Aren't You Happy You Voted For Baby Bush? (ATC Privatization)

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

A 40% decrease in payroll costs is a significant savings.


Sure, but most of the savings does not come from contracting out the tower,
it came from reducing the staffing. If four contract controllers can
adequately staff the tower then four FAA controllers could have done so as
well.



Do you have
any idea what motivates FAA to overstaffed towers?


None.



Are you saying that ATC employees automatically receive a salary
increase as a direct result of being relocated to another facility?


No, they receive a salary increase as a direct result of being relocated to
a higher level facility.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

A 40% decrease in payroll costs is a significant savings.


Sure, but most of the savings does not come from contracting out the
tower,
it came from reducing the staffing. If four contract controllers can
adequately staff the tower then four FAA controllers could have done so as
well.

Except it's more expensive and more rigid to employ regular types,
especially during varying conditions.


Do you have
any idea what motivates FAA to overstaffed towers?


None.

Empire building. Baseline budgeting. Propping the union.

Think harder.

Are you saying that ATC employees automatically receive a salary
increase as a direct result of being relocated to another facility?


No, they receive a salary increase as a direct result of being relocated
to
a higher level facility.

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

Except it's more expensive and more rigid to employ regular types,
especially during varying conditions.


What the hell are you talking about?



Empire building. Baseline budgeting. Propping the union.


What the hell are you talking about?



Think harder.


Think. Period.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
rthlink.net...

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

Since the topic was motivations of the FAA, if you repost the whole
thing,
not just excerpts, then maybe you can tell what was being discussed.


If you would post in complete, coherent sentences users of this forum
could
understand your messages.

If you wouldn't chop things out to hide your ignorance, you'd see the
context.

Is your tantrum indicative of pilots nowadays?

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

If you wouldn't chop things out to hide your ignorance, you'd see the
context.


I leave that which I'm responding to in for continuity and context,
everything else is removed.



Is your tantrum indicative of pilots nowadays?


You've got me confused with some other poster.

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:26:53 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in Message-Id:
nk.net:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

A 40% decrease in payroll costs is a significant savings.


Sure, but most of the savings does not come from contracting out the tower,
it came from reducing the staffing. If four contract controllers can
adequately staff the tower then four FAA controllers could have done so as
well.



Do you have
any idea what motivates FAA to overstaffed towers?


None.



Are you saying that ATC employees automatically receive a salary
increase as a direct result of being relocated to another facility?


No, they receive a salary increase as a direct result of being relocated to
a higher level facility.


Here's some recent news on the subject:

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/twr07083.xml
Contract Tower Battle: 71 Airports
By Airports Staff
July 8, 2003


The Contract Tower Association wants FAA to retain the authority to
privatize VFR operations at another 71 airports while protecting the
status of the 218 towers currently privatized, Spencer Dickerson,
executive director of the association, said last month.

Dickerson, who also serves as senior executive vice president of the
American Association of Airport Executives, outlined his concerns
recently at a press luncheon in Washington. His comments come as the
Bush administration threatens to veto the fiscal 2004 FAA
authorization if provisions barring any further ATC privatization are
not removed (Airports, June 24).

Other goals include the appropriation of $82.5 million to fund the
contract tower program next year and another $6.5 million to continue
the cost-sharing program, in which airports that do not fully meet
FAA's cost-benefit formula can make up the difference to trigger
privatization.

The National Air Traffic Controllers Association suit against contract
towers is now in its ninth year. NATCA has always been concerned about
privatization expanding further into air traffic control, which is the
underlying issue in the dispute between the Bush administration and
the non-privatization provisions in the Senate FAA reauthorization,
proposed by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.). Dickerson, however, said
that CTA's goal is not to gradually "chip away" at government-run air
traffic control. CTA's interest is in preserving that option for the
71 airports, he said, in the event the airports are interested and FAA
deems an application appropriate.

