AOPA and ATC Privatization

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net...


The drive to lower cost, presumably through technology, would result
in
fewer controller positions.


Theoretically, but how can you lower cost while you are trying to
invent and
implement technology to replace human beings? Those of us on the
inside
know that "technology" isn't forthcoming that is going to replace us.
What
"technology?"

The same technology airplanes use now, Chip.

What technology? TCAS? ADS-B? No cognitive ground-based dynamic human
being as referee? And all that in the next ten years? Are you kidding?
Do
you fly?

I am an electrical engineer, chip.

How about we start with enabling mode-S inside ATC and some weather
information.

The airborn portion of the
system is some of the most advanced technology in the world and the
other is
trapped in the 1950's.

The other is trapped by the amount of concrete available at the
destination
airport. No matter how many airplanes you cram in the big sky, they have
to
line up to land.

Concrete won't pour, in the current political envronment. (Green) We can
get 10 to 15% more capacity with automation and eliminate many weather
delays/cancellations, with information free from NOAH.

The US has already agreed to go to 8.33 com chaneling in 2010, for
sdstandardization with Europe. Some sort of data link capability could be
part of the radio operators will have to buy anyway. Austrailia used
internet technology to kick US ATC out of that business. Most of these
pilots can operate a palm pilot and so free flight might be enabled rather
easily.

Costs will be lowered by reducing ATC induced delays and cancellations.

LOL, sure it will. I'm sure all of those nice airline CEO's will be
saying
"After you sir", "No, after YOU sir", "No, let's let that nice Learjet
make his
approach first..."

Airlines are where the money is and you know what is driving the change, as
well as I do.

How is it less efficient to have fewer people do more? And is it really the
same amount of work or are there more calls being made every year?

Mike
MU-2


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


Mike Rapoport wrote:

The drive to lower cost, presumably through technology, would result in
fewer controller positions.

I wouldn't presume it would be through technology. In the telecom
industry,
the drive to lower cost simply resulted in the same amount of work being
done
by fewer people. This actually results in more hours being worked (by
those
fewer people), but less money paid in salaries because "professionals"
don't
get overtime pay. It's less efficient, but it costs less. The only
technology
advance is the purchase of pagers for those poor *******s left working
7/24.

George Patterson
A friend will help you move. A really good friend will help you
move
the body.

I'm sure you already knew the answer to both questions, Chip. :-)
---JRC---

"Chip Jones" wrote in message =
ink.net...
=20
=20
Are you kidding? Do
you fly?
=20
Chip, ZTL

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 21:25:57 -0400, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote:

This actually results in more hours being worked (by those
fewer people), but less money paid in salaries because "professionals" don't
get overtime pay. It's less efficient, but it costs less. The only technology
advance is the purchase of pagers for those poor *******s left working 7/24.


....combined with incredible resistance on the part of managment to
adopt technologies which would help those poor *******s telecommute,
thanks to their 24/7 assignment.

I was in that world. I got out as soon as I could after I realized,
one Christmas afternoon, that there were no conditions under which I'd
get a day off. I then watched at the next company I worked for as
first I was let go in a restructuring, how a friend of mine found
himself with 20% more work, then 50%, then 75%, as the people around
him bailed. Then they relocated him and started to *really* treat him
poorly as regards workload.

Rob

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 01:52:50 GMT, "Chip Jones"
wrote in Message-Id:
. net:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 15:09:04 GMT, "Chip Jones"
wrote in Message-Id:
. net:

What "technology?"


"New air traffic management technologies abound..."


Pardon me Larry, but everything in the Boeing propoganda that you posted is
conceptual. *Specifically* what new technologies does Boeing have? Ever
notice how they don't get specific? Oh, that's right- it's proprietary.
"Give us a contract and then we'll let you know what we can do with it".

Chip, ZTL


Here's a little more information on Boeing's ATC activities:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 9, Number 28b July 10, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------

BOEING LOOKS TO THE ATC MARKET...
Boeing says it (with help from some other companies) has what it takes
to make the National Airspace System (NAS) more efficient and safer.
The company hopes to clinch a big deal with the FAA to design, produce
and implement a new, fully integrated air traffic flow system that
will maximize use of the capacity of the National Airspace System.
Boeing's Air Traffic Management business unit has formed a team to
tackle this daunting project. Joining Boeing are Raytheon Inc., Metron
Aviation Inc., KENROB, RLM Software and WSI Corporation.
http://www.avweb.com/newswire/9_28b/...5303-1.html#1a


Raytheon Inc.
http://www.raytheon.com/
http://www.raytheon.com/products/cnsatm/
http://www.raytheon.com/products/tracview/
http://www.raytheon.com/products/autotrac/
http://www.raytheon.com/products/caats/

Metron Aviation Inc.
http://www.metronaviation.com/
http://www.metronaviation.com/products.html
http://www.metronaviation.com/airspace-design.html
http://www.metronaviation.com/traffic-flow-mgt.html
http://www.metronaviation.com/op-support.html

