FAA'S BLAKEY: "CHANGE IS NEVER EASY"

FAA Administrator Marion Blakey has been spending a lot of time on
Capitol Hill the last few weeks, trying to build support for her new
aviation user-fee funding plan. And she's getting a little tired of
all the criticism it's been getting. "In recent weeks, the rhetoric
about our finance reform bill has become very, shall I say, animated
and aggressive?" she told a meeting of airport executives () on
Tuesday. "It's mighty frustrating ... If the FAA really wanted to kill
GA, as our critics claim, we'd just sit back and do nothing. We'd
leave the air traffic system just the way it is, and let congestion
slowly squeeze them out."
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/834-full.html#194794

> "It's mighty frustrating ... If the FAA really wanted to kill
> GA, as our critics claim, we'd just sit back and do nothing. We'd
> leave the air traffic system just the way it is, and let congestion
> slowly squeeze them out."http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/834-full.html#194794

"Squeeze them out" of what? The sky?

Clearly she hasn't been flying in most parts of America. The skies are
quite empty, almost everywhere outside of the handfull of major
airports.

The woman needs to get out more often.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination

On Mar 31, 5:28 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > "It's mighty frustrating ... If the FAA really wanted to kill
> > GA, as our critics claim, we'd just sit back and do nothing. We'd
> > leave the air traffic system just the way it is, and let congestion
> > slowly squeeze them out."http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/834-full.html#194794
>
> "Squeeze them out" of what? The sky?
>
> Clearly she hasn't been flying in most parts of America. The skies are
> quite empty, almost everywhere outside of the handfull of major
> airports.
>
> The woman needs to get out more often.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination

She could start by going out and earning her certificate.

Jay B

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > "It's mighty frustrating ... If the FAA really wanted to kill
> > GA, as our critics claim, we'd just sit back and do nothing. We'd
> > leave the air traffic system just the way it is, and let congestion
> > slowly squeeze them
> > out."http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/834-full.html#194794
>
> "Squeeze them out" of what? The sky?
>
> Clearly she hasn't been flying in most parts of America. The skies are
> quite empty, almost everywhere outside of the handfull of major
> airports.

A lot of people in the FAA don't understand GA, especially the small aircraft
component of GA.

--
Bob Noel
(gave up looking for a particular sig the lawyer will hate)

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> "It's mighty frustrating ... If the FAA really wanted to kill
>> GA, as our critics claim, we'd just sit back and do nothing. We'd
>> leave the air traffic system just the way it is, and let congestion
>> slowly squeeze them out."http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/834-full.html#194794
>
> "Squeeze them out" of what? The sky?
>
> Clearly she hasn't been flying in most parts of America. The skies are
> quite empty, almost everywhere outside of the handfull of major
> airports.
>
> The woman needs to get out more often.

This is true of nearly everyone in DC.

Matt

Jay B writes:

> She could start by going out and earning her certificate.

Agreed.

In any case, when there is criticism of an idea from so many quarters, it's
probably not a good idea.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Mar 31, 7:50 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jay B writes:
> > She could start by going out and earning her certificate.
>
> Agreed.
>
> In any case, when there is criticism of an idea from so many quarters, it's
> probably not a good idea.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Mar 31, 7:50 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jay B writes:
> > She could start by going out and earning her certificate.
>
> Agreed.
>
> In any case, when there is criticism of an idea from so many quarters, it's
> probably not a good idea.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail

Pot...Kettle...Black

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

On 31 Mar 2007 05:28:12 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in . com>:

>> "It's mighty frustrating ... If the FAA really wanted to kill
>> GA, as our critics claim, we'd just sit back and do nothing. We'd
>> leave the air traffic system just the way it is, and let congestion
>> slowly squeeze them out."http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/834-full.html#194794
>
>"Squeeze them out" of what? The sky?

Administrator Blakey was probably referring to the ATC system not the
sky. If so, it indicates her lack of understanding of the regulations
covering the ATC system, as well as her airline bias.

>Clearly she hasn't been flying in most parts of America. The skies are
>quite empty, almost everywhere outside of the handfull of major
>airports.
>
>The woman needs to get out more often.

Right. She needs to "get out" of the office she currently holds. :-(

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay B writes:
>
>> She could start by going out and earning her certificate.
>
> Agreed.
>
> In any case, when there is criticism of an idea from so many quarters,
> it's probably not a good idea.

Boing!

