and the contract usually ends up being awarded to the
> corporation with the best political connections independent
> of the government's evaluation of "best qualified".
Or the award goes to the contractor that defined the requirements. The
articles at:
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB106261373853003400,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/03/business/03BOEI.html
make for bizzare reading.
- Andrew
Tom S.
Ayn Rand called it the "politics of pull".
Roger Halstead
wrote:
>"Mike Rapoport" <rapopor...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>news:eLy5b.8959$Lk5....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
>> The pilots don't like it because they are forced to pay for the
>> services that they recieve. Everybody else likes it.
>>
>> "the people who have personally benefitted financially" are the
>> pilots and controllers.
>
>And those few citizens who buy airline tickets. If the airlines had to pay
>for ATC services, do you really think they wouldn't pass those charges on
>to the passengers? As it is, the cost is spread out among everyone who
>pays taxes,
My understanding:
The system as it is currently financed is from fuel and gate (ticket)
taxes. The system is not only self supporting, but actually
accumulates money. Unfortunately the way the system is set up the FAA
has to justify the money they spend as if it comes from the general
fund. Only those who fly and use aviation fuel are paying in to the
system, not he general taxpayer.
It is one of the few government agencies that has been self
supporting, even if it does have some problems. Many of which are due
to the way congress lets them have their own money.
Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
G.R. Patterson III
>
> Are there others?
There was a case a few years ago in which the controller at Hartsfield set
a pssenger jet down on top of a light plane that hadn't cleared the active yet.
As I recall, it turned four people into little red smears.
George Patterson
A friend will help you move. A really good friend will help you move
the body.
Steven P. McNicoll
"G.R. Patterson III" <grpp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3F57F3F5...@comcast.net...
>
> There was a case a few years ago in which the controller at Hartsfield set
> a pssenger jet down on top of a light plane that hadn't cleared the active
> yet.
> As I recall, it turned four people into little red smears.
>
NTSB Identification: DCA90MA017B.
The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 39504.
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of EASTERN AIRLINES (D.B.A.
operation of EASTERN AIRLINES )
Accident occurred Thursday, January 18, 1990 in ATLANTA, GA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 5/3/93
Aircraft: BOEING 727, registration: N8867E
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 1 Serious, 157 Uninjured.
DRG ARR AT NGT, BEECH A100 (KING AIR, N44UE) WAS CLRD FOR AN ILS RWY 26R
APCH BEHIND CONTINENTAL FLT 9687, THEN EASTERN AIRLINE (EA) FLT 111 (BOEING
727, N8867E) WAS CLRD FOR THE SAME APCH BEHIND THE KING AIR. AFTER LNDG, FLT
9687 HAD A RADIO PROBLEM & THE TWR CTLR HAD DIFFICULTY COMMUNICATING WITH
FLT 9687. MEANWHILE, THE KING AIR LNDD & ITS CREW HAD MOVED THE ACFT TO THE
RGT SIDE OF THE RWY NR TWY-D (THE PRIMARY TWY FOR GEN AVN ACFT). THE TURNOFF
FOR TWY-D WAS ABT 3800'FM THE APCH END OF RWY 26R. BEFORE THE KING AIR WAS
CLR OF THE RWY, EA 111 LNDD & CONVERGED ON THE KING AIR. THE CREW OF EA 111
DID NOT SEE THE KING AIR UNTIL MOMENTS BFR THE ACDNT. THE CAPT TRIED TO
AVOID A COLLISION, BUT THE BOEING'S RGT WING STRUCK THE KING AIR, SHEARING
THE TOP OF ITS FUSELAGE & COCKPIT. SOME OF THE KING AIR'S STROBE/BEACON LGTS
WERE INOP, THOUGH THEY MOST LIKELY WOULD HAVE BEEN EXTINGUISHED FOR THE IMC
APCH. THE LOCAL CTLR DID NOT ISSUE A TFC ADZY TO EA 111 WITH THE LNDG CLNC.