Part of NATCA's argument has been the success of FAA's controllers in
rapidly and safely landing thousands of aircraft after the terrorist
attacks of Sept. 11. Dickerson acknowledged that feat but said there
were "hundreds of contract-tower controllers who also guided planes
that day." He added that contract towers handle President Bush's
flights at Waco, Texas, and Vice President Dick Cheney's into Jackson
Hole, Wyo. Dickerson cited reports from the DOT Inspector General's
office endorsing the cost-effectiveness and safety of the program, and
said the numbers show that their safety record is "extremely good."

Dickerson also pointed out that the 17 largest contract towers handle
more traffic than the 15 smallest FAA towers.

NATCA, which opposes any further privatization, criticizes the record
of privatization in the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. NATCA
describes those "experiments" with privatization as "at best,
financial messes and, at worst, safety hazards."

Ruth Marlin, NATCA executive vice president, told Airports that "just"
71 airports "is a fairly major invasion" of privatization. Those
airports also consist of what used to be called Level 2 and Level 3
facilities, she said --larger, more complex operations than those that
have already entered the contract tower program.

Marlin said NATCA is not opposed to all contract towers. Of the 218
now privatized, 90 are run under the cost-sharing program, "and
legitimately those towers are airports that otherwise would not have a
tower," she said.

Asked whether NATCA anticipates having to fight the expansion of
privatization every year, Marlin pointed to easy passage of amendments
attached to FAA reauthorizations in the House and Senate backing
NATCA's position on privatization.

"I think once this [FAA] reauthorization passes, it will be clear that
those who are elected to speak for the American people, spoke."

Here's an update on the FAA reauthorization bill. It would seem, that
for NATCA it's all about losing membership dues revenue:


-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 9, Number 31b July 30, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------

ALL IN THE INTERPRETATION: SAME BILL PROMPTS GLEE, DISMAY
On Monday, AVweb told you that the General Aviation Manufacturers
Association (GAMA) was thrilled with the latest version of the FAA
reauthorization bill now working its way through Congress. Yesterday,
the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) had a
different take: "Aviation Safety Up For Sale To The Lowest Bidder,"
read the headline on their press release, which said the bill would
allow the FAA to hire part-time contractors to run dozens of towers.
Yesterday's report from AOPA saw things differently: "House, Senate
conferees prohibit ATC privatization," it read.


On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:53:56 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote in Message-Id: :


Aren't You Happy You Voted For Baby Bush?


----------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Volume 5, Issue 24 June 13, 2003
----------------------------------------------------------

== GA NEWS ==

BUSH ADMINISTRATION THREATENS TO VETO FAA FUNDING BILL
The White House is threatening to veto the FAA reauthorization
bill because it would prohibit the FAA from privatizing air
traffic control.The bill, approved by the U.S. House of
Representatives on Wednesday, includes language from Rep. James
Oberstar (D-Minn.) that would prohibit outsourcing ATC to the
private sector. "The administration's tough stance
leaves nothing to the imagination of those of us in aviation who
fear a privately run air traffic system--not to mention the
airline control of such--and the fees that would go with
privatization," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "It's clear what
their agenda really is." But the bill does include several
AOPA-backed provisions that address issues of interest
to general aviation pilots, including a fix for the "pilot
insecurity rule," the Meigs Field legacy provision that would
protect airports from sudden closure, and a requirement to justify
the Washington Metropolitan Air Defense Identification Zone
(ADIZ). Meanwhile, AOPA worked hard Thursday afternoon to get
antiprivatization language passed in the Senate by supporting an
amendment offered by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.). That
amendment was passed 56 to 41. For more, see AOPA Online
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite.../03-2-194.html ).

--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

Canada has a private, non profit ATC called NavCanada. So far it's worked
out quite well going from public to private. NavCanada has some of the best
equipment and software in the world now. Way ahead of the rest of the world
for technology. Sometimes, I think having ATC in the hands of a non profit
group is the best way to go. Less hurdles to make beneficial changes.

--
Thank You,
Ryan
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...


