Control Tower Controversy brewing in the FAA

"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

"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/

"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.

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

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

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

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

"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.

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.

"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.