Control Tower Controversy brewing in the FAA
PlanetJ
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 James L. Oberstar
U.S. Senator Ranking Democratic Member
U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
David H
they can woo) also get an exemption from the recent legislation that
specifies that seafood inspectors are "inherantly governmental" and thus
can't be privatized?
The Bush administration sure does seem to have a major bug up its ass
about forcing ATC privatization - WHY? At the same time they're
declaring things like seafood inspectors are inherantly governmental
(not to mention those federal employees who screen baggage for nail
clippers). There's something here that doesn't quite add up. They seem
really, really intent on pushing ATC privatization. What's really
behind this?
Who stands to gain from ATC privatization? Are there major businesses
that do this now, and others that are quietly preparing to pick up some
fat federal ATC contracts? Do these companies have any connection to
the white house and friends?
"Follow the money...."
Bob Gardner
Bob Gardner
"David H" <dav...@dNrOiSzPzAlMe.com> wrote in message
news:3F47C6F6...@dNrOiSzPzAlMe.com...
Paul Tomblin
>The Bush administration sure does seem to have a major bug up its ass
>about forcing ATC privatization - WHY? At the same time they're
I can only think of one explanation - Haliburton must be preparing to get
into the ATC business.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com>, not speaking for anybody
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
Stan Gosnell
news:bi8sl8$4mi$1...@allhats.xcski.com:
> In a previous article, David H <dav...@dNrOiSzPzAlMe.com>
> said:
>>The Bush administration sure does seem to have a major bug
>>up its ass about forcing ATC privatization - WHY? At the
>>same time they're
>
> I can only think of one explanation - Haliburton must be
> preparing to get into the ATC business.
>
>
That sounds about right. I didn't know they had any interest in
ATC, but it sounds like they do. Whoever it is, they've given
money to the Bush organization, & expect more in return.
--
Regards,
Stan
Tom S.
"Bob Gardner" <bob...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dvS1b.237758$YN5.161014@sccrnsc01...
> David....remember that there is an election coming up in 2004.
>
> Bob Gardner
In 1797, in a letter to an American friend, Lord Thomas MacCauley wrote:
A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last
only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from
the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority will vote for those
candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the
result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies,
always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's greatest democratic nations has been 200
years.
vincent p. norris
Aren't all of you aware that the Republican Party is philosophically
in favor of the marketplace--i.e., free enterprise-- as the means of
providing for society's needs?
As one Republican candidate for Congress expressed it so eloquently in
his campaign speeches about 20 years ago, "Let the government guard
our shores, deliver the mail, and GET THE HELL OUT OF MY LIFE!"
vince norris
Paul Tomblin
>>Who stands to gain from ATC privatization?
>Aren't all of you aware that the Republican Party is philosophically
>in favor of the marketplace--i.e., free enterprise-- as the means of
>providing for society's needs?
So why are seafood inspectors "inherently governmental", but air traffic
control isn't?
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com>, not speaking for anybody
Programmer (n): One who makes the lies the salesman told come true.
vincent p. norris
>>>Who stands to gain from ATC privatization?
>>Aren't all of you aware that the Republican Party is philosophically
>>in favor of the marketplace--i.e., free enterprise-- as the means of
>>providing for society's needs?
>
>So why are seafood inspectors "inherently governmental", but air traffic
>control isn't?
You'll have to ask the people who made that decision, Paul.
(Unless it's the same reason ketchup is a vegetable.)
vince norris
David H
> >Who stands to gain from ATC privatization?
>
> Aren't all of you aware that the Republican Party is philosophically
> in favor of the marketplace--i.e., free enterprise-- as the means of
> providing for society's needs?
Duh - of course everyone knows that. That doesn't answer the question
though.
I have seen nothing to suggest that privatizing air traffic control
services would meet any need of society. It would, however, make
SOMEBODY a bunh of money. "Philosophy" aside, I see absolutely no
benefit to privatizing ATC services - certainly not based on the
experiences of ATC privatization elsewhere.
> As one Republican candidate for Congress expressed it so eloquently in
> his campaign speeches about 20 years ago, "Let the government guard
> our shores, deliver the mail, and GET THE HELL OUT OF MY LIFE!"
So we now have increasing privatization of the military, the US Postal
Service is no longer run by the goverment, and Ashcroft wants to know
what books you've been reading at the library, a look at your credit
report, and what web sites you'be been looking at before he'll let you
fly to Dinseyland. How very eloquent.
David H
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying forum:
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying
j...@obilivan.net
Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, vp...@psu.edu said:
> >>Who stands to gain from ATC privatization?
> >Aren't all of you aware that the Republican Party is philosophically
> >in favor of the marketplace--i.e., free enterprise-- as the means of
> >providing for society's needs?
>
> So why are seafood inspectors "inherently governmental", but air traffic
> control isn't?
>
Because seafood inspectors are like FAA inspectors; inherently governmental.
ATC, on the other hand, provides a non-regulatory aircraft separation
service, with some secondary, also, non-regulatory, services.
The air traffic service takes such a giant bite out of the FAA budget that
the agency's regulatory duties (pilot and aircraft certification, design and
issuance of instrument flight procedures, etc) are seriously hurting. This
has been aggravated by the mandated security functions the FAA must now
provide, post 911.
The time might be overdue for the controller workforce to negotiate with a
private employer rather than the FAA Administrator.
Tom S.
<j...@obilivan.net> wrote in message news:3F48110D...@obilivan.net...
>
>
> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
> > In a previous article, vp...@psu.edu said:
> > >>Who stands to gain from ATC privatization?
> > >Aren't all of you aware that the Republican Party is philosophically
> > >in favor of the marketplace--i.e., free enterprise-- as the means of
> > >providing for society's needs?
> >
> > So why are seafood inspectors "inherently governmental", but air traffic
> > control isn't?
> >
>
> Because seafood inspectors are like FAA inspectors; inherently
governmental.
>
> ATC, on the other hand, provides a non-regulatory aircraft separation
> service, with some secondary, also, non-regulatory, services.
Considering what government _IS_, why would this be a government function?
Chris Hoffmann
news:wwT1b.462$oh3.1...@news.uswest.net...
> In 1797, in a letter to an American friend, Lord Thomas MacCauley wrote:
>
> A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last
> only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse
from
> the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority will vote for those
> candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the
> result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies,
> always followed by a dictatorship.
>
> The average age of the world's greatest democratic nations has been 200
> years.
>
I'm no expert on the history of world's greatest democratic nations, but I
can't name one prior to 1797. Any idea what country(s) exactly this guy
might be babbling about? Besides which, I wouldn't trust the word of some
sniveling Lord Whatever from His Majesty's Empire from that time period.
Probably just sour grapes over losing the cash cow of resources that was
America. Aww. No tobacco plantation for His Lordship.
It may be true that we'd all like a bigger slice of the public treasury, but
it's also true that we'd like to not need to contribute so much to it in the
first place. The federal budget surpluses of the 90's might save Bill
Clinton's legacy, while George "D is for Deficit" Bush may follow his
father's economic path to onetermship. We DO value fiscal responsibility in
this here country, Jack.
--
Chris Hoffmann
Student Pilot @ UES
<20 hrs
Tom S.
