A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

AOPA and ATC Privatization



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 3rd 03, 04:55 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


  #2  
Old September 3rd 03, 05:06 PM
Chip Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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



  #3  
Old September 3rd 03, 05:37 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.