A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

AOPA and ATC Privatization



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old September 5th 03, 10:03 PM
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Mike Rapoport wrote:


The big issue for AOPA and NBAA is allocating the costs. It costs the same
to separate a 747 from a 172 as it does to separate the 172 from the 747.


Come and listen sometime and tell me it costs the same. Most of the
time it costs 3 times as much to separate the "Hawk because of his 25
year old Narco Mk 12A.

  #72  
Old September 5th 03, 10:05 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Newps" wrote in message news:2T66b.274022$Oz4.73182@rwcrnsc54...


Come and listen sometime and tell me it costs the same. Most of the
time it costs 3 times as much to separate the "Hawk because of his 25
year old Narco Mk 12A.


How are we being charged, by the mile? by the minute? By controller mic time?


  #73  
Old September 5th 03, 10:11 PM
Ron McKinnon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Newps" wrote in message
news:KO66b.274013$Oz4.73064@rwcrnsc54...

Chip Jones wrote:

Just curious David. Do Canadian pilots flying VFR largely have to use

ATC
service, or can you guys just do the squawk VFR thing and fly willy

nilly
around Canada without talking to ATC?


They are a lot like us. One exception that will never fly here is that
they are required to file and open a VFR flight plan for any flight over
25 miles.


You don't *have* to file a flight plan for such flights.
You can instead file a 'flight itinerary', or, less formally, leave the
information
with a 'responsible person' who will report you missing if you don't show
up
where you're supposed to be.


  #74  
Old September 5th 03, 10:16 PM
Dennis O'Connor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

ATC fee for providing separation for each aircraft should definitely be
charged to each aircraft... The charge should be some tiny percentage of the
gross revenue earned on that flight ... Lets pick a multiplier, say 0.001..

Assume 300 passengers paying an average $300 ticket = $90,000 for KORD to
KDFT... times 0.001 = $90 that ABC Airlines sends to the feds... (actually
it is easier than that... Quarterly, ABC Airline sends 0.001 of it's gross
revenue and you don't have to fool with tracking routes)

Now, Joe Schmuk flying his Whizbanger Four flies the same route... Gross
revenue for the flight = $0.00... times 0.001.. Charge = $0.00

Seems fair to me...

Denny
" It costs the same
to separate a 747 from a 172 as it does to separate the 172 from the 747.
Obviously the 747 is paying a lot more for the service than the 172. The
airlines want to change this and the 172 owner (and Gulfstream owner)

wants
to keep it the same as it is now.



  #75  
Old September 5th 03, 10:28 PM
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Newps wrote:

Come and listen sometime and tell me it costs the same. Most of the
time it costs 3 times as much to separate the "Hawk because of his 25
year old Narco Mk 12A.


Are separation requirements the same for the 'Hawk and the 747? Given that
the 747 covers more ground per sweep, does that play a role?

- Andrew

  #76  
Old September 5th 03, 10:36 PM
Tom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Collection will eventually be relagated to the infamous "EZ-PASS". You fly
low, under the transponder and your account is debited the amount of the
landing fee. If your account shows insufficient funds to pay any fee, a
giant fly swatter will appear, guided by the "giant hand" (actually the same
one that steered industry, but it is currently laid off), and it will swat
your ass into oblivion.

Tom
"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Rick Durden wrote:

So long as ATC services are paid for via gasoline tax, things have
worked very well.


Not only that, but the cost of collection is negligible. As a

conservative
estimate, the cost of collecting user fees will triple the current

expense
of ATC (the cost of collecting tolls on the NJ toll roads is over 80% of

the
total cost of that system).

Must be like the Chicago tollroads, where the tolls that were going to be
done in ten years are now into their 40th year.





  #77  
Old September 6th 03, 12:14 AM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Pretty tough to see how you could keep the 172 farther from the 747 than the
747 is from the 172.

Mike
MU-2


"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
...
Newps wrote:

Come and listen sometime and tell me it costs the same. Most of the
time it costs 3 times as much to separate the "Hawk because of his 25
year old Narco Mk 12A.


Are separation requirements the same for the 'Hawk and the 747? Given

that
the 747 covers more ground per sweep, does that play a role?

- Andrew



  #78  
Old September 6th 03, 12:15 AM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Why should the charge for the same service be different for different
customers?

Mike
MU-2


"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...
ATC fee for providing separation for each aircraft should definitely be
charged to each aircraft... The charge should be some tiny percentage of

the
gross revenue earned on that flight ... Lets pick a multiplier, say

0.001..

Assume 300 passengers paying an average $300 ticket = $90,000 for KORD to
KDFT... times 0.001 = $90 that ABC Airlines sends to the feds...

(actually
it is easier than that... Quarterly, ABC Airline sends 0.001 of it's gross
revenue and you don't have to fool with tracking routes)

Now, Joe Schmuk flying his Whizbanger Four flies the same route... Gross
revenue for the flight = $0.00... times 0.001.. Charge = $0.00

Seems fair to me...

Denny
" It costs the same
to separate a 747 from a 172 as it does to separate the 172 from the

747.
Obviously the 747 is paying a lot more for the service than the 172.

The
airlines want to change this and the 172 owner (and Gulfstream owner)

wants
to keep it the same as it is now.





  #79  
Old September 6th 03, 02:34 AM
John Clonts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Because price is set more directly by value to the consumer than by cost to
the producer-- free enterprise 101.

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
.net...
Why should the charge for the same service be different for different
customers?

Mike
MU-2


"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...
ATC fee for providing separation for each aircraft should definitely be
charged to each aircraft... The charge should be some tiny percentage of

the
gross revenue earned on that flight ... Lets pick a multiplier, say

0.001..

Assume 300 passengers paying an average $300 ticket = $90,000 for KORD

to
KDFT... times 0.001 = $90 that ABC Airlines sends to the feds...

(actually
it is easier than that... Quarterly, ABC Airline sends 0.001 of it's

gross
revenue and you don't have to fool with tracking routes)

Now, Joe Schmuk flying his Whizbanger Four flies the same route... Gross
revenue for the flight = $0.00... times 0.001.. Charge = $0.00

Seems fair to me...

Denny
" It costs the same
to separate a 747 from a 172 as it does to separate the 172 from the

747.
Obviously the 747 is paying a lot more for the service than the 172.

The
airlines want to change this and the 172 owner (and Gulfstream owner)

wants
to keep it the same as it is now.







  #80  
Old September 6th 03, 05:04 AM
Chip Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
No way. Everything I have read, including anti-privatization pieces from
AOPA, says fuel taxes and airlilne ticket taxes do not come close to

funding
ATC and airport improvements. If it was already self funding, there would
be no incentive to privatize it and the controllers union wouldn't be

afraid
of privatization.


The controllers union isn't afraid of privatization because the of a system
funding issue. Whatever entity provides ATC in the system will have the
system users by the short hairs. Funding will be had because the system
users won't have a choice other than pay to play. Likewise, whatever entity
provides ATC in the system will employ air traffic controllers. The
Canadian controllers even got a raise when NavCanada was chartered. The
issue for American federal controllers isn't funding or job security. The
issue for American controllers is that we don't trust a for-profit private
entity to properly staff and run an ATC enterprise with a "safety above all"
corporate attitude. Hell, we hardly trust FAA, and FAA actually *does* have
a "safety above all" corporate attitude. We know that a contractor will be
in the game to make money, and that staffing levels, salaries and equipment
costs will all eat at the profits. Not good for us. 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. Skyguard here we come...

Chip, ZTL




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.