Control Tower Controversy brewing in the FAA

[PlanetJ]

The Honorable Norman Mineta
Transportation Secretary
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 7th Street, S.W
Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Secretary:

We write to express our grave concern about the recent conduct of the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in lobbying Congress for the
authority to privatize America's air traffic control (ATC) system.

Although the FAA has said that it had no intention of privatizing ATC
functions, it worked behind closed doors to gain authority to replace
federal controllers at 69 airport towers with contract employees of private
companies. Then, in an apparent private deal with the Alaska delegation,
the FAA agreed to be prohibited from privatizing Alaska airports. How, Mr.
Secretary, can you defend a system that has one standard for Alaska, and
another for the other 49 states? If privatization did not pose a threat to
safety and efficiency, why would the experienced legislators of the Alaska
delegation bother to exempt their own airports?

And now, in an effort to win Congressional approval of the conference
report on Vision 100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act ("Conference
Report"), the FAA appears ready to use a similar scheme to exempt towers in
other states. It seems the Administration has different standards for air
traffic control towers depending on the votes the Administration needs to
pass the Conference Report. It has recently come to light in a report in
the Tulsa World that the FAA has promised Senator Nickles that the
Riverside Airport control tower in his home state of Oklahoma will not be
privatized. It is not surprising that Oklahomans are concerned about
privatization, and that concern was reflected in the support the Lautenberg
amendment received from Senator Inhofe. The Administration will need
Senator Inhofe, and others of the 11 Republicans who supported the
Lautenberg amendment, to have a change of heart in order to pass its plan
to privatize air traffic services. Once again we ask, if privatization
poses no threats to safety and efficiency, why are members of Congress
demanding they be exempted from the program?

This is not the first instance of improper behavior on behalf of the
Administration on this issue. Shortly before Senate consideration of the
Lautenberg amendment in June, Administration officials sent a factually
incorrect e-mail to many Senate offices (except that of Senator Lautenberg)
in a failed attempt to lobby against the Lautenberg amendment. The e-mail
claimed the scope of the proposed Lautenberg provision was much broader
than it actually was. This instance was chronicled in a hearing by the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, on July 8.

Safe and efficient air travel for all Americans is a non-partisan
commitment from both the House and the Senate. The FAA is charged with
protecting the safety of air travel, not cutting political deals-especially
when those deals appear to be based on no sound safety or economic policy,
but rather political calculations. To that point, we are asking you to
instruct the FAA Administrator to report to Congress on any and all
arrangements to exempt FAA-run control towers from being contracted out.
We assure you that failure to report fully and promptly on this matter will
lead to a loss in confidence among ourselves and our colleagues in the
Congress in the leadership of the FAA.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,


______________________ ____________________
Frank R. Lautenberg James L. Oberstar
U.S. Senator Ranking Democratic
Member
U.S.
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

[David H]

Will Alaska (and other states with votes that the administration thinks
they can woo) also get an exemption from the recent legislation that
specifies that seafood inspectors are "inherantly governmental" and thus
can't be privatized?

The Bush administration sure does seem to have a major bug up its ass
about forcing ATC privatization - WHY? At the same time they're
declaring things like seafood inspectors are inherantly governmental
(not to mention those federal employees who screen baggage for nail
clippers). There's something here that doesn't quite add up. They seem
really, really intent on pushing ATC privatization. What's really
behind this?

Who stands to gain from ATC privatization? Are there major businesses
that do this now, and others that are quietly preparing to pick up some
fat federal ATC contracts? Do these companies have any connection to
the white house and friends?

"Follow the money...."

[Bob Gardner]

David....remember that there is an election coming up in 2004.

Bob Gardner

"David H" > wrote in message
...
> Will Alaska (and other states with votes that the administration thinks
> they can woo) also get an exemption from the recent legislation that
> specifies that seafood inspectors are "inherantly governmental" and thus
> can't be privatized?
>
> The Bush administration sure does seem to have a major bug up its ass
> about forcing ATC privatization - WHY? At the same time they're
> declaring things like seafood inspectors are inherantly governmental
> (not to mention those federal employees who screen baggage for nail
> clippers). There's something here that doesn't quite add up. They seem
> really, really intent on pushing ATC privatization. What's really
> behind this?
>
> Who stands to gain from ATC privatization? Are there major businesses
> that do this now, and others that are quietly preparing to pick up some
> fat federal ATC contracts? Do these companies have any connection to
> the white house and friends?
>
> "Follow the money...."
>

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, David H > said:
>The Bush administration sure does seem to have a major bug up its ass
>about forcing ATC privatization - WHY? At the same time they're

I can only think of one explanation - Haliburton must be preparing to get
into the ATC business.


--
Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!

[Tom S.]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
news:dvS1b.237758$YN5.161014@sccrnsc01...
> David....remember that there is an election coming up in 2004.
>
> Bob Gardner

In 1797, in a letter to an American friend, Lord Thomas MacCauley wrote:

A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last
only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from
the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority will vote for those
candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the
result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies,
always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest democratic nations has been 200
years.

[vincent p. norris]

>Who stands to gain from ATC privatization?

Aren't all of you aware that the Republican Party is philosophically
in favor of the marketplace--i.e., free enterprise-- as the means of
providing for society's needs?

As one Republican candidate for Congress expressed it so eloquently in
his campaign speeches about 20 years ago, "Let the government guard
our shores, deliver the mail, and GET THE HELL OUT OF MY LIFE!"

vince norris

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, said:
>>Who stands to gain from ATC privatization?
>Aren't all of you aware that the Republican Party is philosophically
>in favor of the marketplace--i.e., free enterprise-- as the means of
>providing for society's needs?

So why are seafood inspectors "inherently governmental", but air traffic
control isn't?


--
Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
Programmer (n): One who makes the lies the salesman told come true.

[vincent p. norris]

>In a previous article, said:
>>>Who stands to gain from ATC privatization?
>>Aren't all of you aware that the Republican Party is philosophically
>>in favor of the marketplace--i.e., free enterprise-- as the means of
>>providing for society's needs?
>
>So why are seafood inspectors "inherently governmental", but air traffic
>control isn't?

You'll have to ask the people who made that decision, Paul.

(Unless it's the same reason ketchup is a vegetable.)

vince norris

[[email protected]]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> In a previous article, said:
> >>Who stands to gain from ATC privatization?
> >Aren't all of you aware that the Republican Party is philosophically
> >in favor of the marketplace--i.e., free enterprise-- as the means of
> >providing for society's needs?
>
> So why are seafood inspectors "inherently governmental", but air traffic
> control isn't?
>

Because seafood inspectors are like FAA inspectors; inherently governmental.

ATC, on the other hand, provides a non-regulatory aircraft separation
service, with some secondary, also, non-regulatory, services.

The air traffic service takes such a giant bite out of the FAA budget that
the agency's regulatory duties (pilot and aircraft certification, design and
issuance of instrument flight procedures, etc) are seriously hurting. This
has been aggravated by the mandated security functions the FAA must now
provide, post 911.

The time might be overdue for the controller workforce to negotiate with a
private employer rather than the FAA Administrator.

[David H]

"vincent p. norris" wrote:

> >Who stands to gain from ATC privatization?
>
> Aren't all of you aware that the Republican Party is philosophically
> in favor of the marketplace--i.e., free enterprise-- as the means of
> providing for society's needs?

Duh - of course everyone knows that. That doesn't answer the question
though.

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

> As one Republican candidate for Congress expressed it so eloquently in
> his campaign speeches about 20 years ago, "Let the government guard
> our shores, deliver the mail, and GET THE HELL OUT OF MY LIFE!"

So we now have increasing privatization of the military, the US Postal
Service is no longer run by the goverment, and Ashcroft wants to know
what books you've been reading at the library, a look at your credit
report, and what web sites you'be been looking at before he'll let you
fly to Dinseyland. How very eloquent.

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

[Tom S.]

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
> > In a previous article, said:
> > >>Who stands to gain from ATC privatization?
> > >Aren't all of you aware that the Republican Party is philosophically
> > >in favor of the marketplace--i.e., free enterprise-- as the means of
> > >providing for society's needs?
> >
> > So why are seafood inspectors "inherently governmental", but air traffic
> > control isn't?
> >
>
> Because seafood inspectors are like FAA inspectors; inherently
governmental.
>
> ATC, on the other hand, provides a non-regulatory aircraft separation
> service, with some secondary, also, non-regulatory, services.

Considering what government _IS_, why would this be a government function?

[Chris Hoffmann]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...

> In 1797, in a letter to an American friend, Lord Thomas MacCauley wrote:
>
> A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last
> only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse
from
> the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority will vote for those
> candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the
> result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies,
> always followed by a dictatorship.
>
> The average age of the world's greatest democratic nations has been 200
> years.
>

I'm no expert on the history of world's greatest democratic nations, but I
can't name one prior to 1797. Any idea what country(s) exactly this guy
might be babbling about? Besides which, I wouldn't trust the word of some
sniveling Lord Whatever from His Majesty's Empire from that time period.
Probably just sour grapes over losing the cash cow of resources that was
America. Aww. No tobacco plantation for His Lordship.

It may be true that we'd all like a bigger slice of the public treasury, but
it's also true that we'd like to not need to contribute so much to it in the
first place. The federal budget surpluses of the 90's might save Bill
Clinton's legacy, while George "D is for Deficit" Bush may follow his
father's economic path to onetermship. We DO value fiscal responsibility in
this here country, Jack.

--
Chris Hoffmann
Student Pilot @ UES
<20 hrs

[Tom S.]

"Chris Hoffmann" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > In 1797, in a letter to an American friend, Lord Thomas MacCauley wrote:
> >
> > A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can
last
> > only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse
> from
> > the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority will vote for
those
> > candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with
the
> > result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies,
> > always followed by a dictatorship.
> >
> > The average age of the world's greatest democratic nations has been 200
> > years.
> >
>
> I'm no expert on the history of world's greatest democratic nations, but I
> can't name one prior to 1797. Any idea what country(s) exactly this guy
> might be babbling about? Besides which, I wouldn't trust the word of some
> sniveling Lord Whatever from His Majesty's Empire from that time period.
> Probably just sour grapes over losing the cash cow of resources that was
> America. Aww. No tobacco plantation for His Lordship.

Your knowlege of history is, like...non-existant.

>
> It may be true that we'd all like a bigger slice of the public treasury,
but
> it's also true that we'd like to not need to contribute so much to it in
the
> first place.

So you AGREE with MacCauley?

> The federal budget surpluses of the 90's might save Bill
> Clinton's legacy,

And who was the "fiscal power" during those surpluses?

> while George "D is for Deficit" Bush may follow his
> father's economic path to onetermship.

Again, the wisdom of the "people" is apparent, especially the ones who
consistently score in the 10-20% bracket on quizzes regarding economics.

>We DO value fiscal responsibility in
> this here country, Jack.

And those "deficit's" you just mentioned? How about the Long Term
Liabilities (as opposed to cash/current deficit) that run into the teens of
TRILLIONS of $$$? How 'bout that, Jack?

[PlanetJ]

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


> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
> > In a previous article, said:
> > >>Who stands to gain from ATC privatization?
> > >Aren't all of you aware that the Republican Party is philosophically
> > >in favor of the marketplace--i.e., free enterprise-- as the means of
> > >providing for society's needs?
> >
> > So why are seafood inspectors "inherently governmental", but air traffic
> > control isn't?
> >
>
> Because seafood inspectors are like FAA inspectors; inherently
governmental.
>
> ATC, on the other hand, provides a non-regulatory aircraft separation
> service, with some secondary, also, non-regulatory, services.
>
> The air traffic service takes such a giant bite out of the FAA budget that
> the agency's regulatory duties (pilot and aircraft certification, design
and
> issuance of instrument flight procedures, etc) are seriously hurting.
This
> has been aggravated by the mandated security functions the FAA must now
> provide, post 911.
>
> The time might be overdue for the controller workforce to negotiate with a
> private employer rather than the FAA Administrator.
>

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "PlanetJ" > said:
>That gives me a warm fuzzy. Knowing the separation of aircraft in IFR
>weather is done by low bidder's and profit based.

Look how well deregulation worked for the electricity grid.


--
Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
"He passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the
platform upon which he was standing collapsed." "I thought he was hanged?"
"That's what I said, isn't it?"

[Chris Hoffmann]

--
Chris Hoffmann
Student Pilot @ UES
<30 hrs
"Tom S." > wrote in message
...

> > > In 1797, in a letter to an American friend, Lord Thomas MacCauley
wrote:
> > >

Whoops, better make that 1857.

> > > Blah, blah, blah> > >
> > > The average age of the world's greatest democratic nations has been
200
> > > years.
> > >
> >
> > I'm no expert on the history of world's greatest democratic nations, but
I
> > can't name one prior to 1797. Any idea what country(s) exactly this guy
> > might be babbling about? >

> Your knowlege of history is, like...non-existant.

Yeah. Well, thanks for the list of countries anyway. Unless you're referring
to ancient Greece, or Rome, or India, I believe most modern democracies
have had their origins in the mid 18th century. (Those 3 ancients lasted a
LOT longer than 200 years...) I'd also like to point out that the majority
of countries which have reverted to dictatorship after a period of
democracy, have since gone BACK to democracy.
>
> >
> > It may be true that we'd all like a bigger slice of the public treasury,
> but
> > it's also true that we'd like to not need to contribute so much to it in
> the
> > first place.
>
> So you AGREE with MacCauley?

What am I supposed to be agreeing with? Most people are capable of
understanding that money doesn't grow on trees. The trouble is having
representatives who can't or won't tell their constituents that the well is
dry. Or who say that the well is dry when it isn't.
I take issue with his assertion that we're going to vote ourselves into debt
until we collapse under it. Not that it's untrue, but he doesn't seem to
allow for the idea that people will eventually get wise to what they're
doing TO THEMSELVES. Hopefully before a coup, but sometimes not. When we
taxpayers see the 30-40 percent taken off the top of our paychecks while our
favorite programs being cut or eliminated due to lack of funds, sooner or
later we will start to wonder what exactly it is our tax dollars are being
used for. But I sure as hell don't think that anyone is going to decide that
we'd be better off with an authoritarian government.

>
> > The federal budget surpluses of the 90's might save Bill
> > Clinton's legacy,
>
> And who was the "fiscal power" during those surpluses?

The Republicans in the House and Senate. I didn't say it was fair.

>
> > while George "D is for Deficit" Bush may follow his
> > father's economic path to onetermship.
>
> Again, the wisdom of the "people" is apparent, especially the ones who
> consistently score in the 10-20% bracket on quizzes regarding economics.
>
> >We DO value fiscal responsibility in
> > this here country, Jack.
>
> And those "deficit's" you just mentioned? How about the Long Term
> Liabilities (as opposed to cash/current deficit) that run into the teens
of
> TRILLIONS of $$$? How 'bout that, Jack?

