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 |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
Tarver Engineering wrote:
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message online.com... Tarver Engineering wrote: Automation increases productivity thereby reducing labor. This is far from guaranteed, and there are many factors involved that are relevant to this discussion. In this spectific case however, Andrew's "factors" are specious. Unfounded statement with no justification? I see how you've acquired your reputation. It is that flight cancelled that costs the most; especially with the operator having real time weather, but no way to engage ATC in real time alteration of a flight track. (CONUS) How do you measure cost? In my mind, a flight lost costs more than a flight cancelled. Further, the cost of a cancelled flight is not incurred by ATC, be it governmental or private. That's yet another problem with attempting to measure "efficiency": where the benefits and costs are accrued by different parties. - Andrew |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message online.com... Tarver Engineering wrote: "Andrew Gideon" wrote in message online.com... Tarver Engineering wrote: Automation increases productivity thereby reducing labor. This is far from guaranteed, and there are many factors involved that are relevant to this discussion. In this spectific case however, Andrew's "factors" are specious. Unfounded statement with no justification? I see how you've acquired your reputation. Yep, I don't waste much time on trolls. |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
Tarver Engineering wrote:
Yep, I don't waste much time on trolls. Laugh Anyone can lookup my USENET posting history and compare it to your USENET posting history. I think that trollfulness will out...although I seem to recall that others have mentioned more mundane interests in your case. I apologize for accidentally involving you in a rational discussion. Feel free to ignore anything more I post on any subject. In fact, I recommend that you killfile me to make your life simplest...but be sure to also ignore anything posted in reply to something I've written. I'd rather not threaten your world view even indirectly, but I shan't let that keep me from the interesting dialogs here. Now, if someone is seriously interested in regulatory issues and how they might be reflected in privatized ATC... - Andrew |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message online.com... Tarver Engineering wrote: Yep, I don't waste much time on trolls. Laugh Anyone can lookup my USENET posting history and compare it to your USENET posting history. I think that trollfulness will out...although I seem to recall that others have mentioned more mundane interests in your case. I apologize for accidentally involving you in a rational discussion. Feel free to ignore anything more I post on any subject. In fact, I recommend that you killfile me to make your life simplest...but be sure to also ignore anything posted in reply to something I've written. I did not find your discussion rational. I'd rather not threaten your world view even indirectly, but I shan't let that keep me from the interesting dialogs here. You aren't a rude troll, so I don't see why you should have to leave. Now, if someone is seriously interested in regulatory issues and how they might be reflected in privatized ATC... That all depends now on how Federal ATC co-operates with change. |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
I worked in ATC for National Air Traffic Services (UK) for 10 years and when
I left, there were plans afoot from the Mr Blair's "About Face" party to privatise NATS. It was cynically announced on the last day of parliament for the year so to play down the media furore and union backlash. I can assure you that controllers are not obsessed with whether we have minorities or women increasing in the roles, we dont care as long as they can do the job. But ultimately, privatisation comes hand in hand with demand for profits, and that means corner cutting and increased workloads on controllers. Incidentally, the UK Govt then, after I left, 49% privatised NATS to airline ownership, and from what I hear, morale has never been lower. Profit might encourage competition and then enhance efficiencies in other industries but it doesnt in air traffic control. In telecom industries, smaller operators can set up easily, but in ATC, its a huge infrastructure requiring expensive hardware setup costs, and so, there's usually no shift from the status quo in competition: once the ATC system is privatised, you still get a large (now privately owned company) running the show - the only difference is that there isa huge power shift to that company's management structure who will squeeze every ounce out of their workforce. As an added, noted the posting about training other people to do your job. One year, our general manager at London Heathrow advised us that in order to secure the contract for ATC for the next 5 years, a clause would be added that if BAA were to offer the next ATC contract to a private company, we would be willing to train up their controllers for the 9 or so months it takes until they were ok on their own. You could hear the laughter in the terminals. "Andrew Gideon" wrote in message online.com... Matthew S. Whiting wrote: And the profit motive. The latter can exist without competition. The edge is certainly much sharper with competition as now it is that much harder to make a profit, but making an even larger profit is still pretty strong motivation. I question this reasoning only because regulated markets haven't been shown as all that efficient, and it's tough to imagine that private ATC would be unregulated. In theory, the "right" regulation would promote efficiency. But what's "right" might not even be known. More, were it known, it still might be politically "expensive", and therefore forgotten. However, we should all be aware that there is one bit of "low hanging fruit" for a private ATC venture from an efficiency perspective: kill smaller GA. If the "benefit" factor in the efficiency ratio is anything like "people-miles moved", getting smaller GA out of the ATC system would improve the benefit/cost ratio. - Andrew |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
Kristen Skinner wrote:
In telecom industries, smaller operators can set up easily, Unfortunately, this hasn't proven to be often the case. Just look at what's occurred with the broadband market, for example. RBOCs did everything that could to make life tough for the competition using the RBOC's physical plant, and it typically worked. There are individual exceptions, and wireless may prove to be our savior. But that type of external influence isn't too likely in the ATC business...and it may not break us away from the RBOCs anyway. Verizon's been using its physical plant of payphones in NYC as wireless bases. A newcomer would be hardpressed to compete given that the Verizon locations are already wired and uniformly spread throughout the city. the only difference is that there isa huge power shift to that company's management structure who will squeeze every ounce out of their workforce. Actually, this could work in reverse. No longer government employees, the ATC staff would regain the right to strike. Still...even that hasn't really helped the telecom unions. - Andrew |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message online.com... Kristen Skinner wrote: In telecom industries, smaller operators can set up easily, Unfortunately, this hasn't proven to be often the case. Just look at what's occurred with the broadband market, for example. RBOCs did everything that could to make life tough for the competition using the RBOC's physical plant, and it typically worked. There are individual exceptions, and wireless may prove to be our savior. But that type of external influence isn't too likely in the ATC business...and it may not break us away from the RBOCs anyway. Verizon's been using its physical plant of payphones in NYC as wireless bases. A newcomer would be hardpressed to compete given that the Verizon locations are already wired and uniformly spread throughout the city. the only difference is that there isa huge power shift to that company's management structure who will squeeze every ounce out of their workforce. Actually, this could work in reverse. No longer government employees, the ATC staff would regain the right to strike. Still...even that hasn't really helped the telecom unions. - Andrew Well, I dont know about the US...in the UK, we always had the right to strike. I guess after Reagan's little action, you might have been stifled somewhat. |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
"Kristen Skinner" wrote in message ... Well, I dont know about the US...in the UK, we always had the right to strike. I guess after Reagan's little action, you might have been stifled somewhat. In the US, pledging not to strike was a condition of employment. |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Gideon writes:
Kristen Skinner wrote: the only difference is that there isa huge power shift to that company's management structure who will squeeze every ounce out of their workforce. Actually, this could work in reverse. No longer government employees, the ATC staff would regain the right to strike. Still...even that hasn't really helped the telecom unions. The employer has to remain solvent long enough for it to be worthwhile for the employees to strike. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|