Control Tower Controversy brewing in the FAA

"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.



I think new technology would
be adopted faster and with less bureaucracy.


Why?



I think controller
performance would be rewarded more effectively.


There used to be rewards for superior controller performance, but no longer.



Last I knew, most civil
service jobs still had a lot of focus on seniority, more like a union
workforce in the private sector than a professional workforce in the
private sector.


About all seniority does today in ATC is select prime time leave.



No way to know for sure unless it happens, but I'd bet money on greater
efficiency.


Why should that be the case in the US? It hasn't happened anywhere else.

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Admitting that he's fresh out of logical arguments for his position,
Tarver tries a lame insult.


Tarver has never had a logical argument in any discussion.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"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.

Sure you can. Not the head-to-head competition that exists in consumer
goods markets, but certainly competition akin to what exists in the
telecom market and other such markets. Also, the gummint could retain
ownership of ATC, but hold a competition every 4-5 years for who gets to
operate ATC for the next 4-5 years. Not real privatization, but a
hybrid that gets closer.

Don't get me wrong, as I said at the start, I am not advocating
privatization of ATC. I'm not sure that deregulation of the telecom
industry has been a win for the consumer and I'm not sure privatization
of ATC would be any better.


I think new technology would
be adopted faster and with less bureaucracy.



Why?

First a disclaimer, I'm not an expert when it comes to the federal
contracting process, but my employer does do a fair amount of government
contract work and I've had a passing acquaintance with it. It is MUCH
more expensive to work with any government agency that with almost any
private company, and I'm talking here about national research labs,
military labs, and some federal agencies such as NASA, but not, to my
knowledge, the FAA ... never worked with them as far as I know. The
requirements for bidding, accounting, etc. are just insane. The only
private company that even comes close to being as tough to work with is
Big Blue.

We just landed a contract with a large government agency working jointly
with IBM. It took TWO YEARS to get the contract! We've done much more
complicated work for much more money with other private companies and
universities under contracts that took two months to negotiate and get
approved.


I think controller
performance would be rewarded more effectively.



There used to be rewards for superior controller performance, but no longer.

The would exist in spades in most private companies. And not just
rewards for good performance, but termination for poor performance.


Last I knew, most civil
service jobs still had a lot of focus on seniority, more like a union
workforce in the private sector than a professional workforce in the
private sector.



About all seniority does today in ATC is select prime time leave.



No way to know for sure unless it happens, but I'd bet money on greater
efficiency.



Why should that be the case in the US? It hasn't happened anywhere else.

Few other countries have embraced capitalism as thoroughly as the US.
I'm not familiar with private ATC in the rest of the world, so I can't
comment. What countries are you talking about? Canada? England? Are
they really completely private or hybrids?


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message =
...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
=20
Why would private ATC be more efficient?
=20
Because most private companies that perform functions similar to=20
governmental agencies are more efficient. I think new technology =
would=20
be adopted faster and with less bureaucracy. I think controller=20
performance would be rewarded more effectively. Last I knew, most =
civil=20
service jobs still had a lot of focus on seniority, more like a union=20
workforce in the private sector than a professional workforce in the=20
private sector.
=20
No way to know for sure unless it happens, but I'd bet money on =
greater=20
efficiency. I'd also bet money that general aviation, at least =
anything=20
other than corporate aviation, would all but cease to exist in 10-20 =

years.
=20
=20
Matt
=20

My home airport has a non-FAA tower, and I operate frequently
into several other airports with non-FAA towers.
My experience is that few of the private controllers attain even the =
average
level of ability and courtesy I've learned to expect at FAA towers.
Of course, some controllers are good, but I have heard shocking displays
of carelessness and discourtesy on the frequencies of one particular
"privatized" tower in my region of the Midwest.
I doubt such a condition could occur in an FAA tower.

I can think of many reasons to criticize the FAA as an agency, but I =
think of
the Air Traffic Control branch as a distinctly separate, very =
professional group.

I've come to the viewpoint that privatization of ATC would be bad for =
U.S. aviation.
---JRC---

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Sure you can. Not the head-to-head competition that exists in consumer
goods markets, but certainly competition akin to what exists in the
telecom market and other such markets. Also, the gummint could retain
ownership of ATC, but hold a competition every 4-5 years for who gets to
operate ATC for the next 4-5 years. Not real privatization, but a
hybrid that gets closer.


It's the head-to-head competition that makes private firms more efficient.

Cub Driver wrote:

Let's put it this way. If you had a very valuable package that just
had to get there, would you take it to the post office or to Fed Ex?

USPS. It's a mile away. Sure, I have to pay for express mail and insure the
package, but that's still cheaper than driving 25 miles to the nearest FedEx
office and paying *their* prices.

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.

Tarver Engineering wrote:

Can you name one country with private ATC where this is true?

These United States is where the money is offered and GA is valued.

Translation: "No".

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.

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
Tarver Engineering wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Tom S. wrote:

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...


Commercial aviation has far more money to spend than any GA operation
short of the Fortune 500 corporations. I agree that those with the
dough will get the service, but it won't be us who fly anything less
than 12,500 lbs.


Why should it be any other way? "Those who bears the costs, gets the

goods".

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.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
Tarver Engineering wrote:

Can you name one country with private ATC where this is true?

These United States is where the money is offered and GA is valued.

Translation: "No".

I wrote that privatizing ATC included a $100,000,000 spend on GA.

Are you having trouble following the thread, or are you really old,
Patterson?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.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.

Automation is the natural competitor of civil service.