AOPA and ATC Privatization

[Chip Jones]

My AOPA membership comes up for yearly renewal at the end of September.
Today, I got a membership renewal request via email from the organization.

Here is my response:



Dear AOPA,

The question arises. Why should an FAA enroute air traffic controller who
is neither a pilot nor an aircraft owner continue to financially support
AOPA? AOPA has publicly accused my labor organization (NATCA) of misleading
other AOPA members concerning the looming Congressional action on ATC
privatization.

AOPA has been running the following quotes on the AOPA website:

"AOPA members are asking about TV ads claiming that Congress is about to
privatize air traffic control. Others have been asked to sign post cards
misrepresenting both AOPA's position and what Congress has done. Both the
ads and the cards are the efforts of labor unions. And both are bending the
truth."

NATCA is not misleading the flying public on this issue. NATCA factually
reports that the Congress is about to authorize ATC privatization by
allowing the FAA to offer 69 FAA air traffic control towers to the lowest
private sector bidder. Some of these towers are among the busiest towers in
the nation. The pending FAA reauthorization bill's language is clear and
not subject to misinterpretation or wishful thinking. It will authorize the
FAA to contract out ATC services to the lowest bidder. Further, after the
year 2007, all FAA air traffic services will be on the table for possible
out sourcing. Privatization is privatization. There is no bending of the
truth involved.

"Make no mistake. AOPA is adamantly opposed to any effort to privatize air
traffic control or charge user fees for safety services," said AOPA
President Phil Boyer. "We have fought, and will continue to fight, attempts
to take the responsibility for aircraft separation and control away from the
federal government " and "If anybody tries to tell you that AOPA supports
privatizing ATC, you tell them that's a damned lie," Boyer said. "AOPA is
dedicated to the benefit of all general aviation, particularly GA pilots.
It's a much broader vision than that of a union leader."

What a bunch of hot air! That AOPA can swallow the rest of the current FAA
reauthorization bill before the Congress in spite of the clear language
authorizing ATC privatization seems to point to one of two things. Either
AOPA is extremely short sighted or else AOPA is bending the truth herself on
this issue. National ATC privatization is a clear threat to general
aviation interests, yet AOPA seems willing to allow such privatization to
begin, piece by piece, tower by tower, because the "rest of the bill" is
beneficial to GA. Not with my money...

I will gladly renew my AOPA dues if you can convince me that AOPA is on the
right side of the current ATC privatization issue.

Chip Jones
AOPA 04557674
Atlanta ARTCC


For even money, I'll betcha they don't even answer me...

[Ron Natalie]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message news:__45b.16414

> The question arises. Why should an FAA enroute air traffic controller who
> is neither a pilot nor an aircraft owner continue to financially support
> AOPA?

I'm asking myself the same question.

[Snowbird]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message .net>...
> My AOPA membership comes up for yearly renewal at the end of September.
> Today, I got a membership renewal request via email from the organization.

> Here is my response:
<...>
> For even money, I'll betcha they don't even answer me...

Well, let us know.

Cheers,
Sydney

[PaulaJay1]

In article >, Stan Gosnell
> writes:

>> My AOPA membership comes up for yearly renewal at the end of
>> September. Today, I got a membership renewal request via email from
>> the organization.
>
>Chip, I long ago gave up on AOPA, and dropped my membership years ago. The
>organization takes some positions I just don't understand and can't
>support, and seems very short-sighted. I don't belong to the NRA, either,
>so maybe I'm in the minority on all this.
>

Stan,
You shouldn't expect an organization that has such a mix of members to always
take a position that you support. I feel the AOPA lobbies for our GA interests
most of the time, and heaven knows, there are powers that are not on our side.
Closing airports, TFRs, you name it. Washington is run by lobbies and money
interests and I want to be represented - even if not perfectly. Chip, on the
other hand, may have a point it that the AOPA may not represent him.

Chuck

[Scott Lowrey]

"Chip Jones" said>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I'm with Ron. Given the name of the organization, why SHOULD you
support
> > them?
>
> LOL, I suppose I was naive enough to assume that AOPA's interests in
> protecting GA's public access to the NAS went hand in hand with my public
> service as a NAS ATC operator. Alas, I fear I was mistaken.

Hang in there, Chip. Is there a controller's association I can join? : )

-Scott

[Capt. Doug]

>Ron Natalie wrote in message > I'm asking myself the same question.

Upon first glance, it may seem that a controller's interest in this matter
would be self-preservation. However, Mr. Jones may well be one of us in the
future. So...

Let's look at the bigger picture. If 69 towers go private, safety may or may
not be compromised. However, what will be compromised is the ability of AOPA
members to fend off USER FEES in the future. The federal budget is in bad
shape. It's worse than the published figures. The Whitehouse administration
is working extremely hard for the economy to stay contained until the next
election is secure. After the election, the economy will break. The
administration will be more than happy to foist the cost of ATC services
onto all of us.

D.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Scott Lowrey" > wrote in message
news:sYb5b.257396$Oz4.67873@rwcrnsc54...
>
> Hang in there, Chip. Is there a controller's association I can join? : )
>

ATCA, the Air Traffic Control Association.

[Peter Duniho]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
link.net...
> You are inclined to be wrong in that case. In fact, the entire Democratic
> apparatus in the Congress seems to disagree with AOPA's position
concerning
> whether or not the reconciled "Vision 100- Century of Aviation
> Reauthorization Act" does or does not privatize ATC. Not a single
Democrat
> on the reconciliation committee signed the bill because ATC privatization
> was strong-armed into the law by the Administration even though both
Houses
> of the Republican-controlled Congress expressly voted against ATC
> privatization earlier this summer. See the above links.

I asked for quotes. I know how to get the bill. But you're the one who's
saying it privitizes ATC. Show me where it says that.

I looked at the quotes Mark provided. All I see is language that
*prohibits* the privitization of ATC, but which makes clear that the
*existing* contract tower program is still legal.

Since you are so sure of yourself, perhaps you could explain what language
is found elsewhere in the bill that overrides the language presented so far.

Thanks,
Pete

[Chris W]

Snowbird wrote:

> Stan,
>
> I guess I feel having a significant interest group lobbying for us
> is important enough, that it's worth overlooking some positions
> with which I disagree, or rather, making my disagreement clear.
>
> Do you know any two people who agree on all significant positions
> all of the time? Some disagreement just seems inevitable to me,
> especially in a large organization.
>

I have to second that. With out AOPA where would we be? Just because they aren't in my opinion
perfect, doesn't mean they don't deserve my support. They do a lot of good.


--
Chris Woodhouse
Oklahoma City

"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania

[Snowbird]

Darn it, missed my cue!....

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message .net>...

> The question arises. Why should an FAA enroute air traffic controller who
> is neither a pilot

You can fix that any day, Chip

Sydney

[David H]

Chip,

Thank you for raising this issue. I saw AOPA's post on this issue their
website last week and was dismayed by what I saw: AOPA seemed to be going out
of their way to pick a fight with the controllers union, and seemed to be not
only siding with the administration, they seemed to be cozying up to them.
What most visitors to AOPA's website probably don't realize is that the story
that currently appears on their website is actually toned down quite a bit -
the original version was even worse. When I saw their first posting, it made
me grab the phone and call them asking what the hell they were thinking. They
did change the story soon after I finished my call (I copied the original
language so I could check to see if they changed theirs - they did), but the
overall tone of the story remains incedibly short-sighted, if you ask me.

Here are the points about their initial story that I made when I called AOPA:

Throughout the story, they referred repeatedly to "union bosses." This is a
term often used by anti-union activists and likely to at the very least rub
people in the controllers unions the wrong way. I pointed out that Phil Boyer
probably wouldn't appreciate being referred to as "the pilot lobby boss" and
suggested they modulate their rhetoric a bit. After my call, they removed
several references to "union bosses" (changing them to people "in leadership
positions of unions representing FAA employees") but not all of them.
Regardless of your political affiliation or your overall views on the relative
merits and shortcomings of the labor movement, that this is not the language
that any organization uses to refer to their friends and allies. It's the
language you use to refer to your enemies and opponents. This may not make any
difference to you or me, but language counts, and most people in labor unions
are pretty sensitive to this sort of thing - it's a "codeword" they are very
familiar with (ask any union representative, they know what it means when
someone uses this term). It sets a really bad tone for future relations, and
it's completely unnecessary - what does it get you? Seems very petty and
misguided to me.

There was also a sentence that read, "But the ad uses some Clinton-like word
tricks." I questioned what Bill Clinton had to do with this issue, and pointed
out that many Americans (and presumably at least some AOPA members) might feel
that the present adminstration has its own well-documented record of deceit to
account for, and in any event it seemed stupid to me to inject partisan
politics into this issue where there didn't seem to be any. Going into a
fight, why the heck do you poke people (from whom you may need help) in the eye
and potentially alienate those who could othrwise be your allies?

My overall point was that while AOPA and the controllers unions (which AOPA
never identifies by name, which seemed odd) appear to have some differences of
opinion, we (pilots, and as our representative, AOPA) ought to be looking at
each other as allies, not adversaries. We all know that the present
administration is pushing hard for ATC privatization, and they're not going to
stop with just 69 towers. When the next battle comes, and it will as sure as
the sun will rise tomorrow, how strong is our alliance with the ATC unions
going to be? With this kind of juvenile ****ing-match that AOPA seems engaged
in, do you think the ATC unions are going to stick their necks out for pilots?

MAYBE some of the union's statements were not 100% accurate - I don't know, I
haven't seen them (and AOPA doesn't offer any examples up as proof) but it
looks to me like Phil Boyer got tweaked off by something he saw ("if anybody
tells you that AOPA supports privatizing ATC, you tell them that's a damn
lie"). Great. Good job of finessing the diplomacy there, Phil. Look, we're
going to NEED these people on our side in the next round. Maybe we don't agree
on every single detail, but lets not work to make the divisions any greater
than they already are. Beating up on the controllers union may feel good for
the moment, but the next time the white house is looking for a piece of
government to sell off to the lowest bidder, don't you think it might be useful
if the head of the ATC union was inclined to take your call?

