AOPA and ATC Privatization

"John Smith" wrote in message
...

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??????


To the highest bidder? Hmmm..... I thought the reason for this
quasi-privatization was to save money, but it is the US government, after
all. You may be right.

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 20:23:54 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

I looked at the quotes Mark provided. All I see is language that
*prohibits* the privitization of ATC, but which makes clear that the
*existing* contract tower program is still legal.

And can be expanded to new airports and a group of airports that are
being examined. And the prohibition automatically expires in 4 years.

NATCA is simply taking the position that the conference version uses
"prohibition" language while expanding privatization.

The original house version permitted privatization only for
(a) towers already in the contract program
(b) non-towred airports without towers that qualify for contract
towers
(c)airports with non-federal towers that qualify for contract towers

The original Senate version permitted privatization only for
(a) towers already in the contract program


The compromise version permits privatization only for
(a) towers already in the contract program
(b) non-towred airports without towers that qualify for contract
towers
(c) airports with non-federal towers that qualify for contract towers
(d) any new Towers
(e) a group of existing towers that are identified in the Inspector
General report about expanding the contract tower program

....and =any= tower is fare game in 4 years.


You can disagree with NATCA's view that the conference report
represents, for privatization, something akin to being "a little bit
pregnant", but it is as legitimate a reading of the information as
AOPA's "don't worry, overall, GA gains more than it loses in the bill"
stance.


Mark Kolber
APA/Denver, Colorado
www.midlifeflight.com
======================
email? Remove ".no.spam"

"Scott Lowrey" wrote in message news:sYb5b.257396$Oz4.67873@rwcrnsc54...
"Chip Jones" said
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

I'm with Ron. Given the name of the organization, why SHOULD you
support
them?

LOL, I suppose I was naive enough to assume that AOPA's interests in
protecting GA's public access to the NAS went hand in hand with my public
service as a NAS ATC operator. Alas, I fear I was mistaken.

Hang in there, Chip. Is there a controller's association I can join? : )

NATCA offers associate memberships to non-FAA types..

"David H" wrote:
[excellent post snipped]

What a refreshing voice of reason. I hope you mailed Phil a copy.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

John Smith wrote:

Surely you mean the highest bidder??????

No. The Feds are going to contract out the work in the towers. They will pay
some private company to do this work. Each contract will go to whatever company
proves they can do the job for the least amount of money. The "lowest bidder".

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

"Mark Kolber" wrote in message
...
[snipped]


I think it ultimately comes down to this: The conference report that
NATCA is complaining about permits privatization to a larger degree
than the original House version and to a much larger degree than the
Senate version.

Bingo. Both the House and the Senate voted on bills that *prohibited* ATC
privatization beyond the current contract tower program. The FAA lobbied
against the bills as passed. The White House threatened a veto. The House
and Senate bills went into the reconciliation process as an AOPA/NATCA
victory against ATC privatization.

During the reconciliation process, the conferees, under intense White House
pressure, re-wrote the language in such a way that FAA VFR towers not
currently privatized may be contracted out. There are 71 of those towers.
2 of them are in Alaska (PAMR and PAJN). The Administration agreed that the
two Alaska towers in contention (both in the home state of Don Young, R-
Alaska chairman of the reconcioliation conference) could stay FAA, leaving
the other 69 to be contracted out. Also, rather than indefinitely
prohibiting by law further outsourcing of other Federal ATC services (like
Tracons and Centers), the reconciliation conference put into effect a
"sunset clause", making 2007 the year that wholesale privatization of the
system becomes possible.

This disturbs controllers because both the Republican House and the
Republican Senate voted decisively vefore the summer recess to prohibit ATC
privatization. The Reconciliation team inserted the new language when they
"reconciled" the two bills, LOL. Further disturbing controllers is that
AOPA abandoned the fight at this point because other provisions of the
reconciled bill are GA friendly.


Ultimately NATCA's allegiance has to be to controllers. And, while I
haven't seen any numbers on this, I wouldn't doubt for a minute that
contract towers means less ATC jobs. So NATCA's position is
understandable and quite legitimate.

This is true too. As a Center guy. I really don't have much of a job
problem if every tower and every tracon in America goes private. I still
get paid. I don't even have a problem if my Center goes private. I have
the job skills, I am very very good at what I do, and I will get paid. If
we go by personal performance, I get paid. If every GA aircraft in America
gets grounded because of exhorbitant ATC user fees in the next decade, what
do I care? I get paid. The question to me is, who will sign my paycheck at
the ARTCC? This is important to me because I truely believe that the NAS
belongs to the nation (rather than the commercial users) much like the
interstate highway system belongs to car drivers and the Intracoastal Water
Way belongs to boaters. This should be important to you if you fly business
aviation or general aviation, because the Boeings, Lock-marts, airlines and
ATA's of this nation don't give a rat's ass about your love of personal
flying and they'd love nothing better than to user fee you right out of
their way. Let them sign my paycheck, and I quit working for you and begin
to work for them. Nothing personal...




AOPA has a broader view. While from a GA standpoint, contact towers
probably are to ATC what HMOs are to medical care, our issues are
broader than privatization. AOPA probably feels that there are far
more benefits to GA in the overall bill and that it needs to be
passed. The privatization language is open enough to leave the battle
for another day.

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 know the adage.
"They came for the Gypsies, and I said nothing. Then they came for the
homosexuals, and I said nothing. Then they came for the Jews, and I said
nothing. And then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for
me..." This is NATCA's basic position. I am amazed that AOPA can't read
the same writing on the wall while there is still time to save the day.
Fighting this battle on the field of 2007, we will be 69 ATC towers closer
to ATC user fees.

Chip, ZTL

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
[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??????


Err, no. I mean *lowest* bidder. The idea is to save money. The FAA (and
your taxes) pays for the infrastructure. The *low* bidder runs the ATC
facility for the cheapest price. The way the contractor saves money is to
slash salaries and cut staffing. ATC "on the cheap" is literally what is
going on.

Chip, ZTL

"Mark Kolber" wrote in message
...
And can be expanded to new airports and a group of airports that are
being examined.

As far as I know, nothing in the contract tower program previously
prohibited such expansion. How does this bill make things *worse*?

And the prohibition automatically expires in 4 years.

Not an uncommon clause in any variety of lawmaking.

Recall that the agreements intended to protect Meigs Field had similar
clauses. No one was going around claiming that, because of those clauses,
the agreements were actually intended to shut the airport down.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
[snipped]


And the prohibition automatically expires in 4 years.

Not an uncommon clause in any variety of lawmaking.

But not something that was in either the House bill or the Senate bill that
was being reconciled.


Recall that the agreements intended to protect Meigs Field had similar
clauses. No one was going around claiming that, because of those clauses,
the agreements were actually intended to shut the airport down.


What an interesting point to bring up. Let's see, and KCGX is what now,
other than permanently *closed*?

Chip, ZTL

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
Darn it, missed my cue!....

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

The question arises. Why should an FAA enroute air traffic controller
who
is neither a pilot

You can fix that any day, Chip


Yep. I guess I'd better hurry while I can still afford it! :-)

Chip, ZTL