I'll worry about that when whoever is supposed to be collecting on it wants
us to pay up. Anyone who allows a multi trillion dollar debt to acumulate
against them ought to be prepared for a disappointment when they expect
payment due.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but while the economy was good and the gov't had a
surplus, weren't we supposed to have been "paid up" within a decade or so?
Until Dubya decided to spread the wealth? Yeah...$300 sure bought MY
vote.....Yessir.....

[Tom S.]

"Chris Hoffmann" > wrote in message
...
>
> > > > In 1797, in a letter to an American friend, Lord Thomas MacCauley
> wrote:
> > > >
>
> Whoops, better make that 1857.


Yep...you're right.

>
> > > > Blah, blah, blah> > >
> > > > The average age of the world's greatest democratic nations has been
> 200
> > > > years.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm no expert on the history of world's greatest democratic nations,
but
> I
> > > can't name one prior to 1797. Any idea what country(s) exactly this
guy
> > > might be babbling about? >
>
> > Your knowlege of history is, like...non-existant.
>
> Yeah. Well, thanks for the list of countries anyway. Unless you're
referring
> to ancient Greece, or Rome, or India, I believe most modern democracies
> have had their origins in the mid 18th century. (Those 3 ancients lasted a
> LOT longer than 200 years...) I'd also like to point out that the majority

They evolved INTO democracies...then collapsed. Even Greece and Rome started
as republics, then degenerated into democracies...just like we're doing.

> of countries which have reverted to dictatorship after a period of
> democracy, have since gone BACK to democracy.

And what is different in their composition since the reverted to democracy?

> >
> > >
> > > It may be true that we'd all like a bigger slice of the public
treasury,
> > but
> > > it's also true that we'd like to not need to contribute so much to it
in
> > the
> > > first place.
> >
> > So you AGREE with MacCauley?
>
> What am I supposed to be agreeing with? Most people are capable of
> understanding that money doesn't grow on trees.

Capable yes...dealing it with, no.

> The trouble is having
> representatives who can't or won't tell their constituents that the well
is
> dry.

When they do, they get bounced from office.


> Or who say that the well is dry when it isn't.
> I take issue with his assertion that we're going to vote ourselves into
debt
> until we collapse under it. Not that it's untrue, but he doesn't seem to
> allow for the idea that people will eventually get wise to what they're
> doing TO THEMSELVES.

It allows for it, but tell me an instance when the "addicts" have ever moved
to avert the inevitiable reckoning.

>Hopefully before a coup, but sometimes not. When we
> taxpayers see the 30-40 percent taken off the top of our paychecks while
our
> favorite programs being cut or eliminated due to lack of funds, sooner or
> later we will start to wonder what exactly it is our tax dollars are being
> used for. But I sure as hell don't think that anyone is going to decide
that
> we'd be better off with an authoritarian government.

Why is the solution an authoritarian government. The great welfare states
have been authoritarian.

>
> >
> > > The federal budget surpluses of the 90's might save Bill
> > > Clinton's legacy,
> >
> > And who was the "fiscal power" during those surpluses?
>
> The Republicans in the House and Senate. I didn't say it was fair.

And the Repub's only milked the booming tech sectors until the dot.com
"bubble" burst.

>
> >
> > > while George "D is for Deficit" Bush may follow his
> > > father's economic path to onetermship.
> >
> > Again, the wisdom of the "people" is apparent, especially the ones who
> > consistently score in the 10-20% bracket on quizzes regarding economics.
> >
> > >We DO value fiscal responsibility in
> > > this here country, Jack.
> >
> > And those "deficit's" you just mentioned? How about the Long Term
> > Liabilities (as opposed to cash/current deficit) that run into the teens
> of
> > TRILLIONS of $$$? How 'bout that, Jack?
>
> I'll worry about that when whoever is supposed to be collecting on it
wants
> us to pay up.

Better start, because it's already beginning and it's accellerating over the
next 12-25 years. What it is is government pension funds and retirement
plans for military, civil service, Congress and and several "off budget"
programs.


> Anyone who allows a multi trillion dollar debt to acumulate
> against them ought to be prepared for a disappointment when they expect
> payment due.

Like Social Security?

> Perhaps I misunderstood, but while the economy was good and the gov't had
a
> surplus, weren't we supposed to have been "paid up" within a decade or so?

One hundred forty years of deficit spending paid up in ten? All based on
five boom years? Get real!

> Until Dubya decided to spread the wealth? Yeah...$300 sure bought MY
> vote.....Yessir.....

Well, send it back.

We can't spend our way to prosperity anymore than we can tax out way to it.

[Chip Jones]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message ...
> >
[snipped]
> >
> > The time might be overdue for the controller workforce to negotiate with
a
> > private employer rather than the FAA Administrator.
>
> You got that right, Joe. It is time to automate the ground side of the
> system.
> >

LOL, and you've got *just* the piece of automation for sale that will do the
trick, if only those dang FAA unions would get out of your way...

Chip, ZTL

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
...
> > >
> [snipped]
> > >
> > > The time might be overdue for the controller workforce to negotiate
with
> a
> > > private employer rather than the FAA Administrator.
> >
> > You got that right, Joe. It is time to automate the ground side of the
> > system.
> > >
>
> LOL, and you've got *just* the piece of automation for sale that will do
the
> trick, if only those dang FAA unions would get out of your way...

BCAG, no more is Lockmart in the way of innovation. We generally only do
the airborn side of automation and that is well along, thanks to Oz.

[Brooks Hagenow]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "PlanetJ" > said:
> >That gives me a warm fuzzy. Knowing the separation of aircraft in IFR
> >weather is done by low bidder's and profit based.
>
> Look how well deregulation worked for the electricity grid.
>
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
> "He passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when
the
> platform upon which he was standing collapsed." "I thought he was hanged?"
> "That's what I said, isn't it?"

Are you kidding? The electric grid is still highly regulated. And when was
the last time a power company has been able to build a new power plant or
run new high voltage power lines. All the kooks come out of the woodwork
saying the high voltage lines cause cancer, building a new nuclear plant
will lead to another Chernobyl, coal and oil plants pollute the air, and
best of all wind power farms ruin the scenery. We can't drill for oil
anywhere because they think it will turn wildlife areas into a big waist
land yet they complain about the cost of gas at the pump.

But none of that has anything to do with flying.

[Tom S.]

"Brooks Hagenow" > wrote in message
y.com...
> "PlanetJ" > wrote in message
> ...
> > That gives me a warm fuzzy. Knowing the separation of aircraft in IFR
> > weather is done by low bidder's and profit based.
> >
>
> And it gives you more comfort knowing that the current employers of those
> maintaining separation are the same that keep up the high quality service
at
> the post office and DMV?

....and Amtrak, public schools...
>
> 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.

IOW; we screwed up, so let us fix it.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brooks Hagenow" > wrote in message
> y.com...
> > "PlanetJ" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > That gives me a warm fuzzy. Knowing the separation of aircraft in IFR
> > > weather is done by low bidder's and profit based.

> > And it gives you more comfort knowing that the current employers of
those
> > maintaining separation are the same that keep up the high quality
service at
> > the post office and DMV?
>
> ...and Amtrak, public schools...

Immagine the black hole "Government Airlines" would be.

> > 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.
>
> IOW; we screwed up, so let us fix it.

I think pilots might enjoy more inforamtion under some automatic system.

[PlanetJ]

Highly skilled Air Traffic controllers and radar/ computer/communication
specialist's in the FAA compared to Post Office workers? Have you ever been
inside a FAA TRACON or Air Route Center Brooke? Probably Not. Big difference
between putting letters in a box and moving Air Traffic at 600 miles an
hour.

So the current AT system is bad? You want to monkey with something that
controls thousands of lives each day?Oh, it didn't work we will fire you. In
the mean time thousands of burnt bodies are scattered all over the country
side? Boy, that makes a lot of since.

We use Federal workers to inspect underwear bags at airports and Salmon
guts in Alaska but it's OK to turn over Air Traffic control to a private
company. When that happens, I will can my ticket and ride the bus.


And it gives you more comfort knowing that the current employers of those
> maintaining separation are the same that keep up the high quality service
at
> the post office and DMV?

[Tarver Engineering]

"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?

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.

[Chris Hoffmann]

> They evolved INTO democracies...then collapsed. Even Greece and Rome
started
> as republics, then degenerated into democracies...just like we're doing.

Degenerated? I always thought democracy was the better of the two. At least
it always was through all those games of Civ.

>
> > of countries which have reverted to dictatorship after a period of
> > democracy, have since gone BACK to democracy.
>
> And what is different in their composition since the reverted to
democracy?

I don't know offhand. Germany's democracy after the third reich, I suspect,
was different than before. I would guess that the second incarnation of
democracy either gave more power to the individual, or more to the state,
depending on the particular case.

> > What am I supposed to be agreeing with? Most people are capable of
> > understanding that money doesn't grow on trees.
>
> Capable yes...dealing it with, no.

I disagree.
>
> > The trouble is having
> > representatives who can't or won't tell their constituents that the well
> is
> > dry.
>
> When they do, they get bounced from office.

I definitely disagree. At least the time it takes for them to get bounced
needs improvement.
>
>
> > Or who say that the well is dry when it isn't.
> > I take issue with his assertion that we're going to vote ourselves into
> debt
> > until we collapse under it. Not that it's untrue, but he doesn't seem to
> > allow for the idea that people will eventually get wise to what they're
> > doing TO THEMSELVES.
>
> It allows for it, but tell me an instance when the "addicts" have ever
moved
> to avert the inevitiable reckoning.

The American Revolution, the American Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea,
Vietnam.......


> And the Repub's only milked the booming tech sectors until the dot.com
> "bubble" burst.

Disagree here as well. If congress really could move that fast on a sudden
economic trend, we really would be in good shape.


> > Anyone who allows a multi trillion dollar debt to acumulate
> > against them ought to be prepared for a disappointment when they expect
> > payment due.
>
> Like Social Security?

Bingo! Not what I was referring to, but that wasn't an unexpected answer. It
WILL be interesting to see how administrations handle that big hand grenade,
won't it?


> One hundred forty years of deficit spending paid up in ten? All based on
> five boom years? Get real!

I don't think that's accurate. We haven't been in deficit spending for 140
years, number one. Number two, projected budget surpluses only a few years
ago were in the hundreds of billions, and growing. Even with debt in the
teens of trillions, 10 years at that rate of surplus isn't far out of the
ballpark. The light was at the end of the tunnel, until the Great Giveaway.

>
> > Until Dubya decided to spread the wealth? Yeah...$300 sure bought MY
> > vote.....Yessir.....
>
> Well, send it back.
>
> We can't spend our way to prosperity anymore than we can tax out way to
it.

On that, I agree.

[Tarver Engineering]

"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. Any changover will take years to complete
and in the interum there is enough incintive to do a tedious boring job, for
a few years. Besides that, events could lead to contractors being
Federalized.

[Tom S.]

"Chris Hoffmann" > wrote in message
...
>
> > They evolved INTO democracies...then collapsed. Even Greece and Rome
> started
> > as republics, then degenerated into democracies...just like we're doing.
>
> Degenerated? I always thought democracy was the better of the two. At
least
> it always was through all those games of Civ.

A democracy is better than a republic? Not necessarily, and not necessarily
the other way around.

" . . . democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention;
have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of
property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been
violent in their deaths." - James Madison

IOW, "democracy" is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Yet...

> >
> > > of countries which have reverted to dictatorship after a period of
> > > democracy, have since gone BACK to democracy.
> >
> > And what is different in their composition since the reverted to
> democracy?
>
> I don't know offhand. Germany's democracy after the third reich, I
suspect,
> was different than before.
....

You might want to trace the German "republics" from the Hindenberg era (1871
or so), through the Weimar "republic", through post-WW2 and through today.


> I would guess that the second incarnation of
> democracy either gave more power to the individual, or more to the state,
> depending on the particular case.


> > > What am I supposed to be agreeing with? Most people are capable of
> > > understanding that money doesn't grow on trees.
> >
> > Capable yes...dealing it with, no.
>
> I disagree.

So they are "dealing with it"?

> >
> > > The trouble is having
> > > representatives who can't or won't tell their constituents that the
well
> > is
> > > dry.
> >
> > When they do, they get bounced from office.
>
> I definitely disagree.

An example of two you demostrate your position, please?

> At least the time it takes for them to get bounced
> needs improvement.

Look at the numbers for first term congresscritters versus "career
politicians".

> > > Or who say that the well is dry when it isn't.
> > > I take issue with his assertion that we're going to vote ourselves
into
> > debt
> > > until we collapse under it. Not that it's untrue, but he doesn't seem
to
> > > allow for the idea that people will eventually get wise to what
they're
> > > doing TO THEMSELVES.
> >
> > It allows for it, but tell me an instance when the "addicts" have ever
> moved
> > to avert the inevitiable reckoning.
>
> The American Revolution, the American Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea,
> Vietnam.......


Well, you got the first one right, but your context is probably wrong
(leadershipwise).

> > And the Repub's only milked the booming tech sectors until the dot.com
> > "bubble" burst.
>
> Disagree here as well. If congress really could move that fast on a sudden
> economic trend, we really would be in good shape.

Before you disagree, try to comprehend the statement. (Example of that other
government function: public schools)
>
>
> > > Anyone who allows a multi trillion dollar debt to acumulate
> > > against them ought to be prepared for a disappointment when they
expect
> > > payment due.
> >
> > Like Social Security?
>
> Bingo! Not what I was referring to, but that wasn't an unexpected answer.
It
> WILL be interesting to see how administrations handle that big hand
grenade,
> won't it?

Look at the flack the "democracy" is producing already.

> > One hundred forty years of deficit spending paid up in ten? All based on
> > five boom years? Get real!
>
> I don't think that's accurate. We haven't been in deficit spending for 140
> years, number one.

Check how many years of the last 140 we've had deficits.

> Number two, projected budget surpluses only a few years
> ago were in the hundreds of billions, and growing.

You might note that these "projections" we're trashed within two years.

>Even with debt in the
> teens of trillions, 10 years at that rate of surplus isn't far out of the
> ballpark. The light was at the end of the tunnel, until the Great
Giveaway.

Which "Great Giveaway"" The "giveaways" began over 100 years ago, so which
one are you referring to?


>
> >
> > > Until Dubya decided to spread the wealth? Yeah...$300 sure bought MY
> > > vote.....Yessir.....
> >
> > Well, send it back.
> >
> > We can't spend our way to prosperity anymore than we can tax out way to
> it.
>
> On that, I agree.

Yet you belie that in your previous arguments.

[Tom S.]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...

> > > 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. Any changover will take years to complete
> and in the interum there is enough incintive to do a tedious boring job,
for
> a few years.

We already ahve that.

> Besides that, events could lead to contractors being
> Federalized.

Then we're right back where we started.