Bertie

On Mar 31, 6:28 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > "It's mighty frustrating ... If the FAA really wanted to kill
> > GA, as our critics claim, we'd just sit back and do nothing. We'd
> > leave the air traffic system just the way it is, and let congestion
> > slowly squeeze them out."http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/834-full.html#194794
>
> "Squeeze them out" of what? The sky?
>
> Clearly she hasn't been flying in most parts of America. The skies are
> quite empty, almost everywhere outside of the handfull of major
> airports.
>
> The woman needs to get out more often.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination

No kidding. I fly out of the second-busiest airport in Montana.
There's more than enough room for everyone, even the magpies.

People who spend most of their time inside the Beltway live in a very,
very skewed fantasyland.

--Walt
Bozeman

Larry Dighera wrote:
> "It's mighty frustrating ... If the FAA really wanted to kill
> GA, as our critics claim, we'd just sit back and do nothing. We'd
> leave the air traffic system just the way it is, and let congestion
> slowly squeeze them out."

Mighty frustrating all right... that we have so many imbeciles in
in high governmental positions.

Se sounds like a whiney bitch to me.... living proof of the peter
principle.

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:13:59 GMT, kontiki >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> "It's mighty frustrating ... If the FAA really wanted to kill
>> GA, as our critics claim, we'd just sit back and do nothing. We'd
>> leave the air traffic system just the way it is, and let congestion
>> slowly squeeze them out."
>
>Mighty frustrating all right... that we have so many imbeciles in
>in high governmental positions.
>

Well, we have no one to blame but ourselves for voting the Bush regime
into office for two terms.

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> Well, we have no one to blame but ourselves for voting the Bush regime
> into office for two terms.
>

He is but a small part of the problem, and at least he'll be gone
in two years. Then we'll have another panderer to deal with for 4
more years... maybe even 8, it doesn't matter. Hey.. with a little
luck we'll get the Pandering Champion for president: Hillary Rodham.

What this country needs is term limits for members of congress and the
Senate. Until that happens nothing much will change.
As far as a leader of our nation (i.e. president), the last one we
had was Ronald Reagan.

A Democratic administration won't be any different. I remember Al
Gore used to be a proponent for user fee as well.

But you're right. We have no one to blame but ourselves, because we
don't fly enough hours, and we don't attract enough new GA pilots to
join our ranks.

The best thing for us to do, other than lobbying the congress, is to
start flying at least 150 hours a year. How's that for a change.


On Mar 31, 2:30 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:

>
> Well, we have no one to blame but ourselves for voting the Bush regime
> into office for two terms.

M writes:

> But you're right. We have no one to blame but ourselves, because we
> don't fly enough hours, and we don't attract enough new GA pilots to
> join our ranks.

When the price of becoming a GA pilot is so high, and existing pilots just say
"find a way!" when someone points this out, instead of working to lower the
barriers, it's not surprising that so few new pilots are attracted.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> When the price of becoming a GA pilot is so high, and existing pilots just say
> "find a way!" when someone points this out, instead of working to lower the
> barriers, it's not surprising that so few new pilots are attracted.
>

In case you haven't noticed, the price of *everything is going up...
oil, food, owning a home, medical care you name it. If its something
you really want you do whatever it takes to make it happen.

Of course it would be a lot easier of government would get its
FAT ASS out of the way and let people accomplish their goals
without constant interference or stealing of their hard earned
money (so they can buy votes with it to get getting re-elected).

kontiki writes:

> In case you haven't noticed, the price of *everything is going up...
> oil, food, owning a home, medical care you name it. If its something
> you really want you do whatever it takes to make it happen.

So you're saying that only people who want to fly more than anything else in
the world should be able to do so? Those are the only people willing to do
"whatever it takes," after all.

Apply the same principle to medical care, food, home ownership, and so on, and
see where that leads you.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Yeah, no peter ... no principle.

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> "It's mighty frustrating ... If the FAA really wanted to kill
>> GA, as our critics claim, we'd just sit back and do nothing. We'd leave
>> the air traffic system just the way it is, and let congestion slowly
>> squeeze them out."
>
> Mighty frustrating all right... that we have so many imbeciles in
> in high governmental positions.
>
> Se sounds like a whiney bitch to me.... living proof of the peter
> principle.

The real problem is not Bush, it is the entrenched bureaucracy at CIA, State
and Justice over which he has absolutely no control (in reality). They are
undercutting him at every opportunity, and making him look like an idiot. I
have to admit, they are doing a damned good job.

