AOPA and ATC Privatization

"Chip Jones" wrote in message news:0oq5b.26774
I disagree. The sunset limitation was added during the conference. Both
the House and the Senate Bill expressly forbade ATC privatization
indefinitely.

No, it just forbade the FAA from further ATC privatization until further act of congress.

Negative. Essentially, this opens up 69 VFR towers to contracting out, not
71. All 71 towers have already been considered.

Right, I forgot to deduct the two Alaskan towers.

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?

Congressional wheeling and dealing. Same reason why West Virginia had
so many dedicated (i.e. non AFSS) FSS's and control towers at places that
didn't really warrant them up until rather recently.

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

Contracting out the performance of tasks is a different issue than establishing
a seperate PBO or other non-direct government agency to control the skies.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message news:0oq5b.26774
I disagree. The sunset limitation was added during the conference.
Both
the House and the Senate Bill expressly forbade ATC privatization
indefinitely.

No, it just forbade the FAA from further ATC privatization until further
act of congress.

Well, I guess we're just approaching the same question from different
directions. To me, "indefinitely" and "until further act of Congress" is
one and the same, and neither equates to a sunset provision. Congress voted
that the FAA was to be *prohibited* from further privatizing ATC without an
act of Congress, ie- privatization was made illegal indefinitley. How
unlike the language into which the two versions were "reconciled" by Don
Young's Administration hitmen.



Negative. Essentially, this opens up 69 VFR towers to contracting out,
not
71. All 71 towers have already been considered.

Right, I forgot to deduct the two Alaskan towers.

LOL, The Alaska Congressional delegation dang sure didn't!


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?

Congressional wheeling and dealing. Same reason why West Virginia had
so many dedicated (i.e. non AFSS) FSS's and control towers at places that
didn't really warrant them up until rather recently.

But if the bottom line is air safety, isn't that a bipartisan issue?
Congress certainly thought so when they passed the original versions of the
unreconciled Bills. And if the bottom line isn't air safety, then why would
Don Young specifically take Juneau and Merril towers off of the contract
list, a list that includes busier places like Van Nuys and Boeing Field?
What advantage does having an FAA-run tower bring to Alaska constituents
other than air safety on the airport? It's not like these two Alaska towers
employ hundreds of Alaskans. I don't know about Merrill, but Juneau only
employs about 12 federal controllers I am told. Not exactly a major job
source even in Alaska.


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

Contracting out the performance of tasks is a different issue than
establishing
a seperate PBO or other non-direct government agency to control the skies.


Actually, isn't that *exactly* what happens at a contract ATC facility?
The task of Air Traffic Control, performed by an air traffic controller, is
provided to the public by a non-direct, private, for-profit corporate entity
exercising control over a piece of the National Airspace System sky. That's
pretty much the "core" of the privatization issue and it's right upon AOPA,
right now. Not the year 2007 or later... It seems pretty basic to me that
there is no difference between privatizing a single federal tower and the
whole national ATC system except a difference in degree. I also believe
that the toleration of the one makes the other inevitable. It doesn't get
more "core" than that, IMO.

Chip, ZTL

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

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
news:0oq5b.26774
I disagree. The sunset limitation was added during the conference.
Both
the House and the Senate Bill expressly forbade ATC privatization
indefinitely.

No, it just forbade the FAA from further ATC privatization until further
act of congress.

Well, I guess we're just approaching the same question from different
directions. To me, "indefinitely" and "until further act of Congress" is
one and the same, and neither equates to a sunset provision. Congress
voted
that the FAA was to be *prohibited* from further privatizing ATC without
an
act of Congress, ie- privatization was made illegal indefinitley. How
unlike the language into which the two versions were "reconciled" by Don
Young's Administration hitmen.



Negative. Essentially, this opens up 69 VFR towers to contracting
out,
not
71. All 71 towers have already been considered.

Right, I forgot to deduct the two Alaskan towers.

LOL, The Alaska Congressional delegation dang sure didn't!


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?

Congressional wheeling and dealing. Same reason why West Virginia had
so many dedicated (i.e. non AFSS) FSS's and control towers at places
that
didn't really warrant them up until rather recently.

But if the bottom line is air safety, isn't that a bipartisan issue?

Yep, that is why there is a sunset provision.

Congress certainly thought so when they passed the original versions of
the
unreconciled Bills. And if the bottom line isn't air safety, then why
would
Don Young specifically take Juneau and Merril towers off of the contract
list, a list that includes busier places like Van Nuys and Boeing Field?

Money.

What advantage does having an FAA-run tower bring to Alaska constituents
other than air safety on the airport? It's not like these two Alaska
towers
employ hundreds of Alaskans. I don't know about Merrill, but Juneau only
employs about 12 federal controllers I am told. Not exactly a major job
source even in Alaska.

Jobs.

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

Contracting out the performance of tasks is a different issue than
establishing
a seperate PBO or other non-direct government agency to control the
skies.

Actually, isn't that *exactly* what happens at a contract ATC facility?

Eventually.

The task of Air Traffic Control, performed by an air traffic controller,
is
provided to the public by a non-direct, private, for-profit corporate
entity
exercising control over a piece of the National Airspace System sky.

Yes, but without a powerful public employees union to block improvements.
(ie RIF)

That's
pretty much the "core" of the privatization issue and it's right upon
AOPA,
right now. Not the year 2007 or later... It seems pretty basic to me
that
there is no difference between privatizing a single federal tower and the
whole national ATC system except a difference in degree. I also believe
that the toleration of the one makes the other inevitable. It doesn't get
more "core" than that, IMO.