KENROB
http://www.kenrob.com/
http://www.kenrob.com/index.mv?content=contractVehicles
http://www.kenrob.com/index.mv?content=synContent

RLM Software
http://www.rlmsoftware.com/About/
http://www.rlmsoftware.com/Products/

http://www.rlmsoftware.com/Products/...s/Aviation.asp

WSI Corporation
http://www.wsi.com/
http://www.wsi.com/solutions/aviation/



From the statement below one would assume Boeing had something on
paper *two* years ago:

U.S. aircraft manufacturer BOEING CO. is considering a joint
bid with the UK's BAe Systems for Britain's air traffic control
system, the Financial Times newspaper said. The paper said that
Boeing Chairman Phil Condit said his company and BAe Systems
"could be a combination" although the two parties had not yet had
any detailed talks on the subject. A combination would not be the
first link between two companies that some aerospace analysts
view as ideal candidates for a future merger. Boeing and BAe
Systems recently bid jointly for a 30% stake in Korea Aerospace
Industries.

(Reuters 07:28 PM ET 06/08/2000)

Mo

http://w3.qurio.net/news/lookup?a=51...25a&s=rb000608


But, 4 months later something soured Boeing on British ATC:

Aerospace and defence group BAE SYSTEMS and aerospace giant
BOEING CO have both pulled out of the bidding process to take a
46% stake in Britain's National Air Traffic Service, the
Financial Times said. Citing no sources, the FT said that BAE had
informed the government and Credit Suisse First Boston, the
investment bank advising the state, that it was withdrawing from
the process. Preliminary bids were due to be submitted today.
Boeing said on Thursday that it was not intending to submit an
offer as a lead investor but it would continue to consider
possible partnerships in other consortia.

(Reuters 10:35 PM ET 09/28/2000)

Mo

http://q1.schwab.com/news/lookup?a=6...78a&s=rb000928


But 5 months after that, Boeing is back in the running again:

BOEING CO. is to join forces with Britain's leading airlines
in their bid for a 46% stake in Britain's air traffic control
system, British newspapers reported. The papers said the U.S.
manufacturer had written to Minister of Transport Lord Macdonald
to throw its weight behind the Airline Group, a consortium
comprising eight British airlines including BRITISH AIRWAYS and
Virgin Atlantic.

(Reuters 07:13 PM ET 03/01/2001)

Mo

http://q1.schwab.com/news/lookup?a=1...a&s=rb01030 1


Meanwhile at home, Boeing is twisting arms to get their hands on U.S.
ATC (presumably without benefit of a competitive bidding process):

As it pitches a space-age air traffic management system
upgrade to the U.S. government, BOEING CO. might provide billions
in financing to help seal the deal, the aerospace giant said on
Tuesday. Hoping to leverage its satellite-making and launch
business and its vast collection of navigational charts, Boeing
last year created a separate air traffic unit, with its eye on a
multibillion upgrade to the antiquated U.S. system. That unit's
president, John Hayhurst, will formally present Boeing's proposal
to the FAA this spring, and that plan could include lending the
government the money to get started.

(Reuters 05:52 PM ET 01/30/2001)

Mo

http://q1.schwab.com/news/lookup?a=1...a&s=rb01013 0


But, Boeing may face competition from FAA:

The Federal Aviation Administration and BOEING CO. said on
Monday they will separately announce major air traffic
initiatives on Wednesday. The aerospace giant will detail its
planned satellite-based air traffic initiative, while the FAA
will outline its 10-year modernization plan. The federal agency
had planned to detail its long-range outlook on Tuesday, but
delayed the timing without giving a reason.

(Reuters 06:21 PM ET 06/04/2001)

Mo

http://q1.schwab.com/news/lookup?a=2...a&s=rb01060 4


It would appear that Boeing has convinced FAA:

BOEING CO. said its proposed air traffic management system,
combined with improvements by the Federal Aviation
Administration, could cut air traffic delays by 45%. Boeing would
use satellites to give pilots and air traffic controllers better
flight data and navigation tools, helping squeeze more aircraft
into crowded U.S. skies than under the current system, which uses
ground-based radar. The FAA unveiled an $11 billion plan to
modernize airports and boost air traffic control capacity by 30%
over 10 years, pledging to work with Boeing on one of the
nation's biggest transportation problems.

(Reuters 01:14 PM ET 06/06/2001)

Mo

http://q1.schwab.com/news/lookup?a=2...a&s=rb01060 6


And, Boeing is poking a toe in the door in Japan:

U.S. aerospace giant BOEING and Japan's Mitsubishi Electric
Corp. said they had formed a "strategic alliance" to broaden
co-operation in the global satellite business. The alliance will
focus on space-based communications, air traffic management,
multimedia navigation, space and communications services, launch
services and space infrastructure markets, the companies said.
Boeing has invested heavily in satellite factories and a new
satellite launch series and sees the MELCO alliance as a key to
capturing lucrative Asian contracts.