(SEE: NTSB/AAR-91/03)
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of
this accident as follows:
(1) FAILURE OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE AIR TRAFFIC
CONTROL PROCEDURES THAT ADEQUATELY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION HUMAN PERFORMANCE
FACTORS SUCH AS THOSE WHICH RESULTED IN THE FAILURE OF THE NORTH LOCAL
CONTROLLER TO DETECT THE DEVELOPING CONFLICT BETWEEN N44UE AND EA 111, AND
(2) THE FAILURE OF THE NORTH LOCAL CONTROLLER TO ENSURE THE SEPARATION OF
ARRIVING AIRCRAFT WHICH WERE USING THE SAME RUNWAY. CONTRIBUTING TO THE
ACCIDENT WAS THE FAILURE OF THE NORTH LOCAL CONTROLLER TO FOLLOW THE
PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE OF ISSUING APPROPRIATE TRAFFIC INFORMATION TO EA 111,
AND FAILURE OF THE NORTH FINAL CONTROLLER AND THE RADAR MONITOR CONTROLLER
TO ISSUE TIMELY SPEED REDUCTIONS TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE SEPARATION BETWEEN
AIRCRAFT ON FINAL APPROACH.
Mike Rapoport
AOPA, says fuel taxes and airlilne ticket taxes do not come close to funding
ATC and airport improvements. If it was already self funding, there would
be no incentive to privatize it and the controllers union wouldn't be afraid
of privatization.
Mike
MU-2
"Roger Halstead" <newsg...@rogerhalstead.com> wrote in message
news:tirflvkhj28n4ajbe...@4ax.com...
Mark Kolber
>Or alternatively, in 2007 maybe we'll have a President and/or a Congress
>from the party that doesn't think the way to run the country is to give
>it all away to large corporations.
Well, I wouldn't be too sure about that. I'm not sure what party
you're talking about, but the one that lost the last election was no
bed of roses when it comes to this issue. Friendliness or
unfriendliness to GA is not party-related in the way some other issues
are.
==============================
And Chip Jones said
>I'm sqauwking now. We appear to me to be at a juncture in this debate
>similar to the old saying about the Nazi's in Germany.
You are not going to convince me, nor hopefully anyone else, that
there is moral or political equivalent between balancing the overall
benefits of a legislative package to your group and sitting idly by
while people are murdered. "Hall of horrors" comparisons like that are
used regularly as a last ditch effort by the desperate to rally the
ignorant, add absolutely nothing to the debate and tend to be
personally offensive to those who were the target of the acts being
used for the comparison.
Sure. Consolidating job responsibilities and moving a portion of
traditionally public sector jobs to the private one is =just= like
genocide. Give me a break.
Mark Kolber
APA/Denver, Colorado
www.midlifeflight.com
======================
email? Remove ".no.spam"
Rick Durden
It is a serious safety issue. When pilots have to pay for ATC
services there is a tendency for them not to file IFR in marginal
weather and scud run, therefore increases the risk of an accident.
So long as ATC services are paid for via gasoline tax, things have
worked very well. Where a fee for services is imposed general
aviation takes it on the chin as the gas taxes do not go down
correspondingly, so overall costs go up and pilots are less willing to
take advantage of the safety benefits provided by ATC. The results
are predictable, more people die in airplanes, and governments impose
more punitive regulations on general aviation.
From an economic standpoint, a percentage for profit has to be built
in, as well as for oversight of the private contractor, increasing
overall costs, unless the pay for controllers goes down, cheaper
equipment is used and/or money for R and D is cut (which it almost
always is...in the countries that have privatized there is no
development for the future going on, there's no money for it).
The problem is that we have a very workable system presently, but the
right-wing idealogues who didn't learn the lessons of the 1880s and
1890s regarding unregulated capitalism want private enterprise to
handle everything. So we get the Enron situation in electrial energy
that California got when they deregulated and privatized without any
significant oversight. The system isn't broken. The downside risk
for safety for privatization and user fees is just too high for it to
be down in aviation. It's already screwed general aviation in Europe,
the Canadian fees have shot up, so why is our country so quiveringly
anxious to replace a working system with one that has demonstrated its
antipathy to general aviation in other countries?
How many pilots and passenger have to do so that some right winger in
Washington can brag that he privatized ATC?
All the best,
Rick
David Megginson <nob...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<87iso87...@megginson.com>...
David Megginson
> It is a serious safety issue. When pilots have to pay for ATC
> services there is a tendency for them not to file IFR in marginal
> weather and scud run, therefore increases the risk of an accident.
That's not applicable in Canada. Up here, small aircraft owners pay
a flat fee (about USD 46.00/year for a private light aircraft),
whether they use ATS or not. In that case, the incentive works the
other way -- you've paid for the services anyway, so you might as well
get your money's worth.
If you do get a fully privatized system in the U.S., it would be a
good idea to model it on the Canadian flat-fee system rather than the
European pay-per-use system, to avoid the problem you mentioned.