"Chris Hoffmann" <choffm...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:VBW1b.11423$re.2...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> "Tom S." <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:wwT1b.462$oh3.1...@news.uswest.net...
>
> > In 1797, in a letter to an American friend, Lord Thomas MacCauley wrote:
> >
> > A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can
last
> > only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse
> from
> > the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority will vote for
those
> > candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with
the
> > result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies,
> > always followed by a dictatorship.
> >
> > The average age of the world's greatest democratic nations has been 200
> > years.
> >
>
> I'm no expert on the history of world's greatest democratic nations, but I
> can't name one prior to 1797. Any idea what country(s) exactly this guy
> might be babbling about? Besides which, I wouldn't trust the word of some
> sniveling Lord Whatever from His Majesty's Empire from that time period.
> Probably just sour grapes over losing the cash cow of resources that was
> America. Aww. No tobacco plantation for His Lordship.
Your knowlege of history is, like...non-existant.
>
> It may be true that we'd all like a bigger slice of the public treasury,
but
> it's also true that we'd like to not need to contribute so much to it in
the
> first place.
So you AGREE with MacCauley?
> The federal budget surpluses of the 90's might save Bill
> Clinton's legacy,
And who was the "fiscal power" during those surpluses?
> while George "D is for Deficit" Bush may follow his
> father's economic path to onetermship.
Again, the wisdom of the "people" is apparent, especially the ones who
consistently score in the 10-20% bracket on quizzes regarding economics.
>We DO value fiscal responsibility in
> this here country, Jack.
And those "deficit's" you just mentioned? How about the Long Term
Liabilities (as opposed to cash/current deficit) that run into the teens of
TRILLIONS of $$$? How 'bout that, Jack?
PlanetJ
weather is done by low bidder's and profit based.
<j...@obilivan.net> wrote in message news:3F48110D...@obilivan.net...
>
>
Paul Tomblin
>That gives me a warm fuzzy. Knowing the separation of aircraft in IFR
>weather is done by low bidder's and profit based.
Look how well deregulation worked for the electricity grid.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com>, not speaking for anybody
"He passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the
platform upon which he was standing collapsed." "I thought he was hanged?"
"That's what I said, isn't it?"
Chris Hoffmann
--
Chris Hoffmann
Student Pilot @ UES
<30 hrs
"Tom S." <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:_4X1b.498$oh3.1...@news.uswest.net...
> > > In 1797, in a letter to an American friend, Lord Thomas MacCauley
wrote:
> > >
Whoops, better make that 1857.
> > > Blah, blah, blah> > >
> > > The average age of the world's greatest democratic nations has been
200
> > > years.
> > >
> >
> > I'm no expert on the history of world's greatest democratic nations, but
I
> > can't name one prior to 1797. Any idea what country(s) exactly this guy
> > might be babbling about? >
> Your knowlege of history is, like...non-existant.
Yeah. Well, thanks for the list of countries anyway. Unless you're referring
to ancient Greece, or Rome, or India, I believe most modern democracies
have had their origins in the mid 18th century. (Those 3 ancients lasted a
LOT longer than 200 years...) I'd also like to point out that the majority
of countries which have reverted to dictatorship after a period of
democracy, have since gone BACK to democracy.
>
> >
> > It may be true that we'd all like a bigger slice of the public treasury,
> but
> > it's also true that we'd like to not need to contribute so much to it in
> the
> > first place.
>
> So you AGREE with MacCauley?
What am I supposed to be agreeing with? Most people are capable of
understanding that money doesn't grow on trees. The trouble is having
representatives who can't or won't tell their constituents that the well is
dry. Or who say that the well is dry when it isn't.
I take issue with his assertion that we're going to vote ourselves into debt
until we collapse under it. Not that it's untrue, but he doesn't seem to
allow for the idea that people will eventually get wise to what they're
doing TO THEMSELVES. Hopefully before a coup, but sometimes not. When we
taxpayers see the 30-40 percent taken off the top of our paychecks while our
favorite programs being cut or eliminated due to lack of funds, sooner or
later we will start to wonder what exactly it is our tax dollars are being
used for. But I sure as hell don't think that anyone is going to decide that
we'd be better off with an authoritarian government.
>
> > The federal budget surpluses of the 90's might save Bill
> > Clinton's legacy,
>
> And who was the "fiscal power" during those surpluses?
The Republicans in the House and Senate. I didn't say it was fair.
>
> > while George "D is for Deficit" Bush may follow his
> > father's economic path to onetermship.
>
> Again, the wisdom of the "people" is apparent, especially the ones who
> consistently score in the 10-20% bracket on quizzes regarding economics.
>
> >We DO value fiscal responsibility in
> > this here country, Jack.
>
> And those "deficit's" you just mentioned? How about the Long Term
> Liabilities (as opposed to cash/current deficit) that run into the teens
of
> TRILLIONS of $$$? How 'bout that, Jack?
I'll worry about that when whoever is supposed to be collecting on it wants
us to pay up. Anyone who allows a multi trillion dollar debt to acumulate
against them ought to be prepared for a disappointment when they expect
payment due.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but while the economy was good and the gov't had a
surplus, weren't we supposed to have been "paid up" within a decade or so?
Until Dubya decided to spread the wealth? Yeah...$300 sure bought MY
vote.....Yessir.....
Tom S.
>
> > > > In 1797, in a letter to an American friend, Lord Thomas MacCauley
> wrote:
> > > >
>
> Whoops, better make that 1857.
Yep...you're right.
>
> > > > Blah, blah, blah> > >
> > > > The average age of the world's greatest democratic nations has been
> 200
> > > > years.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm no expert on the history of world's greatest democratic nations,
but
> I
> > > can't name one prior to 1797. Any idea what country(s) exactly this
guy
> > > might be babbling about? >
>
> > Your knowlege of history is, like...non-existant.
>
> Yeah. Well, thanks for the list of countries anyway. Unless you're
referring
> to ancient Greece, or Rome, or India, I believe most modern democracies
> have had their origins in the mid 18th century. (Those 3 ancients lasted a
> LOT longer than 200 years...) I'd also like to point out that the majority
They evolved INTO democracies...then collapsed. Even Greece and Rome started
as republics, then degenerated into democracies...just like we're doing.
> of countries which have reverted to dictatorship after a period of
> democracy, have since gone BACK to democracy.
And what is different in their composition since the reverted to democracy?
> >
> > >
> > > It may be true that we'd all like a bigger slice of the public
treasury,
> > but
> > > it's also true that we'd like to not need to contribute so much to it
in
> > the
> > > first place.
> >
> > So you AGREE with MacCauley?
>
> What am I supposed to be agreeing with? Most people are capable of
> understanding that money doesn't grow on trees.
Capable yes...dealing it with, no.
> The trouble is having
> representatives who can't or won't tell their constituents that the well
is
> dry.
When they do, they get bounced from office.
> Or who say that the well is dry when it isn't.
> I take issue with his assertion that we're going to vote ourselves into
debt
> until we collapse under it. Not that it's untrue, but he doesn't seem to
> allow for the idea that people will eventually get wise to what they're
> doing TO THEMSELVES.
It allows for it, but tell me an instance when the "addicts" have ever moved
to avert the inevitiable reckoning.