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, we have no one to blame but ourselves for voting the Bush regime
>> into office for two terms.
>
> He is but a small part of the problem, and at least he'll be gone
> in two years. Then we'll have another panderer to deal with for 4
> more years... maybe even 8, it doesn't matter. Hey.. with a little
> luck we'll get the Pandering Champion for president: Hillary Rodham.
>
> What this country needs is term limits for members of congress and the
> Senate. Until that happens nothing much will change.
> As far as a leader of our nation (i.e. president), the last one we
> had was Ronald Reagan.
>

M wrote:

> A Democratic administration won't be any different. I remember Al
> Gore used to be a proponent for user fee as well.
>
> But you're right. We have no one to blame but ourselves, because we
> don't fly enough hours, and we don't attract enough new GA pilots to
> join our ranks.
>
> The best thing for us to do, other than lobbying the congress, is to
> start flying at least 150 hours a year. How's that for a change.

Damn, I like the way you think...

>
> On Mar 31, 2:30 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>
>>Well, we have no one to blame but ourselves for voting the Bush regime
>>into office for two terms.
>
>
>

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jay B writes:
>
>
>>She could start by going out and earning her certificate.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
> In any case, when there is criticism of an idea from so many quarters, it's
> probably not a good idea.
>


Like criticism of your posts, comments and attitude?

Tim writes:

> Like criticism of your posts, comments and attitude?

I receive criticism from only one direction, and the criticism is in the form
of personal attacks, rather than comments on the topics under discussion.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> kontiki writes:
>
>> In case you haven't noticed, the price of *everything is going up...
>> oil, food, owning a home, medical care you name it. If its something
>> you really want you do whatever it takes to make it happen.
>
> So you're saying that only people who want to fly more than anything
> else in the world should be able to do so? Those are the only people
> willing to do "whatever it takes," after all.

Apparently.


Bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Tim writes:
>
>> Like criticism of your posts, comments and attitude?
>
> I receive criticism from only one direction, and the criticism is in
> the form of personal attacks, rather than comments on the topics under
> discussion.
>

Why should you get info for free when people who really want to fly are
willing to pay for it?

Bertie

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:11:20 -0400, "LWG" >
wrote:

>The real problem is not Bush, it is the entrenched bureaucracy at CIA, State
>and Justice over which he has absolutely no control (in reality). They are
>undercutting him at every opportunity, and making him look like an idiot. I
>have to admit, they are doing a damned good job.
>
>"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Well, we have no one to blame but ourselves for voting the Bush regime
>>> into office for two terms.
>>
>> He is but a small part of the problem, and at least he'll be gone
>> in two years. Then we'll have another panderer to deal with for 4
>> more years... maybe even 8, it doesn't matter. Hey.. with a little
>> luck we'll get the Pandering Champion for president: Hillary Rodham.

Lordy, little scares me more than the name Clinton on the presidential
ballott, unless it's "what's her name" from California.<:-))
>>
>> What this country needs is term limits for members of congress and the
>> Senate. Until that happens nothing much will change.

We have them in Michigan. They aren't in office long enough to really
accomplish any thing and we certainly aren't the best example of a
prosperous and efficent state. Term limits are OK, but they need to
be longer than two terms.

>> As far as a leader of our nation (i.e. president), the last one we
>> had was Ronald Reagan.
>>
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger wrote:
> Lordy, little scares me more than the name Clinton on the presidential
> ballot, unless it's "what's her name" from California.<:-))

Which one, Boxer or Pelosi?

Or perhaps you mean she-devil Schwarzeneggar? Feinstein?

Man, why are all of our women politicians so fscking crazy?
>
> We have them in Michigan. They aren't in office long enough to really
> accomplish any thing and we certainly aren't the best example of a
> prosperous and efficent state. Term limits are OK, but they need to
> be longer than two terms.

Our mayor just pushed through a special election for a number of
measures increasing terms and term limits of city officials, and the lot
of it is power-grab designed to keep his buddy-buddies in their
respective, and cushy, offices. There's a devilishly fine line to walk
between having limits too short, which forces everyone into short-term,
me-first goals for political prestige in higher offices, and having them
too long and keeping the pork fat employed when everyone knows it should
be trimmed.

Can't exactly recall everyone all the time; this special election alone
is slated to cost the city over a million dollars (guess it was a better
idea to do this than, y'know, hire some new police or buy the fire
department some new equipment).

