Turboprops exempt...oh boy!!!

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:42:27 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

I prefer the proposed
method of removing ATC out from under the tutalage of Congress and making
it self-supporting.


Why? Neither the airlines nor the FAA have shown great skill in
running...anything.

Since neither the FAA or the airlines are going to/should run ATO, that's a
pretty lame.

Admittedly, neither has Congress. But at least we've
some input with Congress. We're nothing but noise to the FAA and we're
the enemy to the airlines.

And neither of them are the one's who will run it.



It would be far more interesting were the ideas of funding and management
held distinct. The idea of user fees has some merits that can be argued.
Handing management of our airspace over to the airlines, or letting the
FAA roam free of any real oversight, on the other hand, has none.

Andrew...if you don't know the composition of the ATO operation, well, hell,
keep on bitchin' and moanin'...

The worst enemy is ignorance and pork-barrel politics.

It would be fascinating to archive these threads and read them 5-7 years up
the road when the rationing is in full bloom and GA/spamcans are relegated
to VFR operations.

Matt Barrow wrote:
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:42:27 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

I prefer the proposed
method of removing ATC out from under the tutalage of Congress and
making it self-supporting.


Why? Neither the airlines nor the FAA have shown great skill in
running...anything.

Since neither the FAA or the airlines are going to/should run ATO,
that's a pretty lame.

Admittedly, neither has Congress. But at least we've
some input with Congress. We're nothing but noise to the FAA and
we're the enemy to the airlines.

And neither of them are the one's who will run it.


Well, Matt who do you think would run it then?

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:10:07 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

Well, Matt who do you think would run it then?

Take a look at the composition of the Air Traffic Procedures Advisory
Committee. AOPA has a representative. NBAA has a representative. ALPA
has a representative. Continental has a representative. United has a
representative. Airline Dispatchers have a representative. Southwest
Pilots' has a representative. The FAA has a representative (and we've
seen exactly where the FAA stands on relevant issues).

But this wouldn't be biased in favor of airlines at the expense of GA.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:10:07 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

Well, Matt who do you think would run it then?

Take a look at the composition of the Air Traffic Procedures Advisory
Committee. AOPA has a representative. NBAA has a representative. ALPA
has a representative. Continental has a representative. United has a
representative. Airline Dispatchers have a representative. Southwest
Pilots' has a representative. The FAA has a representative (and we've
seen exactly where the FAA stands on relevant issues).

But this wouldn't be biased in favor of airlines at the expense of GA.

And what does GA bring to a procedures committee?

Here again the spamcan drivers want a spot at the trough, but don't even
want to pay for FSS services for which they provide about 10% of the
funding.

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:49:59 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

And what does GA bring to a procedures committee?

A second answer: a lack of history of failing in our own businesses.

Who would you hire as a consultant to your business: someone that failed
in theirs or someone that succeeded in theirs?

- Andrew

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:49:59 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

Here again the spamcan drivers want a spot at the trough, but don't even
want to pay for FSS services for which they provide about 10% of the
funding.

Which would be different from the tax-break-loving and
pension-breaking aviation industry how, exactly?

What GA brings is an understanding of how aviation works absent the
dishonesty being demonstrated by the airlines and their sycophants (ie.
the main issue being airspace congestion vs. runway congestion).

[Note: I'm not against improving airspace utilization, but the way it is
being sold and bundled is dishonest. Worse, I expect the dishonesty to
continue with more blame for GA (and who knows what else) when the
"expected" delay reductions don't occur.]

- Andrew

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:42:27 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

I prefer the proposed
method of removing ATC out from under the tutalage of Congress and
making it self-supporting.


Why? Neither the airlines nor the FAA have shown great skill in
running...anything.

Since neither the FAA or the airlines are going to/should run ATO,
that's a pretty lame.

Admittedly, neither has Congress. But at least we've
some input with Congress. We're nothing but noise to the FAA and
we're the enemy to the airlines.

And neither of them are the one's who will run it.


Well, Matt who do you think would run it then?

Not necessarily this arrangement, but something similar:

http://www.reason.org/ps358.pdf

Now, the biggest hurdle is not operational, but political. Yet, there are
three major impediments to creating an ATO that can handle growth and
changes in the flying demographics:

1) Governance (of the ATO, not Congress, though it is Congress that is a
major factor in screwing things up with their on/off funding, their turf
protection ploys (http://www.reason.org/atcreform46.shtml - remarks about
Alcee Hastings in the middle of the page),

2) A bondable stream of funding front-loadable. Can't be done with the
present system of funding. Also, as I pointed out without a few people
grasping it, the earlier estimates by GAO (?) of future revenue streams are
worthless due to the rapidly changing face of the airlines (shifting from
hub carriers to regionals).

NTL, given American penchant for the status quo, I can expect that we'll
**** away a few more $$billions in tax based FAA funds and lost productivity
in the next few years.