Control Tower Controversy brewing in the FAA

In a previous article, said:
Who stands to gain from ATC privatization?
Aren't all of you aware that the Republican Party is philosophically
in favor of the marketplace--i.e., free enterprise-- as the means of
providing for society's needs?

So why are seafood inspectors "inherently governmental", but air traffic
control isn't?


--
Paul Tomblin , not speaking for anybody
Programmer (n): One who makes the lies the salesman told come true.

In a previous article, said:
Who stands to gain from ATC privatization?
Aren't all of you aware that the Republican Party is philosophically
in favor of the marketplace--i.e., free enterprise-- as the means of
providing for society's needs?

So why are seafood inspectors "inherently governmental", but air traffic
control isn't?

You'll have to ask the people who made that decision, Paul.

(Unless it's the same reason ketchup is a vegetable.)

vince norris

Paul Tomblin wrote:

In a previous article, said:
Who stands to gain from ATC privatization?
Aren't all of you aware that the Republican Party is philosophically
in favor of the marketplace--i.e., free enterprise-- as the means of
providing for society's needs?

So why are seafood inspectors "inherently governmental", but air traffic
control isn't?


Because seafood inspectors are like FAA inspectors; inherently governmental.

ATC, on the other hand, provides a non-regulatory aircraft separation
service, with some secondary, also, non-regulatory, services.

The air traffic service takes such a giant bite out of the FAA budget that
the agency's regulatory duties (pilot and aircraft certification, design and
issuance of instrument flight procedures, etc) are seriously hurting. This
has been aggravated by the mandated security functions the FAA must now
provide, post 911.

The time might be overdue for the controller workforce to negotiate with a
private employer rather than the FAA Administrator.

wrote in message ...


Paul Tomblin wrote:

In a previous article, said:
Who stands to gain from ATC privatization?
Aren't all of you aware that the Republican Party is philosophically
in favor of the marketplace--i.e., free enterprise-- as the means of
providing for society's needs?

So why are seafood inspectors "inherently governmental", but air traffic
control isn't?


Because seafood inspectors are like FAA inspectors; inherently
governmental.

ATC, on the other hand, provides a non-regulatory aircraft separation
service, with some secondary, also, non-regulatory, services.

Considering what government _IS_, why would this be a government function?

That gives me a warm fuzzy. Knowing the separation of aircraft in IFR
weather is done by low bidder's and profit based.


wrote in message ...


Paul Tomblin wrote:

In a previous article, said:
Who stands to gain from ATC privatization?
Aren't all of you aware that the Republican Party is philosophically
in favor of the marketplace--i.e., free enterprise-- as the means of
providing for society's needs?

So why are seafood inspectors "inherently governmental", but air traffic
control isn't?


Because seafood inspectors are like FAA inspectors; inherently
governmental.

ATC, on the other hand, provides a non-regulatory aircraft separation
service, with some secondary, also, non-regulatory, services.

The air traffic service takes such a giant bite out of the FAA budget that
the agency's regulatory duties (pilot and aircraft certification, design
and
issuance of instrument flight procedures, etc) are seriously hurting.
This
has been aggravated by the mandated security functions the FAA must now
provide, post 911.

The time might be overdue for the controller workforce to negotiate with a
private employer rather than the FAA Administrator.

In a previous article, "PlanetJ" said:
That gives me a warm fuzzy. Knowing the separation of aircraft in IFR
weather is done by low bidder's and profit based.

Look how well deregulation worked for the electricity grid.


--
Paul Tomblin , not speaking for anybody
"He passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the
platform upon which he was standing collapsed." "I thought he was hanged?"
"That's what I said, isn't it?"

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "PlanetJ" said:
That gives me a warm fuzzy. Knowing the separation of aircraft in IFR
weather is done by low bidder's and profit based.

Look how well deregulation worked for the electricity grid.


--
Paul Tomblin , not speaking for anybody
"He passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when
the
platform upon which he was standing collapsed." "I thought he was hanged?"
"That's what I said, isn't it?"

Are you kidding? The electric grid is still highly regulated. And when was
the last time a power company has been able to build a new power plant or
run new high voltage power lines. All the kooks come out of the woodwork
saying the high voltage lines cause cancer, building a new nuclear plant
will lead to another Chernobyl, coal and oil plants pollute the air, and
best of all wind power farms ruin the scenery. We can't drill for oil
anywhere because they think it will turn wildlife areas into a big waist
land yet they complain about the cost of gas at the pump.

But none of that has anything to do with flying.

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 19:31:23 GMT, "Brooks Hagenow"
wrote:

But none of that has anything to do with flying.

Well, the cost of gas at the pump, that does have to do with flying.

Rob

"PlanetJ" wrote
That gives me a warm fuzzy. Knowing the separation of aircraft in IFR
weather is done by low bidder's and profit based.

FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) Alert. Most towers are located in
Class D or G airspace and do not separate aircraft except on the
runway. None of the towers that are being considered for outsourcing
separate aircraft in IFR weather except as that authority is delegated
by the overlying approach/center.

There is a huge difference between privatizing VFR towers and
privatizing center/approach control. There have been privatized VFR
towers (contract and NFCT) for decades all over the US. Their safety
record is just as good as that of the federally staffed towers.

This isn't a user fee issue. We ALREADY have user fees (landing fees)
at many towered (and even non-towered) airports; privatizing the tower
is not likely to have any significant impact on this.

This is a union issue. The leadership of the union that represents
the federal tower controllers is (rightly) concerned that it will have
a more difficult time going up against the contract operators.

Michael