I think AOPA needs to really take a good, long, hard look at itself and how it
has mishandled relations with the controllers unions. This is politics 101,
and I expect a heck of a lot more nuance and sophistication from a group that
represents 400,000 pilots. It doesn't take a lifetime of experience lobbying
at the federal level to know how to finess tactical differences and come out
with a public position that at least makes it LOOK like you're standing
shoulder-to-shoulder with your natural allies. Unfortunately, AOPA's public
position on this strikes me as childish, amaturish, and ultimately
self-inflicted damage.

I hope other AOPA members will let them know that the folks in ATC are not the
enemy here and that AOPA had better stop bashing them if they expect them to
lend a hand the next time their help is needed...'cause it's going to be.

Just my 4 cents,

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

Chip Jones wrote:

> My AOPA membership comes up for yearly renewal at the end of September.
> Today, I got a membership renewal request via email from the organization.
>
> Here is my response:
>
> Dear AOPA,
>
> The question arises. Why should an FAA enroute air traffic controller who
> is neither a pilot nor an aircraft owner continue to financially support
> AOPA? AOPA has publicly accused my labor organization (NATCA) of misleading
> other AOPA members concerning the looming Congressional action on ATC
> privatization.
>
> AOPA has been running the following quotes on the AOPA website:
>
> "AOPA members are asking about TV ads claiming that Congress is about to
> privatize air traffic control. Others have been asked to sign post cards
> misrepresenting both AOPA's position and what Congress has done. Both the
> ads and the cards are the efforts of labor unions. And both are bending the
> truth."
>
> NATCA is not misleading the flying public on this issue. NATCA factually
> reports that the Congress is about to authorize ATC privatization by
> allowing the FAA to offer 69 FAA air traffic control towers to the lowest
> private sector bidder. Some of these towers are among the busiest towers in
> the nation. The pending FAA reauthorization bill's language is clear and
> not subject to misinterpretation or wishful thinking. It will authorize the
> FAA to contract out ATC services to the lowest bidder. Further, after the
> year 2007, all FAA air traffic services will be on the table for possible
> out sourcing. Privatization is privatization. There is no bending of the
> truth involved.
>
> "Make no mistake. AOPA is adamantly opposed to any effort to privatize air
> traffic control or charge user fees for safety services," said AOPA
> President Phil Boyer. "We have fought, and will continue to fight, attempts
> to take the responsibility for aircraft separation and control away from the
> federal government " and "If anybody tries to tell you that AOPA supports
> privatizing ATC, you tell them that's a damned lie," Boyer said. "AOPA is
> dedicated to the benefit of all general aviation, particularly GA pilots.
> It's a much broader vision than that of a union leader."
>
> What a bunch of hot air! That AOPA can swallow the rest of the current FAA
> reauthorization bill before the Congress in spite of the clear language
> authorizing ATC privatization seems to point to one of two things. Either
> AOPA is extremely short sighted or else AOPA is bending the truth herself on
> this issue. National ATC privatization is a clear threat to general
> aviation interests, yet AOPA seems willing to allow such privatization to
> begin, piece by piece, tower by tower, because the "rest of the bill" is
> beneficial to GA. Not with my money...
>
> I will gladly renew my AOPA dues if you can convince me that AOPA is on the
> right side of the current ATC privatization issue.
>
> Chip Jones
> AOPA 04557674
> Atlanta ARTCC
>
> For even money, I'll betcha they don't even answer me...

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> I bid $1 - is that low enough to get them? How about 1c? How about just
> giving me the lot.
>
> Surely you mean the highest bidder??????
>

To the highest bidder? Hmmm..... I thought the reason for this
quasi-privatization was to save money, but it is the US government, after
all. You may be right.

[Mark Kolber]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 20:23:54 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>I looked at the quotes Mark provided. All I see is language that
>*prohibits* the privitization of ATC, but which makes clear that the
>*existing* contract tower program is still legal.

And can be expanded to new airports and a group of airports that are
being examined. And the prohibition automatically expires in 4 years.

NATCA is simply taking the position that the conference version uses
"prohibition" language while expanding privatization.

The original house version permitted privatization only for
(a) towers already in the contract program
(b) non-towred airports without towers that qualify for contract
towers
(c)airports with non-federal towers that qualify for contract towers

The original Senate version permitted privatization only for
(a) towers already in the contract program


The compromise version permits privatization only for
(a) towers already in the contract program
(b) non-towred airports without towers that qualify for contract
towers
(c) airports with non-federal towers that qualify for contract towers
(d) any new Towers
(e) a group of existing towers that are identified in the Inspector
General report about expanding the contract tower program

....and =any= tower is fare game in 4 years.


You can disagree with NATCA's view that the conference report
represents, for privatization, something akin to being "a little bit
pregnant", but it is as legitimate a reading of the information as
AOPA's "don't worry, overall, GA gains more than it loses in the bill"
stance.


Mark Kolber
APA/Denver, Colorado
www.midlifeflight.com
======================
email? Remove ".no.spam"

[Ron Natalie]

"Scott Lowrey" > wrote in message news:sYb5b.257396$Oz4.67873@rwcrnsc54...
> "Chip Jones" said>
> > "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > I'm with Ron. Given the name of the organization, why SHOULD you
> support
> > > them?
> >
> > LOL, I suppose I was naive enough to assume that AOPA's interests in
> > protecting GA's public access to the NAS went hand in hand with my public
> > service as a NAS ATC operator. Alas, I fear I was mistaken.
>
> Hang in there, Chip. Is there a controller's association I can join? : )
>
NATCA offers associate memberships to non-FAA types..

[Dan Luke]

"David H" wrote:
[excellent post snipped]

What a refreshing voice of reason. I hope you mailed Phil a copy.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[G.R. Patterson III]

John Smith wrote:
>
> Surely you mean the highest bidder??????

No. The Feds are going to contract out the work in the towers. They will pay
some private company to do this work. Each contract will go to whatever company
proves they can do the job for the least amount of money. The "lowest bidder".

George Patterson
A friend will help you move. A really good friend will help you move
the body.

[Chip Jones]

"Mark Kolber" > wrote in message
...
[snipped]

>
> I think it ultimately comes down to this: The conference report that
> NATCA is complaining about permits privatization to a larger degree
> than the original House version and to a much larger degree than the
> Senate version.

Bingo. Both the House and the Senate voted on bills that *prohibited* ATC
privatization beyond the current contract tower program. The FAA lobbied
against the bills as passed. The White House threatened a veto. The House
and Senate bills went into the reconciliation process as an AOPA/NATCA
victory against ATC privatization.

During the reconciliation process, the conferees, under intense White House
pressure, re-wrote the language in such a way that FAA VFR towers not
currently privatized may be contracted out. There are 71 of those towers.
2 of them are in Alaska (PAMR and PAJN). The Administration agreed that the
two Alaska towers in contention (both in the home state of Don Young, R-
Alaska chairman of the reconcioliation conference) could stay FAA, leaving
the other 69 to be contracted out. Also, rather than indefinitely
prohibiting by law further outsourcing of other Federal ATC services (like
Tracons and Centers), the reconciliation conference put into effect a
"sunset clause", making 2007 the year that wholesale privatization of the
system becomes possible.

This disturbs controllers because both the Republican House and the
Republican Senate voted decisively vefore the summer recess to prohibit ATC
privatization. The Reconciliation team inserted the new language when they
"reconciled" the two bills, LOL. Further disturbing controllers is that
AOPA abandoned the fight at this point because other provisions of the
reconciled bill are GA friendly.

>
> Ultimately NATCA's allegiance has to be to controllers. And, while I
> haven't seen any numbers on this, I wouldn't doubt for a minute that
> contract towers means less ATC jobs. So NATCA's position is
> understandable and quite legitimate.

This is true too. As a Center guy. I really don't have much of a job
problem if every tower and every tracon in America goes private. I still
get paid. I don't even have a problem if my Center goes private. I have
the job skills, I am very very good at what I do, and I will get paid. If
we go by personal performance, I get paid. If every GA aircraft in America
gets grounded because of exhorbitant ATC user fees in the next decade, what
do I care? I get paid. The question to me is, who will sign my paycheck at
the ARTCC? This is important to me because I truely believe that the NAS
belongs to the nation (rather than the commercial users) much like the
interstate highway system belongs to car drivers and the Intracoastal Water
Way belongs to boaters. This should be important to you if you fly business
aviation or general aviation, because the Boeings, Lock-marts, airlines and
ATA's of this nation don't give a rat's ass about your love of personal
flying and they'd love nothing better than to user fee you right out of
their way. Let them sign my paycheck, and I quit working for you and begin
to work for them. Nothing personal...



>
> AOPA has a broader view. While from a GA standpoint, contact towers
> probably are to ATC what HMOs are to medical care, our issues are
> broader than privatization. AOPA probably feels that there are far
> more benefits to GA in the overall bill and that it needs to be
> passed. The privatization language is open enough to leave the battle
> for another day.

I'm sqauwking now. We appear to me to be at a juncture in this debate
similar to the old saying about the Nazi's in Germany. You know the adage.
"They came for the Gypsies, and I said nothing. Then they came for the
homosexuals, and I said nothing. Then they came for the Jews, and I said
nothing. And then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for
me..." This is NATCA's basic position. I am amazed that AOPA can't read
the same writing on the wall while there is still time to save the day.
Fighting this battle on the field of 2007, we will be 69 ATC towers closer
to ATC user fees.

Chip, ZTL

[Chip Jones]

"John Smith" > wrote in message
...
> [snipped]
>
> > NATCA factually
> > reports that the Congress is about to authorize ATC privatization by
> > allowing the FAA to offer 69 FAA air traffic control towers to the
lowest
> > private sector bidder.
>
> I bid $1 - is that low enough to get them? How about 1c? How about just
> giving me the lot.
>
> Surely you mean the highest bidder??????