(Reuters 08:31 AM ET 06/20/2001)

Mo

http://q1.schwab.com/news/lookup?a=2...a&s=rb01062 0


And in Europe:

BOEING CO. will install its European research and development
center in Spain, sources at Spain's Industrial State Holding Co.
said. Boeing, which is due to hold a press conference on Friday
in Madrid, opted for Spain after the talks with SEPI's investment
promotion office, the sources said. The R+D center will be
located in the Madrid region and functioning by the end of the
year. It will analyze controls for acoustic and smoke emissions
and development of air traffic control systems.

(Reuters 03:14 PM ET 05/10/2001)

Mo

http://q1.schwab.com/news/lookup?a=2...a&s=rb01051 0



--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

Mike Rapoport wrote:

How is it less efficient to have fewer people do more?

Tired people don't work as well and it takes time to switch from one task to
another. The total number of hours worked goes up. Typically, the quality of
the results also goes down. As far as I'm concerned, the people who are left
are working less efficiently than before.

And is it really the same amount of work

Yes, it's really the same amount of work. Until the company loses the contract.
When that happens, the entire group gets canned.

The area of telecom about which I'm speaking is the software, planning, and
management side. The sections of the telecom industry that actually handle
calls are union. When people get paid time-and-a-half, it's usually not a good
idea to downsize the work force unless the amount of work actually decreases.

George Patterson
A friend will help you move. A really good friend will help you move
the body.

"Everett M. Greene" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" writes:
"Chip Jones" wrote
"Tarver Engineering" wrote
[snip]
Costs will be lowered by reducing ATC induced delays and
cancellations.
LOL, sure it will. I'm sure all of those nice airline CEO's will be
saying "After you sir", "No, after YOU sir", "No, let's let that nice
Learjet make his approach first..."

Airlines are where the money is and you know what is driving the change,
as
well as I do.

Someone did a study and found that subtracting all the investments
from the net profits of all the airlines in the entire history
of the industry, the result is negative. So, what is the objective
of the industry?

Jobs and freedom to travel for the People.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

[good links snipped, although some of the links were dead]

Larry, thanks a lot for taking the time to post all of those links. Like I
said, Boeing's ATC moves are conceptual in nature. Except for the new "Flow
Control" bid this summer, Boeing has been very quiet on *actual* ATC plans
and nascent ATC technology since 2001. That was the year the FAA 10-year
OEP seriously embarrassed Boeing. That was the summer that FAA announced
specific, actual steps for ATC modernization over this decade. At the same
time, Boeing could not produce any evidence of either a specific plan or a
specific technology to accomplish the vaporous ATC "improvement" goals
their quest for a *non-competitive contract* would "produce". Boeing
claimed that their plan and the technology to make it work was "secret and
proprietary". To most of us in the system, that was code for "we don't have
a plan, we don't even have the technology yet to develop a plan, but throw
us a contract anyway and we'll make it work..."

I'd also like to point out that the consortium of contractors that Boeing is
putting together to make a run on a Central Flow Control contract is not the
same as providing contract ATC services. Central Flow doesn't control
airplanes, it is staffed with displaced weenies from flight service stations
and terminal environments who don't have a clue about the actual nuts and
bolts mechanics of enroute air traffic control, and it breaks down early and
often every year. It's about the biggest collection of egg-headed FAA
management want-to-be's in the whole NAS. If Boeing and friends can clean
all of those strap hangers out the central command bunker, more power to
them.

FAA ought to let Boeing take over running all of the Regional offices
too. We have over 600 enroute CPC "controllers" working as "traffic
management coordinators" in the system right now. We have over 900 CPC
"controllers" working as air traffic office staff in the various Regional
offices, Hubs, and ARTCC's. Let Boeing run the offices and the command
center. Then we could ship those FAA central flow and office staff
"controllers" back out to the embattled field facilities, head set in hand,
to do the actual job they are getting top tax dollar to perform.

Chip, ZTL

The same thing can be said for semiconductors. Both industries are
profitless but are major contributors to the economy. Both suffer from the
same problem. They are high fixed-cost businesses and pricing tends to be
driven to variable cost.

Mike
MU-2


"Everett M. Greene" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" writes:
"Chip Jones" wrote
"Tarver Engineering" wrote
[snip]
Costs will be lowered by reducing ATC induced delays and
cancellations.
LOL, sure it will. I'm sure all of those nice airline CEO's will be
saying "After you sir", "No, after YOU sir", "No, let's let that nice
Learjet make his approach first..."

Airlines are where the money is and you know what is driving the change,
as
well as I do.

Someone did a study and found that subtracting all the investments
from the net profits of all the airlines in the entire history
of the industry, the result is negative. So, what is the objective
of the industry?

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
The same thing can be said for semiconductors. Both industries are
profitless but are major contributors to the economy. Both suffer from
the
same problem. They are high fixed-cost businesses and pricing tends to be
driven to variable cost.

TI, Intel and Motorola are profitless? I'm dumping my stock...where's my
broker?