>Hopefully before a coup, but sometimes not. When we
> taxpayers see the 30-40 percent taken off the top of our paychecks while
our
> favorite programs being cut or eliminated due to lack of funds, sooner or
> later we will start to wonder what exactly it is our tax dollars are being
> used for. But I sure as hell don't think that anyone is going to decide
that
> we'd be better off with an authoritarian government.
Why is the solution an authoritarian government. The great welfare states
have been authoritarian.
>
> >
> > > The federal budget surpluses of the 90's might save Bill
> > > Clinton's legacy,
> >
> > And who was the "fiscal power" during those surpluses?
>
> The Republicans in the House and Senate. I didn't say it was fair.
And the Repub's only milked the booming tech sectors until the dot.com
"bubble" burst.
>
> >
> > > while George "D is for Deficit" Bush may follow his
> > > father's economic path to onetermship.
> >
> > Again, the wisdom of the "people" is apparent, especially the ones who
> > consistently score in the 10-20% bracket on quizzes regarding economics.
> >
> > >We DO value fiscal responsibility in
> > > this here country, Jack.
> >
> > And those "deficit's" you just mentioned? How about the Long Term
> > Liabilities (as opposed to cash/current deficit) that run into the teens
> of
> > TRILLIONS of $$$? How 'bout that, Jack?
>
> I'll worry about that when whoever is supposed to be collecting on it
wants
> us to pay up.
Better start, because it's already beginning and it's accellerating over the
next 12-25 years. What it is is government pension funds and retirement
plans for military, civil service, Congress and and several "off budget"
programs.
> Anyone who allows a multi trillion dollar debt to acumulate
> against them ought to be prepared for a disappointment when they expect
> payment due.
Like Social Security?
> Perhaps I misunderstood, but while the economy was good and the gov't had
a
> surplus, weren't we supposed to have been "paid up" within a decade or so?
One hundred forty years of deficit spending paid up in ten? All based on
five boom years? Get real!
> Until Dubya decided to spread the wealth? Yeah...$300 sure bought MY
> vote.....Yessir.....
Well, send it back.
We can't spend our way to prosperity anymore than we can tax out way to it.
Tom S.
"Michael Hofmann" <west...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:vktaib...@Ford.home.net...
> Chris Hoffmann wrote:
>
> > [...]> > > [...]
>
> Guys, call me ignorant, but what has all this got to do with flying IFR?
ATC privitization and the "Levithan".
Tarver Engineering
You got that right, Joe. It is time to automate the ground side of the
system.
>
Chip Jones
"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote in message
news:3f49...@news.sti.net...[snipped]
> >
> > The time might be overdue for the controller workforce to negotiate with
a
> > private employer rather than the FAA Administrator.
>
> You got that right, Joe. It is time to automate the ground side of the
> system.
> >
LOL, and you've got *just* the piece of automation for sale that will do the
trick, if only those dang FAA unions would get out of your way...
Chip, ZTL
Tarver Engineering
"Chip Jones" <texas...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:qV72b.9000$8i2...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
BCAG, no more is Lockmart in the way of innovation. We generally only do
the airborn side of automation and that is well along, thanks to Oz.
Brooks Hagenow
news:biakck$vv1$1...@allhats.xcski.com...
Are you kidding? The electric grid is still highly regulated. And when was
the last time a power company has been able to build a new power plant or
run new high voltage power lines. All the kooks come out of the woodwork
saying the high voltage lines cause cancer, building a new nuclear plant
will lead to another Chernobyl, coal and oil plants pollute the air, and
best of all wind power farms ruin the scenery. We can't drill for oil
anywhere because they think it will turn wildlife areas into a big waist
land yet they complain about the cost of gas at the pump.
But none of that has anything to do with flying.
Brooks Hagenow
news:D_32b.7556$lq....@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com...
> That gives me a warm fuzzy. Knowing the separation of aircraft in IFR
> weather is done by low bidder's and profit based.
>
And it gives you more comfort knowing that the current employers of those
maintaining separation are the same that keep up the high quality service at
the post office and DMV?
Think of it this way, if a private company does a bad job, you fire them and
get a company that will do the job. If the government does a bad job, you
get to listen to senators try to justify spending more money and raising
taxes while the problem never gets fixed.
Tom S.
"Brooks Hagenow" <bhag...@sbcglobal-nope.net> wrote in message
news:At82b.15109$Ih1.4...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
> "PlanetJ" <plan...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:D_32b.7556$lq....@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com...
> > That gives me a warm fuzzy. Knowing the separation of aircraft in IFR
> > weather is done by low bidder's and profit based.
> >
>
> And it gives you more comfort knowing that the current employers of those
> maintaining separation are the same that keep up the high quality service
at
> the post office and DMV?
...and Amtrak, public schools...
>
> Think of it this way, if a private company does a bad job, you fire them
and
> get a company that will do the job. If the government does a bad job, you
> get to listen to senators try to justify spending more money and raising
> taxes while the problem never gets fixed.
IOW; we screwed up, so let us fix it.
Tarver Engineering
>
> "Brooks Hagenow" <bhag...@sbcglobal-nope.net> wrote in message
> news:At82b.15109$Ih1.4...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
> > "PlanetJ" <plan...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:D_32b.7556$lq....@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com...
> > > That gives me a warm fuzzy. Knowing the separation of aircraft in IFR
> > > weather is done by low bidder's and profit based.
> > And it gives you more comfort knowing that the current employers of
those
> > maintaining separation are the same that keep up the high quality
service at
> > the post office and DMV?
>
> ...and Amtrak, public schools...
Immagine the black hole "Government Airlines" would be.
> > Think of it this way, if a private company does a bad job, you fire them
and
> > get a company that will do the job. If the government does a bad job,
you
> > get to listen to senators try to justify spending more money and raising
> > taxes while the problem never gets fixed.
>
> IOW; we screwed up, so let us fix it.
I think pilots might enjoy more inforamtion under some automatic system.
PlanetJ
specialist's in the FAA compared to Post Office workers? Have you ever been
inside a FAA TRACON or Air Route Center Brooke? Probably Not. Big difference
between putting letters in a box and moving Air Traffic at 600 miles an
hour.
So the current AT system is bad? You want to monkey with something that
controls thousands of lives each day?Oh, it didn't work we will fire you. In
the mean time thousands of burnt bodies are scattered all over the country
side? Boy, that makes a lot of since.
We use Federal workers to inspect underwear bags at airports and Salmon
guts in Alaska but it's OK to turn over Air Traffic control to a private
company. When that happens, I will can my ticket and ride the bus.
Tarver Engineering
> Highly skilled Air Traffic controllers and radar/ computer/communication
> specialist's in the FAA compared to Post Office workers? Have you ever
been
> inside a FAA TRACON or Air Route Center Brooke? Probably Not. Big
difference
> between putting letters in a box and moving Air Traffic at 600 miles an
> hour.
Perhaps, but when Oz ATC took away US Pacific operations, it became obvious
that there is some problem with productivity within the ATC equipments and
software system. Perhaps some of the software people on this board can see
how controlling airplanes in 3D space might not be that much more
complicated than a mail sorting machine.
Besides that, in the US, mail distribution is a Constitutional Entity.
> So the current AT system is bad? You want to monkey with something that
> controls thousands of lives each day?Oh, it didn't work we will fire you.
In
> the mean time thousands of burnt bodies are scattered all over the country
> side? Boy, that makes a lot of since.