Err, no. I mean *lowest* bidder. The idea is to save money. The FAA (and
your taxes) pays for the infrastructure. The *low* bidder runs the ATC
facility for the cheapest price. The way the contractor saves money is to
slash salaries and cut staffing. ATC "on the cheap" is literally what is
going on.

Chip, ZTL

[Peter Duniho]

"Mark Kolber" > wrote in message
...
> And can be expanded to new airports and a group of airports that are
> being examined.

As far as I know, nothing in the contract tower program previously
prohibited such expansion. How does this bill make things *worse*?

> And the prohibition automatically expires in 4 years.

Not an uncommon clause in any variety of lawmaking.

Recall that the agreements intended to protect Meigs Field had similar
clauses. No one was going around claiming that, because of those clauses,
the agreements were actually intended to shut the airport down.

Pete

[Chip Jones]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
[snipped]

>
> > And the prohibition automatically expires in 4 years.
>
> Not an uncommon clause in any variety of lawmaking.

But not something that was in either the House bill or the Senate bill that
was being reconciled.

>
> Recall that the agreements intended to protect Meigs Field had similar
> clauses. No one was going around claiming that, because of those clauses,
> the agreements were actually intended to shut the airport down.
>

What an interesting point to bring up. Let's see, and KCGX is what now,
other than permanently *closed*?

Chip, ZTL

[Chip Jones]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
> Darn it, missed my cue!....
>
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
.net>...
>
> > The question arises. Why should an FAA enroute air traffic controller
who
> > is neither a pilot
>
> You can fix that any day, Chip
>

Yep. I guess I'd better hurry while I can still afford it! :-)

Chip, ZTL

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Mark Kolber" > wrote in message
> ...
> [snipped]
>
> >
> > I think it ultimately comes down to this: The conference report that
> > NATCA is complaining about permits privatization to a larger degree
> > than the original House version and to a much larger degree than the
> > Senate version.
>
> Bingo. Both the House and the Senate voted on bills that *prohibited* ATC
> privatization beyond the current contract tower program. The FAA lobbied
> against the bills as passed. The White House threatened a veto. The
House
> and Senate bills went into the reconciliation process as an AOPA/NATCA
> victory against ATC privatization.
>
> During the reconciliation process, the conferees, under intense White
House
> pressure, re-wrote the language in such a way that FAA VFR towers not
> currently privatized may be contracted out. There are 71 of those towers.
> 2 of them are in Alaska (PAMR and PAJN). The Administration agreed that
the
> two Alaska towers in contention (both in the home state of Don Young, R-
> Alaska chairman of the reconcioliation conference) could stay FAA, leaving
> the other 69 to be contracted out. Also, rather than indefinitely
> prohibiting by law further outsourcing of other Federal ATC services (like
> Tracons and Centers), the reconciliation conference put into effect a
> "sunset clause", making 2007 the year that wholesale privatization of the
> system becomes possible.
>
> This disturbs controllers because both the Republican House and the
> Republican Senate voted decisively vefore the summer recess to prohibit
ATC
> privatization. The Reconciliation team inserted the new language when
they
> "reconciled" the two bills, LOL. Further disturbing controllers is that
> AOPA abandoned the fight at this point because other provisions of the
> reconciled bill are GA friendly.

The fact remains, ATC is statistically the largest killer of common carrier
passengers, except terrorists. Failure to maintain seperation cost the
system a fortune in 737 PCUs that had no problem. Automation is something
ATC Union has blocked for 30 years and it is time to correct the problem.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "John Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [snipped]
> >
> > > NATCA factually
> > > reports that the Congress is about to authorize ATC privatization by
> > > allowing the FAA to offer 69 FAA air traffic control towers to the
> lowest
> > > private sector bidder.
> >
> > I bid $1 - is that low enough to get them? How about 1c? How about just
> > giving me the lot.
> >
> > Surely you mean the highest bidder??????
>
>
> Err, no. I mean *lowest* bidder. The idea is to save money. The FAA
(and
> your taxes) pays for the infrastructure.

No, the idea is to find a way around ATC unions blocking automation.

[Peter Duniho]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
link.net...
> But not something that was in either the House bill or the Senate bill
that
> was being reconciled.

So? What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

> What an interesting point to bring up. Let's see, and KCGX is what now,
> other than permanently *closed*?

For reasons completely unrelated to the original agreements. The "sunset"
language in the original agreements had NOTHING to do with the closure of
Meigs. In fact, everyone agrees that the closure of Meigs was *CONTRARY TO*
the agreements that included the sunset language.

Surely you can see the difference. Surely you're not trying to say that the
existence of sunset language in the Meigs agreement, along with the
subsequent closure of the field support your assertions regarding this bill.
Right? If not, then I suppose I'm starting to get an idea of why you're so
upset about this bill.

Pete

[Chip Jones]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
[snippd]

>
> I asked for quotes. I know how to get the bill. But you're the one who's
> saying it privitizes ATC. Show me where it says that.
>
> I looked at the quotes Mark provided. All I see is language that
> *prohibits* the privitization of ATC, but which makes clear that the
> *existing* contract tower program is still legal.
>
> Since you are so sure of yourself, perhaps you could explain what language
> is found elsewhere in the bill that overrides the language presented so
far.
>

Here is a synopisis.




119. PROHIBITION ON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PRIVATIZATION

House bill

Prohibits DOT from privatizing the functions performed by its air traffic
controllers who separate and control aircraft. States that this prohibition
does not apply to the functions performed at air traffic control towers that
are operated by private entities under the FAA's contract tower program.
This exemption covers the current air traffic control towers that are part
of the FAA contract tower program and to non-towered airports and
non-federal towers that would qualify for participation in this program.

Senate amendment

Prohibits DOT from privatizing the functions performed by its air traffic
controllers who separate and control aircraft and the functions of those who
maintain and certify those systems. Section shall not apply to an FAA tower
operated under the contract tower program as of the date of enactment.

Conference substitute

Prohibits DOT from privatizing air traffic control functions associated with
the separation and control of aircraft, but ensures that the current
contract tower program can continue and be expanded to new towers and VFR
towers. The prohibition sunsets after 4 years.


You can verify the accuracy of this synopsis by researching the House Bill,
the Senate version of the language, and then the Conference substitute that
will soon become law if NATCA loses her fight in the next few days. Or you
can believe AOPA.

Chip, ZTL

[Ron Natalie]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message news:POo5b.26667
> 119. PROHIBITION ON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PRIVATIZATION
> \
The converence report (which has yet to be acted on):

(a) IN GENERAL- Until October 1, 2007, the Secretary of Transportation may not authorize the transfer of the air traffic separation
and control functions operated by the Federal Aviation Administration on the date of enactment of this Act to a private entity or to
a public entity other than the United State Government.
(b) LIMITATION- Subsection (a) shall not apply--
(1) to a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control tower operated under the contract tower program on the date of
enactment of this Act;
(2) to any expansion of that program through new construction under subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code; or
(3) to a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control tower (other than towers in Alaska) identified in the Report of the
Department of Transportation Inspector General dated April 12, 2000, and designated `Contract Towers: Observations on the Federal
Aviation Administration's Study of Expanding the Program'.


What is added is the sunset limitation. This is really not much of an issue as it's off 3 fiscal
years and most likely would be modified by a subsequent reauthorization bill. It's purely wishful
thinking on someone's part that it wouldn't be modified before then.

So that brings us the new langauge added as item (b)(3) above. The referenced document
is here: http://www.oig.dot.gov/show_pdf.php?id=95 Essentially, this opens up 71 VFR
towers to possible consideration for contracting out.

However, none of this is really how most people (other than the federal ATC employees
and their union) define the core privatization issue. AOPA clearly has to pick their battles
on where they throw their weight. The possible subbing out of controller jobs in these
facilities is just not worth them fighting over and the influence this has on their membership
(GA pilots/owners) is negligable.

If NATCA forces the conference report down, then we're likely to hurt badly as it will possibly
hold up the reauthorization bill past the fiscal year deadlines.

[Chip Jones]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message news:POo5b.26667
> > 119. PROHIBITION ON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PRIVATIZATION
> > \
> The converence report (which has yet to be acted on):
>
> (a) IN GENERAL- Until October 1, 2007, the Secretary of Transportation may
not authorize the transfer of the air traffic separation
> and control functions operated by the Federal Aviation Administration on
the date of enactment of this Act to a private entity or to
> a public entity other than the United State Government.
> (b) LIMITATION- Subsection (a) shall not apply--
> (1) to a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control tower
operated under the contract tower program on the date of
> enactment of this Act;
> (2) to any expansion of that program through new construction under
subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code; or
> (3) to a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control tower (other
than towers in Alaska) identified in the Report of the
> Department of Transportation Inspector General dated April 12, 2000, and
designated `Contract Towers: Observations on the Federal
> Aviation Administration's Study of Expanding the Program'.
>
>
> What is added is the sunset limitation. This is really not much of an
issue as it's off 3 fiscal
> years and most likely would be modified by a subsequent reauthorization
bill. It's purely wishful
> thinking on someone's part that it wouldn't be modified before then.

I disagree. The sunset limitation was added during the conference. Both
the House and the Senate Bill expressly forbade ATC privatization
indefinitely. This battle was fought and won by both NATCA and AOPA in both
houses of the Congress. The addition of sunset language in Conference that
did not exist in either version of the Bill is extraordinary.

>
> So that brings us the new langauge added as item (b)(3) above. The
referenced document
> is here: http://www.oig.dot.gov/show_pdf.php?id=95 Essentially, this
opens up 71 VFR
> towers to possible consideration for contracting out.

Negative. Essentially, this opens up 69 VFR towers to contracting out, not
71. All 71 towers have already been considered. However, Don Young (R-AK)
was chairman of the reconciliation Conference. The FAA and the
Administration agreed to take the two Alaska FAA VFR towers off of the
privatization table. Why? What makes the provision of VFR tower ATC
services in Alaska any different than the provision of VFR tower ATC
services in the Lower 48 or Hawaii?

