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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in message news:0oq5b.26774 I disagree. The sunset limitation was added during the conference. Both the House and the Senate Bill expressly forbade ATC privatization indefinitely. No, it just forbade the FAA from further ATC privatization until further act of congress. Negative. Essentially, this opens up 69 VFR towers to contracting out, not 71. All 71 towers have already been considered. Right, I forgot to deduct the two Alaskan towers. What makes the provision of VFR tower ATC services in Alaska any different than the provision of VFR tower ATC services in the Lower 48 or Hawaii? Congressional wheeling and dealing. Same reason why West Virginia had so many dedicated (i.e. non AFSS) FSS's and control towers at places that didn't really warrant them up until rather recently. How then do you pilots define the "core" privatization issue if not the provision of contract ATC services versus government ATC services? Contracting out the performance of tasks is a different issue than establishing a seperate PBO or other non-direct government agency to control the skies. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message m... "Chip Jones" wrote in message news:0oq5b.26774 I disagree. The sunset limitation was added during the conference. Both the House and the Senate Bill expressly forbade ATC privatization indefinitely. No, it just forbade the FAA from further ATC privatization until further act of congress. Well, I guess we're just approaching the same question from different directions. To me, "indefinitely" and "until further act of Congress" is one and the same, and neither equates to a sunset provision. Congress voted that the FAA was to be *prohibited* from further privatizing ATC without an act of Congress, ie- privatization was made illegal indefinitley. How unlike the language into which the two versions were "reconciled" by Don Young's Administration hitmen. Negative. Essentially, this opens up 69 VFR towers to contracting out, not 71. All 71 towers have already been considered. Right, I forgot to deduct the two Alaskan towers. LOL, The Alaska Congressional delegation dang sure didn't! What makes the provision of VFR tower ATC services in Alaska any different than the provision of VFR tower ATC services in the Lower 48 or Hawaii? Congressional wheeling and dealing. Same reason why West Virginia had so many dedicated (i.e. non AFSS) FSS's and control towers at places that didn't really warrant them up until rather recently. But if the bottom line is air safety, isn't that a bipartisan issue? Congress certainly thought so when they passed the original versions of the unreconciled Bills. And if the bottom line isn't air safety, then why would Don Young specifically take Juneau and Merril towers off of the contract list, a list that includes busier places like Van Nuys and Boeing Field? What advantage does having an FAA-run tower bring to Alaska constituents other than air safety on the airport? It's not like these two Alaska towers employ hundreds of Alaskans. I don't know about Merrill, but Juneau only employs about 12 federal controllers I am told. Not exactly a major job source even in Alaska. How then do you pilots define the "core" privatization issue if not the provision of contract ATC services versus government ATC services? Contracting out the performance of tasks is a different issue than establishing a seperate PBO or other non-direct government agency to control the skies. Actually, isn't that *exactly* what happens at a contract ATC facility? The task of Air Traffic Control, performed by an air traffic controller, is provided to the public by a non-direct, private, for-profit corporate entity exercising control over a piece of the National Airspace System sky. That's pretty much the "core" of the privatization issue and it's right upon AOPA, right now. Not the year 2007 or later... It seems pretty basic to me that there is no difference between privatizing a single federal tower and the whole national ATC system except a difference in degree. I also believe that the toleration of the one makes the other inevitable. It doesn't get more "core" than that, IMO. Chip, ZTL |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in message link.net... "Ron Natalie" wrote in message m... "Chip Jones" wrote in message news:0oq5b.26774 I disagree. The sunset limitation was added during the conference. Both the House and the Senate Bill expressly forbade ATC privatization indefinitely. No, it just forbade the FAA from further ATC privatization until further act of congress. Well, I guess we're just approaching the same question from different directions. To me, "indefinitely" and "until further act of Congress" is one and the same, and neither equates to a sunset provision. Congress voted that the FAA was to be *prohibited* from further privatizing ATC without an act of Congress, ie- privatization was made illegal indefinitley. How unlike the language into which the two versions were "reconciled" by Don Young's Administration hitmen. Negative. Essentially, this opens up 69 VFR towers to contracting out, not 71. All 71 towers have already been considered. Right, I forgot to deduct the two Alaskan towers. LOL, The Alaska Congressional delegation dang sure didn't! What makes the provision of VFR tower ATC services in Alaska any different than the provision of VFR tower ATC services in the Lower 48 or Hawaii? Congressional wheeling and dealing. Same reason why West Virginia had so many dedicated (i.e. non AFSS) FSS's and control towers at places that didn't really warrant them up until rather recently. But if the bottom line is air safety, isn't that a bipartisan issue? Yep, that is why there is a sunset provision. Congress certainly thought so when they passed the original versions of the unreconciled Bills. And if the bottom line isn't air safety, then why would Don Young specifically take Juneau and Merril towers off of the contract list, a list that includes busier places like Van Nuys and Boeing Field? Money. What advantage does having an FAA-run tower bring to Alaska constituents other than air safety on the airport? It's not like these two Alaska towers employ hundreds of Alaskans. I don't know about Merrill, but Juneau only employs about 12 federal controllers I am told. Not exactly a major job source even in Alaska. Jobs. How then do you pilots define the "core" privatization issue if not the provision of contract ATC services versus government ATC services? Contracting out the performance of tasks is a different issue than establishing a seperate PBO or other non-direct government agency to control the skies. Actually, isn't that *exactly* what happens at a contract ATC facility? Eventually. The task of Air Traffic Control, performed by an air traffic controller, is provided to the public by a non-direct, private, for-profit corporate entity exercising control over a piece of the National Airspace System sky. Yes, but without a powerful public employees union to block improvements. (ie RIF) That's pretty much the "core" of the privatization issue and it's right upon AOPA, right now. Not the year 2007 or later... It seems pretty basic to me that there is no difference between privatizing a single federal tower and the whole national ATC system except a difference in degree. I also believe that the toleration of the one makes the other inevitable. It doesn't get more "core" than that, IMO. AOPA has a larger constituancy than ATC. The fact that AOPA acted in the best interest of GA, by making an advantagous political deal, is not surprising. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Chip Jones wrote:
Fighting this battle on the field of 2007, we will be 69 ATC towers closer to ATC user fees. Or alternatively, in 2007 maybe we'll have a President and/or a Congress from the party that doesn't think the way to run the country is to give it all away to large corporations. Maybe they figure it's a losing battle now, they should get the best they can, and then gear up for the fight in 2007 when we've been aware of the threat for 4 years and hopefully will have a better political climate. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in message news:bir5b.26821 What advantage does having an FAA-run tower bring to Alaska constituents other than air safety on the airport? It's not like these two Alaska towers employ hundreds of Alaskans. I don't know about Merrill, but Juneau only employs about 12 federal controllers I am told. Not exactly a major job source even in Alaska. I can't say if safety is or is not the issue. But is clear that Senator Young thought that it would play better in his home state if he kept them on the federal dole. Maybe one of the controllers is kin to a major contributor, who knows, it certainly smacks of politicking rather than the public interest. Actually, isn't that *exactly* what happens at a contract ATC facility? No, no more than contracting out DUAT is, nor anything else ATC contracts out. Despite all the hoohah, AOPA's concern is not whether the PBO can do a good job or if there is a safety concern, what they are concerned about is that privatization makes it easier to bring up the ugly user fee issue to fund it. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
How about examining the real-world experience of pilots in other countries
where ATC services HAVE been privatized? Want to see what things will be like if/when this administration has its way? Look to Canada, New Zealand, etc. Without exception, everything I've seen about privatized ATC services esewhere paints a very, very unpleasant picture. I see absolutely zero benefits (other than money going into the contractor's pockets - and that only benefits them, at a cost to everyone else). Ask pilots who have gone through the privatization process how they have liked it. Without exception, everyone I've heard from says the same thing: sure, there might be a few shortcomings in the present system (hey, what system of ANYTHING is perfect?), but you are much, MUCH better off with the existing system run by the government. Is there ANYONE (except for the people who have personally benefitted financially) who have gone through a switch from a government-run ATC system to a privatized one who think it has improved things? I haven't heard a single voice supporting that position. On the other hand, I have heard many, many others who all say the same thing: you Yanks would be absolutely CRAZY to get rid of the wonderful system you now have and throw it away in favor of a system whose primary goal is to generate revenue and keep costs down. Rather than unrealistic, ideological fantasies (i.e. anything the government does is always bad, and anything the private sector does is always better) I'd like to hear what specifically is wrong with the current system, and exactly how selling it off to the low bidder is going to address that. Absent those details and a convincing, fact-based analysis showing how a privatized systsm would benefit us all, this simply looks like nothing more than a good, old-fashioned money grab to me. David H Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying forum: http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... [snipped] Yes, but without a powerful public employees union to block improvements. (ie RIF) Now that's a scream, John! Do you remember August of 1981? A pleasant little group of unselfish, altruistic Americans who called themselves PATCO? Think they're gone from the ATC scene? Think again. Who do you think represents all of those private *contract* towers these days? Not NATCA. Yep, PATCO, the one and only. The ones who said "America can't fire us all..." Big labor is into ATC no matter whether public or private, it just depends on which flavor of labor you prefer. You see, PATCO wants to see privatization too- it's right up their alley (more little bargaining units to represent...) Personally, I think NATCA has a much better track record of public service than PATCO, but it's your call, bro. I'd be happy to post a link to the PATCO site if you want to read about what a great job private ATC providers do with all that federal contract money they receive from FAA. Chip, ZTL |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in message news:k%r5b.26989 Now that's a scream, John! Do you remember August of 1981? A pleasant little group of unselfish, altruistic Americans who called themselves PATCO? As opposed to the the corrupt, lying schemers called PATCO managment who lied to their members and cooked the strike vote to convince them that the larger brotherhood had decided that the strike was a good idea? |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in message hlink.net... "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... [snipped] Yes, but without a powerful public employees union to block improvements. (ie RIF) Now that's a scream, John! Do you remember August of 1981? Sure. A pleasant little group of unselfish, altruistic Americans who called themselves PATCO? Think they're gone from the ATC scene? Think again. Who do you think represents all of those private *contract* towers these days? Not NATCA. Yep, PATCO, the one and only. Nothing has changed, in 30 years. The ones who said "America can't fire us all..." Big labor is into ATC no matter whether public or private, it just depends on which flavor of labor you prefer. A choice gives much more latitude. You see, PATCO wants to see privatization too- it's right up their alley (more little bargaining units to represent...) Personally, I think NATCA has a much better track record of public service than PATCO, but it's your call, bro. I'd be happy to post a link to the PATCO site if you want to read about what a great job private ATC providers do with all that federal contract money they receive from FAA. Good work on the part of PATCO to protect their interests, but civil service law does not protect contractors. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message m... "Chip Jones" wrote in message news:k%r5b.26989 Now that's a scream, John! Do you remember August of 1981? A pleasant little group of unselfish, altruistic Americans who called themselves PATCO? As opposed to the the corrupt, lying schemers called PATCO managment who lied to their members and cooked the strike vote to convince them that the larger brotherhood had decided that the strike was a good idea? Are you claiming PATCO is corrupt? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|