The loss of seperation events of the past several years speak are
signifigant when compared with zero. Since 1972, automation has
incrementally reduced hazards for common carriers. Once that portion of the
events associated with operator error were nearly eliminated, there were a
number of retrofit associated events that had to be dealt with, but since
since FY97 common carriers have turned in two years of zero killed.
> We use Federal workers to inspect underwear bags at airports and Salmon
> guts in Alaska but it's OK to turn over Air Traffic control to a private
> company. When that happens, I will can my ticket and ride the bus.
Why? Did you know it is better to have a machine do repetitive tasks?
Humans make a lot of monitoring errors.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Brooks Hagenow" <bhag...@sbcglobal-nope.net> wrote in message
news:At82b.15109$Ih1.4...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
>
and
> get a company that will do the job. If the government does a bad job, you
> get to listen to senators try to justify spending more money and raising
> taxes while the problem never gets fixed.
>
Is ATC doing a bad job?
Tarver Engineering
"Steven P. McNicoll" <ronca...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:MS92b.1858$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Human directed ATC can't compete with automation from a probabilities, or
capacity, standpoint. Besides that Steve, he is refering to firing
Contractors. Eventually less people will be needed to control the sky and
Contractors are a lot easier to get rid of than Civil Service.
Chris Hoffmann
> They evolved INTO democracies...then collapsed. Even Greece and Rome
started
> as republics, then degenerated into democracies...just like we're doing.
Degenerated? I always thought democracy was the better of the two. At least
it always was through all those games of Civ.
>
> > of countries which have reverted to dictatorship after a period of
> > democracy, have since gone BACK to democracy.
>
> And what is different in their composition since the reverted to
democracy?
I don't know offhand. Germany's democracy after the third reich, I suspect,
was different than before. I would guess that the second incarnation of
democracy either gave more power to the individual, or more to the state,
depending on the particular case.
> > What am I supposed to be agreeing with? Most people are capable of
> > understanding that money doesn't grow on trees.
>
> Capable yes...dealing it with, no.
I disagree.
>
> > The trouble is having
> > representatives who can't or won't tell their constituents that the well
> is
> > dry.
>
> When they do, they get bounced from office.
I definitely disagree. At least the time it takes for them to get bounced
needs improvement.
>
>
> > Or who say that the well is dry when it isn't.
> > I take issue with his assertion that we're going to vote ourselves into
> debt
> > until we collapse under it. Not that it's untrue, but he doesn't seem to
> > allow for the idea that people will eventually get wise to what they're
> > doing TO THEMSELVES.
>
> It allows for it, but tell me an instance when the "addicts" have ever
moved
> to avert the inevitiable reckoning.
The American Revolution, the American Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea,
Vietnam.......
> And the Repub's only milked the booming tech sectors until the dot.com
> "bubble" burst.
Disagree here as well. If congress really could move that fast on a sudden
economic trend, we really would be in good shape.
> > Anyone who allows a multi trillion dollar debt to acumulate
> > against them ought to be prepared for a disappointment when they expect
> > payment due.
>
> Like Social Security?
Bingo! Not what I was referring to, but that wasn't an unexpected answer. It
WILL be interesting to see how administrations handle that big hand grenade,
won't it?
> One hundred forty years of deficit spending paid up in ten? All based on
> five boom years? Get real!
I don't think that's accurate. We haven't been in deficit spending for 140
years, number one. Number two, projected budget surpluses only a few years
ago were in the hundreds of billions, and growing. Even with debt in the
teens of trillions, 10 years at that rate of surplus isn't far out of the
ballpark. The light was at the end of the tunnel, until the Great Giveaway.
>
> > Until Dubya decided to spread the wealth? Yeah...$300 sure bought MY
> > vote.....Yessir.....
>
> Well, send it back.
>
> We can't spend our way to prosperity anymore than we can tax out way to
it.
On that, I agree.
Chris Hoffmann
> Guys, call me ignorant, but what has all this got to do with flying IFR?
>
1. Gah. I didn't even realize this was being crossposted.
2. Nothing to do with IFR, unless you consider that the subject of economics
is even more convoluted than weather.
3. Hey! Another Hoffman!
Tom S.
> news:MS92b.1858$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Brooks Hagenow" <bhag...@sbcglobal-nope.net> wrote in message
> > news:At82b.15109$Ih1.4...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> > > Think of it this way, if a private company does a bad job, you fire
them
> and
> > > get a company that will do the job. If the government does a bad job,
> you
> > > get to listen to senators try to justify spending more money and
raising
> > > taxes while the problem never gets fixed.
> > >
> >
> > Is ATC doing a bad job?
The same people running ATC are running the security apparatus.
>
> Human directed ATC can't compete with automation from a probabilities, or
> capacity, standpoint. Besides that Steve, he is refering to firing
> Contractors. Eventually less people will be needed to control the sky and
> Contractors are a lot easier to get rid of than Civil Service.
Problem there is contractors have little incentive to do well UNLESS there
are long-term probabilities.
Tarver Engineering
The incintive is getting paid. Any changover will take years to complete
and in the interum there is enough incintive to do a tedious boring job, for
a few years. Besides that, events could lead to contractors being
Federalized.
Tom S.
>
> > They evolved INTO democracies...then collapsed. Even Greece and Rome
> started
> > as republics, then degenerated into democracies...just like we're doing.
>
> Degenerated? I always thought democracy was the better of the two. At
least
> it always was through all those games of Civ.
A democracy is better than a republic? Not necessarily, and not necessarily
the other way around.
" . . . democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention;
have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of
property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been
violent in their deaths." - James Madison
IOW, "democracy" is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Yet...
> >
> > > of countries which have reverted to dictatorship after a period of
> > > democracy, have since gone BACK to democracy.
> >
> > And what is different in their composition since the reverted to
> democracy?
>
> I don't know offhand. Germany's democracy after the third reich, I
suspect,
> was different than before.
...
You might want to trace the German "republics" from the Hindenberg era (1871
or so), through the Weimar "republic", through post-WW2 and through today.
> I would guess that the second incarnation of
> democracy either gave more power to the individual, or more to the state,
> depending on the particular case.
> > > What am I supposed to be agreeing with? Most people are capable of
> > > understanding that money doesn't grow on trees.
> >
> > Capable yes...dealing it with, no.
>
> I disagree.
So they are "dealing with it"?
> >
> > > The trouble is having
> > > representatives who can't or won't tell their constituents that the
well
> > is
> > > dry.
> >
> > When they do, they get bounced from office.
>
> I definitely disagree.
An example of two you demostrate your position, please?
> At least the time it takes for them to get bounced
> needs improvement.
Look at the numbers for first term congresscritters versus "career
politicians".
> > > Or who say that the well is dry when it isn't.
> > > I take issue with his assertion that we're going to vote ourselves
into
> > debt
> > > until we collapse under it. Not that it's untrue, but he doesn't seem
to
> > > allow for the idea that people will eventually get wise to what
they're
> > > doing TO THEMSELVES.
> >
> > It allows for it, but tell me an instance when the "addicts" have ever
> moved
> > to avert the inevitiable reckoning.
>
> The American Revolution, the American Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea,
> Vietnam.......
Well, you got the first one right, but your context is probably wrong
(leadershipwise).
