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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
"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) |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|