AOPA and ATC Privatization

"Chip Jones" wrote in message news:bf37b.9672

Funny Ron, that's the way I feel about the current Republican Administration
and their claim that all of these "little" towers on the block are "rural".
Maybe you could pick out the distorted "half truths" in the NATCA ad and
debunk them here on the forum.

The commercial implies that the entire ATC system is going to be auctioned
off by HR 2115. This is an outright lie. They don't even resort to your
slippery slope argument. As far as anybody who really doesn't know what's
going on, this has nothing to do with 69 towers, it's the end of the world as
we know it when it comes to ATC.

NATCA and any other lobbying group does itself a great disservice by
resorting to hysteria rather than sane persuasion. All that's going to happen
out of this is that a lot of congressional staffers are going to have to explain
the truth to the few people who take NATCA's recommendation of voting
down all of 2115 to let them know what the issue really is.

I'll let people listen to this drivel and decide for themselves:
http://www.natca.org/assets/Multimedia/auction_ad.rm

They lose the good message about the problems with privatization with the
wildass opening statement:

A bill is in Washington that put air safety on the auction block. The bill
would sell off the world's safest air traffic control system to the lowest bidder.

The "SYSTEM" is not 69 control towers.
The contracting oiut process is not "auctioning off to the lowest bidder"

Other than that it's a great commercial.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

Maybe you could pick out the distorted "half truths" in the NATCA ad and
debunk them here on the forum.

Pot kettle.


Agreed. :-P

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message news:bf37b.9672

Funny Ron, that's the way I feel about the current Republican
Administration
and their claim that all of these "little" towers on the block are
"rural".
Maybe you could pick out the distorted "half truths" in the NATCA ad and
debunk them here on the forum.

The commercial implies that the entire ATC system is going to be auctioned
off by HR 2115. This is an outright lie.

How can an implication be an "outright lie"? An outright lie is something
like the DOT IG's claim to Congress that 75% of the FAA's enroute ARTCC's
are "overstaffed."


They don't even resort to your
slippery slope argument.
As far as anybody who really doesn't know what's
going on, this has nothing to do with 69 towers, it's the end of the world
as
we know it when it comes to ATC.

I agree with you there. It is not the end of the world when it comes to
ATC. It is simply the beginning of the end of it for American General
Aviation. ATC will survive, but it will become the servant of a new master-
big business catering to big airlines. Mark my words, by the time 2020
rolls around, you will be paying so much money in ATC user fees, GA will be
an exclusive province of the rich and privileged. Why? Because in 2008,
when they begin to dismantle the rest of the system, piece by piece, this
first defeat will be fait accompli. Too bad I can't make any Hitler
references.


NATCA and any other lobbying group does itself a great disservice by
resorting to hysteria rather than sane persuasion. All that's going to
happen
out of this is that a lot of congressional staffers are going to have to
explain
the truth to the few people who take NATCA's recommendation of voting
down all of 2115 to let them know what the issue really is.

Sane persuasion? Let's review, shall we? NATCA and AOPA won a major
victory in both Houses of Congress at the beginning of summer. They used
sane persuasion against the AAAE, CTA, ATA, PATCO and even against the
Administration and the FAA itself to argue against allowing federal ATC to
become a commercial endeavor. The House and the Senate both passed bills
that prohibited the FAA from contracting out ATC services (other than what
was already contracted out) until a further act of Congress (i.e.-
indefinite
and "permanent" language). AOPA and NATCA declared victory. The White
House threatened veto.

At the end of the summer, both versions of the legislation went to
Conference to be reconciled. During the closed door reconciliation hearing,
the FAA cut a deal with Don Young (R-AK) to protect the federal ATC
facilities in his home state. Young and the staffers of the Republicans in
the conference then inserted (quid pro quo) the contract ATC language that
had been expressly defeated by the full House and the full Senate six weeks
earlier. The Democrats in the conference refused to sign and walked out of
the conference. The Administration, , FAA, ATA, AAAE, CTA and PATCO all
declared victory. AOPA looked at the new law as re-written and decided that
since it had other provisions in it that were good for GA that they could
live with the sunset clause and the contracting out of the 69 towers. Thus,
AOPA abandoned the fight.

Exactly what hope does NATCA have of using sane persuasion to defeat a
steamrolled bill when her major ally defects to the opposing camp? Sane
persuasion worked in June when Congress voted the first time. It was
defeated in the Night of the Long Knives during the conference. The issue
*really is* contract ATC services to be performed by the lowest bidder. If
(or when, LOL) Vision 100 becomes law, the battle is lost. I don't really
think NATCA is doing itself a disservice at all by being hysterical. The
real fight is right bow, and NATCA is losing. What harm done by going full
bore to the public right now and make them aware of the issues. I promise
you that many those who are calling Congressional staffers aren't going to
hear the "real issues" the way AOPA, ATA, PATCO and other organizations
currently describe them. That's about the only play NATCA has left, IMO.


I'll let people listen to this drivel and decide for themselves:
http://www.natca.org/assets/Multimedia/auction_ad.rm

They lose the good message about the problems with privatization with the
wildass opening statement:

A bill is in Washington that put air safety on the auction block.