AOPA has a larger constituancy than ATC. The fact that AOPA acted in the
best interest of GA, by making an advantagous political deal, is not
surprising.

Chip Jones wrote:

Fighting this battle on the field of 2007, we will be 69 ATC towers closer
to ATC user fees.

Or alternatively, in 2007 maybe we'll have a President and/or a Congress
from the party that doesn't think the way to run the country is to give
it all away to large corporations. Maybe they figure it's a losing
battle now, they should get the best they can, and then gear up for the
fight in 2007 when we've been aware of the threat for 4 years and
hopefully will have a better political climate.

"Chip Jones" wrote in message news:bir5b.26821

What advantage does having an FAA-run tower bring to Alaska constituents
other than air safety on the airport? It's not like these two Alaska towers
employ hundreds of Alaskans. I don't know about Merrill, but Juneau only
employs about 12 federal controllers I am told. Not exactly a major job
source even in Alaska.

I can't say if safety is or is not the issue. But is clear that Senator Young thought
that it would play better in his home state if he kept them on the federal dole. Maybe
one of the controllers is kin to a major contributor, who knows, it certainly smacks
of politicking rather than the public interest.

Actually, isn't that *exactly* what happens at a contract ATC facility?

No, no more than contracting out DUAT is, nor anything else ATC contracts out.

Despite all the hoohah, AOPA's concern is not whether the PBO can do a good job
or if there is a safety concern, what they are concerned about is that privatization
makes it easier to bring up the ugly user fee issue to fund it.

How about examining the real-world experience of pilots in other countries
where ATC services HAVE been privatized?

Want to see what things will be like if/when this administration has its way?
Look to Canada, New Zealand, etc. Without exception, everything I've seen
about privatized ATC services esewhere paints a very, very unpleasant picture.
I see absolutely zero benefits (other than money going into the contractor's
pockets - and that only benefits them, at a cost to everyone else).

Ask pilots who have gone through the privatization process how they have liked
it. Without exception, everyone I've heard from says the same thing: sure,
there might be a few shortcomings in the present system (hey, what system of
ANYTHING is perfect?), but you are much, MUCH better off with the existing
system run by the government. Is there ANYONE (except for the people who have
personally benefitted financially) who have gone through a switch from a
government-run ATC system to a privatized one who think it has improved
things? I haven't heard a single voice supporting that position. On the other
hand, I have heard many, many others who all say the same thing: you Yanks
would be absolutely CRAZY to get rid of the wonderful system you now have and
throw it away in favor of a system whose primary goal is to generate revenue
and keep costs down.

Rather than unrealistic, ideological fantasies (i.e. anything the government
does is always bad, and anything the private sector does is always better) I'd
like to hear what specifically is wrong with the current system, and exactly
how selling it off to the low bidder is going to address that. Absent those
details and a convincing, fact-based analysis showing how a privatized systsm
would benefit us all, this simply looks like nothing more than a good,
old-fashioned money grab to me.

David H
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying forum:
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

[snipped]


Yes, but without a powerful public employees union to block improvements.
(ie RIF)


Now that's a scream, John! Do you remember August of 1981? A pleasant
little group of unselfish, altruistic Americans who called themselves PATCO?
Think they're gone from the ATC scene? Think again. Who do you think
represents all of those private *contract* towers these days? Not NATCA.
Yep, PATCO, the one and only. The ones who said "America can't fire us
all..." Big labor is into ATC no matter whether public or private, it just
depends on which flavor of labor you prefer. You see, PATCO wants to see
privatization too- it's right up their alley (more little bargaining units
to represent...) Personally, I think NATCA has a much better track record
of public service than PATCO, but it's your call, bro. I'd be happy to post
a link to the PATCO site if you want to read about what a great job private
ATC providers do with all that federal contract money they receive from FAA.

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote in message news:k%r5b.26989
Now that's a scream, John! Do you remember August of 1981? A pleasant
little group of unselfish, altruistic Americans who called themselves PATCO?

As opposed to the the corrupt, lying schemers called PATCO managment who
lied to their members and cooked the strike vote to convince them that the
larger brotherhood had decided that the strike was a good idea?

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

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

[snipped]


Yes, but without a powerful public employees union to block
improvements.
(ie RIF)


Now that's a scream, John! Do you remember August of 1981?

Sure.

A pleasant
little group of unselfish, altruistic Americans who called themselves
PATCO?
Think they're gone from the ATC scene? Think again. Who do you think
represents all of those private *contract* towers these days? Not NATCA.
Yep, PATCO, the one and only.

Nothing has changed, in 30 years.

The ones who said "America can't fire us
all..." Big labor is into ATC no matter whether public or private, it
just
depends on which flavor of labor you prefer.

A choice gives much more latitude.

You see, PATCO wants to see
privatization too- it's right up their alley (more little bargaining units
to represent...) Personally, I think NATCA has a much better track record
of public service than PATCO, but it's your call, bro. I'd be happy to
post
a link to the PATCO site if you want to read about what a great job
private
ATC providers do with all that federal contract money they receive from
FAA.

Good work on the part of PATCO to protect their interests, but civil service
law does not protect contractors.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message news:k%r5b.26989
Now that's a scream, John! Do you remember August of 1981? A pleasant
little group of unselfish, altruistic Americans who called themselves
PATCO?

As opposed to the the corrupt, lying schemers called PATCO managment who
lied to their members and cooked the strike vote to convince them that the
larger brotherhood had decided that the strike was a good idea?

Are you claiming PATCO is corrupt?