Control Tower Controversy brewing in the FAA

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

Automation, same as the post office.


Why is automation available to private ATC but not to public ATC?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

Automation, same as the post office.


Why is automation available to private ATC but not to public ATC?

You tell us why ATC has resisted automation. (ie jobs)

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

I don't doubt
that a private ATC would be more efficient, but it wouldn't matter
as
none of us could afford to fly privately any longer.


Why would private ATC be more efficient?

Automation, same as the post office.

Profit motive (over the long term) is a great incentive. What is the
FAA's
incentive?

FAA wants to move back to a regulatory stance of promoting aviation, IMO.

Contradiction in terms if you ask me (which no one did...).

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

Automation, same as the post office.


Why is automation available to private ATC but not to public ATC?

You tell us why ATC has resisted automation. (ie jobs)

The same reason the phone companies were twenty years late installing
automatic switching equipment in the 50's and 60's. (The Communications
Unions were damn strong....then).

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

I don't doubt
that a private ATC would be more efficient, but it wouldn't
matter as
none of us could afford to fly privately any longer.


Why would private ATC be more efficient?

Automation, same as the post office.

Profit motive (over the long term) is a great incentive. What is the
FAA's
incentive?

FAA wants to move back to a regulatory stance of promoting aviation,
IMO.

Contradiction in terms if you ask me (which no one did...).

That all depends on if you want there to be an aircraft manufacturing, or
support, infrastructure in the US.

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

Automation, same as the post office.


Why is automation available to private ATC but not to public ATC?

You tell us why ATC has resisted automation. (ie jobs)

The same reason the phone companies were twenty years late installing
automatic switching equipment in the 50's and 60's. (The Communications
Unions were damn strong....then).

Same as Boeing brought in contractors to implement DCAC, in order to
eliminate a large amount of human tabbing of engineering; where a computer
could do the work. Without the change, Boeing would have effectively
conceded the civil transport manufacturing business to Europe and SPEEA
would be a memory. Not that Boeing could not have still made plenty of
money.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

I don't doubt
that a private ATC would be more efficient, but it wouldn't matter as
none of us could afford to fly privately any longer.



Why would private ATC be more efficient?

Because most private companies that perform functions similar to
governmental agencies are more efficient. I think new technology would
be adopted faster and with less bureaucracy. I think controller
performance would be rewarded more effectively. Last I knew, most civil
service jobs still had a lot of focus on seniority, more like a union
workforce in the private sector than a professional workforce in the
private sector.

No way to know for sure unless it happens, but I'd bet money on greater
efficiency. I'd also bet money that general aviation, at least anything
other than corporate aviation, would all but cease to exist in 10-20
years.


Matt

Tom S. wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Commercial aviation has far more money to spend than any GA operation
short of the Fortune 500 corporations. I agree that those with the
dough will get the service, but it won't be us who fly anything less
than 12,500 lbs.


Why should it be any other way? "Those who bears the costs, gets the goods".

That isn't true in vast sectors of the American economy. You don't even
begin to pay for what you use in cost of roads, etc., and people who
live in the city don't pay for the real cost of public transportation.
These are subsidized by general tax revenue just as general aviation is.
I don't you'd really want to pay via user fees for every service you
use, unless you live in a shack in Wyoming.


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
Tom S. wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Commercial aviation has far more money to spend than any GA operation
short of the Fortune 500 corporations. I agree that those with the
dough will get the service, but it won't be us who fly anything less
than 12,500 lbs.


Why should it be any other way? "Those who bears the costs, gets the
goods".

That isn't true in vast sectors of the American economy. You don't even
begin to pay for what you use in cost of roads, etc., and people who
live in the city don't pay for the real cost of public transportation.
These are subsidized by general tax revenue just as general aviation is.
I don't you'd really want to pay via user fees for every service you
use, unless you live in a shack in Wyoming.

In that case, you should get behind privatization.

Tarver Engineering wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Tom S. wrote:

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...


Commercial aviation has far more money to spend than any GA operation
short of the Fortune 500 corporations. I agree that those with the
dough will get the service, but it won't be us who fly anything less
than 12,500 lbs.


Why should it be any other way? "Those who bears the costs, gets the

goods".

That isn't true in vast sectors of the American economy. You don't even
begin to pay for what you use in cost of roads, etc., and people who
live in the city don't pay for the real cost of public transportation.
These are subsidized by general tax revenue just as general aviation is.
I don't you'd really want to pay via user fees for every service you
use, unless you live in a shack in Wyoming.


In that case, you should get behind privatization.

Admitting that he's fresh out of logical arguments for his position,
Tarver tries a lame insult.


Matt