CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA

John Kulp wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:34:47 -0600, Newps wrote:




John, you seem to be under the impression that GPS is going to somehow
manage to change the physics of time and space. Yes, when airlines use GPS
they can fly direct from point A to point B but if A and B are crowded they
are still going to have to wait on the ground to take off and fly around in
circles waiting to land.

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:07:55 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

John Kulp wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:34:47 -0600, Newps wrote:




John, you seem to be under the impression that GPS is going to somehow
manage to change the physics of time and space. Yes, when airlines use GPS
they can fly direct from point A to point B but if A and B are crowded they
are still going to have to wait on the ground to take off and fly around in
circles waiting to land.

Where did I say this? I said that if spacing can be reduced due to
safer wake turbulence management then GPS can be used to safely close
those spaces and improve the capacity of the system. That's all.
Just where do you think I am confused. And, if I am wrong (or
confused)

a. why is the FAA going ahead with the building of the system?

b. why are the airlines backing that change?

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:52:22 GMT, (John Kulp)
wrote in :


a. why is the FAA going ahead with the building of the system?

The former Clinton administration opposed ATC privatization.

The current administration wants to privatize virtually every
government service. In the case of the FAA, privatization would
enable FAA to cut their workforce significantly, dodge liability
exposure, and open the federal coffers to by outsourcing to big
business.

Big business benefits from government privatization. Consider
Halliburton's contract to do the Army's laundry in Iraq[1] for
example.

Privatization also removes government accountability; private
corporations are not subject to FOIA requests, for example.


b. why are the airlines backing that change?

The airline industry, including the airliner manufacturers, would like
nothing better than to remove congressional FAA budget oversight, and
wrest the balanced governmental allocation of National Airspace System
resources from US citizens, so that they can advance their air carrier
agenda at the expense of other airspace users. Airliner manufacturer,
Boeing, is also in the privatized ATC business.[2]





[1]
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...=iraq+for+sale
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cJlJudDtVE
http://www.iraqforsale.org



[2] http://www.boeing.com/phantom/ast/atm.html

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:52:22 GMT, (John Kulp)
wrote in :


a. why is the FAA going ahead with the building of the system?

The former Clinton administration opposed ATC privatization.

The current administration wants to privatize virtually every
government service. In the case of the FAA, privatization would
enable FAA to cut their workforce significantly, dodge liability
exposure, and open the federal coffers to by outsourcing to big
business.

Big business benefits from government privatization. Consider
Halliburton's contract to do the Army's laundry in Iraq[1] for
example.

Privatization also removes government accountability; private
corporations are not subject to FOIA requests, for example.


b. why are the airlines backing that change?

The airline industry, including the airliner manufacturers, would like
nothing better than to remove congressional FAA budget oversight, and
wrest the balanced governmental allocation of National Airspace System
resources from US citizens, so that they can advance their air carrier
agenda at the expense of other airspace users. Airliner manufacturer,
Boeing, is also in the privatized ATC business.[2]




If ATC is privatised, light aviation is, in a word, ****ed.



Bertie

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:07:05 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:52:22 GMT, (John Kulp)
wrote in :


a. why is the FAA going ahead with the building of the system?

The former Clinton administration opposed ATC privatization.

It also opposed social security privatization which the Swedes have
done quite well


The current administration wants to privatize virtually every
government service. In the case of the FAA, privatization would
enable FAA to cut their workforce significantly, dodge liability
exposure, and open the federal coffers to by outsourcing to big
business.

How does that work? Why wouldn't the government just be getting out
of the business?


Big business benefits from government privatization. Consider
Halliburton's contract to do the Army's laundry in Iraq[1] for
example.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Depends on the contract.


Privatization also removes government accountability; private
corporations are not subject to FOIA requests, for example.

Why should the government be accountable for something they are no
longer doing. Private corporations are subject to their auditors,
customers, Sarbanes-Oxley and a whole host of other things.



b. why are the airlines backing that change?

The airline industry, including the airliner manufacturers, would like
nothing better than to remove congressional FAA budget oversight, and
wrest the balanced governmental allocation of National Airspace System
resources from US citizens, so that they can advance their air carrier
agenda at the expense of other airspace users. Airliner manufacturer,
Boeing, is also in the privatized ATC business.[2]

Why not if they can do it better and cheaper than the government,
which is a virtual sure thing. Who else but the government do you
know that is still using WWII technology like the FAA?

(John Kulp) wrote in
:

The former Clinton administration opposed ATC privatization.

It also opposed social security privatization which the Swedes
have done quite well

Privatization of Social Security was opposed by the Democrats long
before Bill Clinton came into the White House.

--

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:08:23 -0000, Justin Case
wrote:

(John Kulp) wrote in
:

The former Clinton administration opposed ATC privatization.

It also opposed social security privatization which the Swedes
have done quite well

Privatization of Social Security was opposed by the Democrats long
before Bill Clinton came into the White House.

--

True, but that doesn't mean that they didn't oppose it too, as Hilary
does now.

(John Kulp) wrote in
:

Privatization of Social Security was opposed by the Democrats long
before Bill Clinton came into the White House.

