"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:42:27 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

I prefer the proposed
method of removing ATC out from under the tutalage of Congress and
making it self-supporting.


Why? Neither the airlines nor the FAA have shown great skill in
running...anything.

Since neither the FAA or the airlines are going to/should run ATO,
that's a pretty lame.

Admittedly, neither has Congress. But at least we've
some input with Congress. We're nothing but noise to the FAA and
we're the enemy to the airlines.

And neither of them are the one's who will run it.


Well, Matt who do you think would run it then?

Not necessarily this arrangement, but something similar:

http://www.reason.org/ps358.pdf

Now, the biggest hurdle is not operational, but political. Yet, there are
three major impediments to creating an ATO that can handle growth and
changes in the flying demographics:

1) Governance (of the ATO, not Congress, though it is Congress that is a
major factor in screwing things up with their on/off funding, their turf
protection ploys (http://www.reason.org/atcreform46.shtml - remarks about
Alcee Hastings in the middle of the page),

2) A bondable stream of funding front-loadable. Can't be done with the
present system of funding. Also, as I pointed out without a few people
grasping it, the earlier estimates by GAO (?) of future revenue streams are
worthless due to the rapidly changing face of the airlines (shifting from
hub carriers to regionals).

NTL, given American penchant for the status quo, I can expect that we'll
**** away a few more $$billions in tax based FAA funds and lost productivity
in the next few years.