NATCA Going Down in Flames

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote

I think privatization is a bad idea. I think air traffic control is an
inherently government function and it should be performed by the federal
government. But I don't think runway traffic control is. I think control
towers should be operated by whatever entity owns the airport and the
federal government should limit itself to airspace and federally owned
airfields.

You know, it could be that you make more sense on this, than anything you
have ever written, here. ;-)

That it makes sense, means it will never happen, unfortunately.

Is such a split even being considered as a possibility?
--
Jim in NC

I think privatization is a bad idea. I think air traffic control is an
inherently government function and it should be performed by the federal
government. But I don't think runway traffic control is. I think control
towers should be operated by whatever entity owns the airport and the
federal government should limit itself to airspace and federally owned
airfields.

You know, it could be that you make more sense on this, than anything you
have ever written, here. ;-)

I agree -- that is an idea that makes a lot of sense. And it's
certainly one I've never seen proposed.

So, Steven, is this something that has been seriously discussed? Or is
this an entirely new idea that you just spawned?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I agree -- that is an idea that makes a lot of sense. And it's
certainly one I've never seen proposed.

Isn't that what NFCTs are?

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...

I agree -- that is an idea that makes a lot of sense. And it's
certainly one I've never seen proposed.

So, Steven, is this something that has been seriously discussed? Or is
this an entirely new idea that you just spawned?


It's not being discussed to my knowledge but it's not a new idea. It's the
way things were prior to Pearl Harbor.

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

Is such a split even being considered as a possibility?


I doubt it, but that is the way it was prior to 1942.

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 13:25:42 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
.net:


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
roups.com...

Now that is an interesting point. Most promoters of privatizing ATC
are also in favor of additional user fees. Although you are correct in
stating that ATC could be privatized without changing the funding
structure, I haven't seen much discussion of it being done that way.

What do you think of this as a possibility?


I think privatization is a bad idea. I think air traffic control is an
inherently government function and it should be performed by the federal
government. But I don't think runway traffic control is. I think control
towers should be operated by whatever entity owns the airport and the
federal government should limit itself to airspace and federally owned
airfields.


I agree, that ATC is inherently a governmental function, but judging
from the FAA's past sluggish performance in implementing ATC upgrades,
it's going to take privatization to achieve state-of-the-art
technology required for the NAS of the 21st century. And
state-of-the-art technology (required by the airlines) is going to
cost a lot more than the current funding provides.

Of course, the need for state-of-the-art technology is based upon
projections from past growth rates. If that growth should fail to
materialize, there won't be an adequate number of users over which to
amortize the costs. In that case, the government and the users both
will be filling Boeing's or LocMart's bank accounts.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

I agree, that ATC is inherently a governmental function, but judging
from the FAA's past sluggish performance in implementing ATC upgrades,
it's going to take privatization to achieve state-of-the-art
technology required for the NAS of the 21st century. And
state-of-the-art technology (required by the airlines) is going to
cost a lot more than the current funding provides.


I see no reason to believe that privatization will improve on that.

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:38:59 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

I agree, that ATC is inherently a governmental function, but judging
from the FAA's past sluggish performance in implementing ATC upgrades,
it's going to take privatization to achieve state-of-the-art
technology required for the NAS of the 21st century. And
state-of-the-art technology (required by the airlines) is going to
cost a lot more than the current funding provides.


I see no reason to believe that privatization will improve on that.


On what, swift modernization, or the increased cost of the future of
ATC?