What is inaccurate about this statement? A Bill *is* in Washington that
will put air safety on the auction block. ATC towers are engaged in the air
safety business. If this legislation passes, 69 of those towers will be
auctioned off to the lowest bidder. What is "drivel" about that statement?

The bill
would sell off the world's safest air traffic control system to the lowest
bidder.

The "SYSTEM" is not 69 control towers.

69 control towers are not all that this bill specifically threatens by
legislation. The entire federal system sunsets in 2007. The 69 towers are
just the beginning. I grant you it is a stretch to claim that the bill
sells off the entire system right now upon passage, but I do not believe
that it is much of a stretch to see that wholesale privatization becomes a
wide open prospect once the bill becomes law. Because it does. NATCA will
likely lose this fight on this bill because NATCA is now standing alone, but
American GA will be the ultimate victim.


The contracting out process is not "auctioning off to the lowest bidder"

It's not? How would you describe the "contracting out process?"

Chip, ZTL

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

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
news:bf37b.9672

Funny Ron, that's the way I feel about the current Republican
Administration
and their claim that all of these "little" towers on the block are
"rural".
Maybe you could pick out the distorted "half truths" in the NATCA ad
and
debunk them here on the forum.

The commercial implies that the entire ATC system is going to be
auctioned
off by HR 2115. This is an outright lie.

How can an implication be an "outright lie"? An outright lie is something
like the DOT IG's claim to Congress that 75% of the FAA's enroute ARTCC's
are "overstaffed."

I'd have to go with Mead.

Mike Rapoport wrote:

Pretty tough to see how you could keep the 172 farther from the 747 than
the 747 is from the 172.

Why must distance be a symetric relationship? I'm sure that a privatized
ATC would do away with such silly assumptions.

More seriously: that's not quite what I meant. I'm thinking of a "bubble"
of a certain size that must be kept clear. I'm sure there's an official
term, but I don't know it.

I'd imagine that this "bubble" needs to be larger around a fast-mover than a
slow-mover. In other words, a sky of 172s could be permitted to be more
densely packed than a sky of 747s.

At least, that's my assumption. I've no idea whether or not it's correct.

- Andrew

Tom S. wrote:

Like the phone companies...the Postal (dis)service...

Or like the distribution of electricity.

- Andrew

Chip Jones wrote:

We fear that
privatization will place us into an environment where the contractor
pushes us to cut major safety corners (you know, in the name of
"efficiency") and then when people get hurt or airplanes get too close,
the poor SOB working the sector will get fired for "poor job performance"
rather than the contractor getting sacked for putting the controller in
that situation and
the people in the airplanes in that situation.

From reading postings here by ATC-ers, I thought that the above was
occurring today in some places in the current system.

- Andrew

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...
[snipped]

How can an implication be an "outright lie"? An outright lie is
something
like the DOT IG's claim to Congress that 75% of the FAA's enroute
ARTCC's
are "overstaffed."

I'd have to go with Mead.


That doesn't surprise me.

Chip, ZTL

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

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

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...
[snipped]

How can an implication be an "outright lie"? An outright lie is
something
like the DOT IG's claim to Congress that 75% of the FAA's enroute
ARTCC's
are "overstaffed."

I'd have to go with Mead.


That doesn't surprise me.

He is my hand picked guy. Back when I used a first amendment petition to
get the ACOs to produce qualified degignees, Mead at GAO was also involved
on the MIDO side; with the same issue. Mead was removed from aviation
issues at GAO, as punnishment for being honest. I used my Congressman's
staff to put Mead at USDOT, as I felt it was a huge waste of 20 years of
aviation experiance. I talked to Ken after that and he got a nice raise
to
be IG.


Ah, now it all becomes clear. YOU put Mead where he is. That explains why
he knows as much about Air Traffic Control as you do. Thanks for clearing
that up for me.

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
news

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

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

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...
[snipped]

How can an implication be an "outright lie"? An outright lie is
something
like the DOT IG's claim to Congress that 75% of the FAA's enroute
ARTCC's
are "overstaffed."

I'd have to go with Mead.


That doesn't surprise me.

He is my hand picked guy. Back when I used a first amendment petition
to
get the ACOs to produce qualified degignees, Mead at GAO was also
involved
on the MIDO side; with the same issue. Mead was removed from aviation
issues at GAO, as punnishment for being honest. I used my Congressman's
staff to put Mead at USDOT, as I felt it was a huge waste of 20 years of
aviation experiance. I talked to Ken after that and he got a nice raise
to
be IG.


Ah, now it all becomes clear. YOU put Mead where he is.

I made it possible for Mead to go where he is. Anytime a civil servant is
removed from an issue, they require an advocate to bring them back. It
helped that my Congressman was Chair of Government Oversight and Reform back
then, he is now Chair of Ways and Means. The reform of FAA has been a very
effective Republican political issue, not to mention the lives that have
been saved.

That explains why
he knows as much about Air Traffic Control as you do.

LOL

If you say so. Perhaps your partisanship to the issue has blinded you. I
seriously doubt either of us knows as much about air traffic control as
Mead.

Thanks for clearing
that up for me.

Mead is an honest guy, who tells it like it is.