If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in message news:bf37b.9672 Funny Ron, that's the way I feel about the current Republican Administration and their claim that all of these "little" towers on the block are "rural". Maybe you could pick out the distorted "half truths" in the NATCA ad and debunk them here on the forum. The commercial implies that the entire ATC system is going to be auctioned off by HR 2115. This is an outright lie. They don't even resort to your slippery slope argument. As far as anybody who really doesn't know what's going on, this has nothing to do with 69 towers, it's the end of the world as we know it when it comes to ATC. NATCA and any other lobbying group does itself a great disservice by resorting to hysteria rather than sane persuasion. All that's going to happen out of this is that a lot of congressional staffers are going to have to explain the truth to the few people who take NATCA's recommendation of voting down all of 2115 to let them know what the issue really is. I'll let people listen to this drivel and decide for themselves: http://www.natca.org/assets/Multimedia/auction_ad.rm They lose the good message about the problems with privatization with the wildass opening statement: A bill is in Washington that put air safety on the auction block. The bill would sell off the world's safest air traffic control system to the lowest bidder. The "SYSTEM" is not 69 control towers. The contracting oiut process is not "auctioning off to the lowest bidder" Other than that it's a great commercial. |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... Maybe you could pick out the distorted "half truths" in the NATCA ad and debunk them here on the forum. Pot kettle. Agreed. :-P |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message m... "Chip Jones" wrote in message news:bf37b.9672 Funny Ron, that's the way I feel about the current Republican Administration and their claim that all of these "little" towers on the block are "rural". Maybe you could pick out the distorted "half truths" in the NATCA ad and debunk them here on the forum. The commercial implies that the entire ATC system is going to be auctioned off by HR 2115. This is an outright lie. How can an implication be an "outright lie"? An outright lie is something like the DOT IG's claim to Congress that 75% of the FAA's enroute ARTCC's are "overstaffed." They don't even resort to your slippery slope argument. As far as anybody who really doesn't know what's going on, this has nothing to do with 69 towers, it's the end of the world as we know it when it comes to ATC. I agree with you there. It is not the end of the world when it comes to ATC. It is simply the beginning of the end of it for American General Aviation. ATC will survive, but it will become the servant of a new master- big business catering to big airlines. Mark my words, by the time 2020 rolls around, you will be paying so much money in ATC user fees, GA will be an exclusive province of the rich and privileged. Why? Because in 2008, when they begin to dismantle the rest of the system, piece by piece, this first defeat will be fait accompli. Too bad I can't make any Hitler references. NATCA and any other lobbying group does itself a great disservice by resorting to hysteria rather than sane persuasion. All that's going to happen out of this is that a lot of congressional staffers are going to have to explain the truth to the few people who take NATCA's recommendation of voting down all of 2115 to let them know what the issue really is. Sane persuasion? Let's review, shall we? NATCA and AOPA won a major victory in both Houses of Congress at the beginning of summer. They used sane persuasion against the AAAE, CTA, ATA, PATCO and even against the Administration and the FAA itself to argue against allowing federal ATC to become a commercial endeavor. The House and the Senate both passed bills that prohibited the FAA from contracting out ATC services (other than what was already contracted out) until a further act of Congress (i.e.- indefinite and "permanent" language). AOPA and NATCA declared victory. The White House threatened veto. At the end of the summer, both versions of the legislation went to Conference to be reconciled. During the closed door reconciliation hearing, the FAA cut a deal with Don Young (R-AK) to protect the federal ATC facilities in his home state. Young and the staffers of the Republicans in the conference then inserted (quid pro quo) the contract ATC language that had been expressly defeated by the full House and the full Senate six weeks earlier. The Democrats in the conference refused to sign and walked out of the conference. The Administration, , FAA, ATA, AAAE, CTA and PATCO all declared victory. AOPA looked at the new law as re-written and decided that since it had other provisions in it that were good for GA that they could live with the sunset clause and the contracting out of the 69 towers. Thus, AOPA abandoned the fight. Exactly what hope does NATCA have of using sane persuasion to defeat a steamrolled bill when her major ally defects to the opposing camp? Sane persuasion worked in June when Congress voted the first time. It was defeated in the Night of the Long Knives during the conference. The issue *really is* contract ATC services to be performed by the lowest bidder. If (or when, LOL) Vision 100 becomes law, the battle is lost. I don't really think NATCA is doing itself a disservice at all by being hysterical. The real fight is right bow, and NATCA is losing. What harm done by going full bore to the public right now and make them aware of the issues. I promise you that many those who are calling Congressional staffers aren't going to hear the "real issues" the way AOPA, ATA, PATCO and other organizations currently describe them. That's about the only play NATCA has left, IMO. I'll let people listen to this drivel and decide for themselves: http://www.natca.org/assets/Multimedia/auction_ad.rm They lose the good message about the problems with privatization with the wildass opening statement: A bill is in Washington that put air safety on the auction block. What is inaccurate about this statement? A Bill *is* in Washington that will put air safety on the auction block. ATC towers are engaged in the air safety business. If this legislation passes, 69 of those towers will be auctioned off to the lowest bidder. What is "drivel" about that statement? The bill would sell off the world's safest air traffic control system to the lowest bidder. The "SYSTEM" is not 69 control towers. 