Has is worked (as mentioned) for the Postal "Service", or Amtrak, schools,
etc.?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tom S." > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > > 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. Any changover will take years to
complete
> > and in the interum there is enough incintive to do a tedious boring job,
for
> > a few years.
>
> We already ahve that.

Yep, no change for the short term.

> > Besides that, events could lead to contractors being
> > Federalized.
>
> Then we're right back where we started.

Sure, no harm if it fails.

> Has is worked (as mentioned) for the Postal "Service", or Amtrak, schools,
> etc.?

As I wrote, the postal service is a Federal constitutional entity and can
not be truely privatized. Amtrak has been run to intentionally lose money,
to protect their subsidy. Vouchers look to be one way we can stop public
education from creating a generation of permanent underclass citizens.

I'll leave this thread now, for the sake of rai posters.

[MC]

> > >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 bunh 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.

[Brooks Hagenow]

>
> 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.

[Paul Tomblin]

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

[David H]

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

[Peter Duniho]

"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

[Robert Perkins]

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

[Michael]

"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

[Ron Natalie]

"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.

[Larry Dighera]

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_sep-oct/20_air_traffic_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-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=fr11de00-135.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,

[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/regulatory/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,

[Bertie the Bunyip]

"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

[Chip Jones]

"Blippie" > wrote in message
...
> >We write to express our grave concern about the recent conduct of the
> >Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in lobbying Congress for the
> >authority to privatize America's air traffic control (ATC) system.
>
> But why? It worked so well in the UK!
>

and Switzerland...

Chip, ZTL

[Kevin Wetzel - ISP Toolz]

"David H" > wrote in message
...
Will Alaska (and other states with votes that the administration thinks
they can woo) also get an exemption from the recent legislation that
specifies that seafood inspectors are "inherantly governmental" and thus
can't be privatized?

The Bush administration sure does seem to have a major bug up its ass
about forcing ATC privatization - WHY? At the same time they're
declaring things like seafood inspectors are inherantly governmental
(not to mention those federal employees who screen baggage for nail
clippers). There's something here that doesn't quite add up. They seem
really, really intent on pushing ATC privatization. What's really
behind this?

Who stands to gain from ATC privatization? Are there major businesses
that do this now, and others that are quietly preparing to pick up some
fat federal ATC contracts? Do these companies have any connection to
the white house and friends?

"Follow the money...."


COMMENTS:
I completely agree that there is an alternative driving force behind this.
Once of the funny things that I see is that if the white house were to
privatize the ATC functions it would have just another person to blame
outside the government for its failure to fix security related issues, the
increase in traffic as seen at airports (delays, longer holding patterns,
etc). If they really wanted to fix this issue they should probably start by
giving airports more grants and funding to accomplish advances in ATC
instead of trying to privatize it and then point the finger later at the
contractors failures. The federal government has pretty much failed in
regard to making these systems better for pilots. Instead of changing the
people they should change the bogus TFR's that pop up out of nowhere and
serve no real purpose. Im tired for one of a government that restricts the
population for its own personal uses and gains (or the gains of those
elected). If each one of the elected officials in Washington were affected
by TFR's, privatization of ATC and other issues you can bet that the rules
of engagement would have changed and for one the ADIZ in Washington DC
(which serves no purpose to prevent terrorism at all) would have been
removed by now. As I see it at 400MPH they could'nt stop a jetliner in time
anyway with the size of the ADIZ. Anyway im not gonna ramble on. I think the
entire system needs to be looked at and changed.

Kevin Wetzel
ISP Toolz
http://www.isptoolz.com/

[Tarver Engineering]

"Kevin Wetzel - ISP Toolz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David H" > wrote in message
> ...
> Will Alaska (and other states with votes that the administration thinks
> they can woo) also get an exemption from the recent legislation that
> specifies that seafood inspectors are "inherantly governmental" and thus
> can't be privatized?
>
> The Bush administration sure does seem to have a major bug up its ass
> about forcing ATC privatization - WHY? At the same time they're
> declaring things like seafood inspectors are inherantly governmental
> (not to mention those federal employees who screen baggage for nail
> clippers). There's something here that doesn't quite add up. They seem
> really, really intent on pushing ATC privatization. What's really
> behind this?

Payroll is where the money is.

[Cub Driver]

>The Bush administration sure does seem to have a major bug up its ass
>about forcing ATC privatization - WHY?

Cheaper and safer?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>Who stands to gain from ATC privatization?

Airline passengers? Pilots?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[BTIZ]

cheaper I might agree with... but safer??

maybe safer for the gov't that does not have to face a law suit when a gov't
controller "screws the deal" and ends up facing a lawsuit.. like the two
that hit at an cross intersection.. or what has been in all the aviation
mags lately.. the "position and hold" clearance down field, in front of
another aircraft that was "cleared for take off" at the beginning of the
runway.. tower thought the "position and hold" aircraft was also using full
length, not an intersection departure..

so the pilots (or surviving families) sue the "private ATC company" for the
screw up.. and not the gov't..

hence.. it is safer for the gov't

BT
"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >The Bush administration sure does seem to have a major bug up its ass
> >about forcing ATC privatization - WHY?
>
> Cheaper and safer?
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put CUB in subject line)
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Cub Driver wrote:
>>The Bush administration sure does seem to have a major bug up its ass
>>about forcing ATC privatization - WHY?
>
>
> Cheaper and safer?

I can see it potentially being cheaper in total cost, but likely not
cheaper for general aviation. I also wonder if it really would be
safer. The profit motive is great for economic efficiency, but not
always for safety and other parameters that detract from, rather than
add to, profitability.


Matt

[Tarver Engineering]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >The Bush administration sure does seem to have a major bug up its ass
> >about forcing ATC privatization - WHY?
>
> Cheaper and safer?

And more capacity.

[Dave]

> Who stands to gain from ATC privatization? Are there major businesses
> that do this now, and others that are quietly preparing to pick up some
> fat federal ATC contracts? Do these companies have any connection to
> the white house and friends?
>

It will be sold off to the airlines which makes a lot of sense. Sell a
national asset to companies that are struggling to either avoid or get out
of bankruptcy. Maybe the White House think that putting ATC into their
balance sheets will give the airlines more strength.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> > Who stands to gain from ATC privatization? Are there major businesses
> > that do this now, and others that are quietly preparing to pick up some
> > fat federal ATC contracts? Do these companies have any connection to
> > the white house and friends?
> >
>
> It will be sold off to the airlines which makes a lot of sense. Sell a
> national asset to companies that are struggling to either avoid or get out
> of bankruptcy. Maybe the White House think that putting ATC into their
> balance sheets will give the airlines more strength.

An ATC responsive to common carriers has a very real apeal.

[Dave]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Who stands to gain from ATC privatization? Are there major businesses
> > > that do this now, and others that are quietly preparing to pick up
some
> > > fat federal ATC contracts? Do these companies have any connection to
> > > the white house and friends?
> > >
> >
> > It will be sold off to the airlines which makes a lot of sense. Sell a
> > national asset to companies that are struggling to either avoid or get
out
> > of bankruptcy. Maybe the White House think that putting ATC into their
> > balance sheets will give the airlines more strength.
>
> An ATC responsive to common carriers has a very real apeal.

and to hell with GA too!

[BTIZ]

which makes it non responsive to general aviation?

a very bad deal..

ATC clearances go on the auction block... how bad do you really need to go..

BT

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Who stands to gain from ATC privatization? Are there major businesses
> > > that do this now, and others that are quietly preparing to pick up
some
> > > fat federal ATC contracts? Do these companies have any connection to
> > > the white house and friends?
> > >
> >
> > It will be sold off to the airlines which makes a lot of sense. Sell a
> > national asset to companies that are struggling to either avoid or get
out
> > of bankruptcy. Maybe the White House think that putting ATC into their
> > balance sheets will give the airlines more strength.
>
> An ATC responsive to common carriers has a very real apeal.
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

BTIZ wrote:
>
> cheaper I might agree with... but safer??
>
> so the pilots (or surviving families) sue the "private ATC company" for the
> screw up.. and not the gov't..

If that happens, the next contract will cost the Feds lots more money, so it
won't be cheaper anymore.

George Patterson
They say nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is, death
doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session.

[Peter Gottlieb]

Unless they write legislation absolving the private companies from
liability.

Before you say they can't do that, look at the new energy bill and what it
is doing to the lawsuits dealing with MTBE in groundwater.


"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> BTIZ wrote:
> >
> > cheaper I might agree with... but safer??
> >
> > so the pilots (or surviving families) sue the "private ATC company" for
the
> > screw up.. and not the gov't..
>
> If that happens, the next contract will cost the Feds lots more money, so
it
> won't be cheaper anymore.
>
> George Patterson
> They say nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is,
death
> doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dave" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > Who stands to gain from ATC privatization? Are there major
businesses
> > > > that do this now, and others that are quietly preparing to pick up
> some
> > > > fat federal ATC contracts? Do these companies have any connection
to
> > > > the white house and friends?
> > > >
> > >
> > > It will be sold off to the airlines which makes a lot of sense. Sell a
> > > national asset to companies that are struggling to either avoid or get
out
> > > of bankruptcy. Maybe the White House think that putting ATC into their
> > > balance sheets will give the airlines more strength.
> >
> > An ATC responsive to common carriers has a very real apeal.
>
> and to hell with GA too!

GA would not only get superior service, but $100,000,000 in the aviation
budget.
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:AxVtb.3417$Ue4.381@fed1read01...
> which makes it non responsive to general aviation?

Nope, but privatization is about money and jobs.

> a very bad deal..

GA gets a big slab of pork right up front.

> ATC clearances go on the auction block... how bad do you really need to
go..

That is where we are headed without a change.

> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dave" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > Who stands to gain from ATC privatization? Are there major
businesses
> > > > that do this now, and others that are quietly preparing to pick up
> some
> > > > fat federal ATC contracts? Do these companies have any connection
to
> > > > the white house and friends?
> > > >
> > >
> > > It will be sold off to the airlines which makes a lot of sense. Sell a
> > > national asset to companies that are struggling to either avoid or get
> out
> > > of bankruptcy. Maybe the White House think that putting ATC into their
> > > balance sheets will give the airlines more strength.
> >
> > An ATC responsive to common carriers has a very real apeal.
> >
> >
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
> Unless they write legislation absolving the private companies from
> liability.
>
> Before you say they can't do that, look at the new energy bill and what it
> is doing to the lawsuits dealing with MTBE in groundwater.

California developed and mandated MTBE.

> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > BTIZ wrote:
> > >
> > > cheaper I might agree with... but safer??
> > >
> > > so the pilots (or surviving families) sue the "private ATC company"
for
> the
> > > screw up.. and not the gov't..
> >
> > If that happens, the next contract will cost the Feds lots more money,
so
> it
> > won't be cheaper anymore.
> >
> > George Patterson
> > They say nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is,
> death
> > doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session.
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
>
> Unless they write legislation absolving the private companies from
> liability.

Oh, I'm sure they can. They did that with the USPS when that got privatized.

George Patterson
They say nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is, death
doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session.

[Tarver Engineering]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Peter Gottlieb wrote:
> >
> > Unless they write legislation absolving the private companies from
> > liability.
>
> Oh, I'm sure they can. They did that with the USPS when that got
privatized.

The postal service is a Constitutional entity and therefore you are
comparing apples and oranges. The system was at saturation a couple of
years ago and will probably be again in a couple more. GA is going to get
frozen out under the current ATC system.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>Who stands to gain from ATC privatization? Are there major businesses
>>>that do this now, and others that are quietly preparing to pick up some
>>>fat federal ATC contracts? Do these companies have any connection to
>>>the white house and friends?
>>>
>>
>>It will be sold off to the airlines which makes a lot of sense. Sell a
>>national asset to companies that are struggling to either avoid or get out
>>of bankruptcy. Maybe the White House think that putting ATC into their
>>balance sheets will give the airlines more strength.
>
>
> An ATC responsive to common carriers has a very real apeal.
>
>

Only if you are a common carrier. A large part of the air traffic isn't
airline.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>>Who stands to gain from ATC privatization? Are there major
>>>>
> businesses
>
>>>>>that do this now, and others that are quietly preparing to pick up
>>>>
>>some
>>
>>>>>fat federal ATC contracts? Do these companies have any connection
>>>>
> to
>
>>>>>the white house and friends?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It will be sold off to the airlines which makes a lot of sense. Sell a
>>>>national asset to companies that are struggling to either avoid or get
>>>
> out
>
>>>>of bankruptcy. Maybe the White House think that putting ATC into their
>>>>balance sheets will give the airlines more strength.
>>>
>>>An ATC responsive to common carriers has a very real apeal.
>>
>>and to hell with GA too!
>
>
> GA would not only get superior service, but $100,000,000 in the aviation
> budget.
>
>>
>
>

Can you name one country with private ATC where this is true?

Matt

[Tarver Engineering]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > "Dave" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>"Dave" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>>>Who stands to gain from ATC privatization? Are there major
> >>>>
> > businesses
> >
> >>>>>that do this now, and others that are quietly preparing to pick up
> >>>>
> >>some
> >>
> >>>>>fat federal ATC contracts? Do these companies have any connection
> >>>>
> > to
> >
> >>>>>the white house and friends?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>It will be sold off to the airlines which makes a lot of sense. Sell a
> >>>>national asset to companies that are struggling to either avoid or get
> >>>
> > out
> >
> >>>>of bankruptcy. Maybe the White House think that putting ATC into their
> >>>>balance sheets will give the airlines more strength.
> >>>
> >>>An ATC responsive to common carriers has a very real apeal.
> >>
> >>and to hell with GA too!
> >
> >
> > GA would not only get superior service, but $100,000,000 in the aviation
> > budget.

> Can you name one country with private ATC where this is true?

These United States is where the money is offered and GA is valued.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > "Dave" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>>Who stands to gain from ATC privatization? Are there major businesses
> >>>that do this now, and others that are quietly preparing to pick up some
> >>>fat federal ATC contracts? Do these companies have any connection to
> >>>the white house and friends?
> >>>
> >>
> >>It will be sold off to the airlines which makes a lot of sense. Sell a
> >>national asset to companies that are struggling to either avoid or get
out
> >>of bankruptcy. Maybe the White House think that putting ATC into their
> >>balance sheets will give the airlines more strength.
> >
> >
> > An ATC responsive to common carriers has a very real apeal.

> Only if you are a common carrier. A large part of the air traffic isn't
> airline.