>
> However, none of this is really how most people (other than the federal
ATC employees
> and their union) define the core privatization issue.

How then do you pilots define the "core" privatization issue if not the
provision of contract ATC services versus government ATC services?


>AOPA clearly has to pick their battles
> on where they throw their weight. The possible subbing out of
controller jobs in these
> facilities is just not worth them fighting over and the influence this has
on their membership
> (GA pilots/owners) is negligable.

In the short term, it is negligible for AOPA. I dount the hundred or so
AOPA/NATCA members who have cancelled their AOPA memberships are even a drop
in the AOPA bucket. In the long term however, it is extremely negative.
The only way the corporate raiders of the aviation world can manage to
privatize the American ATC system is going to be piece by piece. The
President has laid the groundwork for 2007 and beyond by declaring ATC an
inherintly commercial activity. By shedding the smaller pieces of the NAS
between now and 2007 (things like unionized federal VFR towers, unionized
federal FSS functions, unionized airways facilities personnel etc) the
Administration will have a far easier time selling off the bigger pieces
later. After all, the services on the block right now do not negatively
effect the big-boy commercial users like the airlines or the big government
contractors. Later on, when the bigger parts go up for grabs late this
decade, AOPA's concerns will be drowned out by the corporate bottom lines of
airlines looking to take advantage of a commercial ATC system, and by the
profit margins of the big name private contractors who will be providing it.

>
> If NATCA forces the conference report down, then we're likely to hurt
badly as it will possibly
> hold up the reauthorization bill past the fiscal year deadlines.
>

According to AOPA's statement concerning their new position on FAA
reauthorization, [NATCA] "Union leaders don't necessarily care about the
cost of flying, or GA airports, or pilot regulation, or airspace
restrictions unless there are union jobs attached. They look at what's good
for organized labor, not what's good for aviation or the taxpayer." But of
course, no offense is intended, dear controllers. After all, "AOPA
certainly has no gripe with the dedicated, hard-working air traffic
controllers who supply needed services to the entire aviation community."
How offensive and odious those remarks are to those of us who defend GA from
*within* the system! On the one hand, federal controllers are greedy
government employees looking to line their own pockets at the expense of the
flying public, and then in the next breath they are altruistic hard workers
struggling in the trenches for GA. Which is it, AOPA?

When the bell tolls for American GA in 2007, don't look to your local air
traffic controllers for anti-user fee support. Sadly, they'll all be
working for some fat-cat, unscrupulous government contractor instead of your
government's FAA. In the end, we all get what we pay for...

Chip, ZTL

[Chip Jones]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > "John Smith" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > [snipped]
> > >
> > > > NATCA factually
> > > > reports that the Congress is about to authorize ATC privatization by
> > > > allowing the FAA to offer 69 FAA air traffic control towers to the
> > lowest
> > > > private sector bidder.
> > >
> > > I bid $1 - is that low enough to get them? How about 1c? How about
just
> > > giving me the lot.
> > >
> > > Surely you mean the highest bidder??????
> >
> >
> > Err, no. I mean *lowest* bidder. The idea is to save money. The FAA
> (and
> > your taxes) pays for the infrastructure.
>
> No, the idea is to find a way around ATC unions blocking automation.
>

No, the latter is the motive of contractors like *you*, Tarver, not for the
*actual* real-life users and operators of the safest ATC system in the
world...

Chip, ZTL

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> > >
> > > "John Smith" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > [snipped]
> > > >
> > > > > NATCA factually
> > > > > reports that the Congress is about to authorize ATC privatization
by
> > > > > allowing the FAA to offer 69 FAA air traffic control towers to the
> > > lowest
> > > > > private sector bidder.
> > > >
> > > > I bid $1 - is that low enough to get them? How about 1c? How about
> just
> > > > giving me the lot.
> > > >
> > > > Surely you mean the highest bidder??????
> > >
> > >
> > > Err, no. I mean *lowest* bidder. The idea is to save money. The FAA
> > (and
> > > your taxes) pays for the infrastructure.
> >
> > No, the idea is to find a way around ATC unions blocking automation.

> No, the latter is the motive of contractors like *you*, Tarver, not for
the
> *actual* real-life users and operators of the safest ATC system in the
> world...

I am not offering engineering services to ATC. In fact, I am also not a
contractor, so even your personal attack is poorly aimed, Chip.

ATC unions have blocked automation for 30 years, but it was not until lately
that the catastrophic events generated by ATC seperation error became the
majority of the total body count.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
news:POo5b.26667
> > > 119. PROHIBITION ON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PRIVATIZATION
> > > \
> > The converence report (which has yet to be acted on):
> >
> > (a) IN GENERAL- Until October 1, 2007, the Secretary of Transportation
may
> not authorize the transfer of the air traffic separation
> > and control functions operated by the Federal Aviation Administration on
> the date of enactment of this Act to a private entity or to
> > a public entity other than the United State Government.
> > (b) LIMITATION- Subsection (a) shall not apply--
> > (1) to a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control tower
> operated under the contract tower program on the date of
> > enactment of this Act;
> > (2) to any expansion of that program through new construction under
> subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code; or
> > (3) to a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control tower
(other
> than towers in Alaska) identified in the Report of the
> > Department of Transportation Inspector General dated April 12, 2000, and
> designated `Contract Towers: Observations on the Federal
> > Aviation Administration's Study of Expanding the Program'.
> >
> >
> > What is added is the sunset limitation. This is really not much of an
> issue as it's off 3 fiscal
> > years and most likely would be modified by a subsequent reauthorization
> bill. It's purely wishful
> > thinking on someone's part that it wouldn't be modified before then.
>
> I disagree. The sunset limitation was added during the conference. Both
> the House and the Senate Bill expressly forbade ATC privatization
> indefinitely. This battle was fought and won by both NATCA and AOPA in
both
> houses of the Congress. The addition of sunset language in Conference
that
> did not exist in either version of the Bill is extraordinary.

An excellent idea, however.

[Ron Natalie]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message news:0oq5b.26774
> I disagree. The sunset limitation was added during the conference. Both
> the House and the Senate Bill expressly forbade ATC privatization
> indefinitely.

No, it just forbade the FAA from further ATC privatization until further act of congress.

> Negative. Essentially, this opens up 69 VFR towers to contracting out, not
> 71. All 71 towers have already been considered.

Right, I forgot to deduct the two Alaskan towers.

> What makes the provision of VFR tower ATC
> services in Alaska any different than the provision of VFR tower ATC
> services in the Lower 48 or Hawaii?

Congressional wheeling and dealing. Same reason why West Virginia had
so many dedicated (i.e. non AFSS) FSS's and control towers at places that
didn't really warrant them up until rather recently.

> How then do you pilots define the "core" privatization issue if not the
> provision of contract ATC services versus government ATC services?

Contracting out the performance of tasks is a different issue than establishing
a seperate PBO or other non-direct government agency to control the skies.

[Chip Jones]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message news:0oq5b.26774
> > I disagree. The sunset limitation was added during the conference.
Both
> > the House and the Senate Bill expressly forbade ATC privatization
> > indefinitely.
>
> No, it just forbade the FAA from further ATC privatization until further
act of congress.

Well, I guess we're just approaching the same question from different
directions. To me, "indefinitely" and "until further act of Congress" is
one and the same, and neither equates to a sunset provision. Congress voted
that the FAA was to be *prohibited* from further privatizing ATC without an
act of Congress, ie- privatization was made illegal indefinitley. How
unlike the language into which the two versions were "reconciled" by Don
Young's Administration hitmen.


>
> > Negative. Essentially, this opens up 69 VFR towers to contracting out,
not
> > 71. All 71 towers have already been considered.
>
> Right, I forgot to deduct the two Alaskan towers.

LOL, The Alaska Congressional delegation dang sure didn't!

>
> > What makes the provision of VFR tower ATC
> > services in Alaska any different than the provision of VFR tower ATC
> > services in the Lower 48 or Hawaii?
>
> Congressional wheeling and dealing. Same reason why West Virginia had
> so many dedicated (i.e. non AFSS) FSS's and control towers at places that
> didn't really warrant them up until rather recently.

But if the bottom line is air safety, isn't that a bipartisan issue?
Congress certainly thought so when they passed the original versions of the
unreconciled Bills. And if the bottom line isn't air safety, then why would
Don Young specifically take Juneau and Merril towers off of the contract
list, a list that includes busier places like Van Nuys and Boeing Field?
What advantage does having an FAA-run tower bring to Alaska constituents
other than air safety on the airport? It's not like these two Alaska towers
employ hundreds of Alaskans. I don't know about Merrill, but Juneau only
employs about 12 federal controllers I am told. Not exactly a major job
source even in Alaska.

>
> > How then do you pilots define the "core" privatization issue if not the
> > provision of contract ATC services versus government ATC services?
>
> Contracting out the performance of tasks is a different issue than
establishing
> a seperate PBO or other non-direct government agency to control the skies.
>

Actually, isn't that *exactly* what happens at a contract ATC facility?
The task of Air Traffic Control, performed by an air traffic controller, is
provided to the public by a non-direct, private, for-profit corporate entity
exercising control over a piece of the National Airspace System sky. That's
pretty much the "core" of the privatization issue and it's right upon AOPA,
right now. Not the year 2007 or later... It seems pretty basic to me that
there is no difference between privatizing a single federal tower and the
whole national ATC system except a difference in degree. I also believe
that the toleration of the one makes the other inevitable. It doesn't get
more "core" than that, IMO.

