"K. Ari Krupnikov" wrote in message
...
Chip, I don't know anything about privatization. This is why I'm in
software engineering and not in economics or politics. I do know that
yours are some of the most informative posts here. They usually make a
lot more sense than most people's in this group. But in this thread,
you confuse the hell out of me.

LOL, I seem to do that a lot here. :-)

I was responding to the statement in this thread "If it [the NAS] was
already self funding, there would be no incentive to privatize it and the
controllers union wouldn't be afraid of privatization." I don't agree that
the controllers union is afraid of privatization simply because of the
source of system funding. At my level of ATC, there are a host of non-union
controllers who don't give a rat's ass who pays for their services, as long
as they get paid.



"Chip Jones" writes:

The controllers union isn't afraid of privatization because the of a
system
funding issue.

He then writes:

The issue for American federal controllers isn't funding or job
security.

And then he writes:

We know that a contractor will be in the game to make money, and
that staffing levels, salaries and equipment costs will all eat at
the profits. Not good for us.


It's context. NATCA isn't worried that privatization will result in the ATC
system going unfunded if it goes private. ATC is a monoply. It will get
funded at some level one way or the other. Someone will work as an air
traffic controller in that system. Current air traffic controllers are the
only people in the nation with the necessary job skills to work in such a
system. That's why I say that ATC funding and job security aren't NATCA's
core issues with privatzation. We see a clear conflict of interest for
*any* private contractor between safety and bottom line. For example, low
staffing levels mean high job security for those who are working the system,
but also high workload and high fatigue, which compromises safety.

Chip, ZTL