Control Tower Controversy brewing in the FAA

Problem there is contractors have little incentive to do well UNLESS there
are long-term probabilities.


The incentive is if they don't do well, they won't have long-term
probabilities. Do well, and there would be no need to replace them. The
exception being they no longer become cost affective.

In a previous article, David H said:
it's run by the government. The downsides of privatizing seem crystal
clear though. Yet Bush is intent on ramming it down the nation's throat.
WHY?

Because as long as it stays part of government, it's funded through the
aviation trust fund. Once it gets privatized, the trust fund monies will
get siphoned off into other federal programs (or tax refunds for the
extremely rich) and user fees imposed to finance ATC.


--
Paul Tomblin , not speaking for anybody
``Furthermore, [your wishlist item] would end up being the sort of system
feature that we in software engineering call an "SPR generator".''
- Paul S. Winalski

MC wrote:

Who stands to gain from ATC privatization?

I have seen nothing to suggest that privatizing air traffic control
services would meet any need of society. It would, however, make
SOMEBODY a bunch of money. "Philosophy" aside, I see absolutely no
benefit to privatizing ATC services - certainly not based on the
experiences of ATC privatization elsewhere.

In Australia our ATC has been 'corporatised' for several years now
and they into a 'cost minimisation/recovery' mode.,
ie. no face-to-face briefing offices, fees for IFR operations,
fees for landings at towered airports, charges for not lodging
flight-plans via the internet, and with the upcomming NAS revamp
there will be less enroute services in outback areas.
(and that's just ATC., the private airports have their own fees)

The only way a private operator will even think about running *any*
ATC system is if they can make a profit from it. This means either
recovering *all* costs from the end-users, or else by getting a subsidy
from the government.
If there are subsidies then the total cost will probably be *more*
than if the government provides the services themselves.

Of course - and all this is EXACTLY what we in the US should expect if the
Bush adminstration has its way and privatizes ATC. Your description of
the Australian experience with privatized ATC mirrors everything I've
heard about similar initiatives in other countries.

I have yet to hear a single credible benefit that ATC privatization would
provide. Only ideological rhetoric (oh, and somebody will pocket a bunch
of money). I also have yet to hear any evidence to suggest that whatever
shortcomings that the existing system may have are caused by the fact that
it's run by the government. The downsides of privatizing seem crystal
clear though. Yet Bush is intent on ramming it down the nation's throat.
WHY?

David H
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying forum:
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying

"David H" wrote in message
...
[...] The downsides of privatizing seem crystal
clear though. Yet Bush is intent on ramming it down the nation's throat.
WHY?

Same reason he does anything. Because he has friends who will profit from
the change.

That said, Gore was pretty clear in his interview with AOPA that he felt
privatization of ATC was a good thing too. I can't say that Bush is unique
in his desire to undermine the safety of general aviation in the US.

Pete

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 19:31:23 GMT, "Brooks Hagenow"
wrote:

But none of that has anything to do with flying.

Well, the cost of gas at the pump, that does have to do with flying.

Rob

"PlanetJ" wrote
That gives me a warm fuzzy. Knowing the separation of aircraft in IFR
weather is done by low bidder's and profit based.

FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) Alert. Most towers are located in
Class D or G airspace and do not separate aircraft except on the
runway. None of the towers that are being considered for outsourcing
separate aircraft in IFR weather except as that authority is delegated
by the overlying approach/center.

There is a huge difference between privatizing VFR towers and
privatizing center/approach control. There have been privatized VFR
towers (contract and NFCT) for decades all over the US. Their safety
record is just as good as that of the federally staffed towers.

This isn't a user fee issue. We ALREADY have user fees (landing fees)
at many towered (and even non-towered) airports; privatizing the tower
is not likely to have any significant impact on this.

This is a union issue. The leadership of the union that represents
the federal tower controllers is (rightly) concerned that it will have
a more difficult time going up against the contract operators.

Michael

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message ...
In a previous article, David H said:
it's run by the government. The downsides of privatizing seem crystal
clear though. Yet Bush is intent on ramming it down the nation's throat.
WHY?