TheSmokingGnu

Tim,

> > In any case, when there is criticism of an idea from so many quarters, it's
> > probably not a good idea.
> >
>
>
> Like criticism of your posts, comments and attitude?
>

You made my day. Thanks!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Roger wrote:

>
> We have them in Michigan. They aren't in office long enough to really
> accomplish any thing and we certainly aren't the best example of a
> prosperous and efficent state. Term limits are OK, but they need to
> be longer than two terms.
>

"not in office long enough to really do anything..." GOOD! That's what
we want. Whenever they "do" something we all get screwed.

The stock market and the economy do well when congress is not doing
anything... other then cutting spending and lowering taxes (which
hardly ever happens).

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 22:06:21 GMT, kontiki >
wrote in >:

>He is but a small part of the problem, ...

No. Not really.

Clinton established the fact that ATC was an inherently governmental
function, thus blocking privatization efforts and their requisite user
fees.

Bush overturned Clinton's edict to pave the way toward ATC
privatization. Now he has Blakey carrying the ATC privatization ball
in Congress.

On 31 Mar 2007 15:07:38 -0700, "M" > wrote in
om>:

>A Democratic administration won't be any different.

Clinton established the fact that ATC was an inherently governmental
function, thus blocking privatization efforts and their requisite user
fees.

Bush overturned Clinton's edict to pave the way toward ATC
privatization. Now he has Blakey carrying the ATC privatization ball
in Congress.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Clinton established the fact that ATC was an inherently governmental
> function, thus blocking privatization efforts and their requisite user
> fees.
>

That ATC was an inherently governmental function was established during the
Roosevelt administration.

Franklin, not Teddy.

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> Clinton established the fact that ATC was an inherently governmental
> function, thus blocking privatization efforts and their requisite user
> fees.

when?

iirc, it was the Clinton administration that was pushing user fees circa 1996

--
Bob Noel
(gave up looking for a particular sig the lawyer will hate)

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>M writes:
>
>> But you're right. We have no one to blame but ourselves, because we
>> don't fly enough hours, and we don't attract enough new GA pilots to
>> join our ranks.
>
> When the price of becoming a GA pilot is so high, and existing pilots just
> say
> "find a way!" when someone points this out, instead of working to lower
> the
> barriers, it's not surprising that so few new pilots are attracted.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Too high? When are you going to get it? It's not that hard to find a way to
fly on the cheep.

How about $15.00 per hour to rent an aircraft. $5.00 for a winch launch (or
$12.50 for an aerotow) and instructors cost $0.00 per hour (yes $0.00 as in
free - no charge.). How is that too high? It costs more than that go hang
out in a bar.

Oh, OK, there are some hidden fees. $350 to join the club, $22 per month
dues, $64 per year for SSA dues. Still cheeper than hanging out at the bar.
Figure a hundred or two on books and other instructional material.

If you can't afford that, you can't afford to eat.

http://www.sandhillsoaring.org/ssc-welcome.htm

Oh, and gliders often have computers to play with too.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Tim writes:
>
>> Like criticism of your posts, comments and attitude?
>
> I receive criticism from only one direction, and the criticism is in the
> form
> of personal attacks, rather than comments on the topics under discussion.
>

You are getting what you p(l)ay for.

>
> > Clinton established the fact that ATC was an inherently governmental
> > function, thus blocking privatization efforts and their requisite user
> > fees.
>
> when?
>
> iirc, it was the Clinton administration that was pushing user fees circa
1996
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> (gave up looking for a particular sig the lawyer will hate)
>
Me recollection is the same.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
: On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 22:06:21 GMT, kontiki >
: wrote in >:
:
: >He is but a small part of the problem, ...
:
: No. Not really.
:
: Clinton established the fact that ATC was an inherently governmental
: function, thus blocking privatization efforts and their requisite user
: fees.
:
: Bush overturned Clinton's edict to pave the way toward ATC
: privatization. Now he has Blakey carrying the ATC privatization ball
: in Congress.
:
:

Yea, I remember that also...

Now, gotta find the references...