> It's already screwed general aviation in Europe, the Canadian fees
> have shot up, so why is our country so quiveringly anxious to
> replace a working system with one that has demonstrated its
> antipathy to general aviation in other countries?
Just to put that in context, our fees have shot up by about CAD 5.00
(USD 3.50) for next year. As I mentioned before, it's a different
situation for the airlines, but it's hard to argue that the fees have
any effect on G.A.
I think that it's good to have an intelligent, open debate about this
issue, and I don't claim to know whether private or public is best for
the U.S., but I'm disgusted the misleading scare tactics people are
using (this isn't directed at Rick).
All the best,
David
G.R. Patterson III
Rick Durden wrote:
>
> So long as ATC services are paid for via gasoline tax, things have
> worked very well.
Not only that, but the cost of collection is negligible. As a conservative
estimate, the cost of collecting user fees will triple the current expense
of ATC (the cost of collecting tolls on the NJ toll roads is over 80% of the
total cost of that system).
Tom S.
>
>
> Rick Durden wrote:
> >
> > So long as ATC services are paid for via gasoline tax, things have
> > worked very well.
>
> Not only that, but the cost of collection is negligible. As a conservative
> estimate, the cost of collecting user fees will triple the current expense
> of ATC (the cost of collecting tolls on the NJ toll roads is over 80% of
the
> total cost of that system).
>
done in ten years are now into their 40th year.
Chip Jones
"Mark Kolber" <midlife_fl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bepglvsvrvu1b5qao...@4ax.com...
[snipped]
> And Chip Jones said
>
> >I'm sqauwking now. We appear to me to be at a juncture in this debate
> >similar to the old saying about the Nazi's in Germany.
>
> You are not going to convince me, nor hopefully anyone else, that
> there is moral or political equivalent between balancing the overall
> benefits of a legislative package to your group and sitting idly by
> while people are murdered. "Hall of horrors" comparisons like that are
> used regularly as a last ditch effort by the desperate to rally the
> ignorant, add absolutely nothing to the debate and tend to be
> personally offensive to those who were the target of the acts being
> used for the comparison.
Mark, the reference to the "old saying" in my post was to the slippery slope
that doing nothing about ATc privatization *right now* represents. No one
is comparing ATC privatization to the Holocaust, morally or politically.
Such a comparison is so patently shallow I never even considered that my
post could be misconstrued as doing so. If you got offended, I'm sorry.
>
> Sure. Consolidating job responsibilities and moving a portion of
> traditionally public sector jobs to the private one is =just= like
> genocide. Give me a break.
LOL. Now I'm offended that you're offended...
Chip, ZTL
David Megginson
> Not only that, but the cost of collection is negligible. As a conservative
> estimate, the cost of collecting user fees will triple the current expense
> of ATC (the cost of collecting tolls on the NJ toll roads is over 80% of the
> total cost of that system).
That will apply only to per-use fees, though. That's why landing fees
for light aircraft are usually so silly -- it ends up costing more
than $10 to collect a $10 landing fee.
There are other forms of payment, like annual fees, where the
collection costs can be lower.
All the best,
David
Chip Jones
> rdu...@compuserve.com (Rick Durden) writes:
>
> > It is a serious safety issue. When pilots have to pay for ATC
> > services there is a tendency for them not to file IFR in marginal
> > weather and scud run, therefore increases the risk of an accident.
>
> That's not applicable in Canada. Up here, small aircraft owners pay
> a flat fee (about USD 46.00/year for a private light aircraft),
> whether they use ATS or not. In that case, the incentive works the
> other way -- you've paid for the services anyway, so you might as well
> get your money's worth.
Just curious David. Do Canadian pilots flying VFR largely have to use ATC
service, or can you guys just do the squawk VFR thing and fly willy nilly
around Canada without talking to ATC?
>
> If you do get a fully privatized system in the U.S., it would be a
> good idea to model it on the Canadian flat-fee system rather than the
> European pay-per-use system, to avoid the problem you mentioned.
>
> > It's already screwed general aviation in Europe, the Canadian fees
> > have shot up, so why is our country so quiveringly anxious to
> > replace a working system with one that has demonstrated its
> > antipathy to general aviation in other countries?
>
> Just to put that in context, our fees have shot up by about CAD 5.00
> (USD 3.50) for next year. As I mentioned before, it's a different
> situation for the airlines, but it's hard to argue that the fees have
> any effect on G.A.