69 control towers are not all that this bill specifically threatens by legislation. The entire federal system sunsets in 2007. The 69 towers are just the beginning. I grant you it is a stretch to claim that the bill sells off the entire system right now upon passage, but I do not believe that it is much of a stretch to see that wholesale privatization becomes a wide open prospect once the bill becomes law. Because it does. NATCA will likely lose this fight on this bill because NATCA is now standing alone, but American GA will be the ultimate victim. The contracting out process is not "auctioning off to the lowest bidder" It's not? How would you describe the "contracting out process?" Chip, ZTL |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in message ink.net... "Ron Natalie" wrote in message m... "Chip Jones" wrote in message news:bf37b.9672 Funny Ron, that's the way I feel about the current Republican Administration and their claim that all of these "little" towers on the block are "rural". Maybe you could pick out the distorted "half truths" in the NATCA ad and debunk them here on the forum. The commercial implies that the entire ATC system is going to be auctioned off by HR 2115. This is an outright lie. How can an implication be an "outright lie"? An outright lie is something like the DOT IG's claim to Congress that 75% of the FAA's enroute ARTCC's are "overstaffed." I'd have to go with Mead. |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rapoport wrote:
Pretty tough to see how you could keep the 172 farther from the 747 than the 747 is from the 172. Why must distance be a symetric relationship? I'm sure that a privatized ATC would do away with such silly assumptions. More seriously: that's not quite what I meant. I'm thinking of a "bubble" of a certain size that must be kept clear. I'm sure there's an official term, but I don't know it. I'd imagine that this "bubble" needs to be larger around a fast-mover than a slow-mover. In other words, a sky of 172s could be permitted to be more densely packed than a sky of 747s. At least, that's my assumption. I've no idea whether or not it's correct. - Andrew |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Tom S. wrote:
Like the phone companies...the Postal (dis)service... Or like the distribution of electricity. - Andrew |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Chip Jones wrote:
We fear that privatization will place us into an environment where the contractor pushes us to cut major safety corners (you know, in the name of "efficiency") and then when people get hurt or airplanes get too close, the poor SOB working the sector will get fired for "poor job performance" rather than the contractor getting sacked for putting the controller in that situation and the people in the airplanes in that situation. From reading postings here by ATC-ers, I thought that the above was occurring today in some places in the current system. - Andrew |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "Chip Jones" wrote in message ink.net... [snipped] How can an implication be an "outright lie"? An outright lie is something like the DOT IG's claim to Congress that 75% of the FAA's enroute ARTCC's are "overstaffed." I'd have to go with Mead. That doesn't surprise me. Chip, ZTL |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "Chip Jones" wrote in message nk.net... "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "Chip Jones" wrote in message ink.net... [snipped] How can an implication be an "outright lie"? An outright lie is something like the DOT IG's claim to Congress that 75% of the FAA's enroute ARTCC's are "overstaffed." I'd have to go with Mead. That doesn't surprise me. He is my hand picked guy. Back when I used a first amendment petition to get the ACOs to produce qualified degignees, Mead at GAO was also involved on the MIDO side; with the same issue. Mead was removed from aviation issues at GAO, as punnishment for being honest. I used my Congressman's staff to put Mead at USDOT, as I felt it was a huge waste of 20 years of aviation experiance. I talked to Ken after that and he got a nice raise to be IG. Ah, now it all becomes clear. YOU put Mead where he is. That explains why he knows as much about Air Traffic Control as you do. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Chip, ZTL |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in message news "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "Chip Jones" wrote in message nk.net... "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "Chip Jones" wrote in message ink.net... [snipped] How can an implication be an "outright lie"? An outright lie is something like the DOT IG's claim to Congress that 75% of the FAA's enroute ARTCC's are "overstaffed." I'd have to go with Mead. That doesn't surprise me. He is my hand picked guy. Back when I used a first amendment petition to get the ACOs to produce qualified degignees, Mead at GAO was also involved on the MIDO side; with the same issue. Mead was removed from aviation issues at GAO, as punnishment for being honest. I used my Congressman's staff to put Mead at USDOT, as I felt it was a huge waste of 20 years of aviation experiance. I talked to Ken after that and he got a nice raise to be IG. Ah, now it all becomes clear. YOU put Mead where he is. I made it possible for Mead to go where he is. Anytime a civil servant is removed from an issue, they require an advocate to bring them back. It helped that my Congressman was Chair of Government Oversight and Reform back then, he is now Chair of Ways and Means. The reform of FAA has been a very effective Republican political issue, not to mention the lives that have been saved. That explains why he knows as much about Air Traffic Control as you do. LOL If you say so. Perhaps your partisanship to the issue has blinded you. I seriously doubt either of us knows as much about air traffic control as Mead. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Mead is an honest guy, who tells it like it is. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|