AOPA and ATC Privatization

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