User Charges

[Chris]

This is an interesting article and pertinent in the debate over user
charges.

The NATS operating environment is very different to the FAA but it was
interesting seeing where the risk was being taken re 9/11 type events.

http://www.atwonline.com/magazine/article.html?articleID=1387

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 08:32:30 +0100, "Chris" >
wrote in >::

>This is an interesting article and pertinent in the debate over user
>charges.
>
>The NATS operating environment is very different to the FAA but it was
>interesting seeing where the risk was being taken re 9/11 type events.
>
>http://www.atwonline.com/magazine/article.html?articleID=1387
>

First, I personally do not believe General Aviation safety will be
increased if user fees are imposed in the US.

Secondly, if the reason for privatizing ATC through a Profit Based
Organization is to reduce governmental costs, NATS contradicts that
notion in this quote from the link above:

After requiring a financial bailout to stay in business during the
post-9/11 traffic downturn (see box, p. 52), NATS last year made a
profit for the first time since its July 2001 transformation into
a Public Private Partnership.

It would appear that not only are airlines paying more than any other
EU nation for ATC services, but the government is still paying also
when the privatized firm is unable to turn a profit.

Isn't this the _worst_ of both worlds?

[Chris]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 08:32:30 +0100, "Chris" >
> wrote in >::
>
>>This is an interesting article and pertinent in the debate over user
>>charges.
>>
>>The NATS operating environment is very different to the FAA but it was
>>interesting seeing where the risk was being taken re 9/11 type events.
>>
>>http://www.atwonline.com/magazine/article.html?articleID=1387
>>
>
> First, I personally do not believe General Aviation safety will be
> increased if user fees are imposed in the US.
>
> Secondly, if the reason for privatizing ATC through a Profit Based
> Organization is to reduce governmental costs, NATS contradicts that
> notion in this quote from the link above:
>
> After requiring a financial bailout to stay in business during the
> post-9/11 traffic downturn (see box, p. 52), NATS last year made a
> profit for the first time since its July 2001 transformation into
> a Public Private Partnership.
>
> It would appear that not only are airlines paying more than any other
> EU nation for ATC services, but the government is still paying also
> when the privatized firm is unable to turn a profit.
>
> Isn't this the _worst_ of both worlds?

9/11 was unfortunate and I suppose the bale out of US airlines after 9/11 is
different as is the dumping of airline pension funds on the reserve. The
taxpayer always seem to pay, its done in different ways.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 19:38:16 +0100, "Chris" >
wrote in >::

>The taxpayer always seem to pay, its done in different ways.

However, it seems that ATC user fees make tax payers pay as well as
the users. User fees look like a boondoggle to me.