AOPA and ATC Privatization

"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.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"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.

Well, I guess we're just approaching the same question from different
directions. To me, "indefinitely" and "until further act of Congress" is
one and the same, and neither equates to a sunset provision. Congress voted
that the FAA was to be *prohibited* from further privatizing ATC without an
act of Congress, ie- privatization was made illegal indefinitley. How
unlike the language into which the two versions were "reconciled" by Don
Young's Administration hitmen.



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.

LOL, The Alaska Congressional delegation dang sure didn't!


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.

But if the bottom line is air safety, isn't that a bipartisan issue?
Congress certainly thought so when they passed the original versions of the
unreconciled Bills. And if the bottom line isn't air safety, then why would
Don Young specifically take Juneau and Merril towers off of the contract
list, a list that includes busier places like Van Nuys and Boeing Field?
What advantage does having an FAA-run tower bring to Alaska constituents
other than air safety on the airport? It's not like these two Alaska towers
employ hundreds of Alaskans. I don't know about Merrill, but Juneau only
employs about 12 federal controllers I am told. Not exactly a major job
source even in Alaska.


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.


Actually, isn't that *exactly* what happens at a contract ATC facility?
The task of Air Traffic Control, performed by an air traffic controller, is
provided to the public by a non-direct, private, for-profit corporate entity
exercising control over a piece of the National Airspace System sky. That's
pretty much the "core" of the privatization issue and it's right upon AOPA,
right now. Not the year 2007 or later... It seems pretty basic to me that
there is no difference between privatizing a single federal tower and the
whole national ATC system except a difference in degree. I also believe
that the toleration of the one makes the other inevitable. It doesn't get
more "core" than that, IMO.

Chip, ZTL

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

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"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.

Well, I guess we're just approaching the same question from different
directions. To me, "indefinitely" and "until further act of Congress" is
one and the same, and neither equates to a sunset provision. Congress
voted
that the FAA was to be *prohibited* from further privatizing ATC without
an
act of Congress, ie- privatization was made illegal indefinitley. How
unlike the language into which the two versions were "reconciled" by Don
Young's Administration hitmen.



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.

LOL, The Alaska Congressional delegation dang sure didn't!


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.

But if the bottom line is air safety, isn't that a bipartisan issue?

Yep, that is why there is a sunset provision.

Congress certainly thought so when they passed the original versions of
the
unreconciled Bills. And if the bottom line isn't air safety, then why
would
Don Young specifically take Juneau and Merril towers off of the contract
list, a list that includes busier places like Van Nuys and Boeing Field?

Money.

What advantage does having an FAA-run tower bring to Alaska constituents
other than air safety on the airport? It's not like these two Alaska
towers
employ hundreds of Alaskans. I don't know about Merrill, but Juneau only
employs about 12 federal controllers I am told. Not exactly a major job
source even in Alaska.

Jobs.

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.

Actually, isn't that *exactly* what happens at a contract ATC facility?

Eventually.

The task of Air Traffic Control, performed by an air traffic controller,
is
provided to the public by a non-direct, private, for-profit corporate
entity
exercising control over a piece of the National Airspace System sky.

Yes, but without a powerful public employees union to block improvements.
(ie RIF)

That's
pretty much the "core" of the privatization issue and it's right upon
AOPA,
right now. Not the year 2007 or later... It seems pretty basic to me
that
there is no difference between privatizing a single federal tower and the
whole national ATC system except a difference in degree. I also believe
that the toleration of the one makes the other inevitable. It doesn't get
more "core" than that, IMO.

AOPA has a larger constituancy than ATC. The fact that AOPA acted in the
best interest of GA, by making an advantagous political deal, is not
surprising.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

[snipped]


Yes, but without a powerful public employees union to block improvements.
(ie RIF)


Now that's a scream, John! Do you remember August of 1981? A pleasant
little group of unselfish, altruistic Americans who called themselves PATCO?
Think they're gone from the ATC scene? Think again. Who do you think
represents all of those private *contract* towers these days? Not NATCA.
Yep, PATCO, the one and only. The ones who said "America can't fire us
all..." Big labor is into ATC no matter whether public or private, it just
depends on which flavor of labor you prefer. You see, PATCO wants to see
privatization too- it's right up their alley (more little bargaining units
to represent...) Personally, I think NATCA has a much better track record
of public service than PATCO, but it's your call, bro. I'd be happy to post
a link to the PATCO site if you want to read about what a great job private
ATC providers do with all that federal contract money they receive from FAA.

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote in message news:k%r5b.26989
Now that's a scream, John! Do you remember August of 1981? A pleasant
little group of unselfish, altruistic Americans who called themselves PATCO?

As opposed to the the corrupt, lying schemers called PATCO managment who
lied to their members and cooked the strike vote to convince them that the
larger brotherhood had decided that the strike was a good idea?

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

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

[snipped]


Yes, but without a powerful public employees union to block
improvements.
(ie RIF)


Now that's a scream, John! Do you remember August of 1981?

Sure.

A pleasant
little group of unselfish, altruistic Americans who called themselves
PATCO?
Think they're gone from the ATC scene? Think again. Who do you think
represents all of those private *contract* towers these days? Not NATCA.
Yep, PATCO, the one and only.

Nothing has changed, in 30 years.

The ones who said "America can't fire us
all..." Big labor is into ATC no matter whether public or private, it
just
depends on which flavor of labor you prefer.

A choice gives much more latitude.

You see, PATCO wants to see
privatization too- it's right up their alley (more little bargaining units
to represent...) Personally, I think NATCA has a much better track record
of public service than PATCO, but it's your call, bro. I'd be happy to
post
a link to the PATCO site if you want to read about what a great job
private
ATC providers do with all that federal contract money they receive from
FAA.

Good work on the part of PATCO to protect their interests, but civil service
law does not protect contractors.

"Chip Jones" wrote in message news:bir5b.26821

What advantage does having an FAA-run tower bring to Alaska constituents
other than air safety on the airport? It's not like these two Alaska towers
employ hundreds of Alaskans. I don't know about Merrill, but Juneau only
employs about 12 federal controllers I am told. Not exactly a major job
source even in Alaska.

I can't say if safety is or is not the issue. But is clear that Senator Young thought
that it would play better in his home state if he kept them on the federal dole. Maybe
one of the controllers is kin to a major contributor, who knows, it certainly smacks
of politicking rather than the public interest.

Actually, isn't that *exactly* what happens at a contract ATC facility?

No, no more than contracting out DUAT is, nor anything else ATC contracts out.

Despite all the hoohah, AOPA's concern is not whether the PBO can do a good job
or if there is a safety concern, what they are concerned about is that privatization
makes it easier to bring up the ugly user fee issue to fund it.