The system was at capacity about 2 years ago and will be again. Under the
current system small GA will probably be frozen out of some places by 2010.
Automation can be done, but concrete is not green.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>
>>>"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Who stands to gain from ATC privatization? Are there major
>>>>>>
>>>businesses
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>that do this now, and others that are quietly preparing to pick up
>>>>>>
>>>>some
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>fat federal ATC contracts? Do these companies have any connection
>>>>>>
>>>to
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>the white house and friends?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It will be sold off to the airlines which makes a lot of sense. Sell a
>>>>>>national asset to companies that are struggling to either avoid or get
>>>>>
>>>out
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>of bankruptcy. Maybe the White House think that putting ATC into their
>>>>>>balance sheets will give the airlines more strength.
>>>>>
>>>>>An ATC responsive to common carriers has a very real apeal.
>>>>
>>>>and to hell with GA too!
>>>
>>>
>>>GA would not only get superior service, but $100,000,000 in the aviation
>>>budget.
>>
>
>>Can you name one country with private ATC where this is true?
>
>
> These United States is where the money is offered and GA is valued.
>
>

Commercial aviation has far more money to spend than any GA operation
short of the Fortune 500 corporations. I agree that those with the
dough will get the service, but it won't be us who fly anything less
than 12,500 lbs.


Matt

[Tarver Engineering]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Dave" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Dave" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>Who stands to gain from ATC privatization? Are there major
> >>>>>>
> >>>businesses
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>that do this now, and others that are quietly preparing to pick up
> >>>>>>
> >>>>some
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>fat federal ATC contracts? Do these companies have any connection
> >>>>>>
> >>>to
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>the white house and friends?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It will be sold off to the airlines which makes a lot of sense. Sell
a
> >>>>>>national asset to companies that are struggling to either avoid or
get
> >>>>>
> >>>out
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>of bankruptcy. Maybe the White House think that putting ATC into
their
> >>>>>>balance sheets will give the airlines more strength.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>An ATC responsive to common carriers has a very real apeal.
> >>>>
> >>>>and to hell with GA too!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>GA would not only get superior service, but $100,000,000 in the
aviation
> >>>budget.

> >>Can you name one country with private ATC where this is true?

> > These United States is where the money is offered and GA is valued.
>
> Commercial aviation has far more money to spend than any GA operation
> short of the Fortune 500 corporations. I agree that those with the
> dough will get the service, but it won't be us who fly anything less
> than 12,500 lbs.

I believe small GA has value in R&D and maintaining Americans right to
travel. Without a change, what you can expect is for small GA to be frozen
out of some airports/regions.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> Automation can be done, but concrete is not green.

New concrete is green.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Automation can be done, but concrete is not green.
>
> New concrete is green.

Hmmm, you think you can sell that idea to the tree huggers?

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Automation can be done, but concrete is not green.
> >
> > New concrete is green.
>
> Hmmm, you think you can sell that idea to the tree huggers?
>

You don't approve of trees?

[Cub Driver]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:10:13 -0800, "BTIZ" >
wrote:

>cheaper I might agree with... but safer??

Let's put it this way. If you had a very valuable package that just
had to get there, would you take it to the post office or to Fed Ex?

When you go through airport security, would you feel safer in Boston
(where the screeners are federal employees) or in Haifa (where they
are private)?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Cub Driver wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:10:13 -0800, "BTIZ" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>cheaper I might agree with... but safer??
>
>
> Let's put it this way. If you had a very valuable package that just
> had to get there, would you take it to the post office or to Fed Ex?

Depends on how big a hurry I'm in. I've found the USPS as reliable as
either Fed Ex or UPS, just slower ... but much cheaper. I don't doubt
that a private ATC would be more efficient, but it wouldn't matter as
none of us could afford to fly privately any longer.


> When you go through airport security, would you feel safer in Boston
> (where the screeners are federal employees) or in Haifa (where they
> are private)?

Haifa, but not because they are private, because they have LOTS more
experience.


Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't doubt
> that a private ATC would be more efficient, but it wouldn't matter as
> none of us could afford to fly privately any longer.
>

Why would private ATC be more efficient?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I don't doubt
> > that a private ATC would be more efficient, but it wouldn't matter as
> > none of us could afford to fly privately any longer.
> >
>
> Why would private ATC be more efficient?

Automation, same as the post office.

[Ron Natalie]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message nk.net...
>
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I don't doubt
> > that a private ATC would be more efficient, but it wouldn't matter as
> > none of us could afford to fly privately any longer.
> >
>
> Why would private ATC be more efficient?
>
The controllers wouldn't be eligible for NATCA membership.
;-)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Automation can be done, but concrete is not green.
> > >
> > > New concrete is green.
> >
> > Hmmm, you think you can sell that idea to the tree huggers?

> You don't approve of trees?

Trees are a good thing, do I advocate automation of ATC. The "pour
concrete" advocates also have a point, albeit not politically viable.

[Tom S.]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Commercial aviation has far more money to spend than any GA operation
> short of the Fortune 500 corporations. I agree that those with the
> dough will get the service, but it won't be us who fly anything less
> than 12,500 lbs.

Why should it be any other way? "Those who bears the costs, gets the goods".

[Tom S.]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:AxVtb.3417$Ue4.381@fed1read01...
> which makes it non responsive to general aviation?
>
> a very bad deal..
>
> ATC clearances go on the auction block... how bad do you really need to
go..
>

During peak times, through major traffic areas....

[Tom S.]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> BTIZ wrote:
> >
> > cheaper I might agree with... but safer??
> >
> > so the pilots (or surviving families) sue the "private ATC company" for
the
> > screw up.. and not the gov't..
>
> If that happens, the next contract will cost the Feds lots more money, so
it
> won't be cheaper anymore.

Has costs to government ever keep them back?

[Tom S.]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Peter Gottlieb wrote:
> >
> > Unless they write legislation absolving the private companies from
> > liability.
>
> Oh, I'm sure they can. They did that with the USPS when that got
privatized.

That's the problem if ATC "privatization" is done like USPS, or the phone
companies, power utilities....

[Tom S.]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > I don't doubt
> > > that a private ATC would be more efficient, but it wouldn't matter as
> > > none of us could afford to fly privately any longer.
> > >
> >
> > Why would private ATC be more efficient?
>
> Automation, same as the post office.

Profit motive (over the long term) is a great incentive. What is the FAA's
incentive?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > >
> > > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > I don't doubt
> > > > that a private ATC would be more efficient, but it wouldn't matter
as
> > > > none of us could afford to fly privately any longer.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why would private ATC be more efficient?
> >
> > Automation, same as the post office.
>
> Profit motive (over the long term) is a great incentive. What is the FAA's
> incentive?

FAA wants to move back to a regulatory stance of promoting aviation, IMO.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> Automation, same as the post office.
>

Why is automation available to private ATC but not to public ATC?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Automation, same as the post office.
> >
>
> Why is automation available to private ATC but not to public ATC?

You tell us why ATC has resisted automation. (ie jobs)

[Tom S.]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > > nk.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't doubt
> > > > > that a private ATC would be more efficient, but it wouldn't matter
> as
> > > > > none of us could afford to fly privately any longer.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why would private ATC be more efficient?
> > >
> > > Automation, same as the post office.
> >
> > Profit motive (over the long term) is a great incentive. What is the
FAA's
> > incentive?
>
> FAA wants to move back to a regulatory stance of promoting aviation, IMO.
>
Contradiction in terms if you ask me (which no one did...).

[Tom S.]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Automation, same as the post office.
> > >
> >
> > Why is automation available to private ATC but not to public ATC?
>
> You tell us why ATC has resisted automation. (ie jobs)

The same reason the phone companies were twenty years late installing
automatic switching equipment in the 50's and 60's. (The Communications
Unions were damn strong....then).

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tom S." > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > > > nk.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't doubt
> > > > > > that a private ATC would be more efficient, but it wouldn't
matter as
> > > > > > none of us could afford to fly privately any longer.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Why would private ATC be more efficient?
> > > >
> > > > Automation, same as the post office.
> > >
> > > Profit motive (over the long term) is a great incentive. What is the
FAA's
> > > incentive?
> >
> > FAA wants to move back to a regulatory stance of promoting aviation,
IMO.
> >
> Contradiction in terms if you ask me (which no one did...).

That all depends on if you want there to be an aircraft manufacturing, or
support, infrastructure in the US.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Automation, same as the post office.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why is automation available to private ATC but not to public ATC?
> >
> > You tell us why ATC has resisted automation. (ie jobs)
>
> The same reason the phone companies were twenty years late installing
> automatic switching equipment in the 50's and 60's. (The Communications
> Unions were damn strong....then).

Same as Boeing brought in contractors to implement DCAC, in order to
eliminate a large amount of human tabbing of engineering; where a computer
could do the work. Without the change, Boeing would have effectively
conceded the civil transport manufacturing business to Europe and SPEEA
would be a memory. Not that Boeing could not have still made plenty of
money.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I don't doubt
>>that a private ATC would be more efficient, but it wouldn't matter as
>>none of us could afford to fly privately any longer.
>>
>
>
> Why would private ATC be more efficient?

Because most private companies that perform functions similar to
governmental agencies are more efficient. I think new technology would
be adopted faster and with less bureaucracy. I think controller
performance would be rewarded more effectively. Last I knew, most civil
service jobs still had a lot of focus on seniority, more like a union
workforce in the private sector than a professional workforce in the
private sector.

No way to know for sure unless it happens, but I'd bet money on greater
efficiency. I'd also bet money that general aviation, at least anything
other than corporate aviation, would all but cease to exist in 10-20
years.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Tom S. wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Commercial aviation has far more money to spend than any GA operation
>>short of the Fortune 500 corporations. I agree that those with the
>>dough will get the service, but it won't be us who fly anything less
>>than 12,500 lbs.
>
>
> Why should it be any other way? "Those who bears the costs, gets the goods".

That isn't true in vast sectors of the American economy. You don't even
begin to pay for what you use in cost of roads, etc., and people who
live in the city don't pay for the real cost of public transportation.
These are subsidized by general tax revenue just as general aviation is.
I don't you'd really want to pay via user fees for every service you
use, unless you live in a shack in Wyoming.


Matt

[Tarver Engineering]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Tom S. wrote:
> > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Commercial aviation has far more money to spend than any GA operation
> >>short of the Fortune 500 corporations. I agree that those with the
> >>dough will get the service, but it won't be us who fly anything less
> >>than 12,500 lbs.
> >
> >
> > Why should it be any other way? "Those who bears the costs, gets the
goods".
>
> That isn't true in vast sectors of the American economy. You don't even
> begin to pay for what you use in cost of roads, etc., and people who
> live in the city don't pay for the real cost of public transportation.
> These are subsidized by general tax revenue just as general aviation is.
> I don't you'd really want to pay via user fees for every service you
> use, unless you live in a shack in Wyoming.

In that case, you should get behind privatization.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Tom S. wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Commercial aviation has far more money to spend than any GA operation
>>>>short of the Fortune 500 corporations. I agree that those with the
>>>>dough will get the service, but it won't be us who fly anything less
>>>>than 12,500 lbs.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why should it be any other way? "Those who bears the costs, gets the
>>
> goods".
>
>>That isn't true in vast sectors of the American economy. You don't even
>>begin to pay for what you use in cost of roads, etc., and people who
>>live in the city don't pay for the real cost of public transportation.
>>These are subsidized by general tax revenue just as general aviation is.
>> I don't you'd really want to pay via user fees for every service you
>>use, unless you live in a shack in Wyoming.
>
>
> In that case, you should get behind privatization.

Admitting that he's fresh out of logical arguments for his position,
Tarver tries a lame insult.


Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because most private companies that perform functions similar to
> governmental agencies are more efficient.
>

Sure, susccessful private companies are forced by competition to be more
efficient or fail. But you can't have competition in ATC.


>
> I think new technology would
> be adopted faster and with less bureaucracy.
>

Why?


>
> I think controller
> performance would be rewarded more effectively.
>

There used to be rewards for superior controller performance, but no longer.


>
> Last I knew, most civil
> service jobs still had a lot of focus on seniority, more like a union
> workforce in the private sector than a professional workforce in the
> private sector.
>

About all seniority does today in ATC is select prime time leave.


>
> No way to know for sure unless it happens, but I'd bet money on greater
> efficiency.
>

Why should that be the case in the US? It hasn't happened anywhere else.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Admitting that he's fresh out of logical arguments for his position,
> Tarver tries a lame insult.
>

Tarver has never had a logical argument in any discussion.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Because most private companies that perform functions similar to
>>governmental agencies are more efficient.
>>
>
>
> Sure, susccessful private companies are forced by competition to be more
> efficient or fail. But you can't have competition in ATC.

Sure you can. Not the head-to-head competition that exists in consumer
goods markets, but certainly competition akin to what exists in the
telecom market and other such markets. Also, the gummint could retain
ownership of ATC, but hold a competition every 4-5 years for who gets to
operate ATC for the next 4-5 years. Not real privatization, but a
hybrid that gets closer.

Don't get me wrong, as I said at the start, I am not advocating
privatization of ATC. I'm not sure that deregulation of the telecom
industry has been a win for the consumer and I'm not sure privatization
of ATC would be any better.


>>I think new technology would
>>be adopted faster and with less bureaucracy.
>>
>
>
> Why?

First a disclaimer, I'm not an expert when it comes to the federal
contracting process, but my employer does do a fair amount of government
contract work and I've had a passing acquaintance with it. It is MUCH
more expensive to work with any government agency that with almost any
private company, and I'm talking here about national research labs,
military labs, and some federal agencies such as NASA, but not, to my
knowledge, the FAA ... never worked with them as far as I know. The
requirements for bidding, accounting, etc. are just insane. The only
private company that even comes close to being as tough to work with is
Big Blue.

We just landed a contract with a large government agency working jointly
with IBM. It took TWO YEARS to get the contract! We've done much more
complicated work for much more money with other private companies and
universities under contracts that took two months to negotiate and get
approved.


>>I think controller
>>performance would be rewarded more effectively.
>>
>
>
> There used to be rewards for superior controller performance, but no longer.

The would exist in spades in most private companies. And not just
rewards for good performance, but termination for poor performance.


>>Last I knew, most civil
>>service jobs still had a lot of focus on seniority, more like a union
>>workforce in the private sector than a professional workforce in the
>>private sector.
>>
>
>
> About all seniority does today in ATC is select prime time leave.
>
>
>
>>No way to know for sure unless it happens, but I'd bet money on greater
>>efficiency.
>>
>
>
> Why should that be the case in the US? It hasn't happened anywhere else.

Few other countries have embraced capitalism as thoroughly as the US.
I'm not familiar with private ATC in the rest of the world, so I can't
comment. What countries are you talking about? Canada? England? Are
they really completely private or hybrids?