But when (not if) GA user fees in Canada go up again, what can the Canadian
GA pilot do about it? Down here in USA, the airlines are *actively*
attempting to seize total control of the ATC system because they accuse the
government of affecting their corporate bottom line with ATC delays. Never
mind the fact that the American taxpayer has just bailed the airlines out
*twice* to the tune of around 18 Billion US Dollars since 9-11 for non-ATC
related problems. If we privatize ATC down here, the corporations that are
going to be running the show will *not* care a whit about GA or BA. They
will cater to the airlines. There is a good chance they will even be
controlled by the airlines depending on exactly who wins the contract (ala
NATS in Britain). Like the US Post Office and the continually rising price
of American postage stamps, there won't be a thing the average GA pilot can
do down here to stop user fees once their government gets out of the ATC
service business.
Chip, ZTL
David Megginson
> Just curious David. Do Canadian pilots flying VFR largely have to
> use ATC service, or can you guys just do the squawk VFR thing and
> fly willy nilly around Canada without talking to ATC?
We are required to file a flight plan or flight itinerary for any VFR
flight beyond 25 nm, but a flight itinerary is as simple as telling
someone where you're going and asking them to call 911 within 24 hours
if you don't show up -- that makes sense for a big, mostly-empty
country like ours.
Also, all of our airways (and all other controlled airspace)
automatically changes to class B at 12,500 ft. Our control zones top
about around 3000 ft AGL like yours, but our terminal areas extend
right up to the flight levels, so you cannot overfly Toronto at 10,000
ft without talking to ATC, the way that you can overfly New York.
Otherwise, though, we're pretty much the same. We have very little
restricted airspace (they've even reduced the temporary restriction
over our Parliament buildings to 1500 ft and 0.25 nm radius, and that
doesn't apply to IFR approaches or departures), and we have a *lot*
more class G than you have, so much so that we even have standard
transponder codes for uncontrolled IFR (!!), which is common in the
north.
>> Just to put that in context, our fees have shot up by about CAD 5.00
>> (USD 3.50) for next year. As I mentioned before, it's a different
>> situation for the airlines, but it's hard to argue that the fees have
>> any effect on G.A.
>
> But when (not if) GA user fees in Canada go up again, what can the
> Canadian GA pilot do about it?
That is a real risk -- we're all vulnerable to the whims of our
elected politicians and public opinion. For example, we don't have
any property or use taxes on aircraft in Canada, while you guys have
to deal with them in quite a few states. Likewise, we rarely have
anything like your TFR's, and we don't have a lot of security
paranoia.
In the end, we have to rely on our advocacy groups just like you do.
So far, COPA has been very effective -- the fees were originally
supposed to be several times higher, and COPA successfully beat them
down to about the cost of a half tank of fuel for my Warrior, and they
keep on fighting every tiny rise now. Personally, I wouldn't object
to paying more, but then, I use ATS a lot, flying out of a busy class
C airport inside a class D terminal area -- I can see how a farmer
with a Cub in her barn would be pissed off.
> If we privatize ATC down here, the corporations that are going to be
> running the show will *not* care a whit about GA or BA.
That depends on how you privatise it -- I understand that those of you
fighting to keep the public system don't want to give up quite yet,
but there may come a point that you want to get involved on the inside
to make sure that any new private system is a reasonable one like
ours, and not the worst-case scenario dominated by a few big users,
like you're suggesting.
In Canada, the airlines pay most of the cost of ATS, but small planes
get equal service, just as in the U.S. I often land with two or three
airliners waiting for me, or have commuters or jets slow down behind
me while I'm on an approach. If you end up with something like that,
life won't be too bad.
Now, if we're done talking about privatizing ATS, let's talk about
socializing your medicine ... (just joking).
All the best,
David
G.R. Patterson III
David Megginson wrote:
>
> We are required to file a flight plan or flight itinerary for any VFR
> flight beyond 25 nm, but a flight itinerary is as simple as telling
> someone where you're going and asking them to call 911 within 24 hours
> if you don't show up -- that makes sense for a big, mostly-empty
> country like ours.
So. If I call my mother up and tell here I'm flying down and please call out
the dogs if I don't show up by 9, does that constitute "filing a flight
itinerary", or must this be filed with the authorities?
K. Ari Krupnikov
> I'm sqauwking now. We appear to me to be at a juncture in this debate
> similar to the old saying about the Nazi's in Germany. You know the adage.
> "They came for the Gypsies, and I said nothing. Then they came for the
> homosexuals, and I said nothing. Then they came for the Jews, and I said
> nothing. And then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for
> me..."
Chip, no disrespect,
http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/G/Godwins-Law.html
Ari.
