AOPA and ATC Privatization

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
link.net...
You are inclined to be wrong in that case. In fact, the entire Democratic
apparatus in the Congress seems to disagree with AOPA's position
concerning
whether or not the reconciled "Vision 100- Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act" does or does not privatize ATC. Not a single
Democrat
on the reconciliation committee signed the bill because ATC privatization
was strong-armed into the law by the Administration even though both
Houses
of the Republican-controlled Congress expressly voted against ATC
privatization earlier this summer. See the above links.

I asked for quotes. I know how to get the bill. But you're the one who's
saying it privitizes ATC. Show me where it says that.

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.

Since you are so sure of yourself, perhaps you could explain what language
is found elsewhere in the bill that overrides the language presented so far.

Thanks,
Pete

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"

"Mark Kolber" wrote in message
...
And can be expanded to new airports and a group of airports that are
being examined.

As far as I know, nothing in the contract tower program previously
prohibited such expansion. How does this bill make things *worse*?

And the prohibition automatically expires in 4 years.

Not an uncommon clause in any variety of lawmaking.

Recall that the agreements intended to protect Meigs Field had similar
clauses. No one was going around claiming that, because of those clauses,
the agreements were actually intended to shut the airport down.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
[snipped]


And the prohibition automatically expires in 4 years.

Not an uncommon clause in any variety of lawmaking.

But not something that was in either the House bill or the Senate bill that
was being reconciled.


Recall that the agreements intended to protect Meigs Field had similar
clauses. No one was going around claiming that, because of those clauses,
the agreements were actually intended to shut the airport down.


What an interesting point to bring up. Let's see, and KCGX is what now,
other than permanently *closed*?

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
link.net...
But not something that was in either the House bill or the Senate bill
that
was being reconciled.

So? What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

What an interesting point to bring up. Let's see, and KCGX is what now,
other than permanently *closed*?

For reasons completely unrelated to the original agreements. The "sunset"
language in the original agreements had NOTHING to do with the closure of
Meigs. In fact, everyone agrees that the closure of Meigs was *CONTRARY TO*
the agreements that included the sunset language.

Surely you can see the difference. Surely you're not trying to say that the
existence of sunset language in the Meigs agreement, along with the
subsequent closure of the field support your assertions regarding this bill.
Right? If not, then I suppose I'm starting to get an idea of why you're so
upset about this bill.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Chip Jones" wrote in message
[snippd]


I asked for quotes. I know how to get the bill. But you're the one who's
saying it privitizes ATC. Show me where it says that.

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.

Since you are so sure of yourself, perhaps you could explain what language
is found elsewhere in the bill that overrides the language presented so
far.


Here is a synopisis.




119. PROHIBITION ON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PRIVATIZATION

House bill

Prohibits DOT from privatizing the functions performed by its air traffic
controllers who separate and control aircraft. States that this prohibition
does not apply to the functions performed at air traffic control towers that
are operated by private entities under the FAA's contract tower program.
This exemption covers the current air traffic control towers that are part
of the FAA contract tower program and to non-towered airports and
non-federal towers that would qualify for participation in this program.

Senate amendment

Prohibits DOT from privatizing the functions performed by its air traffic
controllers who separate and control aircraft and the functions of those who
maintain and certify those systems. Section shall not apply to an FAA tower
operated under the contract tower program as of the date of enactment.

Conference substitute

Prohibits DOT from privatizing air traffic control functions associated with
the separation and control of aircraft, but ensures that the current
contract tower program can continue and be expanded to new towers and VFR
towers. The prohibition sunsets after 4 years.


You can verify the accuracy of this synopsis by researching the House Bill,
the Senate version of the language, and then the Conference substitute that
will soon become law if NATCA loses her fight in the next few days. Or you
can believe AOPA.

Chip, ZTL

"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.

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.

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

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.

"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

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
link.net...

"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.

An excellent idea, however.

"Chip Jones" wrote in message news:0oq5b.26774
I disagree. The sunset limitation was added during the conference. Both
the House and the Senate Bill expressly forbade ATC privatization
indefinitely.

No, it just forbade the FAA from further ATC privatization until further act of congress.

Negative. Essentially, this opens up 69 VFR towers to contracting out, not
71. All 71 towers have already been considered.

Right, I forgot to deduct the two Alaskan towers.

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?

Congressional wheeling and dealing. Same reason why West Virginia had
so many dedicated (i.e. non AFSS) FSS's and control towers at places that
didn't really warrant them up until rather recently.

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

Contracting out the performance of tasks is a different issue than establishing
a seperate PBO or other non-direct government agency to control the skies.