Boeing pitches a space-age air traffic management system to the US government.
Larry Dighera
I wonder how much Boeing's PAC paid the unscrupulous philanderer to
issue that lame-duck executive order creating ATC user fees?
-------------------------------------------------------------
BOEING CO (BA) (58.50 +2.35)
As it pitches a space-age air traffic management system
upgrade to the U.S. government, BOEING CO. might provide billions
in financing to help seal the deal, the aerospace giant said on
Tuesday. Hoping to leverage its satellite-making and launch
business and its vast collection of navigational charts, Boeing
last year created a separate air traffic unit, with its eye on a
multibillion upgrade to the antiquated U.S. system. That unit's
president, John Hayhurst, will formally present Boeing's proposal
to the FAA this spring, and that plan could include lending the
government the money to get started.
(Reuters 05:52 PM ET 01/30/2001)
More:
http://q1.schwab.com/news/lookup?a=138623&m=100500020289487721280a&s=rb010130
vee_e...@my-deja.com
Larry Dighera <LDig...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>
> I wonder how much Boeing's PAC paid the unscrupulous philanderer to
> issue that lame-duck executive order creating ATC user fees?
>
Clinton got the message with the passage of AIR-21, and the
consequential voting out of user fees. I don't think it's a done deal
though. Regarding Boeing's proposal - the idea of a outside corporation
overhauling the creaky ATC system is appealing because the gov't has
shown they sure as hell can't do it. I read about this last night, as
how the FAA spent several billion in the 1980's on ATC modernization
with not a damn thing to show for it. A for-profit corp. with the
proper motivation can move mountains when they have to show
accountability for the money spent. Apparently the gov't doesn't have
this restriction. I read Boeing has met with other major contractors
like Lockheed Martin to discuss their involvement in the huge project
and to let them know that there's work for everyone in something this
big. This would be quite a coup for them, and comes at an opportune
time considering the competition from Airbus Industrie in the airliner
market.
Will
Um, is that "dead foot - dead engine", or is it "dead engine - dead
pilot"?
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Larry Dighera
(vee_e...@my-deja.com) wrote:
>In article <4R3e6.139744$y9.25...@typhoon.we.rr.com>,
> Larry Dighera <LDig...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> I wonder how much Boeing's PAC paid the unscrupulous philanderer to
>> issue that lame-duck executive order creating ATC user fees?
>>
>I'm not sure how Boeing would benefit from user fees
My reasoning was that Boeing wants to provide ATC for the US as a
for-profit, commercial enterprise. If the "unscrupulous philanderer"
hadn't, in his waning days in office, issued an executive order that
forms a new fee-based, privatized air traffic control organization,
Boeing wouldn't have had an opportunity to make their proposal, and
reap all those potential profits from user-fees.
In the December 22, 2000 issue of the Flyer, Charles Spence wrote an
editorial article about Clinton's parting shot. This URL will take
you to the Flyer web site: http://www.flyer-online.com/ . If you
click on "News / Stories" on the left-hand menu bar, it will take you
to the search engine. Selecting an "Issue Date" of 12/22/2000 for
your search will bring up a link to the text of that article.
Among the details there, is the fact that Clinton appointed Martha
Patrick, president of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc., as one of
the five members of a new subcommittee of the Management Advisory
Council (MAC). Only one of the 5 appointees has ANY aviation
experience!
The MAC, you'll recall, was proposed to congress by the Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), and created by the AIR-21
legislation. Senator John McCaine failed to appoint Mr. Phil Boyer,
president of AOPA, to serve on the MAC, and indeed, failed to appoint
any member that represents the interests of private flyers; McCaine
chose to appoint only those who support a user-fee based, privatized
ATC system, which congress has consistently opposed.
>but you'd think Clinton got the message with the passage of AIR-21,
>and the consequential voting out of user fees.
It would seem that Clinton may have gotten a much larger me$$age from
some PAC, that caused him to issue his executive order creating a new
privatized, (user-fee based) air traffic control organization.
>I don't think it's a done deal though.
Huh? It's an executive order. The "deal" is done.
>Regarding Boeing's proposal - the idea of a outside corporation
>overhauling the creaky ATC system is appealing because the gov't has
>shown they sure as hell can't do it. I read about this last night, as
>how the FAA spent several billion in the 1980's on ATC modernization
>with not a damn thing to show for it.
Although you haven't cited any supporting evidence for your
characterization of the present US ATC as being "creaky", you are
correct about the FAA's failure to account for the benefits resulting
from its large past expenditures. Despite that, the US ATC system is
considered the best in the world today.
>A for-profit corp. with the
>proper motivation can move mountains when they have to show
>accountability for the money spent. Apparently the gov't doesn't have
>this restriction.
While that may be true, I would prefer not to PAY for moving those
mountains through user-fees. What impact do you think user-fees will
have on aviation safety?
>I read Boeing has met with other major contractors
>like Lockheed Martin to discuss their involvement in the huge project
AVflash Vol. 7, Issue 05b Thursday, February 1, 2001 has this to say:
...AND BOEING OFFERS TO RE-INVENT THE WHOLE THING
With air traffic control at the center of national concerns about
congestion, delays, and safety, the government seems to need all the
help it can get. And according to Boeing Chairman Philip Condit, his
company is ready to jump in and fix things. Condit told The
Washington Post this week that Boeing will have a comprehensive plan
ready by May for a satellite-based air traffic control system that
could replace the current radar-based system, and it could provide
more safety while boosting capacity by 50 percent. While some Boeing
competitors were skeptical, FAA Administrator Jane Garvey told the
Post the Boeing concept is "intriguing."
