NATCA Going Down in Flames

"Jose" wrote in message
...
Just north of ADS is F69. It's a nontowered airport in the ADS class D.
I bet there's some sort of agreement that lets poeple fly out of F69
without bothering the tower. It might be worth looking into. If you
can get out of F69 without talking to ADS tower, you are under the 3000
foot ring of the class B. Say under 3000 feet and you can toss the
radio out the window.

I bet you save a lot of hobbs time too.

I got my PPL out of ADS (or at least I took my *second* checkride from a
flight school there)... I don't remember there being a lot of delay added to
the flight because of there being a tower there... You didn't have to talk
to DFW approach, only give the ADS tower a call a few miles out... Best I
remember, the reply was always something like, "Report downwind Rwy xxx"...
Then again, that was probably somewhere around 1993 or 1994, so things might
have changed a bit since then...

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
Was a slam at both of you, but mostly Grumman.

Thanks... One must do what one is good at...

"BTIZ" wrote in message
news:13LLg.2729$8J2.1480@fed1read11...
There are also other professions, ever
heard of cross training?

Of course that is a *possibility*, but if someone has spent a considerable
amount of time getting good at some particular profession, it's not exactly
reasonable to assume that they will want to just switch and go to the bottom
of the ladder again...

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 04:35:17 GMT, randall g
wrote in :

How would you feel about an annual charge for all the ATC you can eat?
Here in Canada it is $71 per year (us$64) for aircraft 2000 kg.

It is my understanding, that such aircraft are not charged for ATC
services by Eurocontrol. How do you feel about that?

I don't have a problem with that.

Is NavCanada turning a profit yet? How much do you think do you think
it will cost you for ATC services to make NavCanada profitable?

"Jose" wrote in message
t...

How about little airplanes =get paid= to interact with ATC, making
themselves available for transponder codes and vectors, so that the big
airplanes don't have to be vectored out of our way due to unverified
altitudes and such?


Big airplanes don't have to be vectored out of the way of little airplanes
due to unverified altitudes and such. They have to be given traffic
advisories of the little airplanes and they may request vectors out of the
way, but that's all.

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 04:48:17 GMT, Jose
wrote in :

My point is
that in one case, the reasons form a feedback loop that tends to make
the business healthy. In the other case, the reasons do not form such a
feedback loop.

Monopolies don't require a feedback loop for profitability.

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

How would you feel about an annual charge for all the ATC you can eat?
Here in Canada it is $71 per year (us$64) for aircraft 2000 kg.

It is my understanding, that such aircraft are not charged for ATC
services by Eurocontrol.

not charged...yet....

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Private wrote:

Nothing in the original post suggests to me anybody has denied any
"right" to bargain (if any such "right" exists).

I believe it is called 'freedom of association'.

Nothing in this scenario is preventing the employees from associating with
whomever they wish - even a different employer.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

Larry Dighera wrote:

Normally (not federal employees apparently), if an employer changes
job requirements, it opens the contract for renegotiation. To demand
the employee meet the new requirements without voicing acceptance
seems like abuse to me.

We're going to have to part company here, then. I can understand resistance
to formal or even professional attire, but that in no way negates an
employer's privilege of setting the dress code - even after the fact, as it
were. It also does not infringe on the employee's ability to simply change
employers if they do not like the new rules. I've certainly done it.

Personally, I'm more concerned with a controller's diction than his physical
appearance, but I also don't see the big deal about Dockers and golf shirts.
I think there are far bigger fish for the union to fry - like a shortage of
controllers.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

Grumman-581 wrote:
"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
You've yet to show me an uncontrolled field that is convenient for me.

Are you one of those people who actually live close to where they work?
THAT'S your problem... Move over towards Plano and fight the LBJ traffic
every day like everyone else... At least the weekends will allow you to fly
from an uncontrolled field... Or switch to helicopters and just get yourself
a larger backyard...


Plano? Please. I'm single with no kids. You really think I'd live in
Plano or Frisco or such? No way.