A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

AOPA and ATC Privatization



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 3rd 03, 05:06 PM
Chip Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
Darn it, missed my cue!....

"Chip Jones" wrote in message

thlink.net...

The question arises. Why should an FAA enroute air traffic controller

who
is neither a pilot


You can fix that any day, Chip


Yep. I guess I'd better hurry while I can still afford it! :-)

Chip, ZTL


  #22  
Old September 3rd 03, 05:17 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Chip Jones" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Mark Kolber" wrote in message
...
[snipped]


I think it ultimately comes down to this: The conference report that
NATCA is complaining about permits privatization to a larger degree
than the original House version and to a much larger degree than the
Senate version.


Bingo. Both the House and the Senate voted on bills that *prohibited* ATC
privatization beyond the current contract tower program. The FAA lobbied
against the bills as passed. The White House threatened a veto. The

House
and Senate bills went into the reconciliation process as an AOPA/NATCA
victory against ATC privatization.

During the reconciliation process, the conferees, under intense White

House
pressure, re-wrote the language in such a way that FAA VFR towers not
currently privatized may be contracted out. There are 71 of those towers.
2 of them are in Alaska (PAMR and PAJN). The Administration agreed that

the
two Alaska towers in contention (both in the home state of Don Young, R-
Alaska chairman of the reconcioliation conference) could stay FAA, leaving
the other 69 to be contracted out. Also, rather than indefinitely
prohibiting by law further outsourcing of other Federal ATC services (like
Tracons and Centers), the reconciliation conference put into effect a
"sunset clause", making 2007 the year that wholesale privatization of the
system becomes possible.

This disturbs controllers because both the Republican House and the
Republican Senate voted decisively vefore the summer recess to prohibit

ATC
privatization. The Reconciliation team inserted the new language when

they
"reconciled" the two bills, LOL. Further disturbing controllers is that
AOPA abandoned the fight at this point because other provisions of the
reconciled bill are GA friendly.


The fact remains, ATC is statistically the largest killer of common carrier
passengers, except terrorists. Failure to maintain seperation cost the
system a fortune in 737 PCUs that had no problem. Automation is something
ATC Union has blocked for 30 years and it is time to correct the problem.


  #23  
Old September 3rd 03, 05:24 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Chip Jones" wrote in message
link.net...

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
[snipped]

NATCA factually
reports that the Congress is about to authorize ATC privatization by
allowing the FAA to offer 69 FAA air traffic control towers to the

lowest
private sector bidder.


I bid $1 - is that low enough to get them? How about 1c? How about just
giving me the lot.

Surely you mean the highest bidder??????



Err, no. I mean *lowest* bidder. The idea is to save money. The FAA

(and
your taxes) pays for the infrastructure.


No, the idea is to find a way around ATC unions blocking automation.


  #24  
Old September 3rd 03, 05:37 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
link.net...
But not something that was in either the House bill or the Senate bill

that
was being reconciled.


So? What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

What an interesting point to bring up. Let's see, and KCGX is what now,
other than permanently *closed*?


For reasons completely unrelated to the original agreements. The "sunset"
language in the original agreements had NOTHING to do with the closure of
Meigs. In fact, everyone agrees that the closure of Meigs was *CONTRARY TO*
the agreements that included the sunset language.

Surely you can see the difference. Surely you're not trying to say that the
existence of sunset language in the Meigs agreement, along with the
subsequent closure of the field support your assertions regarding this bill.
Right? If not, then I suppose I'm starting to get an idea of why you're so
upset about this bill.

Pete


  #25  
Old September 3rd 03, 05:39 PM
Chip Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Chip Jones" wrote in message

[snippd]


I asked for quotes. I know how to get the bill. But you're the one who's
saying it privitizes ATC. Show me where it says that.

I looked at the quotes Mark provided. All I see is language that
*prohibits* the privitization of ATC, but which makes clear that the
*existing* contract tower program is still legal.

Since you are so sure of yourself, perhaps you could explain what language
is found elsewhere in the bill that overrides the language presented so

far.


Here is a synopisis.




119. PROHIBITION ON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PRIVATIZATION

House bill

Prohibits DOT from privatizing the functions performed by its air traffic
controllers who separate and control aircraft. States that this prohibition
does not apply to the functions performed at air traffic control towers that
are operated by private entities under the FAA's contract tower program.
This exemption covers the current air traffic control towers that are part
of the FAA contract tower program and to non-towered airports and
non-federal towers that would qualify for participation in this program.

Senate amendment

Prohibits DOT from privatizing the functions performed by its air traffic
controllers who separate and control aircraft and the functions of those who
maintain and certify those systems. Section shall not apply to an FAA tower
operated under the contract tower program as of the date of enactment.

Conference substitute

Prohibits DOT from privatizing air traffic control functions associated with
the separation and control of aircraft, but ensures that the current
contract tower program can continue and be expanded to new towers and VFR
towers. The prohibition sunsets after 4 years.


