AOPA and ATC Privatization

"Chip Jones" writes:

You pay an automobile tab fee to a private highway services
contractor in order to drive out there in Big Sky Country?

I pay a fee to the Ontario government renew my car's license plates.
It's less than the Nav Canada fee for my plane, neither is very high
(i.e. both are far under USD 50.00/year).


All the best,


David

And isn't capitalism based upon the idea of competition. Where's the
competition in the case of ATC?


"K. Ari Krupnikov" wrote in message
...
Chip, I don't know anything about privatization. This is why I'm in
software engineering and not in economics or politics. I do know that
yours are some of the most informative posts here. They usually make a
lot more sense than most people's in this group. But in this thread,
you confuse the hell out of me.

"Chip Jones" writes:

The controllers union isn't afraid of privatization because the of a
system
funding issue.

He then writes:

The issue for American federal controllers isn't funding or job
security.

And then he writes:

We know that a contractor will be in the game to make money, and
that staffing levels, salaries and equipment costs will all eat at
the profits. Not good for us.

Ari.

User fees cannot discriminate by ability to pay.

Mike
MU-2


"John Clonts" wrote in message
...
Because price is set more directly by value to the consumer than by cost
to
the producer-- free enterprise 101.

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
.net...
Why should the charge for the same service be different for different
customers?

Mike
MU-2


"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...
ATC fee for providing separation for each aircraft should definitely
be
charged to each aircraft... The charge should be some tiny percentage
of
the
gross revenue earned on that flight ... Lets pick a multiplier, say
0.001..

Assume 300 passengers paying an average $300 ticket = $90,000 for KORD
to
KDFT... times 0.001 = $90 that ABC Airlines sends to the feds...
(actually
it is easier than that... Quarterly, ABC Airline sends 0.001 of it's
gross
revenue and you don't have to fool with tracking routes)

Now, Joe Schmuk flying his Whizbanger Four flies the same route...
Gross
revenue for the flight = $0.00... times 0.001.. Charge = $0.00

Seems fair to me...

Denny
" 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.

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

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
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.

The controllers union isn't afraid of privatization because the of a
system
funding issue. Whatever entity provides ATC in the system will have the
system users by the short hairs. Funding will be had because the system
users won't have a choice other than pay to play. Likewise, whatever
entity
provides ATC in the system will employ air traffic controllers. The
Canadian controllers even got a raise when NavCanada was chartered. The
issue for American federal controllers isn't funding or job security.
The
issue for American controllers is that we don't trust a for-profit private
entity to properly staff and run an ATC enterprise with a "safety above
all"
corporate attitude. Hell, we hardly trust FAA, and FAA actually *does*
have
a "safety above all" corporate attitude. We know that a contractor will
be
in the game to make money, and that staffing levels, salaries and
equipment
costs will all eat at the profits. Not good for us. 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. Skyguard here we come...

Chip, ZTL



The drive to lower cost, presumably through technology, would result in
fewer controller positions.

Mike
MU-2

"David Megginson" wrote in message
...
"Chip Jones" writes:

You pay an automobile tab fee to a private highway services
contractor in order to drive out there in Big Sky Country?

I pay a fee to the Ontario government renew my car's license plates.
It's less than the Nav Canada fee for my plane, neither is very high
(i.e. both are far under USD 50.00/year).



Down here in Dixie, I pay a rather large fee to the Georgia State government
to renew my car's tags as well. Technically, it's USD 20/year for a tag
fee, but they also collect an ad valorum tax at the same time that is fairly
pricey. What I was trying to dig at with Newps with is that the tag fee is
paid to the State government, just like you pay your Provincial government
up there to renew. You are not paying plate renewal fees to a private
middleman contractor in order to drive on road net built and maintained by
the state.

Just curious again with Nav Canada. When you pay your ATC fees up there, do
you pay Nav Canada directly, or do you pay your government who then pays Nav
Canada?