> > And the Repub's only milked the booming tech sectors until the dot.com
> > "bubble" burst.
>
> Disagree here as well. If congress really could move that fast on a sudden
> economic trend, we really would be in good shape.
Before you disagree, try to comprehend the statement. (Example of that other
government function: public schools)
>
>
> > > Anyone who allows a multi trillion dollar debt to acumulate
> > > against them ought to be prepared for a disappointment when they
expect
> > > payment due.
> >
> > Like Social Security?
>
> Bingo! Not what I was referring to, but that wasn't an unexpected answer.
It
> WILL be interesting to see how administrations handle that big hand
grenade,
> won't it?
Look at the flack the "democracy" is producing already.
> > One hundred forty years of deficit spending paid up in ten? All based on
> > five boom years? Get real!
>
> I don't think that's accurate. We haven't been in deficit spending for 140
> years, number one.
Check how many years of the last 140 we've had deficits.
> Number two, projected budget surpluses only a few years
> ago were in the hundreds of billions, and growing.
You might note that these "projections" we're trashed within two years.
>Even with debt in the
> teens of trillions, 10 years at that rate of surplus isn't far out of the
> ballpark. The light was at the end of the tunnel, until the Great
Giveaway.
Which "Great Giveaway"" The "giveaways" began over 100 years ago, so which
one are you referring to?
>
> >
> > > Until Dubya decided to spread the wealth? Yeah...$300 sure bought MY
> > > vote.....Yessir.....
> >
> > Well, send it back.
> >
> > We can't spend our way to prosperity anymore than we can tax out way to
> it.
>
> On that, I agree.
Yet you belie that in your previous arguments.
Tom S.
> > > Contractors are a lot easier to get rid of than Civil Service.
> >
> > Problem there is contractors have little incentive to do well UNLESS
there
> > are long-term probabilities.
>
> The incintive is getting paid. Any changover will take years to complete
> and in the interum there is enough incintive to do a tedious boring job,
for
> a few years.
We already ahve that.
> Besides that, events could lead to contractors being
> Federalized.
Then we're right back where we started.
Has is worked (as mentioned) for the Postal "Service", or Amtrak, schools,
etc.?
Tarver Engineering
>
> "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote in message
> news:3f493e94$1...@news.sti.net...
> >
> > "Tom S." <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:0Za2b.27$Nv3....@news.uswest.net...
>
> > > > Contractors are a lot easier to get rid of than Civil Service.
> > >
> > > Problem there is contractors have little incentive to do well UNLESS
there
> > > are long-term probabilities.
> >
> > The incintive is getting paid. Any changover will take years to
complete
> > and in the interum there is enough incintive to do a tedious boring job,
for
> > a few years.
>
> We already ahve that.
Yep, no change for the short term.
> > Besides that, events could lead to contractors being
> > Federalized.
>
> Then we're right back where we started.
Sure, no harm if it fails.
> Has is worked (as mentioned) for the Postal "Service", or Amtrak, schools,
> etc.?
As I wrote, the postal service is a Federal constitutional entity and can
not be truely privatized. Amtrak has been run to intentionally lose money,
to protect their subsidy. Vouchers look to be one way we can stop public
education from creating a generation of permanent underclass citizens.
I'll leave this thread now, for the sake of rai posters.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
DOT and TSA are the same people?
MC
> I have seen nothing to suggest that privatizing air traffic control
> services would meet any need of society. It would, however, make
> SOMEBODY a bunh of money. "Philosophy" aside, I see absolutely no
> benefit to privatizing ATC services - certainly not based on the
> experiences of ATC privatization elsewhere.
In Australia our ATC has been 'corporatised' for several years now
and they into a 'cost minimisation/recovery' mode.,
ie. no face-to-face briefing offices, fees for IFR operations,
fees for landings at towered airports, charges for not lodging
flight-plans via the internet, and with the upcomming NAS revamp
there will be less enroute services in outback areas.
(and that's just ATC., the private airports have their own fees)
The only way a private operator will even think about running *any*
ATC system is if they can make a profit from it. This means either
recovering *all* costs from the end-users, or else by getting a subsidy
from the government.
If there are subsidies then the total cost will probably be *more*
than if the government provides the services themselves.
Brooks Hagenow
> Problem there is contractors have little incentive to do well UNLESS there
> are long-term probabilities.
>
The incentive is if they don't do well, they won't have long-term
probabilities. Do well, and there would be no need to replace them. The
exception being they no longer become cost affective.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> We DO value fiscal responsibility in this here country, Jack.
>
Then why do we keep electing congress critters based on how much federal
largesse is bestowed upon their constituents?
David H
> > > >Who stands to gain from ATC privatization?
>
> > I have seen nothing to suggest that privatizing air traffic control
> > services would meet any need of society. It would, however, make
> > SOMEBODY a bunch of money. "Philosophy" aside, I see absolutely no
> > benefit to privatizing ATC services - certainly not based on the
> > experiences of ATC privatization elsewhere.
>
> In Australia our ATC has been 'corporatised' for several years now
> and they into a 'cost minimisation/recovery' mode.,
> ie. no face-to-face briefing offices, fees for IFR operations,
> fees for landings at towered airports, charges for not lodging
> flight-plans via the internet, and with the upcomming NAS revamp
> there will be less enroute services in outback areas.
> (and that's just ATC., the private airports have their own fees)
>
> The only way a private operator will even think about running *any*
> ATC system is if they can make a profit from it. This means either
> recovering *all* costs from the end-users, or else by getting a subsidy
> from the government.
> If there are subsidies then the total cost will probably be *more*
> than if the government provides the services themselves.
Of course - and all this is EXACTLY what we in the US should expect if the
Bush adminstration has its way and privatizes ATC. Your description of
the Australian experience with privatized ATC mirrors everything I've
heard about similar initiatives in other countries.
I have yet to hear a single credible benefit that ATC privatization would
provide. Only ideological rhetoric (oh, and somebody will pocket a bunch
of money). I also have yet to hear any evidence to suggest that whatever
shortcomings that the existing system may have are caused by the fact that
it's run by the government. The downsides of privatizing seem crystal
clear though. Yet Bush is intent on ramming it down the nation's throat.
WHY?
David H
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying forum:
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying
Paul Tomblin
>it's run by the government. The downsides of privatizing seem crystal
>clear though. Yet Bush is intent on ramming it down the nation's throat.
>WHY?
Because as long as it stays part of government, it's funded through the
aviation trust fund. Once it gets privatized, the trust fund monies will
get siphoned off into other federal programs (or tax refunds for the
extremely rich) and user fees imposed to finance ATC.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com>, not speaking for anybody
``Furthermore, [your wishlist item] would end up being the sort of system
feature that we in software engineering call an "SPR generator".''
- Paul S. Winalski
Peter Duniho
news:3F4A564F...@dNrOiSzPzAlMe.com...
> [...] The downsides of privatizing seem crystal
> clear though. Yet Bush is intent on ramming it down the nation's throat.
> WHY?
Same reason he does anything. Because he has friends who will profit from
the change.
That said, Gore was pretty clear in his interview with AOPA that he felt
privatization of ATC was a good thing too. I can't say that Bush is unique
in his desire to undermine the safety of general aviation in the US.
