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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"Blippie" wrote in message ... We write to express our grave concern about the recent conduct of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in lobbying Congress for the authority to privatize America's air traffic control (ATC) system. But why? It worked so well in the UK! and Switzerland... Chip, ZTL |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"David H" wrote in message ... Will Alaska (and other states with votes that the administration thinks they can woo) also get an exemption from the recent legislation that specifies that seafood inspectors are "inherantly governmental" and thus can't be privatized? The Bush administration sure does seem to have a major bug up its ass about forcing ATC privatization - WHY? At the same time they're declaring things like seafood inspectors are inherantly governmental (not to mention those federal employees who screen baggage for nail clippers). There's something here that doesn't quite add up. They seem really, really intent on pushing ATC privatization. What's really behind this? Who stands to gain from ATC privatization? Are there major businesses that do this now, and others that are quietly preparing to pick up some fat federal ATC contracts? Do these companies have any connection to the white house and friends? "Follow the money...." COMMENTS: I completely agree that there is an alternative driving force behind this. Once of the funny things that I see is that if the white house were to privatize the ATC functions it would have just another person to blame outside the government for its failure to fix security related issues, the increase in traffic as seen at airports (delays, longer holding patterns, etc). If they really wanted to fix this issue they should probably start by giving airports more grants and funding to accomplish advances in ATC instead of trying to privatize it and then point the finger later at the contractors failures. The federal government has pretty much failed in regard to making these systems better for pilots. Instead of changing the people they should change the bogus TFR's that pop up out of nowhere and serve no real purpose. Im tired for one of a government that restricts the population for its own personal uses and gains (or the gains of those elected). If each one of the elected officials in Washington were affected by TFR's, privatization of ATC and other issues you can bet that the rules of engagement would have changed and for one the ADIZ in Washington DC (which serves no purpose to prevent terrorism at all) would have been removed by now. As I see it at 400MPH they could'nt stop a jetliner in time anyway with the size of the ADIZ. Anyway im not gonna ramble on. I think the entire system needs to be looked at and changed. Kevin Wetzel ISP Toolz http://www.isptoolz.com/ |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Wetzel - ISP Toolz" wrote in message ... "David H" wrote in message ... Will Alaska (and other states with votes that the administration thinks they can woo) also get an exemption from the recent legislation that specifies that seafood inspectors are "inherantly governmental" and thus can't be privatized? The Bush administration sure does seem to have a major bug up its ass about forcing ATC privatization - WHY? At the same time they're declaring things like seafood inspectors are inherantly governmental (not to mention those federal employees who screen baggage for nail clippers). There's something here that doesn't quite add up. They seem really, really intent on pushing ATC privatization. What's really behind this? Payroll is where the money is. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
The Bush administration sure does seem to have a major bug up its ass about forcing ATC privatization - WHY? Cheaper and safer? all the best -- Dan Ford email: (put CUB in subject line) see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Who stands to gain from ATC privatization? Airline passengers? Pilots? all the best -- Dan Ford email: (put CUB in subject line) see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
cheaper I might agree with... but safer??
maybe safer for the gov't that does not have to face a law suit when a gov't controller "screws the deal" and ends up facing a lawsuit.. like the two that hit at an cross intersection.. or what has been in all the aviation mags lately.. the "position and hold" clearance down field, in front of another aircraft that was "cleared for take off" at the beginning of the runway.. tower thought the "position and hold" aircraft was also using full length, not an intersection departure.. so the pilots (or surviving families) sue the "private ATC company" for the screw up.. and not the gov't.. hence.. it is safer for the gov't BT "Cub Driver" wrote in message ... The Bush administration sure does seem to have a major bug up its ass about forcing ATC privatization - WHY? Cheaper and safer? all the best -- Dan Ford email: (put CUB in subject line) see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Cub Driver wrote:
The Bush administration sure does seem to have a major bug up its ass about forcing ATC privatization - WHY? Cheaper and safer? I can see it potentially being cheaper in total cost, but likely not cheaper for general aviation. I also wonder if it really would be safer. The profit motive is great for economic efficiency, but not always for safety and other parameters that detract from, rather than add to, profitability. Matt |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"Cub Driver" wrote in message ... The Bush administration sure does seem to have a major bug up its ass about forcing ATC privatization - WHY? Cheaper and safer? And more capacity. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Who stands to gain from ATC privatization? Are there major businesses
that do this now, and others that are quietly preparing to pick up some fat federal ATC contracts? Do these companies have any connection to the white house and friends? It will be sold off to the airlines which makes a lot of sense. Sell a national asset to companies that are struggling to either avoid or get out of bankruptcy. Maybe the White House think that putting ATC into their balance sheets will give the airlines more strength. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave" wrote in message ... Who stands to gain from ATC privatization? Are there major businesses that do this now, and others that are quietly preparing to pick up some fat federal ATC contracts? Do these companies have any connection to the white house and friends? It will be sold off to the airlines which makes a lot of sense. Sell a national asset to companies that are struggling to either avoid or get out of bankruptcy. Maybe the White House think that putting ATC into their balance sheets will give the airlines more strength. An ATC responsive to common carriers has a very real apeal. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|