Chip, ZTL

"K. Ari Krupnikov" wrote in message
...
Chip, I don't know anything about privatization. This is why I'm in
software engineering and not in economics or politics. I do know that
yours are some of the most informative posts here. They usually make a
lot more sense than most people's in this group. But in this thread,
you confuse the hell out of me.

LOL, I seem to do that a lot here. :-)

I was responding to the statement in this thread "If it [the NAS] was
already self funding, there would be no incentive to privatize it and the
controllers union wouldn't be afraid of privatization." I don't agree that
the controllers union is afraid of privatization simply because of the
source of system funding. At my level of ATC, there are a host of non-union
controllers who don't give a rat's ass who pays for their services, as long
as they get paid.



"Chip Jones" writes:

The controllers union isn't afraid of privatization because the of a
system
funding issue.

He then writes:

The issue for American federal controllers isn't funding or job
security.

And then he writes:

We know that a contractor will be in the game to make money, and
that staffing levels, salaries and equipment costs will all eat at
the profits. Not good for us.


It's context. NATCA isn't worried that privatization will result in the ATC
system going unfunded if it goes private. ATC is a monoply. It will get
funded at some level one way or the other. Someone will work as an air
traffic controller in that system. Current air traffic controllers are the
only people in the nation with the necessary job skills to work in such a
system. That's why I say that ATC funding and job security aren't NATCA's
core issues with privatzation. We see a clear conflict of interest for
*any* private contractor between safety and bottom line. For example, low
staffing levels mean high job security for those who are working the system,
but also high workload and high fatigue, which compromises safety.

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" writes:

Just curious again with Nav Canada. When you pay your ATC fees up there, do
you pay Nav Canada directly, or do you pay your government who then pays Nav
Canada?

We pay Nav Canada directly. Don't forget, though, that any privatized
ATC will still be government-regulated, because it will be a monopoly.
It won't be able just to raise fees whenever it feels like it.


All the best,


David

"Chuck Gerlach" wrote in message
nk.net...
And isn't capitalism based upon the idea of competition. Where's the
competition in the case of ATC?


Agreed. Where's the competition in the US Public Health Service? How about
the TSA baggage screeners? How about the United States Marine Corps? How
about the NTSB? FBI? USDA? Social Security? ATC is not an inherintly
capitalistic endeavour- it is a government monopoly. Hell, ATC isn't even
inherintly a business with a commercial bottom line. In my opinion, ATC is
clearly an arm of the government, just like shrimp and seafood inspection.

Chip, ZTL

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net...


The drive to lower cost, presumably through technology, would result in
fewer controller positions.


Theoretically, but how can you lower cost while you are trying to invent and
implement technology to replace human beings? Those of us on the inside
know that "technology" isn't forthcoming that is going to replace us. What
"technology?"

Also, IMO that ignores the issue of job security for those of us already in
the system and paying union dues to NATCA. At Atlanta ARTCC for example, we
are operating at about 65-70% of our *minimum* staffing numbers. ZTL is
operationally the busiest ATC facility in the world right now in terms of
operational count. I put our airspace complexity up against any ATC
facility in the world too. There are extremely busy, complicated night
shifts here where we run 8 controllers on a shift that has an official
minimum staffing requiremnt for 15 controllers. These 8 controllers manage
to work an area with 7 sectors for whole shift. We're doing six day weeks
here. Over half of us can retire within the next ten years. Ain't no
technology in the world that is within ten years of deployment that is gonna
replace us- we're already working below bare bones staffing in my ARTCC. We
have job security here. Our personal goal is to live long enough to retire
in a few years.


Of course, the DOT IG just testified to Congress that 75% percent of the
Centers are "overstaffed". LOL! Where are they, Seattle?


Chip, ZTL

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 14:40:53 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in Message-Id:
t:

The drive to lower cost, presumably through technology, would result in
fewer controller positions.

Isn't there an imminent shortage of ATC manpower due to retirements
and an insufficient number training classes offered?


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,