You can verify the accuracy of this synopsis by researching the House Bill,
the Senate version of the language, and then the Conference substitute that
will soon become law if NATCA loses her fight in the next few days. Or you
can believe AOPA.

Chip, ZTL



  #26  
Old September 3rd 03, 06:30 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Chip Jones" wrote in message news:POo5b.26667
119. PROHIBITION ON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PRIVATIZATION
\

The converence report (which has yet to be acted on):

(a) IN GENERAL- Until October 1, 2007, the Secretary of Transportation may not authorize the transfer of the air traffic separation
and control functions operated by the Federal Aviation Administration on the date of enactment of this Act to a private entity or to
a public entity other than the United State Government.
(b) LIMITATION- Subsection (a) shall not apply--
(1) to a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control tower operated under the contract tower program on the date of
enactment of this Act;
(2) to any expansion of that program through new construction under subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code; or
(3) to a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control tower (other than towers in Alaska) identified in the Report of the
Department of Transportation Inspector General dated April 12, 2000, and designated `Contract Towers: Observations on the Federal
Aviation Administration's Study of Expanding the Program'.


What is added is the sunset limitation. This is really not much of an issue as it's off 3 fiscal
years and most likely would be modified by a subsequent reauthorization bill. It's purely wishful
thinking on someone's part that it wouldn't be modified before then.

So that brings us the new langauge added as item (b)(3) above. The referenced document
is he http://www.oig.dot.gov/show_pdf.php?id=95 Essentially, this opens up 71 VFR
towers to possible consideration for contracting out.

However, none of this is really how most people (other than the federal ATC employees
and their union) define the core privatization issue. AOPA clearly has to pick their battles
on where they throw their weight. The possible subbing out of controller jobs in these
facilities is just not worth them fighting over and the influence this has on their membership
(GA pilots/owners) is negligable.

If NATCA forces the conference report down, then we're likely to hurt badly as it will possibly
hold up the reauthorization bill past the fiscal year deadlines.



  #27  
Old September 3rd 03, 07:27 PM
Chip Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message news:POo5b.26667
119. PROHIBITION ON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PRIVATIZATION
\

The converence report (which has yet to be acted on):

(a) IN GENERAL- Until October 1, 2007, the Secretary of Transportation may

not authorize the transfer of the air traffic separation
and control functions operated by the Federal Aviation Administration on

the date of enactment of this Act to a private entity or to
a public entity other than the United State Government.
(b) LIMITATION- Subsection (a) shall not apply--
(1) to a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control tower

operated under the contract tower program on the date of
enactment of this Act;
(2) to any expansion of that program through new construction under

subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code; or
(3) to a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control tower (other

than towers in Alaska) identified in the Report of the
Department of Transportation Inspector General dated April 12, 2000, and

designated `Contract Towers: Observations on the Federal
Aviation Administration's Study of Expanding the Program'.


What is added is the sunset limitation. This is really not much of an

issue as it's off 3 fiscal
years and most likely would be modified by a subsequent reauthorization

bill. It's purely wishful
thinking on someone's part that it wouldn't be modified before then.


I disagree. The sunset limitation was added during the conference. Both
the House and the Senate Bill expressly forbade ATC privatization
indefinitely. This battle was fought and won by both NATCA and AOPA in both
houses of the Congress. The addition of sunset language in Conference that
did not exist in either version of the Bill is extraordinary.


So that brings us the new langauge added as item (b)(3) above. The

referenced document
is he http://www.oig.dot.gov/show_pdf.php?id=95 Essentially, this

opens up 71 VFR
towers to possible consideration for contracting out.


Negative. Essentially, this opens up 69 VFR towers to contracting out, not
71. All 71 towers have already been considered. However, Don Young (R-AK)
was chairman of the reconciliation Conference. The FAA and the
Administration agreed to take the two Alaska FAA VFR towers off of the
privatization table. Why? 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?


However, none of this is really how most people (other than the federal

ATC employees
and their union) define the core privatization issue.


How then do you pilots define the "core" privatization issue if not the
provision of contract ATC services versus government ATC services?


AOPA clearly has to pick their battles
on where they throw their weight. The possible subbing out of

controller jobs in these
facilities is just not worth them fighting over and the influence this has

on their membership
(GA pilots/owners) is negligable.


