Control Tower Controversy brewing in the FAA

"Tom S." wrote:

Bull!! Seniority is a major (the major?) key in any bureaucracy or Union.

It certainly was not a factor in the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, of which I was a member in the '70s.

George Patterson
The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a gay
bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that
the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his
wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves,
and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer
here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriages.

"John Mazor" 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?

The FAA's incentive for efficiency is the political reality that they
are chronically underfunded and every time they fail to do something
because of lack of funding, some Congressman playing to the cheap
seats rakes them over the coals for failing to fulfill their mandate
to provide the highest level of safety.

Seperation is where ATC has failed lateley.

Profit is not a factor in most proposals for ATC privatization.

Such cognitive dissonance. Perhaps you would find your posts more
apropriate to one of the gag newsgroups, John Mazor. (sock)

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

"Tom S." wrote in message
news

Wrong analogy.


No, that's the precise analogy.

Privatization for the Bells was the end of human Toll Call connection, in
favor of automation. Now a collect call for 20 minutes costs less than the
first minute of a direct dial toll call once did.

Tom S. wrote:
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

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

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.

Asking you to join me and AOPA in advocating privatization is not intended
to be an insult.


Nor could it be construed as an insult. Quite the contrary, the "being out
logical arguments" falls on Whiting, not Tarver.

Gee, Tom, looks like you are as thick as Tarver. If you can't make the
connection that Tarver was suggesting that I live in a shack in Wyoming,
then you aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Matt

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Tom S." wrote in message
...

That's what the Bell System thought on Long Distance calling back in the
70's and 80's regarding their industry.



Bell was wrong, you can have more than one provider of long distance
service. If more than one company attempts to provide separation nobody has
separation.



You could have regional ATC companies the same way AT&T was broken up
into the RBOCs. Telecomm has much the same problem as ATC does. Not
economical to have 6 sets of phone poles and lines run to every user,
same as 6 ATC companies couldn't provide separation in the same airspace.


Matt

Newps wrote:


Matthew S. Whiting wrote:

Seniority is a nonfactor at the FAA. We only use it to bid our days
off twice a year.


That is truly good to know. Are annual increases merit based or COLA?
What are the promotion criteria?


Annual increases are the same as what every Social Security recipient
gets. Usually in the 3-4% range, next year however it is about 2.5%.
There are also increases based on your localities cost of living also
added onto that. As for promotion I do not get promoted unless I put
myself in a pool for a particular job opening. For example if Denver
needs a controller or three that job will get posted for everyone to
see. If I am interested in moving to Denver I will submit my paperwork.
I may or may not get selected, none of the criteria is based simply
upon years of experience. All promotions entail a paid move. Under no
circumstances will I get to work one day and find I have been promoted
to either another facility or into management of my current facility.


Where I work, our annual raises are called "merit increases" and are
quite variable from 0% to upwards of 10% based on your performance for
the year. Likewise, promotions are based on performance and increased
scope of responsibility (the ATC equivalent is probably working a larger
or busier airport or sector). We don't get COLAs and seniority plays no
role in our pay increases beyond the fact that experience should add to
your competence to some degree at least.


Matt

John Mazor wrote:
"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

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

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

Because most private companies that perform functions similar

to

governmental agencies are more efficient.

Sure, susccessful private companies are forced by competition to

be more

efficient or fail. But you can't have competition in ATC.

That's what the Bell System thought on Long Distance calling back in

the

70's and 80's regarding their industry.


If the phone company screws up, your call doesn't go through. If
Tony's ATC Service and Aluminum Siding Company gets the low bid and
then screws up, you die. If Big Jimbo's Fire Department and Auto
Repair screws up, you die. If Slick Sammy's Police and Pet Grooming
Station screws up, you die. There's a qualitative difference here,
which is why historically we have tended not to privatize these
functions, at least in the sense of auctioning it off to the lowest
bidder who wants to make a profit at it.

Within a few days, you'll be able to switch phone providers at will
and keep your old phone number. You can't do that with ATC, switching
contractors willy-nilly when one kills people or another comes along
with a better price.

Sorry, if the call is 911, somebody very well could die.


Matt

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

You could have regional ATC companies the same way AT&T was broken up
into the RBOCs.


Yes, but you still wouldn't have competition.

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

You could have regional ATC companies the same way AT&T was broken up
into the RBOCs.



Yes, but you still wouldn't have competition.



Yes, you would have some competition if each region was periodically bid
out, but certainly not perfect competition in the economics sense of the
word.


Matt

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

Yes, you would have some competition if each region was periodically bid
out, but certainly not perfect competition in the economics sense of the
word.


But that's the competition that forces private companies to achieve the
efficiencies touted by those that advocate privatization.