AOPA and ATC Privatization

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message news:POo5b.26667
119. PROHIBITION ON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PRIVATIZATION
\
The converence report (which has yet to be acted on):

(a) IN GENERAL- Until October 1, 2007, the Secretary of Transportation may
not authorize the transfer of the air traffic separation
and control functions operated by the Federal Aviation Administration on
the date of enactment of this Act to a private entity or to
a public entity other than the United State Government.
(b) LIMITATION- Subsection (a) shall not apply--
(1) to a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control tower
operated under the contract tower program on the date of
enactment of this Act;
(2) to any expansion of that program through new construction under
subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code; or
(3) to a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control tower (other
than towers in Alaska) identified in the Report of the
Department of Transportation Inspector General dated April 12, 2000, and
designated `Contract Towers: Observations on the Federal
Aviation Administration's Study of Expanding the Program'.


What is added is the sunset limitation. This is really not much of an
issue as it's off 3 fiscal
years and most likely would be modified by a subsequent reauthorization
bill. It's purely wishful
thinking on someone's part that it wouldn't be modified before then.

I disagree. The sunset limitation was added during the conference. Both
the House and the Senate Bill expressly forbade ATC privatization
indefinitely. This battle was fought and won by both NATCA and AOPA in both
houses of the Congress. The addition of sunset language in Conference that
did not exist in either version of the Bill is extraordinary.


So that brings us the new langauge added as item (b)(3) above. The
referenced document
is he http://www.oig.dot.gov/show_pdf.php?id=95 Essentially, this
opens up 71 VFR
towers to possible consideration for contracting out.

Negative. Essentially, this opens up 69 VFR towers to contracting out, not
71. All 71 towers have already been considered. However, Don Young (R-AK)
was chairman of the reconciliation Conference. The FAA and the
Administration agreed to take the two Alaska FAA VFR towers off of the
privatization table. Why? What makes the provision of VFR tower ATC
services in Alaska any different than the provision of VFR tower ATC
services in the Lower 48 or Hawaii?


However, none of this is really how most people (other than the federal
ATC employees
and their union) define the core privatization issue.

How then do you pilots define the "core" privatization issue if not the
provision of contract ATC services versus government ATC services?


AOPA clearly has to pick their battles
on where they throw their weight. The possible subbing out of
controller jobs in these
facilities is just not worth them fighting over and the influence this has
on their membership
(GA pilots/owners) is negligable.

In the short term, it is negligible for AOPA. I dount the hundred or so
AOPA/NATCA members who have cancelled their AOPA memberships are even a drop
in the AOPA bucket. In the long term however, it is extremely negative.
The only way the corporate raiders of the aviation world can manage to
privatize the American ATC system is going to be piece by piece. The
President has laid the groundwork for 2007 and beyond by declaring ATC an
inherintly commercial activity. By shedding the smaller pieces of the NAS
between now and 2007 (things like unionized federal VFR towers, unionized
federal FSS functions, unionized airways facilities personnel etc) the
Administration will have a far easier time selling off the bigger pieces
later. After all, the services on the block right now do not negatively
effect the big-boy commercial users like the airlines or the big government
contractors. Later on, when the bigger parts go up for grabs late this
decade, AOPA's concerns will be drowned out by the corporate bottom lines of
airlines looking to take advantage of a commercial ATC system, and by the
profit margins of the big name private contractors who will be providing it.


If NATCA forces the conference report down, then we're likely to hurt
badly as it will possibly
hold up the reauthorization bill past the fiscal year deadlines.


According to AOPA's statement concerning their new position on FAA
reauthorization, [NATCA] "Union leaders don't necessarily care about the
cost of flying, or GA airports, or pilot regulation, or airspace
restrictions unless there are union jobs attached. They look at what's good
for organized labor, not what's good for aviation or the taxpayer." But of
course, no offense is intended, dear controllers. After all, "AOPA
certainly has no gripe with the dedicated, hard-working air traffic
controllers who supply needed services to the entire aviation community."
How offensive and odious those remarks are to those of us who defend GA from
*within* the system! On the one hand, federal controllers are greedy
government employees looking to line their own pockets at the expense of the
flying public, and then in the next breath they are altruistic hard workers
struggling in the trenches for GA. Which is it, AOPA?

When the bell tolls for American GA in 2007, don't look to your local air
traffic controllers for anti-user fee support. Sadly, they'll all be
working for some fat-cat, unscrupulous government contractor instead of your
government's FAA. In the end, we all get what we pay for...

Chip, ZTL