![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 20:23:54 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote: I looked at the quotes Mark provided. All I see is language that *prohibits* the privitization of ATC, but which makes clear that the *existing* contract tower program is still legal. And can be expanded to new airports and a group of airports that are being examined. And the prohibition automatically expires in 4 years. NATCA is simply taking the position that the conference version uses "prohibition" language while expanding privatization. The original house version permitted privatization only for (a) towers already in the contract program (b) non-towred airports without towers that qualify for contract towers (c)airports with non-federal towers that qualify for contract towers The original Senate version permitted privatization only for (a) towers already in the contract program The compromise version permits privatization only for (a) towers already in the contract program (b) non-towred airports without towers that qualify for contract towers (c) airports with non-federal towers that qualify for contract towers (d) any new Towers (e) a group of existing towers that are identified in the Inspector General report about expanding the contract tower program ....and =any= tower is fare game in 4 years. You can disagree with NATCA's view that the conference report represents, for privatization, something akin to being "a little bit pregnant", but it is as legitimate a reading of the information as AOPA's "don't worry, overall, GA gains more than it loses in the bill" stance. Mark Kolber APA/Denver, Colorado www.midlifeflight.com ====================== email? Remove ".no.spam" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|