--

True, but that doesn't mean that they didn't oppose it too, as
Hilary does now.

What in the hell are talking about. You should increase your meds.

--

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:40:14 GMT, (John Kulp)
wrote in :

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:07:05 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:52:22 GMT, (John Kulp)
wrote in :


a. why is the FAA going ahead with the building of the system?

The current administration wants to privatize virtually every
government service. In the case of the FAA, privatization would
enable FAA to cut their workforce significantly, dodge liability
exposure, and open the federal coffers to by outsourcing to big
business.

How does that work? Why wouldn't the government just be getting out
of the business?


Big business benefits from government privatization. Consider
Halliburton's contract to do the Army's laundry in Iraq[1] for
example.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Depends on the contract.


Are you able to cite a single US government privatization that hasn't
resulted in a windfall for private contractors?


Privatization also removes government accountability; private
corporations are not subject to FOIA requests, for example.

Why should the government be accountable for something they are no
longer doing.

Air Traffic Control records should remain accessible to the public, as
they are now, because they may establish legal culpability.

Private corporations are subject to their auditors,
customers, Sarbanes-Oxley and a whole host of other things.

None of which will grant public access to their records as is
currently possible under the FAA.

Consider the November 16, 2000 case of the Mid Air Collision of a USAF
F-16 and a Cessna 172 over Florida. How would the widow of the C-172
pilot have obtained ATC records indicating the controller manning the
position responsible for alerting the pilots to the imminent collision
was unqualified if those records where the sole property of a private
contractor?


b. why are the airlines backing that change?

The airline industry, including the airliner manufacturers, would like
nothing better than to remove congressional FAA budget oversight, and
wrest the balanced governmental allocation of National Airspace System
resources from US citizens, so that they can advance their air carrier
agenda at the expense of other airspace users. Airliner manufacturer,
Boeing, is also in the privatized ATC business.[2]

Why not if they can do it better and cheaper than the government,
which is a virtual sure thing.

ATC is not about cheaper; it's about safer. Currently the US ATC
system is the best in the world. What criteria did you use to reach
your conclusion, that a new, un-tested privatized ATC system will ever
end up as good, let alone better than the current system? Or is that
just your unsubstantiated guess?

Also consider, what if the private contractor who wins the NextGen
competitive bid ATC contract is an Iranian firm (you know, like the
Dubai ports scandal)? Do you feel that it would be appropriate for a
foreign power to control the US skies?

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:20:37 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:


Big business benefits from government privatization. Consider
Halliburton's contract to do the Army's laundry in Iraq[1] for
example.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Depends on the contract.


Are you able to cite a single US government privatization that hasn't
resulted in a windfall for private contractors?

Sure. Prision privatization. Go look at CCA and see how when they
are doing really well, as opposed to outright losses, they make a 10%
return on equity. Great windfall that huh?



Privatization also removes government accountability; private
corporations are not subject to FOIA requests, for example.

Why should the government be accountable for something they are no
longer doing.

Air Traffic Control records should remain accessible to the public, as
they are now, because they may establish legal culpability.

That's not the same thing. Who said anything about destroying records
anyway? You think you'll get very far suing the government?


Private corporations are subject to their auditors,
customers, Sarbanes-Oxley and a whole host of other things.

None of which will grant public access to their records as is
currently possible under the FAA.

a. that could be made part of the privatization

b. auditors would require them to be available anyway for their review


Consider the November 16, 2000 case of the Mid Air Collision of a USAF
F-16 and a Cessna 172 over Florida. How would the widow of the C-172
pilot have obtained ATC records indicating the controller manning the
position responsible for alerting the pilots to the imminent collision
was unqualified if those records where the sole property of a private
contractor?

By suing them, of course. Have you never heard of discovery?



b. why are the airlines backing that change?

The airline industry, including the airliner manufacturers, would like
nothing better than to remove congressional FAA budget oversight, and
wrest the balanced governmental allocation of National Airspace System
resources from US citizens, so that they can advance their air carrier
agenda at the expense of other airspace users. Airliner manufacturer,
Boeing, is also in the privatized ATC business.[2]

Why not if they can do it better and cheaper than the government,
which is a virtual sure thing.

ATC is not about cheaper; it's about safer. Currently the US ATC
system is the best in the world. What criteria did you use to reach
your conclusion, that a new, un-tested privatized ATC system will ever
end up as good, let alone better than the current system? Or is that
just your unsubstantiated guess?

Says who? Claiming that an ATC system based on WWII technology is
better and safer than a GPS system is plain ludicrous. There are
plenty of these already in use worldwide. Go look at them.


Also consider, what if the private contractor who wins the NextGen
competitive bid ATC contract is an Iranian firm (you know, like the
Dubai ports scandal)? Do you feel that it would be appropriate for a
foreign power to control the US skies?


Did Dubai get the ports? And just where was the scandal? In the
minds of xenophobic idiots like those that locked up the Japanese
Americans in WWII. Guess what the scandal was there. An Iranian
firm. Right. State of the art technology there. HAHAHAHA!