Because as long as it stays part of government, it's funded through the
aviation trust fund. Once it gets privatized, the trust fund monies will
get siphoned off into other federal programs (or tax refunds for the
extremely rich) and user fees imposed to finance ATC.

It's not supposed to be funded through the trust fund. The trust fund is
for capital improvements although the FAA has been sucking operational
funds from it as well.

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 11:32:51 -0700, David H
wrote in Message-Id: :

I have yet to hear a single credible benefit that ATC privatization would
provide.

Former FAA Assassinator, Jane Garvey, found these reasons:

http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/hearings/0430gar.pdf
STATEMENT OF JANE F. GARVEY, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION, BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, ON THE
REAUTHORIZATION OF FAA PROGRAMS AND ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
NATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION REVIEW COMMISSION, APRIL 30, 1998.

First, FAA’s budget treatment must change. In order to ensure that
FAA expenditures match aviation demand for services, with this
legislation, the FAA’s funding and financing system will receive a
Federal budget treatment for air traffic services (ATS) that
ensures that fees from aviation users and spending on aviation
services are directly linked. We accomplish this by exempting the
user fee financed portion of air traffic services from
discretionary budget caps and by creating a third budget category
that links user fees and spending for ATS. The Commission
recognized that a change in FAA’s budget treatment is the
foundation for all its remaining recommendations. Along with
management reforms, this new approach will prompt new efficiencies
in ATS service and provide the foundation for needed growth in
capital First, FAA’s budget treatment must change. In order to
ensure that FAA expenditures match aviation demand for services,
with this legislation, the FAA’s funding and financing system will
receive a Federal budget treatment for air traffic services (ATS)
that ensures that fees from aviation users and spending on
aviation services are directly linked. We accomplish this by
exempting the user fee financed portion of air traffic services
from discretionary budget caps and by creating a third budget
category that links user fees and spending for ATS. The
Commission recognized that a change in FAA’s budget treatment is
the foundation for all its remaining recommendations. Along with
management reforms, this new approach will prompt new efficiencies
in ATS service and provide the foundation for needed growth in
capital



Katy Saldarini, , offers these reasons:

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1200/120800k1.htm
In a performance-based organization (PBO), government executives
are given broad exemptions from federal procurement and personnel
rules in exchange for tough performance standards. The idea is that
some federal programs can perform better if they are run more like
private companies. Vice President Al Gore's National Partnership for
Reinventing Government spearheaded the performance-based organization
management concept in 1996.


Robert Poole, Director of Transportation Studies at the Reason
Foundation in Los Angeles, served on the Bush team's transportation
policy task force during the 2000 presidential campaign. He seems to
be firmly behind privatized ATC:

http://www.rppi.org/atc14.html
America's air traffic control system is broken, leading to flight
delays, passenger dissatisfaction, and lost economic productivity.
Unfortunately, attempts to fix the system have not addressed the
root problem, an inflexible organization resistant to change and
weighed down by political micromanagement. In a new report, Reason
Public Policy Institute calls for the shifting of ATC out of the
FAA and into a new, nonprofit corporation that would operate the
system like a business. This shift to an independent entity is
essential to upgrade the nation's air transportation
infrastructure and integrate new technology.


http://www.ndol.org/blueprint/2001_s...c_control.html
Instead of exempting private plane owners (general aviation) from
user fees in hopes of gaining their political support, it would
require piston and turboprop users to pay an annual membership
fee, replacing the current fuel taxes, with business jets paying
fees on the same basis as other jets. The rationale is that all
key user groups should be represented on the nonprofit
corporation's board as stakeholders - but that they should do so
as paying customers


The American Association of Airport Executives seems to like the idea
of privatizing ATC:
http://www.swaaae.org/commissionreport7.html


Brilliant Bill ordered ATC to become a PBO:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...11de00-135.pdf
President Bill Clinton:
Executive Order 13180 of December 7, 2000
Air Traffic Performance-Based Organization
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and
the laws of the United States of America, and in order to further
improve the provision of air traffic services, an inherently
governmental function, in ways that increase efficiency, take
better advantage of new technologies, accelerate modernization
efforts, and respond more effectively to the needs of the
traveling public, while enhancing the safety, security, and
efficiency of the Nation’s air transportation system, it is hereby
ordered as follows: ...