Here's an update on the FAA reauthorization bill. It would seem, that
for NATCA it's all about losing membership dues revenue:


-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 9, Number 31b July 30, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------

ALL IN THE INTERPRETATION: SAME BILL PROMPTS GLEE, DISMAY
On Monday, AVweb told you that the General Aviation Manufacturers
Association (GAMA) was thrilled with the latest version of the FAA
reauthorization bill now working its way through Congress. Yesterday,
the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) had a
different take: "Aviation Safety Up For Sale To The Lowest Bidder,"
read the headline on their press release, which said the bill would
allow the FAA to hire part-time contractors to run dozens of towers.
Yesterday's report from AOPA saw things differently: "House, Senate
conferees prohibit ATC privatization," it read.


On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:53:56 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote in Message-Id: :


Aren't You Happy You Voted For Baby Bush?


----------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Volume 5, Issue 24 June 13, 2003
----------------------------------------------------------

== GA NEWS ==

BUSH ADMINISTRATION THREATENS TO VETO FAA FUNDING BILL
The White House is threatening to veto the FAA reauthorization
bill because it would prohibit the FAA from privatizing air
traffic control.The bill, approved by the U.S. House of
Representatives on Wednesday, includes language from Rep. James
Oberstar (D-Minn.) that would prohibit outsourcing ATC to the
private sector. "The administration's tough stance
leaves nothing to the imagination of those of us in aviation who
fear a privately run air traffic system--not to mention the
airline control of such--and the fees that would go with
privatization," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "It's clear what
their agenda really is." But the bill does include several
AOPA-backed provisions that address issues of interest
to general aviation pilots, including a fix for the "pilot
insecurity rule," the Meigs Field legacy provision that would
protect airports from sudden closure, and a requirement to justify
the Washington Metropolitan Air Defense Identification Zone
(ADIZ). Meanwhile, AOPA worked hard Thursday afternoon to get
antiprivatization language passed in the Senate by supporting an
amendment offered by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.). That
amendment was passed 56 to 41. For more, see AOPA Online
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite.../03-2-194.html ).

--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

As my dear old dad used to say: The masses are asses and always elect
the government they richly deserve.

"Ryan Dorosh" wrote in message
...
Canada has a private, non profit ATC called NavCanada. So far it's worked
out quite well going from public to private.

To me the question is worked out quite well for whom, exactly? The Canadian
government? The Canadian air transport industry? NavCanada's management?

NavCanada has some of the best
equipment and software in the world now. Way ahead of the rest of the
world
for technology.

LOL! Way ahead of the rest of the world on technology. Specifically, what
technology? Terminal? Weather? Radar systems? GPS? The single American
State of California alone has more air traffic than all of Canada's
provinces combined. No offense, but Canada's miniscule air traffic load
isn't even in the same league as the volume and complexity that flies
through the US system.

Effective August 1, 2003, NavCanada will be increasing air navigation
service fees (read ATC user fees) by 6.9 %. NavCanada claims that this 6.9%
hike is due to a revenue shortfall tied to a 10.5 % decrease in traffic
during FY 2002. Third quarter revenues totalled C$225 million and operating
expenses C$183 million. Prior to its filing for bankruptcy protection
earlier this year in 2003, Air Canada Airlines and her affiliates owed
NavCanada C$45 million in unpaid ATC user fees. NavCanada claims that the
new rates will be, on average, "only" 4% higher than the old pricing
structure. Meanwhile, Air Canada calls the August 1st ATC user fees
increase "completely out of touch with industry realities" and said it would
pursue "any available option to reverse the decision".

It sounds to me like NavCanada is running the remaining major national
commercial user right on out of the airline business.

Sometimes, I think having ATC in the hands of a non profit
group is the best way to go. Less hurdles to make beneficial changes.


You base this opinion on NavCanada, Britain's NATS, Switzerland's SkyGuard,
or what? And what "beneficial" changes do you refer to? Air Canada
certainly doesn't seem too happy...

Chip, ZTL