Chip, ZTL

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
news:0oq5b.26774
> > > I disagree. The sunset limitation was added during the conference.
> Both
> > > the House and the Senate Bill expressly forbade ATC privatization
> > > indefinitely.
> >
> > No, it just forbade the FAA from further ATC privatization until further
> act of congress.
>
> Well, I guess we're just approaching the same question from different
> directions. To me, "indefinitely" and "until further act of Congress" is
> one and the same, and neither equates to a sunset provision. Congress
voted
> that the FAA was to be *prohibited* from further privatizing ATC without
an
> act of Congress, ie- privatization was made illegal indefinitley. How
> unlike the language into which the two versions were "reconciled" by Don
> Young's Administration hitmen.
>
>
> >
> > > Negative. Essentially, this opens up 69 VFR towers to contracting
out,
> not
> > > 71. All 71 towers have already been considered.
> >
> > Right, I forgot to deduct the two Alaskan towers.
>
> LOL, The Alaska Congressional delegation dang sure didn't!
>
> >
> > > What makes the provision of VFR tower ATC
> > > services in Alaska any different than the provision of VFR tower ATC
> > > services in the Lower 48 or Hawaii?
> >
> > Congressional wheeling and dealing. Same reason why West Virginia had
> > so many dedicated (i.e. non AFSS) FSS's and control towers at places
that
> > didn't really warrant them up until rather recently.
>
> But if the bottom line is air safety, isn't that a bipartisan issue?

Yep, that is why there is a sunset provision.

> Congress certainly thought so when they passed the original versions of
the
> unreconciled Bills. And if the bottom line isn't air safety, then why
would
> Don Young specifically take Juneau and Merril towers off of the contract
> list, a list that includes busier places like Van Nuys and Boeing Field?

Money.

> What advantage does having an FAA-run tower bring to Alaska constituents
> other than air safety on the airport? It's not like these two Alaska
towers
> employ hundreds of Alaskans. I don't know about Merrill, but Juneau only
> employs about 12 federal controllers I am told. Not exactly a major job
> source even in Alaska.

Jobs.

> > > How then do you pilots define the "core" privatization issue if not
the
> > > provision of contract ATC services versus government ATC services?
> >
> > Contracting out the performance of tasks is a different issue than
establishing
> > a seperate PBO or other non-direct government agency to control the
skies.

> Actually, isn't that *exactly* what happens at a contract ATC facility?

Eventually.

> The task of Air Traffic Control, performed by an air traffic controller,
is
> provided to the public by a non-direct, private, for-profit corporate
entity
> exercising control over a piece of the National Airspace System sky.

Yes, but without a powerful public employees union to block improvements.
(ie RIF)

> That's
> pretty much the "core" of the privatization issue and it's right upon
AOPA,
> right now. Not the year 2007 or later... It seems pretty basic to me
that
> there is no difference between privatizing a single federal tower and the
> whole national ATC system except a difference in degree. I also believe
> that the toleration of the one makes the other inevitable. It doesn't get
> more "core" than that, IMO.

AOPA has a larger constituancy than ATC. The fact that AOPA acted in the
best interest of GA, by making an advantagous political deal, is not
surprising.

[xyzzy]

Chip Jones wrote:

> Fighting this battle on the field of 2007, we will be 69 ATC towers closer
> to ATC user fees.

Or alternatively, in 2007 maybe we'll have a President and/or a Congress
from the party that doesn't think the way to run the country is to give
it all away to large corporations. Maybe they figure it's a losing
battle now, they should get the best they can, and then gear up for the
fight in 2007 when we've been aware of the threat for 4 years and
hopefully will have a better political climate.

[Ron Natalie]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message news:bir5b.26821

> What advantage does having an FAA-run tower bring to Alaska constituents
> other than air safety on the airport? It's not like these two Alaska towers
> employ hundreds of Alaskans. I don't know about Merrill, but Juneau only
> employs about 12 federal controllers I am told. Not exactly a major job
> source even in Alaska.

I can't say if safety is or is not the issue. But is clear that Senator Young thought
that it would play better in his home state if he kept them on the federal dole. Maybe
one of the controllers is kin to a major contributor, who knows, it certainly smacks
of politicking rather than the public interest.

> Actually, isn't that *exactly* what happens at a contract ATC facility?

No, no more than contracting out DUAT is, nor anything else ATC contracts out.

Despite all the hoohah, AOPA's concern is not whether the PBO can do a good job
or if there is a safety concern, what they are concerned about is that privatization
makes it easier to bring up the ugly user fee issue to fund it.

[David H]

How about examining the real-world experience of pilots in other countries
where ATC services HAVE been privatized?

Want to see what things will be like if/when this administration has its way?
Look to Canada, New Zealand, etc. Without exception, everything I've seen
about privatized ATC services esewhere paints a very, very unpleasant picture.
I see absolutely zero benefits (other than money going into the contractor's
pockets - and that only benefits them, at a cost to everyone else).

Ask pilots who have gone through the privatization process how they have liked
it. Without exception, everyone I've heard from says the same thing: sure,
there might be a few shortcomings in the present system (hey, what system of
ANYTHING is perfect?), but you are much, MUCH better off with the existing
system run by the government. Is there ANYONE (except for the people who have
personally benefitted financially) who have gone through a switch from a
government-run ATC system to a privatized one who think it has improved
things? I haven't heard a single voice supporting that position. On the other
hand, I have heard many, many others who all say the same thing: you Yanks
would be absolutely CRAZY to get rid of the wonderful system you now have and
throw it away in favor of a system whose primary goal is to generate revenue
and keep costs down.

Rather than unrealistic, ideological fantasies (i.e. anything the government
does is always bad, and anything the private sector does is always better) I'd
like to hear what specifically is wrong with the current system, and exactly
how selling it off to the low bidder is going to address that. Absent those
details and a convincing, fact-based analysis showing how a privatized systsm
would benefit us all, this simply looks like nothing more than a good,
old-fashioned money grab to me.

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

[Chip Jones]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...

[snipped]

>
> Yes, but without a powerful public employees union to block improvements.
> (ie RIF)
>

Now that's a scream, John! Do you remember August of 1981? A pleasant
little group of unselfish, altruistic Americans who called themselves PATCO?
Think they're gone from the ATC scene? Think again. Who do you think
represents all of those private *contract* towers these days? Not NATCA.
Yep, PATCO, the one and only. The ones who said "America can't fire us
all..." Big labor is into ATC no matter whether public or private, it just
depends on which flavor of labor you prefer. You see, PATCO wants to see
privatization too- it's right up their alley (more little bargaining units
to represent...) Personally, I think NATCA has a much better track record
of public service than PATCO, but it's your call, bro. I'd be happy to post
a link to the PATCO site if you want to read about what a great job private
ATC providers do with all that federal contract money they receive from FAA.

Chip, ZTL

[Ron Natalie]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message news:k%r5b.26989
> Now that's a scream, John! Do you remember August of 1981? A pleasant
> little group of unselfish, altruistic Americans who called themselves PATCO?

As opposed to the the corrupt, lying schemers called PATCO managment who
lied to their members and cooked the strike vote to convince them that the
larger brotherhood had decided that the strike was a good idea?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> [snipped]
>
> >
> > Yes, but without a powerful public employees union to block
improvements.
> > (ie RIF)
> >
>
> Now that's a scream, John! Do you remember August of 1981?

Sure.

> A pleasant
> little group of unselfish, altruistic Americans who called themselves
PATCO?
> Think they're gone from the ATC scene? Think again. Who do you think
> represents all of those private *contract* towers these days? Not NATCA.
> Yep, PATCO, the one and only.

Nothing has changed, in 30 years.

> The ones who said "America can't fire us
> all..." Big labor is into ATC no matter whether public or private, it
just
> depends on which flavor of labor you prefer.

A choice gives much more latitude.

> You see, PATCO wants to see
> privatization too- it's right up their alley (more little bargaining units
> to represent...) Personally, I think NATCA has a much better track record
> of public service than PATCO, but it's your call, bro. I'd be happy to
post
> a link to the PATCO site if you want to read about what a great job
private
> ATC providers do with all that federal contract money they receive from
FAA.

Good work on the part of PATCO to protect their interests, but civil service
law does not protect contractors.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message news:k%r5b.26989
> > Now that's a scream, John! Do you remember August of 1981? A pleasant
> > little group of unselfish, altruistic Americans who called themselves
PATCO?
>
> As opposed to the the corrupt, lying schemers called PATCO managment who
> lied to their members and cooked the strike vote to convince them that the
> larger brotherhood had decided that the strike was a good idea?

Are you claiming PATCO is corrupt?

[Ron Natalie]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message ...

>
> Are you claiming PATCO is corrupt?
>
I am claiming that in 1981 PATCO management misrepresented things to
the membership that caused them to strike when they might not otherwise
have, they then weaseled themselves to the LRB to disgrace themselves
futher. I have no clue if the management of that era still has any involvement
in today's PATCO.

[Chip Jones]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message news:k%r5b.26989
> > Now that's a scream, John! Do you remember August of 1981? A pleasant
> > little group of unselfish, altruistic Americans who called themselves
PATCO?
>
> As opposed to the the corrupt, lying schemers called PATCO managment who
> lied to their members and cooked the strike vote to convince them that the
> larger brotherhood had decided that the strike was a good idea?
>

The one and the same.... :-)

Chip, ZTL

[Stan Gosnell]

Chris W > wrote in :

> I have to second that. With out AOPA where would we be? Just because
> they aren't in my opinion perfect, doesn't mean they don't deserve my
> support. They do a lot of good.

Well, you're certainly free to support them in any way you like. I choose
to spend my money elsewhere.

--
Regards,

Stan

[Mike Rapoport]

The pilots don't like it because they are forced to pay for the services
that they recieve. Everybody else likes it.

"the people who have personally benefitted financially" are the pilots and
controllers.