But, it Al Gore who instigated the idea:
http://www.airportnet.org/depts/regulatory/gorecom.htm
--

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

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 11:57:34 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

Gore was pretty clear in his interview with AOPA that he felt
privatization of ATC was a good thing too.


Because Gore's White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security
initially conceived of the idea, that is to be expected:

http://www.airportnet.org/depts/regu.../gorefinal.htm
A Vision for the Future

To compete in the global economy of the 21st Century, America
needs a healthy, vibrant aviation industry. In turn, the health
and vibrancy of aviation depend on improved levels of safety,
security and modernization. For the last fifty years, the United
States has led the field of aviation. But, that position is being
challenged, both by competition from abroad and by weaknesses in
our own systems.

These weaknesses can be overcome. The Commission believes that it
should be a national priority to do so. This report outlines steps
that can set government and industry on a course to achieve that
goal together. Heading into the next century, our activities,
programs, and results should define aviation safety and security
for the rest of the world.

Leadership in aviation goes far beyond having strong, competitive
airlines. It means assuring leadership in communications,
satellite, aerospace, and other technologies that increasingly are
defining the global economy. It means more than the highest
possible levels of safety and security for travelers.

The Commission's report reflects a focus on this vision: to ensure
greater safety and security for passengers; to restructure the
relationships between government and industry into partnerships
for progress; and to maintain global leadership in the aviation
industry.

Key Recommendations

In the area of safety, the Commission believes that the principal
focus should be on reducing the rate of accidents by a factor of
five within a decade, and recommends a re-engineering of the FAA's
regulatory and certification programs to achieve that goal.

In the area of air traffic control, the Commission believes that
the safety and efficiency improvements that will come with a
modernized system should not be delayed, and recommends that the
program be accelerated for to achieve full operational capability
by the year 2005. In addition, a more effective system must be
established to finance modernization of the National Airspace
System and enhancements in safety and security.

....

2.5. The users of the NAS should fund its development and
operation.

The current system of funding the ATC system provides little
direct connection between the excise taxes paid and services
provided or the amount made available to the FAA through the
budget and appropriations process. Replacing the traditional
system of excise taxes with user fees offers the potential to
correlate revenues and spending more closely.* Importantly, a
financing system would not only help ensure adequate availability
of funding , but would also build incentives for efficiency and
safety into the system -- both for the users and for the FAA. The
National Civil Aviation Review Commission is the proper venue for
resolving the details of a new user fee system, and the Commission
expects that it will be formed and begin its work in the very near
future. The Commission urges the NCARC, in designing a new
financing system, to ensure that any changes in the relative
amount of revenues generated from any segment of the aviation
industry do not result in undue economic disruption within any
segment of the industry, and that the fees are not discriminatory
or anti-competitive among carriers. In addition, non-business
general aviation users of the NAS should not be adversely impacted
by any new financing system. This will help ensure that general
aviation users will be full and willing participants in the
modernized NAS.


--

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

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in
:


"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...

"Brooks Hagenow" wrote in message
y.com...

Think of it this way, if a private company does a bad job, you
fire
them
and
get a company that will do the job. If the government does a
bad
job,
you
get to listen to senators try to justify spending more money
and
raising
taxes while the problem never gets fixed.


Is ATC doing a bad job?

The same people running ATC are running the security apparatus.


Human directed ATC can't compete with automation from a
probabilities,
or
capacity, standpoint. Besides that Steve, he is refering to firing
Contractors. Eventually less people will be needed to control the
sky
and
Contractors are a lot easier to get rid of than Civil Service.

Problem there is contractors have little incentive to do well UNLESS
there are long-term probabilities.

The incintive is getting paid.

Ah those were the days, eh splaps boy?

No begging for your wine money..

Bertie