If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote: proves they can do the job for the least amount of money. The "lowest bidder". Lowest *qualified* bidder. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|