Mike
MU-2


"David H" > wrote in message
...
> How about examining the real-world experience of pilots in other countries
> where ATC services HAVE been privatized?
>
> Want to see what things will be like if/when this administration has its
way?
> Look to Canada, New Zealand, etc. Without exception, everything I've seen
> about privatized ATC services esewhere paints a very, very unpleasant
picture.
> I see absolutely zero benefits (other than money going into the
contractor's
> pockets - and that only benefits them, at a cost to everyone else).
>
> Ask pilots who have gone through the privatization process how they have
liked
> it. Without exception, everyone I've heard from says the same thing:
sure,
> there might be a few shortcomings in the present system (hey, what system
of
> ANYTHING is perfect?), but you are much, MUCH better off with the existing
> system run by the government. Is there ANYONE (except for the people who
have
> personally benefitted financially) who have gone through a switch from a
> government-run ATC system to a privatized one who think it has improved
> things? I haven't heard a single voice supporting that position. On the
other
> hand, I have heard many, many others who all say the same thing: you Yanks
> would be absolutely CRAZY to get rid of the wonderful system you now have
and
> throw it away in favor of a system whose primary goal is to generate
revenue
> and keep costs down.
>
> Rather than unrealistic, ideological fantasies (i.e. anything the
government
> does is always bad, and anything the private sector does is always better)
I'd
> like to hear what specifically is wrong with the current system, and
exactly
> how selling it off to the low bidder is going to address that. Absent
those
> details and a convincing, fact-based analysis showing how a privatized
systsm
> would benefit us all, this simply looks like nothing more than a good,
> old-fashioned money grab to me.
>
> David H
> Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying forum:
> http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying
>

[David Megginson]

David H > writes:

> Want to see what things will be like if/when this administration has
> its way? Look to Canada, New Zealand, etc. Without exception,
> everything I've seen about privatized ATC services esewhere paints a
> very, very unpleasant picture. I see absolutely zero benefits
> (other than money going into the contractor's pockets - and that
> only benefits them, at a cost to everyone else).

I have no experience with New Zealand, but please don't use Canada as
a weapon in this dispute.

As an instrument-rated Canadian pilot and aircraft owner, I have no
complaints at all about Nav Canada. The fee for private light
aircraft (about USD 45/year) is too small to be a problem, especially
in a country where no jurisdiction charges property or use taxes on
aircraft (unlike some U.S. states).

Service is good, and we have better coordination between ATC and FSS
than you have in the U.S.: for example, a control tower will
automatically receive a copy of your VFR flight plan and close it for
you when you land. The controllers and specialists have new, modern
equipment, but otherwise are pretty-much the same in Canada and the
U.S., from my limited U.S. experience (I had some shoddy treatment
from one controller at NY approach, but I wouldn't assume that he was
typical of the whole U.S. system).

Of course, that's from the private pilot's perspective. The Nav
Canada fee is much more of a burden for the airlines, and controllers
are not happy with working hours and pay (I don't know if it's better
or worse than the socialized ATC in the U.S.). Nav Canada has also
been scaling back local FSS's so that they have responsibility only
for their local airports and control zones -- briefings, flight plans,
and enroute now go through a few big regional FIC's. I never did
face-to-face briefings at a small airport anyway, but I know that some
pilots miss them.

So, I guess that the negative is the small fee, and the positive is a
major investment in new equipment (vs. the old, broken stuff that many
U.S. controllers complain about) and slightly better FSS/ATC
coordination. Everything else is pretty much the same as in the
U.S. -- private ATC hasn't been a triumph or a disaster in Canada.


All the best,


David

[David Megginson]

ArtP > writes:

>>And those few citizens who buy airline tickets. If the airlines had
>>to pay for ATC services, do you really think they wouldn't pass
>>those charges on to the passengers?
>
> Since it won't cost much more for ATC to handle a 747 than a Cessna,
> the cost per passenger won't be very much.

That turns out not to be the case. COPA in Canada lobbied very
successfully to keep the Nav Canada fee low for light aircraft (about
USD 45/year), but it is orders of magnitude higher for the air
carriers -- I think that it adds a few dollars to every ticket. That,
together with a post-September-11 so-called security tax (not,
obviously, used for security) and other taxes, make life hard for the
airlines and their passengers. While privatized ATC hasn't been a
real problem for private aircraft owners, it does affect the airlines
quite a bit. It's purely an economic problem, though, not a safety
one.


All the best,


David

[Dave Butler]

Chip Jones wrote:
> I am unaware
> of the postcards that Phil Boyer mentions on the AOPA site.

I assumed he was talking about the cards that NAATS was having people complete
and sign at their booth at Oshkosh. They had a form for you to sign with parts
destined for your legislators, and one part for Phil Boyer. Hmmm. Maybe that
wasn't about the reauthorization bill.

Remove SHIRT to reply directly.
--
Dave Butler, software engineer 919-392-4367
There's no place like 127.0.0.1

[Tom S.]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> The pilots don't like it because they are forced to pay for the services
> that they recieve. Everybody else likes it.

That would make them just like about 98% of the population.
>
> "the people who have personally benefitted financially" are the pilots
and
> controllers.


And the bureaucrats...

> Mike
> MU-2

[[email protected]]

John Smith wrote:

> [snipped]
>
> > NATCA factually
> > reports that the Congress is about to authorize ATC privatization by
> > allowing the FAA to offer 69 FAA air traffic control towers to the lowest
> > private sector bidder.
>
> I bid $1 - is that low enough to get them? How about 1c? How about just
> giving me the lot.
>
> Surely you mean the highest bidder??????

If they accept the highest bid I am sure to get the job.~

They usually take the lowest bid from a *qualified* bidder, who has agreed to
perform a very long, detailed list of tasks. $1 wouldn't quite cut it.

[[email protected]]

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

> proves they can do the job for the least amount of money. The "lowest bidder".
>

Lowest *qualified* bidder.

[[email protected]]

Chip Jones wrote:Err, no. I mean *lowest* bidder. The idea is to save money.
The FAA (and

> your taxes) pays for the infrastructure. The *low* bidder runs the ATC
> facility for the cheapest price. The way the contractor saves money is to
> slash salaries and cut staffing. ATC "on the cheap" is literally what is
> going on.

What is "cheap" to you may very well be reasonable to someone else. Once you
go down the slippery slope of glittering generalities, it simply becomes a
****ing contest.

Some thing Jane gave the store away to NATCA. I deal with a lot of AFS and AVN
folks and they certainly harbor more and more resentment towards ATS. Whatever
else goes on, that is not healthy for the FAA as an organization.

[Everett M. Greene]

"Tarver Engineering" > writes:
[snip]
> ATC unions have blocked automation for 30 years, but it was not until lately
> that the catastrophic events generated by ATC seperation error became the
> majority of the total body count.

Could we be more specific? Air traffic separation incidents
resulting in a body count implies aircraft collisions. The
only one I can recall is a runway incursion error at LAX a
few years ago. Are there others?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Everett M. Greene" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > writes:
> [snip]
> > ATC unions have blocked automation for 30 years, but it was not until
lately
> > that the catastrophic events generated by ATC seperation error became
the
> > majority of the total body count.
>
> Could we be more specific? Air traffic separation incidents
> resulting in a body count implies aircraft collisions. The
> only one I can recall is a runway incursion error at LAX a
> few years ago. Are there others?

The A-300 at Rockaway and USAir 427 have been identified by the
Administrator as seperation incidents. There is no need for a collision,
just proximity. Following too close can cause "flow separation" due to
turbulance and that flow seperation is known to have caused "rudder
reversal" for the A-300 at Rockaway. USAir 427 is a nearly identical event,
except there was no DFDR to prove the rudder reversed; but only the rudder
pedals pounded through the floor. The system paid a high price for 737
rudder PCU replacement, that was probably specious in nature.

Similar to small GA icing incidents. (ie rudder flow seperation)

[Andrew Gideon]

Everett M. Greene wrote:

>
> Oh, and the contract usually ends up being awarded to the
> corporation with the best political connections independent
> of the government's evaluation of "best qualified".

Or the award goes to the contractor that defined the requirements. The
articles at:

http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB106261373853003400,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/03/business/03BOEI.html

make for bizzare reading.

- Andrew

[Roger Halstead]

On 04 Sep 2003 04:27:03 GMT, Stan Gosnell >
wrote:

>"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in
ink.net:
>
>> The pilots don't like it because they are forced to pay for the
>> services that they recieve. Everybody else likes it.
>>
>> "the people who have personally benefitted financially" are the
>> pilots and controllers.
>
>And those few citizens who buy airline tickets. If the airlines had to pay
>for ATC services, do you really think they wouldn't pass those charges on
>to the passengers? As it is, the cost is spread out among everyone who
>pays taxes,

My understanding:
The system as it is currently financed is from fuel and gate (ticket)
taxes. The system is not only self supporting, but actually
accumulates money. Unfortunately the way the system is set up the FAA
has to justify the money they spend as if it comes from the general
fund. Only those who fly and use aviation fuel are paying in to the
system, not he general taxpayer.

It is one of the few government agencies that has been self
supporting, even if it does have some problems. Many of which are due
to the way congress lets them have their own money.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

> and the burden to any one individual is negligible.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Everett M. Greene" wrote:
>
> Are there others?

There was a case a few years ago in which the controller at Hartsfield set
a pssenger jet down on top of a light plane that hadn't cleared the active yet.
As I recall, it turned four people into little red smears.

George Patterson
A friend will help you move. A really good friend will help you move
the body.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> There was a case a few years ago in which the controller at Hartsfield set
> a pssenger jet down on top of a light plane that hadn't cleared the active
> yet.
> As I recall, it turned four people into little red smears.
>

NTSB Identification: DCA90MA017B.

The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 39504.

Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of EASTERN AIRLINES (D.B.A.
operation of EASTERN AIRLINES )

Accident occurred Thursday, January 18, 1990 in ATLANTA, GA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 5/3/93
Aircraft: BOEING 727, registration: N8867E
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 1 Serious, 157 Uninjured.