Matt

[John R. Copeland]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message =
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> >=20
> > Why would private ATC be more efficient?
>=20
> Because most private companies that perform functions similar to=20
> governmental agencies are more efficient. I think new technology =
would=20
> be adopted faster and with less bureaucracy. I think controller=20
> performance would be rewarded more effectively. Last I knew, most =
civil=20
> service jobs still had a lot of focus on seniority, more like a union=20
> workforce in the private sector than a professional workforce in the=20
> private sector.
>=20
> No way to know for sure unless it happens, but I'd bet money on =
greater=20
> efficiency. I'd also bet money that general aviation, at least =
anything=20
> other than corporate aviation, would all but cease to exist in 10-20 =

> years.
>=20
>=20
> Matt
>=20

My home airport has a non-FAA tower, and I operate frequently
into several other airports with non-FAA towers.
My experience is that few of the private controllers attain even the =
average
level of ability and courtesy I've learned to expect at FAA towers.
Of course, some controllers are good, but I have heard shocking displays
of carelessness and discourtesy on the frequencies of one particular
"privatized" tower in my region of the Midwest.
I doubt such a condition could occur in an FAA tower.

I can think of many reasons to criticize the FAA as an agency, but I =
think of
the Air Traffic Control branch as a distinctly separate, very =
professional group.

I've come to the viewpoint that privatization of ATC would be bad for =
U.S. aviation.
---JRC---

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sure you can. Not the head-to-head competition that exists in consumer
> goods markets, but certainly competition akin to what exists in the
> telecom market and other such markets. Also, the gummint could retain
> ownership of ATC, but hold a competition every 4-5 years for who gets to
> operate ATC for the next 4-5 years. Not real privatization, but a
> hybrid that gets closer.
>

It's the head-to-head competition that makes private firms more efficient.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> Let's put it this way. If you had a very valuable package that just
> had to get there, would you take it to the post office or to Fed Ex?

USPS. It's a mile away. Sure, I have to pay for express mail and insure the
package, but that's still cheaper than driving 25 miles to the nearest FedEx
office and paying *their* prices.

George Patterson
The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a gay
bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that
the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his
wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves,
and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer
here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriages.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> > Can you name one country with private ATC where this is true?
>
> These United States is where the money is offered and GA is valued.

Translation: "No".

George Patterson
The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a gay
bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that
the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his
wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves,
and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer
here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriages.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Tom S. wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Commercial aviation has far more money to spend than any GA operation
> >>>>short of the Fortune 500 corporations. I agree that those with the
> >>>>dough will get the service, but it won't be us who fly anything less
> >>>>than 12,500 lbs.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Why should it be any other way? "Those who bears the costs, gets the
> >>
> > goods".
> >
> >>That isn't true in vast sectors of the American economy. You don't even
> >>begin to pay for what you use in cost of roads, etc., and people who
> >>live in the city don't pay for the real cost of public transportation.
> >>These are subsidized by general tax revenue just as general aviation is.
> >> I don't you'd really want to pay via user fees for every service you
> >>use, unless you live in a shack in Wyoming.
> >
> >
> > In that case, you should get behind privatization.
>
> Admitting that he's fresh out of logical arguments for his position,
> Tarver tries a lame insult.

Asking you to join me and AOPA in advocating privatization is not intended
to be an insult.

[Tarver Engineering]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...>
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >
> > > Can you name one country with private ATC where this is true?
> >
> > These United States is where the money is offered and GA is valued.
>
> Translation: "No".

I wrote that privatizing ATC included a $100,000,000 spend on GA.

Are you having trouble following the thread, or are you really old,
Patterson?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Because most private companies that perform functions similar to
> > governmental agencies are more efficient.
> >
>
> Sure, susccessful private companies are forced by competition to be more
> efficient or fail. But you can't have competition in ATC.

Automation is the natural competitor of civil service.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Sure you can. Not the head-to-head competition that exists in consumer
>>goods markets, but certainly competition akin to what exists in the
>>telecom market and other such markets. Also, the gummint could retain
>>ownership of ATC, but hold a competition every 4-5 years for who gets to
>>operate ATC for the next 4-5 years. Not real privatization, but a
>>hybrid that gets closer.
>>
>
>
> It's the head-to-head competition that makes private firms more efficient.

And the profit motive. The latter can exist without competition. The
edge is certainly much sharper with competition as now it is that much
harder to make a profit, but making an even larger profit is still
pretty strong motivation.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tom S. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Commercial aviation has far more money to spend than any GA operation
>>>>>>short of the Fortune 500 corporations. I agree that those with the
>>>>>>dough will get the service, but it won't be us who fly anything less
>>>>>>than 12,500 lbs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Why should it be any other way? "Those who bears the costs, gets the
>>>>
>>>goods".
>>>
>>>
>>>>That isn't true in vast sectors of the American economy. You don't even
>>>>begin to pay for what you use in cost of roads, etc., and people who
>>>>live in the city don't pay for the real cost of public transportation.
>>>>These are subsidized by general tax revenue just as general aviation is.
>>>> I don't you'd really want to pay via user fees for every service you
>>>>use, unless you live in a shack in Wyoming.
>>>
>>>
>>>In that case, you should get behind privatization.
>>
>>Admitting that he's fresh out of logical arguments for his position,
>>Tarver tries a lame insult.
>
>
> Asking you to join me and AOPA in advocating privatization is not intended
> to be an insult.
>
>

Since when is AOPA advocating privatization? This is news to me.
They've lobbied heavily against that in the past.


Matt

[Dave Butler]

John R. Copeland wrote:

> My experience is that few of the private controllers attain even the average
> level of ability and courtesy I've learned to expect at FAA towers.

That's been my experience, too.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

[Newps]

Matthew S. Whiting wrote:

> Because most private companies that perform functions similar to
> governmental agencies are more efficient. I think new technology would
> be adopted faster and with less bureaucracy. I think controller
> performance would be rewarded more effectively. Last I knew, most civil
> service jobs still had a lot of focus on seniority, more like a union
> workforce in the private sector than a professional workforce in the
> private sector.

Seniority is a nonfactor at the FAA. We only use it to bid our days off
twice a year.

[PaulaJay1]

In article >, "G.R. Patterson III"
> writes:

>The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a gay
> bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that
> the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and
>his
> wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of
>Cleves,
> and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer
> here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriages.
>

Geo,
This made my day. Sent a copy to several friends.

Chuck

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>> Because most private companies that perform functions similar to
>> governmental agencies are more efficient. I think new technology
>> would be adopted faster and with less bureaucracy. I think controller
>> performance would be rewarded more effectively. Last I knew, most
>> civil service jobs still had a lot of focus on seniority, more like a
>> union workforce in the private sector than a professional workforce in
>> the private sector.
>
>
> Seniority is a nonfactor at the FAA. We only use it to bid our days off
> twice a year.
>

That is truly good to know. Are annual increases merit based or COLA?
What are the promotion criteria?


Matt

[Tom S.]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >>That isn't true in vast sectors of the American economy. You don't
even
> > >>begin to pay for what you use in cost of roads, etc., and people who
> > >>live in the city don't pay for the real cost of public transportation.
> > >>These are subsidized by general tax revenue just as general aviation
is.
> > >> I don't you'd really want to pay via user fees for every service you
> > >>use, unless you live in a shack in Wyoming.
> > >
> > >
> > > In that case, you should get behind privatization.
> >
> > Admitting that he's fresh out of logical arguments for his position,
> > Tarver tries a lame insult.
>
> Asking you to join me and AOPA in advocating privatization is not intended
> to be an insult.

Nor could it be construed as an insult. Quite the contrary, the "being out
logical arguments" falls on Whiting, not Tarver.

[Tom S.]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Cub Driver wrote:
> >
> > Let's put it this way. If you had a very valuable package that just
> > had to get there, would you take it to the post office or to Fed Ex?
>
> USPS. It's a mile away. Sure, I have to pay for express mail and insure
the
> package, but that's still cheaper than driving 25 miles to the nearest
FedEx
> office and paying *their* prices.
>
Hmmm.... FedEx picks up at MY house. Maybe you should cut your grass so they
can find yours, George. :~)

BTW, my last two "Priority Mail" packages from the USPS never arrived (One
in September, one this past couple weeks). I've had that happen with UPS
just once in seven years, and never with FedEx.

[Tom S.]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Because most private companies that perform functions similar to
> > > governmental agencies are more efficient.
> > >
> >
> > Sure, susccessful private companies are forced by competition to be more
> > efficient or fail. But you can't have competition in ATC.

That's what the Bell System thought on Long Distance calling back in the
70's and 80's regarding their industry.

>
> Automation is the natural competitor of civil service.

And if they fail to deliver the goods, someone else gets the deal (unless
ATC is privatized the way Qwest, the Postal DisService, and most utilities
are chartered.

[Tom S.]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:aIrub.236709$Tr4.696802@attbi_s03...
>
>
> Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
> > Because most private companies that perform functions similar to
> > governmental agencies are more efficient. I think new technology would
> > be adopted faster and with less bureaucracy. I think controller
> > performance would be rewarded more effectively. Last I knew, most civil
> > service jobs still had a lot of focus on seniority, more like a union
> > workforce in the private sector than a professional workforce in the
> > private sector.
>
> Seniority is a nonfactor at the FAA. We only use it to bid our days off
> twice a year.

Bull!! Seniority is a major (the major?) key in any bureaucracy or Union.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> That's what the Bell System thought on Long Distance calling back in the
> 70's and 80's regarding their industry.
>

Bell was wrong, you can have more than one provider of long distance
service. If more than one company attempts to provide separation nobody has
separation.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> Bull!! Seniority is a major (the major?) key in any bureaucracy or Union.
>

Not when it isn't the driving force in anything but vacation days.

[Newps]

Matthew S. Whiting wrote:

>> Seniority is a nonfactor at the FAA. We only use it to bid our days
>> off twice a year.
>>
>
> That is truly good to know. Are annual increases merit based or COLA?
> What are the promotion criteria?

Annual increases are the same as what every Social Security recipient
gets. Usually in the 3-4% range, next year however it is about 2.5%.
There are also increases based on your localities cost of living also
added onto that. As for promotion I do not get promoted unless I put
myself in a pool for a particular job opening. For example if Denver
needs a controller or three that job will get posted for everyone to
see. If I am interested in moving to Denver I will submit my paperwork.
I may or may not get selected, none of the criteria is based simply
upon years of experience. All promotions entail a paid move. Under no
circumstances will I get to work one day and find I have been promoted
to either another facility or into management of my current facility.

[Newps]

Tom S. wrote:


>>
>>Seniority is a nonfactor at the FAA. We only use it to bid our days off
>>twice a year.
>
>
> Bull!! Seniority is a major (the major?) key in any bureaucracy or Union.

I am not in the union. The only thing based on seniority is the order
in which you get to pick your days off every 6 months. The union local
used to get to set their own seniority policy for their own facility.
NATCA National put the kabosh on that several years ago and now we are
all under the same seniority policy nationwide. There are only 5 union
members at BIL ATCT out of 18 controllers. I will say that the FAA has
bent over and let NATCA run ATC for many years now but as far as
seniority goes it ain't nuthin' like say the UAW.

[John Mazor]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > >
> > > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > I don't doubt
> > > > that a private ATC would be more efficient, but it wouldn't
matter as
> > > > none of us could afford to fly privately any longer.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why would private ATC be more efficient?
> >
> > Automation, same as the post office.
>
> Profit motive (over the long term) is a great incentive. What is the
FAA's incentive?

The FAA's incentive for efficiency is the political reality that they
are chronically underfunded and every time they fail to do something
because of lack of funding, some Congressman playing to the cheap
seats rakes them over the coals for failing to fulfill their mandate
to provide the highest level of safety.

Profit is not a factor in most proposals for ATC privatization.
Costs, operational control, personnel, purchasing, and funding
reliability are the main issues.

[John Mazor]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Because most private companies that perform functions similar
to
> > > > governmental agencies are more efficient.
> > >
> > > Sure, susccessful private companies are forced by competition to
be more
> > > efficient or fail. But you can't have competition in ATC.
>
> That's what the Bell System thought on Long Distance calling back in
the
> 70's and 80's regarding their industry.

If the phone company screws up, your call doesn't go through. If
Tony's ATC Service and Aluminum Siding Company gets the low bid and
then screws up, you die. If Big Jimbo's Fire Department and Auto
Repair screws up, you die. If Slick Sammy's Police and Pet Grooming
Station screws up, you die. There's a qualitative difference here,
which is why historically we have tended not to privatize these
functions, at least in the sense of auctioning it off to the lowest
bidder who wants to make a profit at it.

Within a few days, you'll be able to switch phone providers at will
and keep your old phone number. You can't do that with ATC, switching
contractors willy-nilly when one kills people or another comes along
with a better price.

> > Automation is the natural competitor of civil service.
>
> And if they fail to deliver the goods, someone else gets the deal
(unless
> ATC is privatized the way Qwest, the Postal DisService, and most
utilities
> are chartered.

So are you volunteering to be the DOA from the ATC screw-up that gets
Tony dumped for incompetence?

As I said in my previous post, it's not about profitability. If we
get ATC privatization, it likely will be a government-chartered
corporation dominated by the airlines (with token representation for
government, GA, and other stakeholders) to tailor the system to their
needs - not the least of which will be keeping airline user costs to a
minimum. Not that that is inherently bad, but look at what happened
to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (two government chartered mortgage
corporations set up to serve home buyers) when they realized that they
could make big bucks using questionable accounting practices.

The current system is far from perfect, but let's not kid ourselves.
ATC privatization, whatever form it takes, will involve trade-offs
that affect safety. The only relevant question is whether these could
be managed so that we do not get unacceptable outcomes.

-- John Mazor
"The search for wisdom is asymptotic."

"Except for Internet newsgroups, where it is divergent..."
-- R J Carpenter

[John Mazor]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:lkCub.180151$mZ5.1290067@attbi_s54...
>
> Tom S. wrote:
>
> >>Seniority is a nonfactor at the FAA. We only use it to bid our
days off
> >>twice a year.
> >
> > Bull!! Seniority is a major (the major?) key in any bureaucracy or
Union.
>
> I am not in the union. The only thing based on seniority is the
order
> in which you get to pick your days off every 6 months. The union
local
> used to get to set their own seniority policy for their own
facility.
> NATCA National put the kabosh on that several years ago and now we
are
> all under the same seniority policy nationwide. There are only 5
union
> members at BIL ATCT out of 18 controllers. I will say that the FAA
has
> bent over and let NATCA run ATC for many years now but as far as
> seniority goes it ain't nuthin' like say the UAW.

That's because, as Reagan proved in 1981, federal unions such as PATCO
and NATCA are toothless tigers because they cannot strike. Their
sole power resides in their ability to convince management by the
logical force of argument - and we all know how well that works if
management doesn't want to cooperate - or lobbying for political
support on Capitol Hill. NATCA's expensive PR campaign to influence
Congress in the FAA Reauthorization Bill, necessitated by the loss of
the political support that they enjoyed during the Clinton years,
proves that point.

All of which confirms your response to Tom Ass that he has no clue
about federal unions.

[Tom S.]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > That's what the Bell System thought on Long Distance calling back in the
> > 70's and 80's regarding their industry.
> >
>
> Bell was wrong, you can have more than one provider of long distance
> service.