Pete
Robert Perkins
<bhag...@sbcglobal-nope.net> wrote:
>But none of that has anything to do with flying.
Well, the cost of gas at the pump, that does have to do with flying.
Rob
Michael
> weather is done by low bidder's and profit based.
FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) Alert. Most towers are located in
Class D or G airspace and do not separate aircraft except on the
runway. None of the towers that are being considered for outsourcing
separate aircraft in IFR weather except as that authority is delegated
by the overlying approach/center.
There is a huge difference between privatizing VFR towers and
privatizing center/approach control. There have been privatized VFR
towers (contract and NFCT) for decades all over the US. Their safety
record is just as good as that of the federally staffed towers.
This isn't a user fee issue. We ALREADY have user fees (landing fees)
at many towered (and even non-towered) airports; privatizing the tower
is not likely to have any significant impact on this.
This is a union issue. The leadership of the union that represents
the federal tower controllers is (rightly) concerned that it will have
a more difficult time going up against the contract operators.
Michael
Steven P. McNicoll
"Michael" <crwd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:449a3d6e.0308...@posting.google.com...
>
> Most towers are located in Class D or G airspace and do not separate
> aircraft except on the runway.
>
Most towers in the US are located in Class D airspace, there are very few in
Class G airspace. Your point about "privatising" only facilities that have
no authority or responsibility over airspace is lost on most people.
Ron Natalie
"Paul Tomblin" <ptom...@xcski.com> wrote in message news:bidkhc$2it$1...@allhats.xcski.com...
> In a previous article, David H <dav...@dNrOiSzPzAlMe.com> said:
> >it's run by the government. The downsides of privatizing seem crystal
> >clear though. Yet Bush is intent on ramming it down the nation's throat.
> >WHY?
>
> Because as long as it stays part of government, it's funded through the
> aviation trust fund. Once it gets privatized, the trust fund monies will
> get siphoned off into other federal programs (or tax refunds for the
> extremely rich) and user fees imposed to finance ATC.
It's not supposed to be funded through the trust fund. The trust fund is
for capital improvements although the FAA has been sucking operational
funds from it as well.
Larry Dighera
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 11:32:51 -0700, David H <dav...@dNrOiSzPzAlMe.com>
wrote in Message-Id: <3F4A564F...@dNrOiSzPzAlMe.com>:
>I have yet to hear a single credible benefit that ATC privatization would
>provide.
Former FAA Assassinator, Jane Garvey, found these reasons:
http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/hearings/0430gar.pdf
STATEMENT OF JANE F. GARVEY, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION, BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, ON THE
REAUTHORIZATION OF FAA PROGRAMS AND ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
NATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION REVIEW COMMISSION, APRIL 30, 1998.
First, FAA’s budget treatment must change. In order to ensure that
FAA expenditures match aviation demand for services, with this
legislation, the FAA’s funding and financing system will receive a
Federal budget treatment for air traffic services (ATS) that
ensures that fees from aviation users and spending on aviation
services are directly linked. We accomplish this by exempting the
user fee financed portion of air traffic services from
discretionary budget caps and by creating a third budget category
that links user fees and spending for ATS. The Commission
recognized that a change in FAA’s budget treatment is the
foundation for all its remaining recommendations. Along with
management reforms, this new approach will prompt new efficiencies
in ATS service and provide the foundation for needed growth in
capital First, FAA’s budget treatment must change. In order to
ensure that FAA expenditures match aviation demand for services,
with this legislation, the FAA’s funding and financing system will
receive a Federal budget treatment for air traffic services (ATS)
that ensures that fees from aviation users and spending on
aviation services are directly linked. We accomplish this by
exempting the user fee financed portion of air traffic services
from discretionary budget caps and by creating a third budget
category that links user fees and spending for ATS. The
Commission recognized that a change in FAA’s budget treatment is
the foundation for all its remaining recommendations. Along with
management reforms, this new approach will prompt new efficiencies
in ATS service and provide the foundation for needed growth in
capital
Katy Saldarini, ksald...@govexec.com , offers these reasons:
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1200/120800k1.htm
In a performance-based organization (PBO), government executives
are given broad exemptions from federal procurement and personnel
rules in exchange for tough performance standards. The idea is that
some federal programs can perform better if they are run more like
private companies. Vice President Al Gore's National Partnership for
Reinventing Government spearheaded the performance-based organization
management concept in 1996.
Robert Poole, Director of Transportation Studies at the Reason
Foundation in Los Angeles, served on the Bush team's transportation
policy task force during the 2000 presidential campaign. He seems to
be firmly behind privatized ATC:
http://www.rppi.org/atc14.html
America's air traffic control system is broken, leading to flight
delays, passenger dissatisfaction, and lost economic productivity.
Unfortunately, attempts to fix the system have not addressed the
root problem, an inflexible organization resistant to change and
weighed down by political micromanagement. In a new report, Reason
Public Policy Institute calls for the shifting of ATC out of the
FAA and into a new, nonprofit corporation that would operate the
system like a business. This shift to an independent entity is
essential to upgrade the nation's air transportation
infrastructure and integrate new technology.
http://www.ndol.org/blueprint/2001_sep-oct/20_air_traffic_control.html
Instead of exempting private plane owners (general aviation) from
user fees in hopes of gaining their political support, it would
require piston and turboprop users to pay an annual membership
fee, replacing the current fuel taxes, with business jets paying
fees on the same basis as other jets. The rationale is that all
key user groups should be represented on the nonprofit
corporation's board as stakeholders - but that they should do so
as paying customers
The American Association of Airport Executives seems to like the idea
of privatizing ATC:
http://www.swaaae.org/commissionreport7.html
Brilliant Bill ordered ATC to become a PBO:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=fr11de00-135.pdf
President Bill Clinton:
Executive Order 13180 of December 7, 2000
Air Traffic Performance-Based Organization
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and
the laws of the United States of America, and in order to further
improve the provision of air traffic services, an inherently
governmental function, in ways that increase efficiency, take
better advantage of new technologies, accelerate modernization
efforts, and respond more effectively to the needs of the
traveling public, while enhancing the safety, security, and
efficiency of the Nation’s air transportation system, it is hereby
ordered as follows: ...
But, it Al Gore who instigated the idea:
http://www.airportnet.org/depts/regulatory/gorecom.htm
--
Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera, LDig...@att.net
Larry Dighera
<NpOeS...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote in Message-Id:
<vkkn3c3...@corp.supernews.com>:
>Gore was pretty clear in his interview with AOPA that he felt
>privatization of ATC was a good thing too.
Because Gore's White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security
initially conceived of the idea, that is to be expected:
http://www.airportnet.org/depts/regulatory/gorefinal.htm
A Vision for the Future
To compete in the global economy of the 21st Century, America
needs a healthy, vibrant aviation industry. In turn, the health
and vibrancy of aviation depend on improved levels of safety,
security and modernization. For the last fifty years, the United
States has led the field of aviation. But, that position is being
challenged, both by competition from abroad and by weaknesses in
our own systems.
These weaknesses can be overcome. The Commission believes that it
should be a national priority to do so. This report outlines steps
that can set government and industry on a course to achieve that
goal together. Heading into the next century, our activities,
programs, and results should define aviation safety and security
for the rest of the world.
