AOPA and ATC Privatization

"Mark Kolber" wrote in message
...
[snipped]
And Chip Jones said

I'm sqauwking now. We appear to me to be at a juncture in this debate
similar to the old saying about the Nazi's in Germany.

You are not going to convince me, nor hopefully anyone else, that
there is moral or political equivalent between balancing the overall
benefits of a legislative package to your group and sitting idly by
while people are murdered. "Hall of horrors" comparisons like that are
used regularly as a last ditch effort by the desperate to rally the
ignorant, add absolutely nothing to the debate and tend to be
personally offensive to those who were the target of the acts being
used for the comparison.

Mark, the reference to the "old saying" in my post was to the slippery slope
that doing nothing about ATc privatization *right now* represents. No one
is comparing ATC privatization to the Holocaust, morally or politically.
Such a comparison is so patently shallow I never even considered that my
post could be misconstrued as doing so. If you got offended, I'm sorry.


Sure. Consolidating job responsibilities and moving a portion of
traditionally public sector jobs to the private one is =just= like
genocide. Give me a break.

LOL. Now I'm offended that you're offended...

Chip, ZTL

"David Megginson" wrote in message
...
(Rick Durden) writes:

It is a serious safety issue. When pilots have to pay for ATC
services there is a tendency for them not to file IFR in marginal
weather and scud run, therefore increases the risk of an accident.

That's not applicable in Canada. Up here, small aircraft owners pay
a flat fee (about USD 46.00/year for a private light aircraft),
whether they use ATS or not. In that case, the incentive works the
other way -- you've paid for the services anyway, so you might as well
get your money's worth.

Just curious David. Do Canadian pilots flying VFR largely have to use ATC
service, or can you guys just do the squawk VFR thing and fly willy nilly
around Canada without talking to ATC?



If you do get a fully privatized system in the U.S., it would be a
good idea to model it on the Canadian flat-fee system rather than the
European pay-per-use system, to avoid the problem you mentioned.

It's already screwed general aviation in Europe, the Canadian fees
have shot up, so why is our country so quiveringly anxious to
replace a working system with one that has demonstrated its
antipathy to general aviation in other countries?

Just to put that in context, our fees have shot up by about CAD 5.00
(USD 3.50) for next year. As I mentioned before, it's a different
situation for the airlines, but it's hard to argue that the fees have
any effect on G.A.

But when (not if) GA user fees in Canada go up again, what can the Canadian
GA pilot do about it? Down here in USA, the airlines are *actively*
attempting to seize total control of the ATC system because they accuse the
government of affecting their corporate bottom line with ATC delays. Never
mind the fact that the American taxpayer has just bailed the airlines out
*twice* to the tune of around 18 Billion US Dollars since 9-11 for non-ATC
related problems. If we privatize ATC down here, the corporations that are
going to be running the show will *not* care a whit about GA or BA. They
will cater to the airlines. There is a good chance they will even be
controlled by the airlines depending on exactly who wins the contract (ala
NATS in Britain). Like the US Post Office and the continually rising price
of American postage stamps, there won't be a thing the average GA pilot can
do down here to stop user fees once their government gets out of the ATC
service business.

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" writes:

Just curious David. Do Canadian pilots flying VFR largely have to
use ATC service, or can you guys just do the squawk VFR thing and
fly willy nilly around Canada without talking to ATC?

We are required to file a flight plan or flight itinerary for any VFR
flight beyond 25 nm, but a flight itinerary is as simple as telling
someone where you're going and asking them to call 911 within 24 hours
if you don't show up -- that makes sense for a big, mostly-empty
country like ours.

Also, all of our airways (and all other controlled airspace)
automatically changes to class B at 12,500 ft. Our control zones top
about around 3000 ft AGL like yours, but our terminal areas extend
right up to the flight levels, so you cannot overfly Toronto at 10,000
ft without talking to ATC, the way that you can overfly New York.