That's what they found out the hard way. MCI was going on five eyars before
AT&T began to even take notice.

> If more than one company attempts to provide separation nobody has
> separation.

Wrong analogy.

[Tom S.]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Bull!! Seniority is a major (the major?) key in any bureaucracy or
Union.
> >
>
> Not when it isn't the driving force in anything but vacation days.
>
Riggggghhhttt!!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> Wrong analogy.
>

No, that's the precise analogy.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Tom S." wrote:
>
> Bull!! Seniority is a major (the major?) key in any bureaucracy or Union.

It certainly was not a factor in the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, of which I was a member in the '70s.

George Patterson
The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a gay
bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that
the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his
wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves,
and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer
here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriages.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John Mazor" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > > nk.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't doubt
> > > > > that a private ATC would be more efficient, but it wouldn't matter
as
> > > > > none of us could afford to fly privately any longer.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why would private ATC be more efficient?
> > >
> > > Automation, same as the post office.
> >
> > Profit motive (over the long term) is a great incentive. What is the
> FAA's incentive?
>
> The FAA's incentive for efficiency is the political reality that they
> are chronically underfunded and every time they fail to do something
> because of lack of funding, some Congressman playing to the cheap
> seats rakes them over the coals for failing to fulfill their mandate
> to provide the highest level of safety.

Seperation is where ATC has failed lateley.

> Profit is not a factor in most proposals for ATC privatization.

Such cognitive dissonance. Perhaps you would find your posts more
apropriate to one of the gag newsgroups, John Mazor. (sock)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Wrong analogy.
> >
>
> No, that's the precise analogy.

Privatization for the Bells was the end of human Toll Call connection, in
favor of automation. Now a collect call for 20 minutes costs less than the
first minute of a direct dial toll call once did.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Tom S. wrote:
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>>>That isn't true in vast sectors of the American economy. You don't
>>>>
> even
>
>>>>>begin to pay for what you use in cost of roads, etc., and people who
>>>>>live in the city don't pay for the real cost of public transportation.
>>>>>These are subsidized by general tax revenue just as general aviation
>>>>
> is.
>
>>>>> I don't you'd really want to pay via user fees for every service you
>>>>>use, unless you live in a shack in Wyoming.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In that case, you should get behind privatization.
>>>
>>>Admitting that he's fresh out of logical arguments for his position,
>>>Tarver tries a lame insult.
>>
>>Asking you to join me and AOPA in advocating privatization is not intended
>>to be an insult.
>
>
> Nor could it be construed as an insult. Quite the contrary, the "being out
> logical arguments" falls on Whiting, not Tarver.

Gee, Tom, looks like you are as thick as Tarver. If you can't make the
connection that Tarver was suggesting that I live in a shack in Wyoming,
then you aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>That's what the Bell System thought on Long Distance calling back in the
>>70's and 80's regarding their industry.
>>
>
>
> Bell was wrong, you can have more than one provider of long distance
> service. If more than one company attempts to provide separation nobody has
> separation.
>
>

You could have regional ATC companies the same way AT&T was broken up
into the RBOCs. Telecomm has much the same problem as ATC does. Not
economical to have 6 sets of phone poles and lines run to every user,
same as 6 ATC companies couldn't provide separation in the same airspace.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>>> Seniority is a nonfactor at the FAA. We only use it to bid our days
>>> off twice a year.
>>>
>>
>> That is truly good to know. Are annual increases merit based or COLA?
>> What are the promotion criteria?
>
>
> Annual increases are the same as what every Social Security recipient
> gets. Usually in the 3-4% range, next year however it is about 2.5%.
> There are also increases based on your localities cost of living also
> added onto that. As for promotion I do not get promoted unless I put
> myself in a pool for a particular job opening. For example if Denver
> needs a controller or three that job will get posted for everyone to
> see. If I am interested in moving to Denver I will submit my paperwork.
> I may or may not get selected, none of the criteria is based simply
> upon years of experience. All promotions entail a paid move. Under no
> circumstances will I get to work one day and find I have been promoted
> to either another facility or into management of my current facility.
>

Where I work, our annual raises are called "merit increases" and are
quite variable from 0% to upwards of 10% based on your performance for
the year. Likewise, promotions are based on performance and increased
scope of responsibility (the ATC equivalent is probably working a larger
or busier airport or sector). We don't get COLAs and seniority plays no
role in our pay increases beyond the fact that experience should add to
your competence to some degree at least.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

John Mazor wrote:
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>>
>>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>Because most private companies that perform functions similar
>>>>
> to
>
>>>>>governmental agencies are more efficient.
>>>>
>>>>Sure, susccessful private companies are forced by competition to
>>>
> be more
>
>>>>efficient or fail. But you can't have competition in ATC.
>>>
>>That's what the Bell System thought on Long Distance calling back in
>
> the
>
>>70's and 80's regarding their industry.
>
>
> If the phone company screws up, your call doesn't go through. If
> Tony's ATC Service and Aluminum Siding Company gets the low bid and
> then screws up, you die. If Big Jimbo's Fire Department and Auto
> Repair screws up, you die. If Slick Sammy's Police and Pet Grooming
> Station screws up, you die. There's a qualitative difference here,
> which is why historically we have tended not to privatize these
> functions, at least in the sense of auctioning it off to the lowest
> bidder who wants to make a profit at it.
>
> Within a few days, you'll be able to switch phone providers at will
> and keep your old phone number. You can't do that with ATC, switching
> contractors willy-nilly when one kills people or another comes along
> with a better price.

Sorry, if the call is 911, somebody very well could die.


Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> You could have regional ATC companies the same way AT&T was broken up
> into the RBOCs.
>

Yes, but you still wouldn't have competition.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>You could have regional ATC companies the same way AT&T was broken up
>>into the RBOCs.
>>
>
>
> Yes, but you still wouldn't have competition.
>
>

Yes, you would have some competition if each region was periodically bid
out, but certainly not perfect competition in the economics sense of the
word.


Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, you would have some competition if each region was periodically bid
> out, but certainly not perfect competition in the economics sense of the
> word.
>

But that's the competition that forces private companies to achieve the
efficiencies touted by those that advocate privatization.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Yes, you would have some competition if each region was periodically bid
> > out, but certainly not perfect competition in the economics sense of the
> > word.
> >
>
> But that's the competition that forces private companies to achieve the
> efficiencies touted by those that advocate privatization.

Automation increases productivity thereby reducing labor.

[Newps]

John Mazor wrote:

> That's because, as Reagan proved in 1981, federal unions such as PATCO
> and NATCA are toothless tigers because they cannot strike. Their
> sole power resides in their ability to convince management by the
> logical force of argument - and we all know how well that works if
> management doesn't want to cooperate - or lobbying for political
> support on Capitol Hill.

NATCA just goes right over the head of management and directly to Congress.


NATCA's expensive PR campaign to influence
> Congress in the FAA Reauthorization Bill, necessitated by the loss of
> the political support that they enjoyed during the Clinton years,
> proves that point.

NATCA is always going to Congress about something or other.

[John Mazor]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> John Mazor wrote:

> > If the phone company screws up, your call doesn't go through. If
> > Tony's ATC Service and Aluminum Siding Company gets the low bid
and
> > then screws up, you die. If Big Jimbo's Fire Department and Auto
> > Repair screws up, you die. If Slick Sammy's Police and Pet
Grooming
> > Station screws up, you die. There's a qualitative difference
here,
> > which is why historically we have tended not to privatize these
> > functions, at least in the sense of auctioning it off to the
lowest
> > bidder who wants to make a profit at it.
> >
> > Within a few days, you'll be able to switch phone providers at
will
> > and keep your old phone number. You can't do that with ATC,
switching
> > contractors willy-nilly when one kills people or another comes
along
> > with a better price.
>
> Sorry, if the call is 911, somebody very well could die.

True, but since I don't have the stats on 911 calls, I'll make a WAG
here and restate it to read that if the phone company screws up,
99.999% of the time all that happens is that your call doesn't go
through.

But you swung a two-edged sword by mentioning 911 calls. Once your
call goes through, who do you think is at the other end of the line?
It's not Ernestine the Operator. It's a government employee.

[John Mazor]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:HRUub.188068$mZ5.1366651@attbi_s54...
>
>
> John Mazor wrote:
>
> > That's because, as Reagan proved in 1981, federal unions such as
PATCO
> > and NATCA are toothless tigers because they cannot strike. Their
> > sole power resides in their ability to convince management by the
> > logical force of argument - and we all know how well that works if
> > management doesn't want to cooperate - or lobbying for political
> > support on Capitol Hill.
>
> NATCA just goes right over the head of management and directly to
Congress.

Right. They can't strike, so they play the only power card they have.

> NATCA's expensive PR campaign to influence
> > Congress in the FAA Reauthorization Bill, necessitated by the loss
of
> > the political support that they enjoyed during the Clinton years,
> > proves that point.
>
> NATCA is always going to Congress about something or other.

Right. They can't strike, so they play the only power card they have.

FAA is trying to get its ATC act together, see the ATO announcements
today. Time will tell if they can straighten it out enough to
forestall privatization.

-- John Mazor
"The search for wisdom is asymptotic."

"Except for Internet newsgroups, where it is divergent..."
-- R J Carpenter

[Tom S.]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Tom S." > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Wrong analogy.
> > >
> >
> > No, that's the precise analogy.
>
> Privatization for the Bells was the end of human Toll Call connection, in
> favor of automation. Now a collect call for 20 minutes costs less than
the
> first minute of a direct dial toll call once did.

The Bell's were always private companies, but with legal monopolies. It was
the introduction of COMPETITION, in the form of MCI (who essentially started
it off) and other than drove the Bells to compete. They could not do it with
labor intensive processes.


>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Tom S." > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Wrong analogy.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, that's the precise analogy.
> >
> > Privatization for the Bells was the end of human Toll Call connection,
in
> > favor of automation. Now a collect call for 20 minutes costs less than
the
> > first minute of a direct dial toll call once did.
>
> The Bell's were always private companies, but with legal monopolies. It
was
> the introduction of COMPETITION, in the form of MCI (who essentially
started
> it off) and other than drove the Bells to compete. They could not do it
with
> labor intensive processes.

Payroll is where the money is.

[Tom S.]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Tom S." > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Wrong analogy.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, that's the precise analogy.
> > >
> > > Privatization for the Bells was the end of human Toll Call connection,
> in
> > > favor of automation. Now a collect call for 20 minutes costs less
than
> the
> > > first minute of a direct dial toll call once did.
> >
> > The Bell's were always private companies, but with legal monopolies. It
> was
> > the introduction of COMPETITION, in the form of MCI (who essentially
> started
> > it off) and other than drove the Bells to compete. They could not do it
> with
> > labor intensive processes.
>
> Payroll is where the money is.
>
And headcount is what gives unions and executives POWER.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Yes, you would have some competition if each region was periodically bid
>>out, but certainly not perfect competition in the economics sense of the
>>word.
>>
>
>
> But that's the competition that forces private companies to achieve the
> efficiencies touted by those that advocate privatization.
>
>

I agree that you need "perfect" competition to yield perfectly low
prices, but perfect competition rarely exists in the real world as it
requires consumers to have perfect knowledge of all alternate products
and their prices. A regional system is far from perfect, but it would
provide much more competition than exists now, but certainly far from
perfect competition.

It is also fairly well established now that a free market isn't the best
way to handle every good and service. I think there are services that
are better handled via a regulated monopoly, a government or other form
of distribution.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

John Mazor wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>John Mazor wrote:
>
>
>>>If the phone company screws up, your call doesn't go through. If
>>>Tony's ATC Service and Aluminum Siding Company gets the low bid
>>
> and
>
>>>then screws up, you die. If Big Jimbo's Fire Department and Auto
>>>Repair screws up, you die. If Slick Sammy's Police and Pet
>>
> Grooming
>
>>>Station screws up, you die. There's a qualitative difference
>>
> here,
>
>>>which is why historically we have tended not to privatize these
>>>functions, at least in the sense of auctioning it off to the
>>
> lowest
>
>>>bidder who wants to make a profit at it.
>>>
>>>Within a few days, you'll be able to switch phone providers at
>>
> will
>
>>>and keep your old phone number. You can't do that with ATC,
>>
> switching
>
>>>contractors willy-nilly when one kills people or another comes
>>
> along
>
>>>with a better price.
>>
>>Sorry, if the call is 911, somebody very well could die.
>
>
> True, but since I don't have the stats on 911 calls, I'll make a WAG
> here and restate it to read that if the phone company screws up,
> 99.999% of the time all that happens is that your call doesn't go
> through.

I have no idea as I have no statistics. However, probably similar stats
apply to ATC. You seem to think that every ATC mistake results in
guaranteed death of a pilot or airplane passenger. This is hardly the
case at all.


> But you swung a two-edged sword by mentioning 911 calls. Once your
> call goes through, who do you think is at the other end of the line?
> It's not Ernestine the Operator. It's a government employee.

Not where I live. Last I knew the dispatching of emergency services was
provided by a private contractor and all of the responders in my area
(rural) are unpaid volunteers.


Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> I agree that you need "perfect" competition to yield perfectly low
> prices, but perfect competition rarely exists in the real world as it
> requires consumers to have perfect knowledge of all alternate products
> and their prices. A regional system is far from perfect, but it would
> provide much more competition than exists now, but certainly far from
> perfect competition.
>

It wouldn't provide any real competition. The users wouldn't have a choice
in providers.

[Everett M. Greene]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote
> >
> > I agree that you need "perfect" competition to yield perfectly low
> > prices, but perfect competition rarely exists in the real world as it
> > requires consumers to have perfect knowledge of all alternate products
> > and their prices. A regional system is far from perfect, but it would
> > provide much more competition than exists now, but certainly far from
> > perfect competition.
>
> It wouldn't provide any real competition. The users wouldn't have
> a choice in providers.

And right you are. ATC has a very limited clientele and
providing 365/24 service is very expensive. Until the day
arrives when you can walk into Radio Shack or Circuit City
to select which ATC provider you want to use, there isn't
any competition in the consumer sense of the word.

I would presume that any privatizing of ATC would involve the
Feds awarding a contract or contracts to the "most qualified"
bidder having the best price.

Who (objectively) determines and quantifies the qualifications?
One can easily envision contracts being awarded to the organization
that has made the largest campaign contributions (bribes) to the
political party in power at the time.

What would be the transition process? A contractor can't just
walk in on day 1 and tell all the controllers that they're on
the street and are being replaced by a machine.

If the contractor can't instantly eliminate all the controllers,
where will qualified controllers be obtained? Who is going to
certify them as being competent to do their job?

What is the backup process in case the chosen contractor fails
to perform? Will the current controllers be kept on the payroll
as a "hot backup" in case the contractor has to be terminated?