Leadership in aviation goes far beyond having strong, competitive
airlines. It means assuring leadership in communications,
satellite, aerospace, and other technologies that increasingly are
defining the global economy. It means more than the highest
possible levels of safety and security for travelers.
The Commission's report reflects a focus on this vision: to ensure
greater safety and security for passengers; to restructure the
relationships between government and industry into partnerships
for progress; and to maintain global leadership in the aviation
industry.
Key Recommendations
In the area of safety, the Commission believes that the principal
focus should be on reducing the rate of accidents by a factor of
five within a decade, and recommends a re-engineering of the FAA's
regulatory and certification programs to achieve that goal.
In the area of air traffic control, the Commission believes that
the safety and efficiency improvements that will come with a
modernized system should not be delayed, and recommends that the
program be accelerated for to achieve full operational capability
by the year 2005. In addition, a more effective system must be
established to finance modernization of the National Airspace
System and enhancements in safety and security.
...
2.5. The users of the NAS should fund its development and
operation.
The current system of funding the ATC system provides little
direct connection between the excise taxes paid and services
provided or the amount made available to the FAA through the
budget and appropriations process. Replacing the traditional
system of excise taxes with user fees offers the potential to
correlate revenues and spending more closely.* Importantly, a
financing system would not only help ensure adequate availability
of funding , but would also build incentives for efficiency and
safety into the system -- both for the users and for the FAA. The
National Civil Aviation Review Commission is the proper venue for
resolving the details of a new user fee system, and the Commission
expects that it will be formed and begin its work in the very near
future. The Commission urges the NCARC, in designing a new
financing system, to ensure that any changes in the relative
amount of revenues generated from any segment of the aviation
industry do not result in undue economic disruption within any
segment of the industry, and that the fees are not discriminatory
or anti-competitive among carriers. In addition, non-business
general aviation users of the NAS should not be adversely impacted
by any new financing system. This will help ensure that general
aviation users will be full and willing participants in the
modernized NAS.
Bertie the Bunyip
Please Tarver, we already know way too much abot your sex life.
Bertei
Bertie the Bunyip
Ah those were the days, eh splaps boy?
No begging for your wine money..
Bertie
John Mazor
news:binq65$vl$5...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
Keyboard!
Bertie the Bunyip
news:bip5bv$3ju$1...@bob.news.rcn.net:
Ah, thank you.
been a while!
Bertei
Blippie
>Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in lobbying Congress for the
>authority to privatize America's air traffic control (ATC) system.
But why? It worked so well in the UK!
Cheers
Blippie
--
Visit the alt.aviation.safety FAQ online at www.blippie.org.uk
Chip Jones
"Blippie" <ne...@blip.remove-this.pie.org.uk> wrote in message
news:3OCdnbkbc7i...@brightview.com...
> >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.
>
> But why? It worked so well in the UK!
>
and Switzerland...
Chip, ZTL
Kevin Wetzel - ISP Toolz
"David H" <dav...@dNrOiSzPzAlMe.com> wrote in message
news:3F47C6F6...@dNrOiSzPzAlMe.com...
Will Alaska (and other states with votes that the administration thinks
they can woo) also get an exemption from the recent legislation that
specifies that seafood inspectors are "inherantly governmental" and thus
can't be privatized?
The Bush administration sure does seem to have a major bug up its ass
about forcing ATC privatization - WHY? At the same time they're
declaring things like seafood inspectors are inherantly governmental
(not to mention those federal employees who screen baggage for nail
clippers). There's something here that doesn't quite add up. They seem
really, really intent on pushing ATC privatization. What's really
behind this?
Who stands to gain from ATC privatization? Are there major businesses
that do this now, and others that are quietly preparing to pick up some
fat federal ATC contracts? Do these companies have any connection to
the white house and friends?
"Follow the money...."
COMMENTS:
I completely agree that there is an alternative driving force behind this.
Once of the funny things that I see is that if the white house were to
privatize the ATC functions it would have just another person to blame
outside the government for its failure to fix security related issues, the
increase in traffic as seen at airports (delays, longer holding patterns,
etc). If they really wanted to fix this issue they should probably start by
giving airports more grants and funding to accomplish advances in ATC
instead of trying to privatize it and then point the finger later at the
contractors failures. The federal government has pretty much failed in
regard to making these systems better for pilots. Instead of changing the
people they should change the bogus TFR's that pop up out of nowhere and
serve no real purpose. Im tired for one of a government that restricts the
population for its own personal uses and gains (or the gains of those
elected). If each one of the elected officials in Washington were affected
by TFR's, privatization of ATC and other issues you can bet that the rules
of engagement would have changed and for one the ADIZ in Washington DC
(which serves no purpose to prevent terrorism at all) would have been
removed by now. As I see it at 400MPH they could'nt stop a jetliner in time
anyway with the size of the ADIZ. Anyway im not gonna ramble on. I think the
entire system needs to be looked at and changed.
Kevin Wetzel
ISP Toolz
http://www.isptoolz.com/
Tarver Engineering
"Kevin Wetzel - ISP Toolz" <ke...@isptoolz.com> wrote in message
news:3fb7dd2f$1...@newsgate.isptoolz.com...
>
> "David H" <dav...@dNrOiSzPzAlMe.com> wrote in message
> news:3F47C6F6...@dNrOiSzPzAlMe.com...
> Will Alaska (and other states with votes that the administration thinks
> they can woo) also get an exemption from the recent legislation that
> specifies that seafood inspectors are "inherantly governmental" and thus
> can't be privatized?
>
> The Bush administration sure does seem to have a major bug up its ass
> about forcing ATC privatization - WHY? At the same time they're
> declaring things like seafood inspectors are inherantly governmental
> (not to mention those federal employees who screen baggage for nail
> clippers). There's something here that doesn't quite add up. They seem
> really, really intent on pushing ATC privatization. What's really
> behind this?
Payroll is where the money is.
Cub Driver
>The Bush administration sure does seem to have a major bug up its ass
>about forcing ATC privatization - WHY?
Cheaper and safer?
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: piperc...@eudoramail.com (put CUB in subject line)
see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
Cub Driver
>Who stands to gain from ATC privatization?
Airline passengers? Pilots?
BTIZ
maybe safer for the gov't that does not have to face a law suit when a gov't
controller "screws the deal" and ends up facing a lawsuit.. like the two
that hit at an cross intersection.. or what has been in all the aviation
mags lately.. the "position and hold" clearance down field, in front of
another aircraft that was "cleared for take off" at the beginning of the
runway.. tower thought the "position and hold" aircraft was also using full
length, not an intersection departure..
so the pilots (or surviving families) sue the "private ATC company" for the
screw up.. and not the gov't..
hence.. it is safer for the gov't
BT
"Cub Driver" <piperc...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:ulrfrvol4hbmhu2tq...@4ax.com...
Matthew S. Whiting
>>The Bush administration sure does seem to have a major bug up its ass
>>about forcing ATC privatization - WHY?
>
>
> Cheaper and safer?
I can see it potentially being cheaper in total cost, but likely not
cheaper for general aviation. I also wonder if it really would be
safer. The profit motive is great for economic efficiency, but not
always for safety and other parameters that detract from, rather than
add to, profitability.
Matt
Tarver Engineering
> >about forcing ATC privatization - WHY?
>
> Cheaper and safer?
And more capacity.