Otherwise, though, we're pretty much the same. We have very little
restricted airspace (they've even reduced the temporary restriction
over our Parliament buildings to 1500 ft and 0.25 nm radius, and that
doesn't apply to IFR approaches or departures), and we have a *lot*
more class G than you have, so much so that we even have standard
transponder codes for uncontrolled IFR (!!), which is common in the
north.

Just to put that in context, our fees have shot up by about CAD 5.00
(USD 3.50) for next year. As I mentioned before, it's a different
situation for the airlines, but it's hard to argue that the fees have
any effect on G.A.

But when (not if) GA user fees in Canada go up again, what can the
Canadian GA pilot do about it?

That is a real risk -- we're all vulnerable to the whims of our
elected politicians and public opinion. For example, we don't have
any property or use taxes on aircraft in Canada, while you guys have
to deal with them in quite a few states. Likewise, we rarely have
anything like your TFR's, and we don't have a lot of security
paranoia.

In the end, we have to rely on our advocacy groups just like you do.
So far, COPA has been very effective -- the fees were originally
supposed to be several times higher, and COPA successfully beat them
down to about the cost of a half tank of fuel for my Warrior, and they
keep on fighting every tiny rise now. Personally, I wouldn't object
to paying more, but then, I use ATS a lot, flying out of a busy class
C airport inside a class D terminal area -- I can see how a farmer
with a Cub in her barn would be ****ed off.

If we privatize ATC down here, the corporations that are going to be
running the show will *not* care a whit about GA or BA.

That depends on how you privatise it -- I understand that those of you
fighting to keep the public system don't want to give up quite yet,
but there may come a point that you want to get involved on the inside
to make sure that any new private system is a reasonable one like
ours, and not the worst-case scenario dominated by a few big users,
like you're suggesting.

In Canada, the airlines pay most of the cost of ATS, but small planes
get equal service, just as in the U.S. I often land with two or three
airliners waiting for me, or have commuters or jets slow down behind
me while I'm on an approach. If you end up with something like that,
life won't be too bad.

Now, if we're done talking about privatizing ATS, let's talk about
socializing your medicine ... (just joking).


All the best,


David

"G.R. Patterson III" writes:

We are required to file a flight plan or flight itinerary for any VFR
flight beyond 25 nm, but a flight itinerary is as simple as telling
someone where you're going and asking them to call 911 within 24 hours
if you don't show up -- that makes sense for a big, mostly-empty
country like ours.

So. If I call my mother up and tell here I'm flying down and please
call out the dogs if I don't show up by 9, does that constitute
"filing a flight itinerary", or must this be filed with the
authorities?

No, that's about it -- you might also need to tell your mother what
the airports you're flying from and to.


All the best,


David

David Megginson wrote:

We are required to file a flight plan or flight itinerary for any VFR
flight beyond 25 nm, but a flight itinerary is as simple as telling
someone where you're going and asking them to call 911 within 24 hours
if you don't show up -- that makes sense for a big, mostly-empty
country like ours.

So. If I call my mother up and tell here I'm flying down and please call out
the dogs if I don't show up by 9, does that constitute "filing a flight
itinerary", or must this be filed with the authorities?

George Patterson
A friend will help you move. A really good friend will help you move
the body.

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 03:20:35 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

No way. Everything I have read, including anti-privatization pieces from
AOPA, says fuel taxes and airlilne ticket taxes do not come close to funding
ATC and airport improvements. If it was already self funding, there would
be no incentive to privatize it and the controllers union wouldn't be afraid
of privatization.

Twice the aviation "trust fund" has gotten so large that congress
refused to renew the taxes, running the fund into the ground when they
were pushing for privatization..

It has been included in the "general fund" figures to artificially
reduce the deficit for years.

The money is there, but it's not available. The FAA isn't allowed to
use it in the normal sense. They have to justify and then get their
budget as if it were from the general fund.

It's an extremely confusing issue and I make no claim to being right.
It's just the way I read the issue.

Check out the "Aviation Trust Fund". I've read more than once that
ATC *could* be self supporting were the Trust Fund made openly
available instead of being siphoned off.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)


Mike
MU-2


"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
.. .
On 04 Sep 2003 04:27:03 GMT, Stan Gosnell
wrote:

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in
link.net:

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.