DRG ARR AT NGT, BEECH A100 (KING AIR, N44UE) WAS CLRD FOR AN ILS RWY 26R
APCH BEHIND CONTINENTAL FLT 9687, THEN EASTERN AIRLINE (EA) FLT 111 (BOEING
727, N8867E) WAS CLRD FOR THE SAME APCH BEHIND THE KING AIR. AFTER LNDG, FLT
9687 HAD A RADIO PROBLEM & THE TWR CTLR HAD DIFFICULTY COMMUNICATING WITH
FLT 9687. MEANWHILE, THE KING AIR LNDD & ITS CREW HAD MOVED THE ACFT TO THE
RGT SIDE OF THE RWY NR TWY-D (THE PRIMARY TWY FOR GEN AVN ACFT). THE TURNOFF
FOR TWY-D WAS ABT 3800'FM THE APCH END OF RWY 26R. BEFORE THE KING AIR WAS
CLR OF THE RWY, EA 111 LNDD & CONVERGED ON THE KING AIR. THE CREW OF EA 111
DID NOT SEE THE KING AIR UNTIL MOMENTS BFR THE ACDNT. THE CAPT TRIED TO
AVOID A COLLISION, BUT THE BOEING'S RGT WING STRUCK THE KING AIR, SHEARING
THE TOP OF ITS FUSELAGE & COCKPIT. SOME OF THE KING AIR'S STROBE/BEACON LGTS
WERE INOP, THOUGH THEY MOST LIKELY WOULD HAVE BEEN EXTINGUISHED FOR THE IMC
APCH. THE LOCAL CTLR DID NOT ISSUE A TFC ADZY TO EA 111 WITH THE LNDG CLNC.
(SEE: NTSB/AAR-91/03)

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of
this accident as follows:

(1) FAILURE OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE AIR TRAFFIC
CONTROL PROCEDURES THAT ADEQUATELY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION HUMAN PERFORMANCE
FACTORS SUCH AS THOSE WHICH RESULTED IN THE FAILURE OF THE NORTH LOCAL
CONTROLLER TO DETECT THE DEVELOPING CONFLICT BETWEEN N44UE AND EA 111, AND
(2) THE FAILURE OF THE NORTH LOCAL CONTROLLER TO ENSURE THE SEPARATION OF
ARRIVING AIRCRAFT WHICH WERE USING THE SAME RUNWAY. CONTRIBUTING TO THE
ACCIDENT WAS THE FAILURE OF THE NORTH LOCAL CONTROLLER TO FOLLOW THE
PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE OF ISSUING APPROPRIATE TRAFFIC INFORMATION TO EA 111,
AND FAILURE OF THE NORTH FINAL CONTROLLER AND THE RADAR MONITOR CONTROLLER
TO ISSUE TIMELY SPEED REDUCTIONS TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE SEPARATION BETWEEN
AIRCRAFT ON FINAL APPROACH.

[Mike Rapoport]

No way. Everything I have read, including anti-privatization pieces from
AOPA, says fuel taxes and airlilne ticket taxes do not come close to funding
ATC and airport improvements. If it was already self funding, there would
be no incentive to privatize it and the controllers union wouldn't be afraid
of privatization.

Mike
MU-2


"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
> On 04 Sep 2003 04:27:03 GMT, Stan Gosnell >
> wrote:
>
> >"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in
> ink.net:
> >
> >> The pilots don't like it because they are forced to pay for the
> >> services that they recieve. Everybody else likes it.
> >>
> >> "the people who have personally benefitted financially" are the
> >> pilots and controllers.
> >
> >And those few citizens who buy airline tickets. If the airlines had to
pay
> >for ATC services, do you really think they wouldn't pass those charges on
> >to the passengers? As it is, the cost is spread out among everyone who
> >pays taxes,
>
> My understanding:
> The system as it is currently financed is from fuel and gate (ticket)
> taxes. The system is not only self supporting, but actually
> accumulates money. Unfortunately the way the system is set up the FAA
> has to justify the money they spend as if it comes from the general
> fund. Only those who fly and use aviation fuel are paying in to the
> system, not he general taxpayer.
>
> It is one of the few government agencies that has been self
> supporting, even if it does have some problems. Many of which are due
> to the way congress lets them have their own money.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
> N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
> > and the burden to any one individual is negligible.
>

[Mark Kolber]

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 15:49:59 -0400, xyzzy > wrote:

>Or alternatively, in 2007 maybe we'll have a President and/or a Congress
>from the party that doesn't think the way to run the country is to give
>it all away to large corporations.

Well, I wouldn't be too sure about that. I'm not sure what party
you're talking about, but the one that lost the last election was no
bed of roses when it comes to this issue. Friendliness or
unfriendliness to GA is not party-related in the way some other issues
are.

==============================

And Chip Jones said

>I'm sqauwking now. We appear to me to be at a juncture in this debate
>similar to the old saying about the Nazi's in Germany.

You are not going to convince me, nor hopefully anyone else, that
there is moral or political equivalent between balancing the overall
benefits of a legislative package to your group and sitting idly by
while people are murdered. "Hall of horrors" comparisons like that are
used regularly as a last ditch effort by the desperate to rally the
ignorant, add absolutely nothing to the debate and tend to be
personally offensive to those who were the target of the acts being
used for the comparison.

Sure. Consolidating job responsibilities and moving a portion of
traditionally public sector jobs to the private one is =just= like
genocide. Give me a break.





Mark Kolber
APA/Denver, Colorado
www.midlifeflight.com
======================
email? Remove ".no.spam"

[Tom S.]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Rick Durden wrote:
> >
> > So long as ATC services are paid for via gasoline tax, things have
> > worked very well.
>
> Not only that, but the cost of collection is negligible. As a conservative
> estimate, the cost of collecting user fees will triple the current expense
> of ATC (the cost of collecting tolls on the NJ toll roads is over 80% of
the
> total cost of that system).
>
Must be like the Chicago tollroads, where the tolls that were going to be
done in ten years are now into their 40th year.

[Chip Jones]

"Mark Kolber" > wrote in message
...
[snipped]
> And Chip Jones said
>
> >I'm sqauwking now. We appear to me to be at a juncture in this debate
> >similar to the old saying about the Nazi's in Germany.
>
> You are not going to convince me, nor hopefully anyone else, that
> there is moral or political equivalent between balancing the overall
> benefits of a legislative package to your group and sitting idly by
> while people are murdered. "Hall of horrors" comparisons like that are
> used regularly as a last ditch effort by the desperate to rally the
> ignorant, add absolutely nothing to the debate and tend to be
> personally offensive to those who were the target of the acts being
> used for the comparison.

Mark, the reference to the "old saying" in my post was to the slippery slope
that doing nothing about ATc privatization *right now* represents. No one
is comparing ATC privatization to the Holocaust, morally or politically.
Such a comparison is so patently shallow I never even considered that my
post could be misconstrued as doing so. If you got offended, I'm sorry.

>
> Sure. Consolidating job responsibilities and moving a portion of
> traditionally public sector jobs to the private one is =just= like
> genocide. Give me a break.

LOL. Now I'm offended that you're offended...

Chip, ZTL

[Chip Jones]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
...
> (Rick Durden) writes:
>
> > It is a serious safety issue. When pilots have to pay for ATC
> > services there is a tendency for them not to file IFR in marginal
> > weather and scud run, therefore increases the risk of an accident.
>
> That's not applicable in Canada. Up here, small aircraft owners pay
> a flat fee (about USD 46.00/year for a private light aircraft),
> whether they use ATS or not. In that case, the incentive works the
> other way -- you've paid for the services anyway, so you might as well
> get your money's worth.

Just curious David. Do Canadian pilots flying VFR largely have to use ATC
service, or can you guys just do the squawk VFR thing and fly willy nilly
around Canada without talking to ATC?


>
> If you do get a fully privatized system in the U.S., it would be a
> good idea to model it on the Canadian flat-fee system rather than the
> European pay-per-use system, to avoid the problem you mentioned.
>
> > It's already screwed general aviation in Europe, the Canadian fees
> > have shot up, so why is our country so quiveringly anxious to
> > replace a working system with one that has demonstrated its
> > antipathy to general aviation in other countries?
>
> Just to put that in context, our fees have shot up by about CAD 5.00
> (USD 3.50) for next year. As I mentioned before, it's a different
> situation for the airlines, but it's hard to argue that the fees have
> any effect on G.A.

But when (not if) GA user fees in Canada go up again, what can the Canadian
GA pilot do about it? Down here in USA, the airlines are *actively*
attempting to seize total control of the ATC system because they accuse the
government of affecting their corporate bottom line with ATC delays. Never
mind the fact that the American taxpayer has just bailed the airlines out
*twice* to the tune of around 18 Billion US Dollars since 9-11 for non-ATC
related problems. If we privatize ATC down here, the corporations that are
going to be running the show will *not* care a whit about GA or BA. They
will cater to the airlines. There is a good chance they will even be
controlled by the airlines depending on exactly who wins the contract (ala
NATS in Britain). Like the US Post Office and the continually rising price
of American postage stamps, there won't be a thing the average GA pilot can
do down here to stop user fees once their government gets out of the ATC
service business.

Chip, ZTL

[David Megginson]

"Chip Jones" > writes:

> Just curious David. Do Canadian pilots flying VFR largely have to
> use ATC service, or can you guys just do the squawk VFR thing and
> fly willy nilly around Canada without talking to ATC?

We are required to file a flight plan or flight itinerary for any VFR
flight beyond 25 nm, but a flight itinerary is as simple as telling
someone where you're going and asking them to call 911 within 24 hours
if you don't show up -- that makes sense for a big, mostly-empty
country like ours.

Also, all of our airways (and all other controlled airspace)
automatically changes to class B at 12,500 ft. Our control zones top
about around 3000 ft AGL like yours, but our terminal areas extend
right up to the flight levels, so you cannot overfly Toronto at 10,000
ft without talking to ATC, the way that you can overfly New York.

Otherwise, though, we're pretty much the same. We have very little
restricted airspace (they've even reduced the temporary restriction
over our Parliament buildings to 1500 ft and 0.25 nm radius, and that
doesn't apply to IFR approaches or departures), and we have a *lot*
more class G than you have, so much so that we even have standard
transponder codes for uncontrolled IFR (!!), which is common in the
north.