"Blueskies" > wrote in message et...
:
: "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
:: On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 22:06:21 GMT, kontiki >
:: wrote in >:
::
:: >He is but a small part of the problem, ...
::
:: No. Not really.
::
:: Clinton established the fact that ATC was an inherently governmental
:: function, thus blocking privatization efforts and their requisite user
:: fees.
::
:: Bush overturned Clinton's edict to pave the way toward ATC
:: privatization. Now he has Blakey carrying the ATC privatization ball
:: in Congress.
::
::
:
: Yea, I remember that also...
:
: Now, gotta find the references...
:
:

Here is one:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/06/11/BU91370.DTL&type=business

"Bush's executive order amended an executive order signed by President Bill Clinton on Dec. 7, 2000, in which he
redesigned the air traffic control system to make it performance-based and otherwise infuse it with efficiencies. Bush
deleted Clinton's four-word description of the controllers' work: "an inherently governmental function." "

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:04:36 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>:

>
>That ATC was an inherently governmental function was established during the
>Roosevelt administration.

I wasn't aware of that, but I believe Clinton's predecessor or McCain
or someone else with the power to do it, removed that function from
governmental control; Clinton restored it. Then the Bush regime has
made ATC non-governmental again, so they can privatize it.

On Apr 1, 11:52 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 22:06:21 GMT, kontiki >
> wrote in >:
>
> >He is but a small part of the problem, ...
>
> No. Not really.
>
> Clinton established the fact that ATC was an inherently governmental
> function, thus blocking privatization efforts and their requisite user
> fees.
>
> Bush overturned Clinton's edict to pave the way toward ATC
> privatization. Now he has Blakey carrying the ATC privatization ball
> in Congress.

Hysterically funny. Now you're claiming that the Democrats are the
flag carriers for the lower taxes movement. HAHAHAHAHA! Oh, wait. You
did post that on April 1, didn't you.

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 15:50:07 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> Clinton established the fact that ATC was an inherently governmental
>> function, thus blocking privatization efforts and their requisite user
>> fees.
>
>when?
>

It would seem, that it was about December 7, 2000:


http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=fr11de00-135.pdf

Federal Register
Vol. 65, No. 238
Monday, December 11, 2000
Title 3—
The President
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: [...]


>iirc, it was the Clinton administration that was pushing user fees circa 1996

Be that as it may, they weren't pushing for ATC Privatization.

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >> Clinton established the fact that ATC was an inherently governmental
> >> function, thus blocking privatization efforts and their requisite user
> >> fees.
> >
> >when?
> >
>
> It would seem, that it was about December 7, 2000:
[snip]

The PBO stuff does nothing to block user fees.

--
Bob Noel
(gave up looking for a particular sig the lawyer will hate)

On 1 Apr 2007 18:52:42 -0700, "cjcampbell"
> wrote in
. com>:

> Now you're claiming that the Democrats are the
>flag carriers for the lower taxes movement.

What gave you that idea? I'm pointing out that Bush embraces federal
government privatization, and Clinton didn't. Nothing more.

Sometimes I have difficulty comprehending your inferences, CJ. You
seem to jump to erroneous conclusions rather easily. Why is that?

User fees are a dumb idea (because they're an administrative and
fiscal nightmare), but that's what it's going to take to enable ATC
privatization.

Don't get me wrong, it's only equitable for the ATC system users,
pilots and commercial passengers, to fund the ATC system, as they do
now. But wresting our nation's navigable airspace from governmental
control, dismantling the best ATC system on the face of the planet,
and handing it over to a heartless, faceless, corporate entity that
has demonstrated its ruthless history of criminality in obtaining
government contracts in the recent past, is just too arrogant for
words. It's a worse proposition than handing over control of our
nation's sea ports to an Arab corporation!

It is the airlines who are fueling the burgeoning growth of air
operations, not GA. It is the airlines who should shoulder the lion's
share of the NextGen future ATC system; GA should not have the burden
of funding something that is demanded by the airlines; that would be
unjust.

But the airlines don't have the enormous capital resources necessary
to plan, construct, implement, man, test and deploy NextGen ATC, so
they need to remove Congressional oversight of FAA funding in order to
obtain the "blank-check" required to pay for the years of development
required.

Government privatization is just another corporate attempt to
boondoggle our government out of its peoples' tax dollars, at the
expense of public accountability. Corporations don't participate in
Freedom of Information Act transparency. ...


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

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 22:57:25 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>
>The PBO stuff does nothing to block user fees.

That seems true.