In the short term, it is negligible for AOPA. I dount the hundred or so
AOPA/NATCA members who have cancelled their AOPA memberships are even a drop
in the AOPA bucket. In the long term however, it is extremely negative.
The only way the corporate raiders of the aviation world can manage to
privatize the American ATC system is going to be piece by piece. The
President has laid the groundwork for 2007 and beyond by declaring ATC an
inherintly commercial activity. By shedding the smaller pieces of the NAS
between now and 2007 (things like unionized federal VFR towers, unionized
federal FSS functions, unionized airways facilities personnel etc) the
Administration will have a far easier time selling off the bigger pieces
later. After all, the services on the block right now do not negatively
effect the big-boy commercial users like the airlines or the big government
contractors. Later on, when the bigger parts go up for grabs late this
decade, AOPA's concerns will be drowned out by the corporate bottom lines of
airlines looking to take advantage of a commercial ATC system, and by the
profit margins of the big name private contractors who will be providing it.


If NATCA forces the conference report down, then we're likely to hurt

badly as it will possibly
hold up the reauthorization bill past the fiscal year deadlines.


According to AOPA's statement concerning their new position on FAA
reauthorization, [NATCA] "Union leaders don't necessarily care about the
cost of flying, or GA airports, or pilot regulation, or airspace
restrictions unless there are union jobs attached. They look at what's good
for organized labor, not what's good for aviation or the taxpayer." But of
course, no offense is intended, dear controllers. After all, "AOPA
certainly has no gripe with the dedicated, hard-working air traffic
controllers who supply needed services to the entire aviation community."
How offensive and odious those remarks are to those of us who defend GA from
*within* the system! On the one hand, federal controllers are greedy
government employees looking to line their own pockets at the expense of the
flying public, and then in the next breath they are altruistic hard workers
struggling in the trenches for GA. Which is it, AOPA?

When the bell tolls for American GA in 2007, don't look to your local air
traffic controllers for anti-user fee support. Sadly, they'll all be
working for some fat-cat, unscrupulous government contractor instead of your
government's FAA. In the end, we all get what we pay for...

Chip, ZTL


  #28  
Old September 3rd 03, 07:27 PM
Chip Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
link.net...

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
[snipped]

NATCA factually
reports that the Congress is about to authorize ATC privatization by
allowing the FAA to offer 69 FAA air traffic control towers to the

lowest
private sector bidder.

I bid $1 - is that low enough to get them? How about 1c? How about

just
giving me the lot.

Surely you mean the highest bidder??????



Err, no. I mean *lowest* bidder. The idea is to save money. The FAA

(and
your taxes) pays for the infrastructure.


No, the idea is to find a way around ATC unions blocking automation.


No, the latter is the motive of contractors like *you*, Tarver, not for the
*actual* real-life users and operators of the safest ATC system in the
world...

Chip, ZTL



  #29  
Old September 3rd 03, 07:32 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Chip Jones" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
link.net...

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
[snipped]

NATCA factually
reports that the Congress is about to authorize ATC privatization

by
allowing the FAA to offer 69 FAA air traffic control towers to the
lowest
private sector bidder.

I bid $1 - is that low enough to get them? How about 1c? How about

just
giving me the lot.

Surely you mean the highest bidder??????


Err, no. I mean *lowest* bidder. The idea is to save money. The FAA

(and
your taxes) pays for the infrastructure.


No, the idea is to find a way around ATC unions blocking automation.


No, the latter is the motive of contractors like *you*, Tarver, not for

the
*actual* real-life users and operators of the safest ATC system in the
world...


I am not offering engineering services to ATC. In fact, I am also not a
contractor, so even your personal attack is poorly aimed, Chip.

ATC unions have blocked automation for 30 years, but it was not until lately
that the catastrophic events generated by ATC seperation error became the
majority of the total body count.


  #30  
Old September 3rd 03, 07:33 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Chip Jones" wrote in message
link.net...

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message

news:POo5b.26667
119. PROHIBITION ON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PRIVATIZATION
\

The converence report (which has yet to be acted on):

(a) IN GENERAL- Until October 1, 2007, the Secretary of Transportation

may
not authorize the transfer of the air traffic separation
and control functions operated by the Federal Aviation Administration on

the date of enactment of this Act to a private entity or to
a public entity other than the United State Government.
(b) LIMITATION- Subsection (a) shall not apply--
(1) to a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control tower

operated under the contract tower program on the date of
enactment of this Act;
(2) to any expansion of that program through new construction under

subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code; or
(3) to a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control tower

(other
than towers in Alaska) identified in the Report of the
Department of Transportation Inspector General dated April 12, 2000, and

designated `Contract Towers: Observations on the Federal
Aviation Administration's Study of Expanding the Program'.


What is added is the sunset limitation. This is really not much of an

issue as it's off 3 fiscal
years and most likely would be modified by a subsequent reauthorization

bill. It's purely wishful
thinking on someone's part that it wouldn't be modified before then.


I disagree. The sunset limitation was added during the conference. Both
the House and the Senate Bill expressly forbade ATC privatization
indefinitely. This battle was fought and won by both NATCA and AOPA in

both
houses of the Congress. The addition of sunset language in Conference

that
did not exist in either version of the Bill is extraordinary.


An excellent idea, however.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.