Unfortunately, the root cause of the congestion and delays is not ATC,
but the deregulated airline hub/spoke route structure, and the
shortage of concrete (runways) at those hubs. This situation is
largely the result of the Aviation Trust Fund money not being used for
its intended purpose for over a decade.
>and to let them know that there's work for everyone in something this
>big. This would be quite a coup for them,
Agreed. But, at what cost to aviation safety?
>and comes at an opportune time considering the competition from Airbus
>Industrie in the airliner market.
Huh? How does the airliner market figure into ATC privatization and
user-fees? Boeing again managed to deliver more aircraft than Airbus
last year.
vee_e...@my-deja.com
> >I don't think it's a done deal though.
>
> Huh? It's an executive order. The "deal" is done.
>
Can't Bush override an executive order from Clinton?
> Although you haven't cited any supporting evidence for your
> characterization of the present US ATC as being "creaky", you are
> correct about the FAA's failure to account for the benefits resulting
> from its large past expenditures. Despite that, the US ATC system is
> considered the best in the world today.
Agreed. It is the best. Can you offer any hard evidence that the
"unscrupulous philanderer" was overtly influenced by PAC money? As far
as the condition of the US ATC system, I've seen/read/heard enough to
know that the system is long overdue for modernization, and AvWeb has
characterized our system as "creaky". When approach controllers rely on
ancient UniVac computers (with vacuum tubes, no less) to power their
scopes that says to me "upgrade time". Plus, by several accounts, the
current system was not designed to handle the amount of traffic we
currently have - not to mention the forecast increase in the next 5-10
years.
> While that may be true, I would prefer not to PAY for moving those
> mountains through user-fees. What impact do you think user-fees will
> have on aviation safety?
Admittedly, I don't know a whole lot about their proposal. I read this
as Boeing's offer to overhaul the system with modern technology - not
take over the system and run it. If that's the case then it may/may not
be dependent on user fees for funding. I don't think that's a foregone
conclusion. The money that was set aside in AIR-21 is earmarked for ATC
upgrade/overhaul, amongst other FAA needs, and is supposedly safe from
being diverted into the General Fund. That's good news because that
money from fuel taxes was meant for airport infrastructure upgrades.
> Unfortunately, the root cause of the congestion and delays is not ATC,
> but the deregulated airline hub/spoke route structure, and the
> shortage of concrete (runways) at those hubs. This situation is
> largely the result of the Aviation Trust Fund money not being used for
> its intended purpose for over a decade.
No argument here. Right on.
>
> >and to let them know that there's work for everyone in something this
> >big. This would be quite a coup for them,
>
> Agreed. But, at what cost to aviation safety?
What do you mean by that? The whole point of Boeing's proposal was to
enhance system-wide capacity AND safety by introducing a satellite
based ATC system.
>
> >and comes at an opportune time considering the competition from
Airbus
> >Industrie in the airliner market.
>
> Huh? How does the airliner market figure into ATC privatization and
> user-fees? Boeing again managed to deliver more aircraft than Airbus
> last year.
It doesn't. You misunderstood me. A project of this scope means another
huge income stream for Boeing, which is a large diversified
corporation. It's no secret that Airbus is selling a lot of aircraft,
and the competition between the two is fierce (overall sales aside). By
taking on this ATC project as the main contractor Boeing has another
revenue source and is not as reliant on it's aircraft division.
Essentially, they are not "putting all their eggs in one basket".
Just a few of my observations, that's all.
Will
--
Larry Dighera
Delays. Delays. Nothing but delays....
But, does it make sense for Boeing to postpone their announcement so
that it is temporally closer to the proposed FAA announcement time so
that it won't cause confusion? The FAA works in strange ways. :-)
(Reuters 06:31 AM ET 05/25/2001)
BOEING CO. agreed to postpone announcing its proposal to
revamp the nation's air-traffic system until early June, The Wall
Street Journal reported in its online edition. The announcement
of Boeing's proposals had been expected this week, but the FAA
requested a delay. The paper cited sources familiar with the
situation who said FAA officials had been preparing to release
their own plan for dealing with air-traffic congestion and delays
during the first week of June and were concerned that Boeing's
announcement would cause confusion.
More:
http://q1.schwab.com/news/lookup?a=218043&m=100620020395865566433a&s=rb010525
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Larry Dighera wrote:
> Delays. Delays. Nothing but delays....
>
> But, does it make sense for Boeing to postpone their announcement so
> that it is temporally closer to the proposed FAA announcement time so
> that it won't cause confusion? The FAA works in strange ways. :-)
>
>
I get the feeling Larry, and I sense that you do too, that the word 'confusion'
can be duly 'translated' as your basic private sector vs public
sector....toe-stepping.
Kind of a hypothetical NOTAM of sorts to the tune of 'Caution! Big Ego's At
Risk!'
Doc Tony
Larry Dighera
(Reuters 01:14 PM ET 06/06/2001)
BOEING CO. said its proposed air traffic management system,
combined with improvements by the Federal Aviation
Administration, could cut air traffic delays by 45%. Boeing would
use satellites to give pilots and air traffic controllers better
flight data and navigation tools, helping squeeze more aircraft
into crowded U.S. skies than under the current system, which uses
ground-based radar. The FAA unveiled an $11 billion plan to
modernize airports and boost air traffic control capacity by 30%
over 10 years, pledging to work with Boeing on one of the
nation's biggest transportation problems.
More:
http://q1.schwab.com/news/lookup?a=223820&m=100620020405072950751a&s=rb010606
On Fri, 25 May 2001 23:40:13 GMT, Larry Dighera