"Mark Kolber" wrote in message
...
[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
|