Control Tower Controversy brewing in the FAA

Tarver Engineering wrote:


"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Tarver Engineering wrote:

Automation increases productivity thereby reducing labor.

This is far from guaranteed, and there are many factors involved that are
relevant to this discussion.

In this spectific case however, Andrew's "factors" are specious.

Unfounded statement with no justification? I see how you've acquired your
reputation.

It is that flight cancelled that costs the most; especially with the
operator having real time weather, but no way to engage ATC in real time
alteration of a flight track. (CONUS)

How do you measure cost? In my mind, a flight lost costs more than a flight
cancelled.

Further, the cost of a cancelled flight is not incurred by ATC, be it
governmental or private. That's yet another problem with attempting to
measure "efficiency": where the benefits and costs are accrued by different
parties.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Tarver Engineering wrote:


"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Tarver Engineering wrote:

Automation increases productivity thereby reducing labor.

This is far from guaranteed, and there are many factors involved that
are
relevant to this discussion.

In this spectific case however, Andrew's "factors" are specious.

Unfounded statement with no justification? I see how you've acquired your
reputation.

Yep, I don't waste much time on trolls.

Tarver Engineering wrote:

Yep, I don't waste much time on trolls.

Laugh

Anyone can lookup my USENET posting history and compare it to your USENET
posting history. I think that trollfulness will out...although I seem to
recall that others have mentioned more mundane interests in your case.

I apologize for accidentally involving you in a rational discussion. Feel
free to ignore anything more I post on any subject. In fact, I recommend
that you killfile me to make your life simplest...but be sure to also
ignore anything posted in reply to something I've written.

I'd rather not threaten your world view even indirectly, but I shan't let
that keep me from the interesting dialogs here.

Now, if someone is seriously interested in regulatory issues and how they
might be reflected in privatized ATC...

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Tarver Engineering wrote:

Yep, I don't waste much time on trolls.

Laugh

Anyone can lookup my USENET posting history and compare it to your USENET
posting history. I think that trollfulness will out...although I seem to
recall that others have mentioned more mundane interests in your case.

I apologize for accidentally involving you in a rational discussion. Feel
free to ignore anything more I post on any subject. In fact, I recommend
that you killfile me to make your life simplest...but be sure to also
ignore anything posted in reply to something I've written.

I did not find your discussion rational.

I'd rather not threaten your world view even indirectly, but I shan't let
that keep me from the interesting dialogs here.

You aren't a rude troll, so I don't see why you should have to leave.

Now, if someone is seriously interested in regulatory issues and how they
might be reflected in privatized ATC...

That all depends now on how Federal ATC co-operates with change.

I worked in ATC for National Air Traffic Services (UK) for 10 years and when
I left, there were plans afoot from the Mr Blair's "About Face" party to
privatise NATS. It was cynically announced on the last day of parliament for
the year so to play down the media furore and union backlash.
I can assure you that controllers are not obsessed with whether we have
minorities or women increasing in the roles, we dont care as long as they
can do the job. But ultimately, privatisation comes hand in hand with demand
for profits, and that means corner cutting and increased workloads on
controllers.

Incidentally, the UK Govt then, after I left, 49% privatised NATS to airline
ownership, and from what I hear, morale has never been lower.

Profit might encourage competition and then enhance efficiencies in other
industries but it doesnt in air traffic control. In telecom industries,
smaller operators can set up easily, but in ATC, its a huge infrastructure
requiring expensive hardware setup costs, and so, there's usually no shift
from the status quo in competition: once the ATC system is privatised, you
still get a large (now privately owned company) running the show - the only
difference is that there isa huge power shift to that company's management
structure who will squeeze every ounce out of their workforce.

As an added, noted the posting about training other people to do your job.
One year, our general manager at London Heathrow advised us that in order to
secure the contract for ATC for the next 5 years, a clause would be added
that if BAA were to offer the next ATC contract to a private company, we
would be willing to train up their controllers for the 9 or so months it
takes until they were ok on their own.
You could hear the laughter in the terminals.


"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Matthew S. Whiting wrote:

And the profit motive. The latter can exist without competition. The
edge is certainly much sharper with competition as now it is that much
harder to make a profit, but making an even larger profit is still
pretty strong motivation.

I question this reasoning only because regulated markets haven't been
shown
as all that efficient, and it's tough to imagine that private ATC would be
unregulated.

In theory, the "right" regulation would promote efficiency. But what's
"right" might not even be known. More, were it known, it still might be
politically "expensive", and therefore forgotten.

However, we should all be aware that there is one bit of "low hanging
fruit"
for a private ATC venture from an efficiency perspective: kill smaller GA.
If the "benefit" factor in the efficiency ratio is anything like
"people-miles moved", getting smaller GA out of the ATC system would
improve the benefit/cost ratio.

- Andrew

Kristen Skinner wrote:

In telecom industries,
smaller operators can set up easily,

Unfortunately, this hasn't proven to be often the case. Just look at what's
occurred with the broadband market, for example. RBOCs did everything that
could to make life tough for the competition using the RBOC's physical
plant, and it typically worked.

There are individual exceptions, and wireless may prove to be our savior.
But that type of external influence isn't too likely in the ATC
business...and it may not break us away from the RBOCs anyway. Verizon's
been using its physical plant of payphones in NYC as wireless bases. A
newcomer would be hardpressed to compete given that the Verizon locations
are already wired and uniformly spread throughout the city.

the
only difference is that there isa huge power shift to that company's
management structure who will squeeze every ounce out of their workforce.

Actually, this could work in reverse. No longer government employees, the
ATC staff would regain the right to strike.

Still...even that hasn't really helped the telecom unions.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Kristen Skinner wrote:

In telecom industries,
smaller operators can set up easily,

Unfortunately, this hasn't proven to be often the case. Just look at
what's
occurred with the broadband market, for example. RBOCs did everything
that
could to make life tough for the competition using the RBOC's physical
plant, and it typically worked.

There are individual exceptions, and wireless may prove to be our savior.
But that type of external influence isn't too likely in the ATC
business...and it may not break us away from the RBOCs anyway. Verizon's
been using its physical plant of payphones in NYC as wireless bases. A
newcomer would be hardpressed to compete given that the Verizon locations
are already wired and uniformly spread throughout the city.

the
only difference is that there isa huge power shift to that company's
management structure who will squeeze every ounce out of their
workforce.

Actually, this could work in reverse. No longer government employees, the
ATC staff would regain the right to strike.

Still...even that hasn't really helped the telecom unions.

- Andrew


Well, I dont know about the US...in the UK, we always had the right to
strike. I guess after Reagan's little action, you might have been stifled
somewhat.

"Kristen Skinner" wrote in message
...

Well, I dont know about the US...in the UK, we always had the right to
strike. I guess after Reagan's little action, you might have been stifled
somewhat.


In the US, pledging not to strike was a condition of employment.

Andrew Gideon writes:
Kristen Skinner wrote:
the
only difference is that there isa huge power shift to that company's
management structure who will squeeze every ounce out of their workforce.

Actually, this could work in reverse. No longer government employees, the
ATC staff would regain the right to strike.

Still...even that hasn't really helped the telecom unions.

The employer has to remain solvent long enough for it to be
worthwhile for the employees to strike.