Let's say that a contractor devises a super slick, whiz-bang
way to automate ATC. If the contractor installs the ground
equipment for this, does it depart with the contractor when
the next contract is awarded to another contractor? ATC
operations are suspended for some number of months while the
new contractor replaces all the equipment? [Instead of
"radar service terminated", we'd have "radar terminated"?]

If the super slick, whiz-bang automation comes to pass, who's
going to control the interface for the end-users? Who is
going to convince the end-users that they have to spend some
possibly large amount of money per aircraft to be compatible
with the scheme devised by the (latest) contractor? What if
the next contractor decides that the previous contractor's
scheme sucks and wants to produce something quite different?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Everett M. Greene" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:
> > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote
> > >
> > > I agree that you need "perfect" competition to yield perfectly low
> > > prices, but perfect competition rarely exists in the real world as it
> > > requires consumers to have perfect knowledge of all alternate products
> > > and their prices. A regional system is far from perfect, but it would
> > > provide much more competition than exists now, but certainly far from
> > > perfect competition.
> >
> > It wouldn't provide any real competition. The users wouldn't have
> > a choice in providers.
>
> And right you are. ATC has a very limited clientele and
> providing 365/24 service is very expensive. Until the day
> arrives when you can walk into Radio Shack or Circuit City
> to select which ATC provider you want to use, there isn't
> any competition in the consumer sense of the word.
>
> I would presume that any privatizing of ATC would involve the
> Feds awarding a contract or contracts to the "most qualified"
> bidder having the best price.
>
> Who (objectively) determines and quantifies the qualifications?
> One can easily envision contracts being awarded to the organization
> that has made the largest campaign contributions (bribes) to the
> political party in power at the time.
>
> What would be the transition process? A contractor can't just
> walk in on day 1 and tell all the controllers that they're on
> the street and are being replaced by a machine.

That sinerio is why contractors are required, as the regular controllers
will no co-operate with the elimination of their work.

[Ben Dover]

"Everett M. Greene" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:
> > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote
> > >
> > > I agree that you need "perfect" competition to yield perfectly low
> > > prices, but perfect competition rarely exists in the real world as it
> > > requires consumers to have perfect knowledge of all alternate products
> > > and their prices.

Can you imagine this scenario.

Plane flying from London to New York. Pilot is wondering which New York
Center he is going to talk to today. There are two ATC operators with their
own bits of airspace and routes into JFK.

Captain calls up the airline's operation center to find out how the bidding
is going along.

There is a guy at the operations center whose job it to find the best most
cost effective route into JFK. The ops guy is trying to bid down the price
of a slot. Traffic is light today as the plane was late leaving London
because of an outbound delay the previous day. The airline rescheduled the
flight back two hours because the cost of a departure slot was more than the
charges for staying at the airport.

The Ops guy opposite numbers in the ATC centers knows what he is up to and
they are playing hard ball. They know that if the plane flies into the
Centers traffic area without a deal being concluded then there will be a big
penalty on the airline.

If this happens the airline will automatically pass the charge on to
passengers as an additional billing on their credit card.

In the end, the Airline Ops guy gets ****ed off with the New York centers
and sends the plane to Toronto where there is less hassle.

Under the new terms of carriage it is the passengers responsibility now to
get themselves to New York from Toronto.

The new bullet-proof doors to the flight deck come in really useful although
the flight attendants give way to Airline Security Operatives (big guys
shaven heads with rotweillers) to ensure the passengers leave the plane in
good order.

With no passengers the Airliner is able to position it self at tiny cost
back to JFK to pick up the passengers waiting for it as ATC charges are
based on the number of passengers carried as a proportion of the capacity.

Of course GA has disappeared due to the excessive user fees. $100 to file a
flight plan and $1 a mile or $2 a minute which ever is the higher as a
facility usage charge.

Far fetched, its that ridiculous it could happen.

Ben

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ben Dover" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Everett M. Greene" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:
> > > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote
> > > >
> > > > I agree that you need "perfect" competition to yield perfectly low
> > > > prices, but perfect competition rarely exists in the real world as
it
> > > > requires consumers to have perfect knowledge of all alternate
products
> > > > and their prices.
>
> Can you imagine this scenario.
>
> Plane flying from London to New York. Pilot is wondering which New York
> Center he is going to talk to today. There are two ATC operators with
their
> own bits of airspace and routes into JFK.
>
> Captain calls up the airline's operation center to find out how the
bidding
> is going along.

Close, but the track enroute is where money is saved/made. Automation
enhances the ability to make those dollars.

[John R. Copeland]

Ben:
You forgot to mention the ATC Futures market,
the trading in derivatives, and scandalous market-timing trades. :-)
---JRC---

"Ben Dover" > wrote in message =
...
>=20
> "Everett M. Greene" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:
> > > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote
> > > >
> > > > I agree that you need "perfect" competition to yield perfectly =
low
> > > > prices, but perfect competition rarely exists in the real world =
as it
> > > > requires consumers to have perfect knowledge of all alternate =
products
> > > > and their prices.
>=20
> Can you imagine this scenario.
>=20
> Plane flying from London to New York. Pilot is wondering which New =
York
> Center he is going to talk to today. There are two ATC operators with =
their
> own bits of airspace and routes into JFK.
>=20
> Captain calls up the airline's operation center to find out how the =
bidding
> is going along.
>=20
> There is a guy at the operations center whose job it to find the best =
most
> cost effective route into JFK. The ops guy is trying to bid down the =
price
> of a slot. Traffic is light today as the plane was late leaving London
> because of an outbound delay the previous day. The airline rescheduled =
the
> flight back two hours because the cost of a departure slot was more =
than the
> charges for staying at the airport.
>=20
> The Ops guy opposite numbers in the ATC centers knows what he is up to =
and
> they are playing hard ball. They know that if the plane flies into the
> Centers traffic area without a deal being concluded then there will be =
a big
> penalty on the airline.
>=20
> If this happens the airline will automatically pass the charge on to
> passengers as an additional billing on their credit card.
>=20
> In the end, the Airline Ops guy gets ****ed off with the New York =
centers
> and sends the plane to Toronto where there is less hassle.
>=20
> Under the new terms of carriage it is the passengers responsibility =
now to
> get themselves to New York from Toronto.
>=20
> The new bullet-proof doors to the flight deck come in really useful =
although
> the flight attendants give way to Airline Security Operatives (big =
guys
> shaven heads with rotweillers) to ensure the passengers leave the =
plane in
> good order.
>=20
> With no passengers the Airliner is able to position it self at tiny =
cost
> back to JFK to pick up the passengers waiting for it as ATC charges =
are
> based on the number of passengers carried as a proportion of the =
capacity.
>=20
> Of course GA has disappeared due to the excessive user fees. $100 to =
file a
> flight plan and $1 a mile or $2 a minute which ever is the higher as a
> facility usage charge.
>=20
> Far fetched, its that ridiculous it could happen.
>=20
> Ben
>=20
>=20
>

[John Mazor]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> John Mazor wrote:
> > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>John Mazor wrote:
> >
> >>>If the phone company screws up, your call doesn't go through. If
> >>>Tony's ATC Service and Aluminum Siding Company gets the low bid
> >> and then screws up, you die. If Big Jimbo's Fire Department and
Auto
> >>>Repair screws up, you die. If Slick Sammy's Police and Pet
Grooming
> >>>Station screws up, you die. There's a qualitative difference
here,
> >>>which is why historically we have tended not to privatize these
> >>>functions, at least in the sense of auctioning it off to the
lowest
> >>>bidder who wants to make a profit at it.
> >>>
> >>>Within a few days, you'll be able to switch phone providers at
will
> >>>and keep your old phone number. You can't do that with ATC,
switching
> >>>contractors willy-nilly when one kills people or another comes
along
> >>>with a better price.
> >>
> >>Sorry, if the call is 911, somebody very well could die.
> >
> > True, but since I don't have the stats on 911 calls, I'll make a
WAG
> > here and restate it to read that if the phone company screws up,
> > 99.999% of the time all that happens is that your call doesn't go
> > through.
>
> I have no idea as I have no statistics. However, probably similar
stats
> apply to ATC. You seem to think that every ATC mistake results in
> guaranteed death of a pilot or airplane passenger. This is hardly
the
> case at all.

Okay, it was a rhetorical overstatement, but not every 911 failure
results in deaths, either.

> > But you swung a two-edged sword by mentioning 911 calls. Once
your
> > call goes through, who do you think is at the other end of the
line?
> > It's not Ernestine the Operator. It's a government employee.
>
> Not where I live. Last I knew the dispatching of emergency services
was
> provided by a private contractor and all of the responders in my
area
> (rural) are unpaid volunteers.

Fair enough, but I suspect that in most areas, 911 calls go to the
police or to an emergency dispatch office maintained by local
authorities.

(The contractor gets paid and the responders work for free? Now
that's a recipe for profit!)

[John Mazor]

"John R. Copeland" > wrote in message
...

>You forgot to mention the ATC Futures market,
>the trading in derivatives, and scandalous market-timing trades. :-)

Not to mention the ATC Disasters Market, based on the futures market
for bets on terrorist attacks, the one that got Poindexter canned.

[Nils-Erik Forsberg]

Would seriously like that people around the world on governmental
organisation level responsible for public safety read this.

Nils F

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:50:24 -0000, "Ben Dover"
> wrote:

>
>"Everett M. Greene" > wrote in message
...
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:
>> > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote
>> > >
>> > > I agree that you need "perfect" competition to yield perfectly low
>> > > prices, but perfect competition rarely exists in the real world as it
>> > > requires consumers to have perfect knowledge of all alternate products
>> > > and their prices.
>
>Can you imagine this scenario.
>
>Plane flying from London to New York. Pilot is wondering which New York
>Center he is going to talk to today. There are two ATC operators with their
>own bits of airspace and routes into JFK.
>
>Captain calls up the airline's operation center to find out how the bidding
>is going along.
>
>There is a guy at the operations center whose job it to find the best most
>cost effective route into JFK. The ops guy is trying to bid down the price
>of a slot. Traffic is light today as the plane was late leaving London
>because of an outbound delay the previous day. The airline rescheduled the
>flight back two hours because the cost of a departure slot was more than the
>charges for staying at the airport.
>
>The Ops guy opposite numbers in the ATC centers knows what he is up to and
>they are playing hard ball. They know that if the plane flies into the
>Centers traffic area without a deal being concluded then there will be a big
>penalty on the airline.
>
>If this happens the airline will automatically pass the charge on to
>passengers as an additional billing on their credit card.
>
>In the end, the Airline Ops guy gets ****ed off with the New York centers
>and sends the plane to Toronto where there is less hassle.
>
>Under the new terms of carriage it is the passengers responsibility now to
>get themselves to New York from Toronto.
>
>The new bullet-proof doors to the flight deck come in really useful although
>the flight attendants give way to Airline Security Operatives (big guys
>shaven heads with rotweillers) to ensure the passengers leave the plane in
>good order.
>
>With no passengers the Airliner is able to position it self at tiny cost
>back to JFK to pick up the passengers waiting for it as ATC charges are
>based on the number of passengers carried as a proportion of the capacity.
>
>Of course GA has disappeared due to the excessive user fees. $100 to file a
>flight plan and $1 a mile or $2 a minute which ever is the higher as a
>facility usage charge.

>Far fetched, its that ridiculous it could happen.

[Everett M. Greene]

"Tarver Engineering" > writes:
> "Everett M. Greene" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:
> > > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote
> > > >
> > > > I agree that you need "perfect" competition to yield perfectly low
> > > > prices, but perfect competition rarely exists in the real world as it
> > > > requires consumers to have perfect knowledge of all alternate products
> > > > and their prices. A regional system is far from perfect, but it would
> > > > provide much more competition than exists now, but certainly far from
> > > > perfect competition.
> > >
> > > It wouldn't provide any real competition. The users wouldn't have
> > > a choice in providers.
> >
> > And right you are. ATC has a very limited clientele and
> > providing 365/24 service is very expensive. Until the day
> > arrives when you can walk into Radio Shack or Circuit City
> > to select which ATC provider you want to use, there isn't
> > any competition in the consumer sense of the word.
> >
> > I would presume that any privatizing of ATC would involve the
> > Feds awarding a contract or contracts to the "most qualified"
> > bidder having the best price.
> >
> > Who (objectively) determines and quantifies the qualifications?
> > One can easily envision contracts being awarded to the organization
> > that has made the largest campaign contributions (bribes) to the
> > political party in power at the time.
> >
> > What would be the transition process? A contractor can't just
> > walk in on day 1 and tell all the controllers that they're on
> > the street and are being replaced by a machine.
>
> That sinerio is why contractors are required, as the regular controllers
> will no co-operate with the elimination of their work.

There'll be another set of contractors to handle the transition
from one contract to another?

Have you ever been involved in the transition from one contractor
to the next for a continuing service contract? Do it once and
you'll swear to never get involved in any such thing ever again.
The departing contractor has no motivation to assist making the
transition go well...

[Tarver Engineering]

"Everett M. Greene" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > writes:
> > "Everett M. Greene" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:
> > > > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree that you need "perfect" competition to yield perfectly low
> > > > > prices, but perfect competition rarely exists in the real world as
it
> > > > > requires consumers to have perfect knowledge of all alternate
products
> > > > > and their prices. A regional system is far from perfect, but it
would
> > > > > provide much more competition than exists now, but certainly far
from
> > > > > perfect competition.
> > > >
> > > > It wouldn't provide any real competition. The users wouldn't have
> > > > a choice in providers.
> > >
> > > And right you are. ATC has a very limited clientele and
> > > providing 365/24 service is very expensive. Until the day
> > > arrives when you can walk into Radio Shack or Circuit City
> > > to select which ATC provider you want to use, there isn't
> > > any competition in the consumer sense of the word.
> > >
> > > I would presume that any privatizing of ATC would involve the
> > > Feds awarding a contract or contracts to the "most qualified"
> > > bidder having the best price.
> > >
> > > Who (objectively) determines and quantifies the qualifications?
> > > One can easily envision contracts being awarded to the organization
> > > that has made the largest campaign contributions (bribes) to the
> > > political party in power at the time.
> > >
> > > What would be the transition process? A contractor can't just
> > > walk in on day 1 and tell all the controllers that they're on
> > > the street and are being replaced by a machine.
> >
> > That sinerio is why contractors are required, as the regular controllers
> > will no co-operate with the elimination of their work.
>
> There'll be another set of contractors to handle the transition
> from one contract to another?

What?

> Have you ever been involved in the transition from one contractor
> to the next for a continuing service contract?

Sure, Knutson and I gutted a governemtn contractor when we left Dryden.

> Do it once and
> you'll swear to never get involved in any such thing ever again.

I was also a contractor at Boeing in '97, when much tabbing was automated.

> The departing contractor has no motivation to assist making the
> transition go well...

That depends on what happens to the previous contractor's people.

I believe Federal ATC still has time to cooperate and keep the contractors
out.