It's only equitable that ATC be funded by its users: pilots, the
traveling public, and the airlines who demand its improvement in order
to enable their continued growth. The current system of collecting
those funds is simple, cheap, and most importantly, currently
in-place. A pay-for-each-ATC-service-used ATC funding system will
require dismantling the current functional funding system, creation
and implementation of the new system, and the cost of keeping track of
each operation, and billing the correct user, will generate so much
paper and mail, that the cost of collecting the fees may well approach
the value of the fees themselves. It's a dumb idea.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> What gave you that idea? I'm pointing out that Bush embraces federal
> government privatization, and Clinton didn't. Nothing more.
>

Privatization of VFR towers occurred during the Clinton administration.

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 10:32:42 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
t>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> What gave you that idea? I'm pointing out that Bush embraces federal
>> government privatization, and Clinton didn't. Nothing more.
>>
>
>Privatization of VFR towers occurred during the Clinton administration.
>

Wasn't the FAA practice of operating "contract towers" a long standing
policy that spanned many administrations and is continuing to occur
during the present administration?

Incidentally, have you got a link to information about FDR's
establishing ATC as being an inherently governmental function as you
asserted earlier in this thread?

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Wasn't the FAA practice of operating "contract towers" a long standing
> policy that spanned many administrations and is continuing to occur
> during the present administration?
>
> Incidentally, have you got a link to information about FDR's
> establishing ATC as being an inherently governmental function as you
> asserted earlier in this thread?
>

I said it happened during FDR's administration, I didn't say that FDR had
any direct involvement in it.

This is the only online source that I'm aware of:

http://www.faa.gov/about/media/b-chron.pdf

Late 1935 through 1936 would be the period in question. A better source is
"Bonfires to Beacons: Federal Civil Aviation Policy Under the Air Commerce
Act 1926-1938" by Nick A. Komons.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Wasn't the FAA practice of operating "contract towers" a long standing
> policy that spanned many administrations and is continuing to occur
> during the present administration?
>

I don't think so. I believe the first FAA contract towers were established
in the early '80s, but there were only 20 or 30 by 1994 or so. I think
something like 200 FAA towers were contracted out during the Clinton
administration.

("Steven P. McNicoll" wrote)
>> Incidentally, have you got a link to information about FDR's establishing
>> ATC as being an inherently governmental function as you asserted earlier
>> in this thread?

> I said it happened during FDR's administration, I didn't say that FDR had
> any direct involvement in it.


You split a hair that wasn't there ...or was it?

Did the decision come down from the courts?
Did the decision emanate from congress?
Was the executive branch behind the 'new' policy?
(...if yes, it gets an FDR stamp on it)

http://www.faa.gov/about/media/b-chron.pdf

(Not ATC specifically, but interesting regulation info from the link)

Aug 1, 1928: As a first step toward promoting uniform state aeronautical
legislation consistent with Federal law, the Aeronautics Branch issued
Aeronautics Bulletin No. 18 reviewing the characteristics of various state
statutes and setting forth suggested drafts of required laws. At this time,
20 states had no aeronautical legislation. (See Dec 16, 1930.)

Dec 16, 1930: The Aeronautics Branch opened the National Conference on
Uniform Aeronautic Regulatory Laws. Representatives from 45 states,
Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, and the Philippine Islands attended the
two-day meeting to discuss uniformity of air regulations. (See Aug 1, 1928,
and Mar 23, 1933.)

Mar 23, 1933: Enactment of legislation by the State of Georgia meant that
all of the 48 States had laws dealing with aeronautics (see Aug 1, 1928, and
Mar 1946). Georgia’s new law included a requirement that all airmen and
aircraft operating within the state have Federal licenses. This provision
was included in most, but not all, of the other state aeronautical laws (see
Dec 1, 1941).


Montblack
An Eisenhower baby ....Feb, 1960

Oct 1, 1926: Northwest Airways began service as a contract mail carrier. The
company began passenger service the following year, and expanded its routes
in the late twenties and early thirties, changing its name to Northwest
Airlines on Apr 16, 1934. Further expansion included routes to Asia,
beginning in the 1940s, and for a time the carrier used the name Northwest
Orient Airlines.

Jul 2, 1932: Franklin D. Roosevelt became the first U.S. presidential
candidate to fly when he chartered a Ford Trimotor from Albany to Chicago to
address the Democratic National Convention. (See Jan 14, 1943.)

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
>
> You split a hair that wasn't there ...or was it?
>

If I split it, it's there.


>
> Did the decision come down from the courts?
> Did the decision emanate from congress?
> Was the executive branch behind the 'new' policy?
> (...if yes, it gets an FDR stamp on it)
>

Do the research and report back.