Dave
> that do this now, and others that are quietly preparing to pick up some
> fat federal ATC contracts? Do these companies have any connection to
> the white house and friends?
>
It will be sold off to the airlines which makes a lot of sense. Sell a
national asset to companies that are struggling to either avoid or get out
of bankruptcy. Maybe the White House think that putting ATC into their
balance sheets will give the airlines more strength.
Tarver Engineering
"Dave" <dave...@sparkbrook.com> wrote in message
news:bp94vd$fnj$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
An ATC responsive to common carriers has a very real apeal.
Dave
"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote in message
news:vo6dnWskMLe...@sti.net...
and to hell with GA too!
BTIZ
a very bad deal..
ATC clearances go on the auction block... how bad do you really need to go..
BT
"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote in message
news:vo6dnWskMLe...@sti.net...
>
G.R. Patterson III
BTIZ wrote:
>
> cheaper I might agree with... but safer??
>
> so the pilots (or surviving families) sue the "private ATC company" for the
> screw up.. and not the gov't..
If that happens, the next contract will cost the Feds lots more money, so it
won't be cheaper anymore.
George Patterson
They say nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is, death
doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session.
Peter Gottlieb
liability.
Before you say they can't do that, look at the new energy bill and what it
is doing to the lawsuits dealing with MTBE in groundwater.
"G.R. Patterson III" <grpp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3FB83368...@comcast.net...
G.R. Patterson III
Peter Gottlieb wrote:
>
> Unless they write legislation absolving the private companies from
> liability.
Oh, I'm sure they can. They did that with the USPS when that got privatized.
Tarver Engineering
GA would not only get superior service, but $100,000,000 in the aviation
budget.
>
>
Tarver Engineering
"BTIZ" <btizn...@cox.nospm.net> wrote in message
news:AxVtb.3417$Ue4.381@fed1read01...
> which makes it non responsive to general aviation?
Nope, but privatization is about money and jobs.
> a very bad deal..
GA gets a big slab of pork right up front.
> ATC clearances go on the auction block... how bad do you really need to
go..
That is where we are headed without a change.
Tarver Engineering
"Peter Gottlieb" <ng-repl...@icq.net> wrote in message
news:5HWtb.23272$YZ2.8...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> Unless they write legislation absolving the private companies from
> liability.
>
> Before you say they can't do that, look at the new energy bill and what it
> is doing to the lawsuits dealing with MTBE in groundwater.
California developed and mandated MTBE.
Tarver Engineering
>
>
> Peter Gottlieb wrote:
> >
> > Unless they write legislation absolving the private companies from
> > liability.
>
> Oh, I'm sure they can. They did that with the USPS when that got
privatized.
The postal service is a Constitutional entity and therefore you are
comparing apples and oranges. The system was at saturation a couple of
years ago and will probably be again in a couple more. GA is going to get
frozen out under the current ATC system.
Matthew S. Whiting
Only if you are a common carrier. A large part of the air traffic isn't
airline.
Matt
Matthew S. Whiting
Can you name one country with private ATC where this is true?
Matt
Tarver Engineering
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.wh...@computer.org> wrote in message
news:3FB84101...@computer.org...
These United States is where the money is offered and GA is valued.
Tarver Engineering
The system was at capacity about 2 years ago and will be again. Under the
current system small GA will probably be frozen out of some places by 2010.
Automation can be done, but concrete is not green.
Matthew S. Whiting
Commercial aviation has far more money to spend than any GA operation
short of the Fortune 500 corporations. I agree that those with the
dough will get the service, but it won't be us who fly anything less
than 12,500 lbs.
Matt
Tarver Engineering
I believe small GA has value in R&D and maintaining Americans right to
travel. Without a change, what you can expect is for small GA to be frozen
out of some airports/regions.
Peter Gottlieb
>
> Automation can be done, but concrete is not green.
New concrete is green.
Tarver Engineering
Hmmm, you think you can sell that idea to the tree huggers?
Peter Gottlieb
You don't approve of trees?
Cub Driver
wrote:
>cheaper I might agree with... but safer??
Let's put it this way. If you had a very valuable package that just
had to get there, would you take it to the post office or to Fed Ex?
When you go through airport security, would you feel safer in Boston
(where the screeners are federal employees) or in Haifa (where they
are private)?
Matthew S. Whiting
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:10:13 -0800, "BTIZ" <btizn...@cox.nospm.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>cheaper I might agree with... but safer??
>
>
> Let's put it this way. If you had a very valuable package that just
> had to get there, would you take it to the post office or to Fed Ex?
Depends on how big a hurry I'm in. I've found the USPS as reliable as
either Fed Ex or UPS, just slower ... but much cheaper. I don't doubt
that a private ATC would be more efficient, but it wouldn't matter as
none of us could afford to fly privately any longer.
> When you go through airport security, would you feel safer in Boston
> (where the screeners are federal employees) or in Haifa (where they
> are private)?
Haifa, but not because they are private, because they have LOTS more
experience.
Matt
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> I don't doubt
> that a private ATC would be more efficient, but it wouldn't matter as
> none of us could afford to fly privately any longer.
>
Why would private ATC be more efficient?
Tarver Engineering
"Steven P. McNicoll" <ronca...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:J_4ub.4908$Rk5...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Automation, same as the post office.
Ron Natalie
"Steven P. McNicoll" <ronca...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:J_4ub.4908$Rk5...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
;-)
Tarver Engineering
Trees are a good thing, do I advocate automation of ATC. The "pour
concrete" advocates also have a point, albeit not politically viable.
Tom S.
>
> Commercial aviation has far more money to spend than any GA operation
> short of the Fortune 500 corporations. I agree that those with the
> dough will get the service, but it won't be us who fly anything less
> than 12,500 lbs.
Why should it be any other way? "Those who bears the costs, gets the goods".
Tom S.
>
> a very bad deal..
>
> ATC clearances go on the auction block... how bad do you really need to
go..
>
During peak times, through major traffic areas....
Tom S.
>
>
> BTIZ wrote:
> >
> > cheaper I might agree with... but safer??
> >
> > so the pilots (or surviving families) sue the "private ATC company" for
the
> > screw up.. and not the gov't..
>
> If that happens, the next contract will cost the Feds lots more money, so
it
> won't be cheaper anymore.
Has costs to government ever keep them back?
Tom S.
>
>
> Peter Gottlieb wrote:
> >
> > Unless they write legislation absolving the private companies from
> > liability.
>
> Oh, I'm sure they can. They did that with the USPS when that got
privatized.
That's the problem if ATC "privatization" is done like USPS, or the phone
companies, power utilities....
Tom S.
Profit motive (over the long term) is a great incentive. What is the FAA's
incentive?
Tarver Engineering
"Tom S." <tom...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:tlbub.717$0Q.9...@news.uswest.net...
FAA wants to move back to a regulatory stance of promoting aviation, IMO.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
Why is automation available to private ATC but not to public ATC?
Tarver Engineering
You tell us why ATC has resisted automation. (ie jobs)
Tom S.
Tom S.
The same reason the phone companies were twenty years late installing
automatic switching equipment in the 50's and 60's. (The Communications
Unions were damn strong....then).
Tarver Engineering
That all depends on if you want there to be an aircraft manufacturing, or
support, infrastructure in the US.