David Megginson
>> We are required to file a flight plan or flight itinerary for any VFR
>> flight beyond 25 nm, but a flight itinerary is as simple as telling
>> someone where you're going and asking them to call 911 within 24 hours
>> if you don't show up -- that makes sense for a big, mostly-empty
>> country like ours.
>
> So. If I call my mother up and tell here I'm flying down and please
> call out the dogs if I don't show up by 9, does that constitute
> "filing a flight itinerary", or must this be filed with the
> authorities?
No, that's about it -- you might also need to tell your mother what
the airports you're flying from and to.
All the best,
David
Chip Jones
"K. Ari Krupnikov" <a...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:86iso74...@fbsd-machine.lib.aero...
I learn something every day on these newsgroups. Thanks for the link.
Godwins Law... gotcha. I'll remember that.
Chip, ZTL
Roger Halstead
<rapopor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>No way. Everything I have read, including anti-privatization pieces from
>AOPA, says fuel taxes and airlilne ticket taxes do not come close to funding
>ATC and airport improvements. If it was already self funding, there would
>be no incentive to privatize it and the controllers union wouldn't be afraid
>of privatization.
Twice the aviation "trust fund" has gotten so large that congress
refused to renew the taxes, running the fund into the ground when they
were pushing for privatization..
It has been included in the "general fund" figures to artificially
reduce the deficit for years.
The money is there, but it's not available. The FAA isn't allowed to
use it in the normal sense. They have to justify and then get their
budget as if it were from the general fund.
It's an extremely confusing issue and I make no claim to being right.
It's just the way I read the issue.
Check out the "Aviation Trust Fund". I've read more than once that
ATC *could* be self supporting were the Trust Fund made openly
available instead of being siphoned off.
Mike Rapoport
billion. I'm not sure whether the FAA budget includes the cost of
collecting the user contribution.
The big issue for AOPA and NBAA is allocating the costs. It costs the same
to separate a 747 from a 172 as it does to separate the 172 from the 747.
Obviously the 747 is paying a lot more for the service than the 172. The
airlines want to change this and the 172 owner (and Gulfstream owner) wants
to keep it the same as it is now.
I agree that the Aviation Trust Fund like the Social Security trust fund is
an accounting construct where the money is counted twice. I also agree that
the whole idea of privatizing ATC is transparent ploy to increase taxes.
Right now a portion of our (above average) income taxes are paying for a
portion of ATC, if ATC gets privatized nobody is proposing to lower those
taxes to offset the ATC fees.
Mike
MU-2
"Roger Halstead" <newsg...@rogerhalstead.com> wrote in message
news:gjlhlv81j2e6maoje...@4ax.com...
Newps
Rick Durden wrote:
> David,
>
> It is a serious safety issue. When pilots have to pay for ATC
> services there is a tendency for them not to file IFR in marginal
> weather and scud run, therefore increases the risk of an accident.
You are assuming a payment per service. No way that is what we get. We
would go the same route as Canada. Each aircraft 5000 pounds and under
pays $60 Canadian per year. What's that $35 US? Big deal. When you
fly thru or into Canada as a US registered aircraft you get a bill in
the mail that is 1/4 the yearly rate. That allows you three months of
flying, not just the trip you took.
Newps
Chip Jones wrote:
>
> Just curious David. Do Canadian pilots flying VFR largely have to use ATC
> service, or can you guys just do the squawk VFR thing and fly willy nilly
> around Canada without talking to ATC?
They are a lot like us. One exception that will never fly here is that
they are required to file and open a VFR flight plan for any flight over
25 miles.
Newps
Chip Jones wrote:
>
> But when (not if) GA user fees in Canada go up again, what can the Canadian
> GA pilot do about it?
The same thing you do when you don't like the fee for the tabs on your
car. You take it up with your represenatative.
Newps
Mike Rapoport wrote:
> The big issue for AOPA and NBAA is allocating the costs. It costs the same
> to separate a 747 from a 172 as it does to separate the 172 from the 747.
Come and listen sometime and tell me it costs the same. Most of the
time it costs 3 times as much to separate the "Hawk because of his 25
year old Narco Mk 12A.
Ron Natalie
"Newps" <Now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:2T66b.274022$Oz4.73182@rwcrnsc54...
>
> Come and listen sometime and tell me it costs the same. Most of the
> time it costs 3 times as much to separate the "Hawk because of his 25
> year old Narco Mk 12A.
How are we being charged, by the mile? by the minute? By controller mic time?