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? As it is, the cost is spread out among everyone who
pays taxes,

My understanding:
The system as it is currently financed is from fuel and gate (ticket)
taxes. The system is not only self supporting, but actually
accumulates money. Unfortunately the way the system is set up the FAA
has to justify the money they spend as if it comes from the general
fund. Only those who fly and use aviation fuel are paying in to the
system, not he general taxpayer.

It is one of the few government agencies that has been self
supporting, even if it does have some problems. Many of which are due
to the way congress lets them have their own money.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

and the burden to any one individual is negligible.

The FAA's budget is $8-9 billion and the total user contribution is about $6
billion. I'm not sure whether the FAA budget includes the cost of
collecting the user contribution.

The big issue for AOPA and NBAA is allocating the costs. It costs the same
to separate a 747 from a 172 as it does to separate the 172 from the 747.
Obviously the 747 is paying a lot more for the service than the 172. The
airlines want to change this and the 172 owner (and Gulfstream owner) wants
to keep it the same as it is now.

I agree that the Aviation Trust Fund like the Social Security trust fund is
an accounting construct where the money is counted twice. I also agree that
the whole idea of privatizing ATC is transparent ploy to increase taxes.
Right now a portion of our (above average) income taxes are paying for a
portion of ATC, if ATC gets privatized nobody is proposing to lower those
taxes to offset the ATC fees.

Mike
MU-2


"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 03:20:35 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

No way. Everything I have read, including anti-privatization pieces from
AOPA, says fuel taxes and airlilne ticket taxes do not come close to
funding
ATC and airport improvements. If it was already self funding, there
would
be no incentive to privatize it and the controllers union wouldn't be
afraid
of privatization.

Twice the aviation "trust fund" has gotten so large that congress
refused to renew the taxes, running the fund into the ground when they
were pushing for privatization..

It has been included in the "general fund" figures to artificially
reduce the deficit for years.

The money is there, but it's not available. The FAA isn't allowed to
use it in the normal sense. They have to justify and then get their
budget as if it were from the general fund.

It's an extremely confusing issue and I make no claim to being right.
It's just the way I read the issue.

Check out the "Aviation Trust Fund". I've read more than once that
ATC *could* be self supporting were the Trust Fund made openly
available instead of being siphoned off.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)


Mike
MU-2


"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
.. .
On 04 Sep 2003 04:27:03 GMT, Stan Gosnell
wrote:

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in
link.net:

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.

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? As it is, the cost is spread out among everyone
who
pays taxes,

My understanding:
The system as it is currently financed is from fuel and gate (ticket)
taxes. The system is not only self supporting, but actually
accumulates money. Unfortunately the way the system is set up the FAA
has to justify the money they spend as if it comes from the general
fund. Only those who fly and use aviation fuel are paying in to the
system, not he general taxpayer.

It is one of the few government agencies that has been self
supporting, even if it does have some problems. Many of which are due
to the way congress lets them have their own money.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

and the burden to any one individual is negligible.

Rick Durden wrote:
David,

It is a serious safety issue. When pilots have to pay for ATC
services there is a tendency for them not to file IFR in marginal
weather and scud run, therefore increases the risk of an accident.

You are assuming a payment per service. No way that is what we get. We
would go the same route as Canada. Each aircraft 5000 pounds and under
pays $60 Canadian per year. What's that $35 US? Big deal. When you
fly thru or into Canada as a US registered aircraft you get a bill in
the mail that is 1/4 the yearly rate. That allows you three months of
flying, not just the trip you took.

Chip Jones wrote:



Just curious David. Do Canadian pilots flying VFR largely have to use ATC
service, or can you guys just do the squawk VFR thing and fly willy nilly
around Canada without talking to ATC?

They are a lot like us. One exception that will never fly here is that
they are required to file and open a VFR flight plan for any flight over
25 miles.

Chip Jones wrote:


But when (not if) GA user fees in Canada go up again, what can the Canadian
GA pilot do about it?

The same thing you do when you don't like the fee for the tabs on your
car. You take it up with your represenatative.