AOPA and ATC Privatization

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...


Are you claiming PATCO is corrupt?

I am claiming that in 1981 PATCO management misrepresented things to
the membership that caused them to strike when they might not otherwise
have, they then weaseled themselves to the LRB to disgrace themselves
futher. I have no clue if the management of that era still has any involvement
in today's PATCO.

"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?


The one and the same.... :-)

Chip, ZTL

Chris W wrote in :

I have to second that. With out AOPA where would we be? Just because
they aren't in my opinion perfect, doesn't mean they don't deserve my
support. They do a lot of good.

Well, you're certainly free to support them in any way you like. I choose
to spend my money elsewhere.

--
Regards,

Stan

The pilots don't like it because they are forced to pay for the services
that they recieve. Everybody else likes it.

"the people who have personally benefitted financially" are the pilots and
controllers.

Mike
MU-2


"David H" wrote in message
...
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

David H writes:

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).

I have no experience with New Zealand, but please don't use Canada as
a weapon in this dispute.

As an instrument-rated Canadian pilot and aircraft owner, I have no
complaints at all about Nav Canada. The fee for private light
aircraft (about USD 45/year) is too small to be a problem, especially
in a country where no jurisdiction charges property or use taxes on
aircraft (unlike some U.S. states).

Service is good, and we have better coordination between ATC and FSS
than you have in the U.S.: for example, a control tower will
automatically receive a copy of your VFR flight plan and close it for
you when you land. The controllers and specialists have new, modern
equipment, but otherwise are pretty-much the same in Canada and the
U.S., from my limited U.S. experience (I had some shoddy treatment
from one controller at NY approach, but I wouldn't assume that he was
typical of the whole U.S. system).

Of course, that's from the private pilot's perspective. The Nav
Canada fee is much more of a burden for the airlines, and controllers
are not happy with working hours and pay (I don't know if it's better
or worse than the socialized ATC in the U.S.). Nav Canada has also
been scaling back local FSS's so that they have responsibility only
for their local airports and control zones -- briefings, flight plans,
and enroute now go through a few big regional FIC's. I never did
face-to-face briefings at a small airport anyway, but I know that some
pilots miss them.

So, I guess that the negative is the small fee, and the positive is a
major investment in new equipment (vs. the old, broken stuff that many
U.S. controllers complain about) and slightly better FSS/ATC
coordination. Everything else is pretty much the same as in the
U.S. -- private ATC hasn't been a triumph or a disaster in Canada.


All the best,


David

ArtP writes:

And those few citizens who buy airline tickets. If the airlines had
to pay for ATC services, do you really think they wouldn't pass
those charges on to the passengers?

Since it won't cost much more for ATC to handle a 747 than a Cessna,
the cost per passenger won't be very much.

That turns out not to be the case. COPA in Canada lobbied very
successfully to keep the Nav Canada fee low for light aircraft (about
USD 45/year), but it is orders of magnitude higher for the air
carriers -- I think that it adds a few dollars to every ticket. That,
together with a post-September-11 so-called security tax (not,
obviously, used for security) and other taxes, make life hard for the
airlines and their passengers. While privatized ATC hasn't been a
real problem for private aircraft owners, it does affect the airlines
quite a bit. It's purely an economic problem, though, not a safety
one.


All the best,


David

Chip Jones wrote:
I am unaware
of the postcards that Phil Boyer mentions on the AOPA site.

I assumed he was talking about the cards that NAATS was having people complete
and sign at their booth at Oshkosh. They had a form for you to sign with parts
destined for your legislators, and one part for Phil Boyer. Hmmm. Maybe that
wasn't about the reauthorization bill.

Remove SHIRT to reply directly.
--
Dave Butler, software engineer 919-392-4367
There's no place like 127.0.0.1

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
The pilots don't like it because they are forced to pay for the services
that they recieve. Everybody else likes it.

That would make them just like about 98% of the population.

"the people who have personally benefitted financially" are the pilots
and
controllers.


And the bureaucrats...

Mike
MU-2

John Smith wrote:

[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??????

If they accept the highest bid I am sure to get the job.~

They usually take the lowest bid from a *qualified* bidder, who has agreed to
perform a very long, detailed list of tasks. $1 wouldn't quite cut it.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

proves they can do the job for the least amount of money. The "lowest bidder".


Lowest *qualified* bidder.