[JJ]

Here is another possibility. Maybe the FAA filled so many key management
positions in safety areas with incompetent minorities and women that
privatization is the only way to clean it up? 8 years of Clinton filled
the Government at all directions with women, minorities and homosexuals
many of whom are incompetent or unqualified. Now they are entrenched
pushing social agendas rather than air safety. Maybe that is the real
reason for private takeover???

I understand the real reason for the NASA problems is retirement of
"white male" experts only to be taken over by unqualified minorities. It
is not politically correct to exam the possibility but it's looking like
NASA, the FAA and other high technology Government organizations are
suffering because of social agendas and politically correct hiring
practices.

Private companies with money and profit in mind are not so bound by PC
and social engineering.

Kevin Wetzel - ISP Toolz wrote:

> "David H" > wrote in message
> ...
> Will Alaska (and other states with votes that the administration thinks
> they can woo) also get an exemption from the recent legislation that
> specifies that seafood inspectors are "inherantly governmental" and thus
> can't be privatized?
>
> The Bush administration sure does seem to have a major bug up its ass
> about forcing ATC privatization - WHY? At the same time they're
> declaring things like seafood inspectors are inherantly governmental
> (not to mention those federal employees who screen baggage for nail
> clippers). There's something here that doesn't quite add up. They seem
> really, really intent on pushing ATC privatization. What's really
> behind this?
>
> Who stands to gain from ATC privatization? Are there major businesses
> that do this now, and others that are quietly preparing to pick up some
> fat federal ATC contracts? Do these companies have any connection to
> the white house and friends?
>
> "Follow the money...."
>
>
> COMMENTS:
> I completely agree that there is an alternative driving force behind this.
> Once of the funny things that I see is that if the white house were to
> privatize the ATC functions it would have just another person to blame
> outside the government for its failure to fix security related issues, the
> increase in traffic as seen at airports (delays, longer holding patterns,
> etc). If they really wanted to fix this issue they should probably start by
> giving airports more grants and funding to accomplish advances in ATC
> instead of trying to privatize it and then point the finger later at the
> contractors failures. The federal government has pretty much failed in
> regard to making these systems better for pilots. Instead of changing the
> people they should change the bogus TFR's that pop up out of nowhere and
> serve no real purpose. Im tired for one of a government that restricts the
> population for its own personal uses and gains (or the gains of those
> elected). If each one of the elected officials in Washington were affected
> by TFR's, privatization of ATC and other issues you can bet that the rules
> of engagement would have changed and for one the ADIZ in Washington DC
> (which serves no purpose to prevent terrorism at all) would have been
> removed by now. As I see it at 400MPH they could'nt stop a jetliner in time
> anyway with the size of the ADIZ. Anyway im not gonna ramble on. I think the
> entire system needs to be looked at and changed.
>
> Kevin Wetzel
> ISP Toolz
> http://www.isptoolz.com/
>
>
>

[Snowbird]

JJ > wrote in message >...
> Here is another possibility. Maybe the FAA filled so many key management
> positions in safety areas with incompetent minorities and women that
> privatization is the only way to clean it up? 8 years of Clinton filled
> the Government at all directions with women, minorities and homosexuals
> many of whom are incompetent or unqualified. Now they are entrenched
> pushing social agendas rather than air safety. Maybe that is the real
> reason for private takeover???

Nice try, Troll. Back to alt.atlanta or ny.politics now.

Sydney

[Tom S.]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
> JJ > wrote in message
>...
> > Here is another possibility. Maybe the FAA filled so many key management
> > positions in safety areas with incompetent minorities and women that
> > privatization is the only way to clean it up? 8 years of Clinton filled
> > the Government at all directions with women, minorities and homosexuals
> > many of whom are incompetent or unqualified. Now they are entrenched
> > pushing social agendas rather than air safety. Maybe that is the real
> > reason for private takeover???
>
> Nice try, Troll. Back to alt.atlanta or ny.politics now.
>
> Sydney

You know, it would go a lot further if you would just refute him rather than
engage in name-calling because you feel uncomfortable with something non-PC
he said.

[Stan Gosnell]

"Tom S." > wrote in
:

> You know, it would go a lot further if you would just refute him
> rather than engage in name-calling because you feel uncomfortable with
> something non-PC he said.

Why bother to try to refute obvious lies? Another one hits the bozo bin.

--
Regards,

Stan

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why bother to try to refute obvious lies? Another one hits the bozo bin.
>

If they're obvious lies then why even bother to respond?

[Blippie]

>>You know, it would go a lot further if you would just refute him
>>rather than engage in name-calling because you feel uncomfortable with
>>something non-PC he said.

>Why bother to try to refute obvious lies? Another one hits the bozo bin.

Obvious, bigoted lies!

Cheers

Blippie
--
Visit the alt.aviation.safety FAQ online at www.blippie.org.uk

[Andrew Gideon]

Matthew S. Whiting wrote:

> And the profit motive. The latter can exist without competition. The
> edge is certainly much sharper with competition as now it is that much
> harder to make a profit, but making an even larger profit is still
> pretty strong motivation.

I question this reasoning only because regulated markets haven't been shown
as all that efficient, and it's tough to imagine that private ATC would be
unregulated.

In theory, the "right" regulation would promote efficiency. But what's
"right" might not even be known. More, were it known, it still might be
politically "expensive", and therefore forgotten.

However, we should all be aware that there is one bit of "low hanging fruit"
for a private ATC venture from an efficiency perspective: kill smaller GA.
If the "benefit" factor in the efficiency ratio is anything like
"people-miles moved", getting smaller GA out of the ATC system would
improve the benefit/cost ratio.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

> Automation increases productivity thereby reducing labor.

This is far from guaranteed, and there are many factors involved that are
relevant to this discussion.

Most notable is the idea of putting an airspace out to contract every few
years. Given the speed at which technological gear improves and cheapens,
any newcomer has an advantage in such a competition if the incumbent is
still depreciating the investment originally made.

Aware of this, any incumbent must depreciate any new automation over only
the contract period. This increases the annual cost of the automation,
possibly to the point where simply not investing in the automation becomes
the proper choice.

So, in fact, "more" competition in a regulated environment can work against
long term efficiency. This is just one of those oddities of regulated
markets. It is apparently an entire economic subdiscipline.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Tom S. wrote:

>> Payroll is where the money is.
>>
> And headcount is what gives unions and executives POWER.

This is very important. I actually spent some time working for AT&T
post-breakup. We were putting into place automation, as it happens, within
various divisions of the company.

Managers often resisted this for the "headcount" reason. In fact, one came
out and stated quite clearly, in one meeting, that he'd do everything he
could to cause our project to fail if it threatened to reduce his staffing
levels in any way.

On the other hand, on my exit interview I was told a story by the area
whatchamacallit. He told me of a time when he built a phone (this was
actually while at some company that AT&T later bought). He chose to use
internal components, priced in dollars, rather than TI components, priced
in pennies. That was because it was his job to promote "the company".

Of course, his phone was never released as it couldn't compete.

Weird place, with a lot of strange ideas of what is good or bad.

- Andrew

[Tarver Engineering]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> > Automation increases productivity thereby reducing labor.
>
> This is far from guaranteed, and there are many factors involved that are
> relevant to this discussion.

In this spectific case however, Andrew's "factors" are specious.

It is that flight cancelled that costs the most; especially with the
operator having real time weather, but no way to engage ATC in real time
alteration of a flight track. (CONUS)

[Andrew Gideon]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

>
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> online.com...
>> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>
>> > Automation increases productivity thereby reducing labor.
>>
>> This is far from guaranteed, and there are many factors involved that are
>> relevant to this discussion.
>
> In this spectific case however, Andrew's "factors" are specious.

Unfounded statement with no justification? I see how you've acquired your
reputation.

> It is that flight cancelled that costs the most; especially with the
> operator having real time weather, but no way to engage ATC in real time
> alteration of a flight track. (CONUS)

How do you measure cost? In my mind, a flight lost costs more than a flight
cancelled.

Further, the cost of a cancelled flight is not incurred by ATC, be it
governmental or private. That's yet another problem with attempting to
measure "efficiency": where the benefits and costs are accrued by different
parties.

- Andrew

[Tarver Engineering]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> >
> > "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> > online.com...
> >> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >>
> >> > Automation increases productivity thereby reducing labor.
> >>
> >> This is far from guaranteed, and there are many factors involved that
are
> >> relevant to this discussion.
> >
> > In this spectific case however, Andrew's "factors" are specious.
>
> Unfounded statement with no justification? I see how you've acquired your
> reputation.

Yep, I don't waste much time on trolls.

[Andrew Gideon]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

> Yep, I don't waste much time on trolls.

<Laugh>

Anyone can lookup my USENET posting history and compare it to your USENET
posting history. I think that trollfulness will out...although I seem to
recall that others have mentioned more mundane interests in your case.

I apologize for accidentally involving you in a rational discussion. Feel
free to ignore anything more I post on any subject. In fact, I recommend
that you killfile me to make your life simplest...but be sure to also
ignore anything posted in reply to something I've written.

I'd rather not threaten your world view even indirectly, but I shan't let
that keep me from the interesting dialogs here.

Now, if someone is seriously interested in regulatory issues and how they
might be reflected in privatized ATC...

- Andrew

[Tarver Engineering]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> > Yep, I don't waste much time on trolls.
>
> <Laugh>
>
> Anyone can lookup my USENET posting history and compare it to your USENET
> posting history. I think that trollfulness will out...although I seem to
> recall that others have mentioned more mundane interests in your case.
>
> I apologize for accidentally involving you in a rational discussion. Feel
> free to ignore anything more I post on any subject. In fact, I recommend
> that you killfile me to make your life simplest...but be sure to also
> ignore anything posted in reply to something I've written.

I did not find your discussion rational.

> I'd rather not threaten your world view even indirectly, but I shan't let
> that keep me from the interesting dialogs here.

You aren't a rude troll, so I don't see why you should have to leave.

> Now, if someone is seriously interested in regulatory issues and how they
> might be reflected in privatized ATC...

That all depends now on how Federal ATC co-operates with change.

[Kristen Skinner]

I worked in ATC for National Air Traffic Services (UK) for 10 years and when
I left, there were plans afoot from the Mr Blair's "About Face" party to
privatise NATS. It was cynically announced on the last day of parliament for
the year so to play down the media furore and union backlash.
I can assure you that controllers are not obsessed with whether we have
minorities or women increasing in the roles, we dont care as long as they
can do the job. But ultimately, privatisation comes hand in hand with demand
for profits, and that means corner cutting and increased workloads on
controllers.

Incidentally, the UK Govt then, after I left, 49% privatised NATS to airline
ownership, and from what I hear, morale has never been lower.

Profit might encourage competition and then enhance efficiencies in other
industries but it doesnt in air traffic control. In telecom industries,
smaller operators can set up easily, but in ATC, its a huge infrastructure
requiring expensive hardware setup costs, and so, there's usually no shift
from the status quo in competition: once the ATC system is privatised, you
still get a large (now privately owned company) running the show - the only
difference is that there isa huge power shift to that company's management
structure who will squeeze every ounce out of their workforce.

As an added, noted the posting about training other people to do your job.
One year, our general manager at London Heathrow advised us that in order to
secure the contract for ATC for the next 5 years, a clause would be added
that if BAA were to offer the next ATC contract to a private company, we
would be willing to train up their controllers for the 9 or so months it
takes until they were ok on their own.
You could hear the laughter in the terminals.


"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
> > And the profit motive. The latter can exist without competition. The
> > edge is certainly much sharper with competition as now it is that much
> > harder to make a profit, but making an even larger profit is still
> > pretty strong motivation.
>
> I question this reasoning only because regulated markets haven't been
shown
> as all that efficient, and it's tough to imagine that private ATC would be
> unregulated.
>
> In theory, the "right" regulation would promote efficiency. But what's
> "right" might not even be known. More, were it known, it still might be
> politically "expensive", and therefore forgotten.
>
> However, we should all be aware that there is one bit of "low hanging
fruit"
> for a private ATC venture from an efficiency perspective: kill smaller GA.
> If the "benefit" factor in the efficiency ratio is anything like
> "people-miles moved", getting smaller GA out of the ATC system would
> improve the benefit/cost ratio.
>
> - Andrew
>

[Andrew Gideon]

Kristen Skinner wrote:

> In telecom industries,
> smaller operators can set up easily,

Unfortunately, this hasn't proven to be often the case. Just look at what's
occurred with the broadband market, for example. RBOCs did everything that
could to make life tough for the competition using the RBOC's physical
plant, and it typically worked.

There are individual exceptions, and wireless may prove to be our savior.
But that type of external influence isn't too likely in the ATC
business...and it may not break us away from the RBOCs anyway. Verizon's
been using its physical plant of payphones in NYC as wireless bases. A
newcomer would be hardpressed to compete given that the Verizon locations
are already wired and uniformly spread throughout the city.

> the
> only difference is that there isa huge power shift to that company's
> management structure who will squeeze every ounce out of their workforce.

Actually, this could work in reverse. No longer government employees, the
ATC staff would regain the right to strike.

Still...even that hasn't really helped the telecom unions.

- Andrew

[Kristen Skinner]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Kristen Skinner wrote:
>
> > In telecom industries,
> > smaller operators can set up easily,
>
> Unfortunately, this hasn't proven to be often the case. Just look at
what's
> occurred with the broadband market, for example. RBOCs did everything
that
> could to make life tough for the competition using the RBOC's physical
> plant, and it typically worked.
>
> There are individual exceptions, and wireless may prove to be our savior.
> But that type of external influence isn't too likely in the ATC
> business...and it may not break us away from the RBOCs anyway. Verizon's
> been using its physical plant of payphones in NYC as wireless bases. A
> newcomer would be hardpressed to compete given that the Verizon locations
> are already wired and uniformly spread throughout the city.
>
> > the
> > only difference is that there isa huge power shift to that company's
> > management structure who will squeeze every ounce out of their
workforce.
>
> Actually, this could work in reverse. No longer government employees, the
> ATC staff would regain the right to strike.
>
> Still...even that hasn't really helped the telecom unions.
>
> - Andrew
>

Well, I dont know about the US...in the UK, we always had the right to
strike. I guess after Reagan's little action, you might have been stifled
somewhat.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kristen Skinner" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, I dont know about the US...in the UK, we always had the right to
> strike. I guess after Reagan's little action, you might have been stifled
> somewhat.
>

In the US, pledging not to strike was a condition of employment.

[Everett M. Greene]

Andrew Gideon > writes:
> Kristen Skinner wrote:
> > the
> > only difference is that there isa huge power shift to that company's
> > management structure who will squeeze every ounce out of their workforce.
>
> Actually, this could work in reverse. No longer government employees, the
> ATC staff would regain the right to strike.
>
> Still...even that hasn't really helped the telecom unions.

The employer has to remain solvent long enough for it to be
worthwhile for the employees to strike.