>> Just to put that in context, our fees have shot up by about CAD 5.00
>> (USD 3.50) for next year. As I mentioned before, it's a different
>> situation for the airlines, but it's hard to argue that the fees have
>> any effect on G.A.
>
> But when (not if) GA user fees in Canada go up again, what can the
> Canadian GA pilot do about it?

That is a real risk -- we're all vulnerable to the whims of our
elected politicians and public opinion. For example, we don't have
any property or use taxes on aircraft in Canada, while you guys have
to deal with them in quite a few states. Likewise, we rarely have
anything like your TFR's, and we don't have a lot of security
paranoia.

In the end, we have to rely on our advocacy groups just like you do.
So far, COPA has been very effective -- the fees were originally
supposed to be several times higher, and COPA successfully beat them
down to about the cost of a half tank of fuel for my Warrior, and they
keep on fighting every tiny rise now. Personally, I wouldn't object
to paying more, but then, I use ATS a lot, flying out of a busy class
C airport inside a class D terminal area -- I can see how a farmer
with a Cub in her barn would be ****ed off.

> If we privatize ATC down here, the corporations that are going to be
> running the show will *not* care a whit about GA or BA.

That depends on how you privatise it -- I understand that those of you
fighting to keep the public system don't want to give up quite yet,
but there may come a point that you want to get involved on the inside
to make sure that any new private system is a reasonable one like
ours, and not the worst-case scenario dominated by a few big users,
like you're suggesting.

In Canada, the airlines pay most of the cost of ATS, but small planes
get equal service, just as in the U.S. I often land with two or three
airliners waiting for me, or have commuters or jets slow down behind
me while I'm on an approach. If you end up with something like that,
life won't be too bad.

Now, if we're done talking about privatizing ATS, let's talk about
socializing your medicine ... (just joking).


All the best,


David

[David Megginson]

"G.R. Patterson III" > writes:

>> We are required to file a flight plan or flight itinerary for any VFR
>> flight beyond 25 nm, but a flight itinerary is as simple as telling
>> someone where you're going and asking them to call 911 within 24 hours
>> if you don't show up -- that makes sense for a big, mostly-empty
>> country like ours.
>
> So. If I call my mother up and tell here I'm flying down and please
> call out the dogs if I don't show up by 9, does that constitute
> "filing a flight itinerary", or must this be filed with the
> authorities?

No, that's about it -- you might also need to tell your mother what
the airports you're flying from and to.


All the best,


David

[G.R. Patterson III]

David Megginson wrote:
>
> We are required to file a flight plan or flight itinerary for any VFR
> flight beyond 25 nm, but a flight itinerary is as simple as telling
> someone where you're going and asking them to call 911 within 24 hours
> if you don't show up -- that makes sense for a big, mostly-empty
> country like ours.

So. If I call my mother up and tell here I'm flying down and please call out
the dogs if I don't show up by 9, does that constitute "filing a flight
itinerary", or must this be filed with the authorities?

George Patterson
A friend will help you move. A really good friend will help you move
the body.

[Roger Halstead]

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 03:20:35 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>No way. Everything I have read, including anti-privatization pieces from
>AOPA, says fuel taxes and airlilne ticket taxes do not come close to funding
>ATC and airport improvements. If it was already self funding, there would
>be no incentive to privatize it and the controllers union wouldn't be afraid
>of privatization.

Twice the aviation "trust fund" has gotten so large that congress
refused to renew the taxes, running the fund into the ground when they
were pushing for privatization..

It has been included in the "general fund" figures to artificially
reduce the deficit for years.

The money is there, but it's not available. The FAA isn't allowed to
use it in the normal sense. They have to justify and then get their
budget as if it were from the general fund.

It's an extremely confusing issue and I make no claim to being right.
It's just the way I read the issue.

Check out the "Aviation Trust Fund". I've read more than once that
ATC *could* be self supporting were the Trust Fund made openly
available instead of being siphoned off.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

>
>Mike
>MU-2
>
>
>"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
>> On 04 Sep 2003 04:27:03 GMT, Stan Gosnell >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in
>> ink.net:
>> >
>> >> The pilots don't like it because they are forced to pay for the
>> >> services that they recieve. Everybody else likes it.
>> >>
>> >> "the people who have personally benefitted financially" are the
>> >> pilots and controllers.
>> >
>> >And those few citizens who buy airline tickets. If the airlines had to
>pay
>> >for ATC services, do you really think they wouldn't pass those charges on
>> >to the passengers? As it is, the cost is spread out among everyone who
>> >pays taxes,
>>
>> My understanding:
>> The system as it is currently financed is from fuel and gate (ticket)
>> taxes. The system is not only self supporting, but actually
>> accumulates money. Unfortunately the way the system is set up the FAA
>> has to justify the money they spend as if it comes from the general
>> fund. Only those who fly and use aviation fuel are paying in to the
>> system, not he general taxpayer.
>>
>> It is one of the few government agencies that has been self
>> supporting, even if it does have some problems. Many of which are due
>> to the way congress lets them have their own money.
>>
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>> N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>>
>> > and the burden to any one individual is negligible.
>>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

The FAA's budget is $8-9 billion and the total user contribution is about $6
billion. I'm not sure whether the FAA budget includes the cost of
collecting the user contribution.

The big issue for AOPA and NBAA is allocating the costs. It costs the same
to separate a 747 from a 172 as it does to separate the 172 from the 747.
Obviously the 747 is paying a lot more for the service than the 172. The
airlines want to change this and the 172 owner (and Gulfstream owner) wants
to keep it the same as it is now.

I agree that the Aviation Trust Fund like the Social Security trust fund is
an accounting construct where the money is counted twice. I also agree that
the whole idea of privatizing ATC is transparent ploy to increase taxes.
Right now a portion of our (above average) income taxes are paying for a
portion of ATC, if ATC gets privatized nobody is proposing to lower those
taxes to offset the ATC fees.

Mike
MU-2


"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 03:20:35 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>
> >No way. Everything I have read, including anti-privatization pieces from
> >AOPA, says fuel taxes and airlilne ticket taxes do not come close to
funding
> >ATC and airport improvements. If it was already self funding, there
would
> >be no incentive to privatize it and the controllers union wouldn't be
afraid
> >of privatization.
>
> Twice the aviation "trust fund" has gotten so large that congress
> refused to renew the taxes, running the fund into the ground when they
> were pushing for privatization..
>
> It has been included in the "general fund" figures to artificially
> reduce the deficit for years.
>
> The money is there, but it's not available. The FAA isn't allowed to
> use it in the normal sense. They have to justify and then get their
> budget as if it were from the general fund.
>
> It's an extremely confusing issue and I make no claim to being right.
> It's just the way I read the issue.
>
> Check out the "Aviation Trust Fund". I've read more than once that
> ATC *could* be self supporting were the Trust Fund made openly
> available instead of being siphoned off.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
> N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
> >
> >Mike
> >MU-2
> >
> >
> >"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 04 Sep 2003 04:27:03 GMT, Stan Gosnell >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in
> >> ink.net:
> >> >
> >> >> The pilots don't like it because they are forced to pay for the
> >> >> services that they recieve. Everybody else likes it.
> >> >>
> >> >> "the people who have personally benefitted financially" are the
> >> >> pilots and controllers.
> >> >
> >> >And those few citizens who buy airline tickets. If the airlines had
to
> >pay
> >> >for ATC services, do you really think they wouldn't pass those charges
on
> >> >to the passengers? As it is, the cost is spread out among everyone
who
> >> >pays taxes,
> >>
> >> My understanding:
> >> The system as it is currently financed is from fuel and gate (ticket)
> >> taxes. The system is not only self supporting, but actually
> >> accumulates money. Unfortunately the way the system is set up the FAA
> >> has to justify the money they spend as if it comes from the general
> >> fund. Only those who fly and use aviation fuel are paying in to the
> >> system, not he general taxpayer.
> >>
> >> It is one of the few government agencies that has been self
> >> supporting, even if it does have some problems. Many of which are due
> >> to the way congress lets them have their own money.
> >>
> >> Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
> >> www.rogerhalstead.com
> >> N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
> >>
> >> > and the burden to any one individual is negligible.
> >>
> >
>

[Newps]

Rick Durden wrote:
> David,
>
> It is a serious safety issue. When pilots have to pay for ATC
> services there is a tendency for them not to file IFR in marginal
> weather and scud run, therefore increases the risk of an accident.

You are assuming a payment per service. No way that is what we get. We
would go the same route as Canada. Each aircraft 5000 pounds and under
pays $60 Canadian per year. What's that $35 US? Big deal. When you
fly thru or into Canada as a US registered aircraft you get a bill in
the mail that is 1/4 the yearly rate. That allows you three months of
flying, not just the trip you took.

[Newps]

Chip Jones wrote:


>
> Just curious David. Do Canadian pilots flying VFR largely have to use ATC
> service, or can you guys just do the squawk VFR thing and fly willy nilly
> around Canada without talking to ATC?

They are a lot like us. One exception that will never fly here is that
they are required to file and open a VFR flight plan for any flight over
25 miles.

[Newps]

Chip Jones wrote:

>
> But when (not if) GA user fees in Canada go up again, what can the Canadian
> GA pilot do about it?

The same thing you do when you don't like the fee for the tabs on your
car. You take it up with your represenatative.

[Newps]

Mike Rapoport wrote:


> The big issue for AOPA and NBAA is allocating the costs. It costs the same
> to separate a 747 from a 172 as it does to separate the 172 from the 747.

Come and listen sometime and tell me it costs the same. Most of the
time it costs 3 times as much to separate the "Hawk because of his 25
year old Narco Mk 12A.

[Ron Natalie]

"Newps" > wrote in message news:2T66b.274022$Oz4.73182@rwcrnsc54...

>
> Come and listen sometime and tell me it costs the same. Most of the
> time it costs 3 times as much to separate the "Hawk because of his 25
> year old Narco Mk 12A.

How are we being charged, by the mile? by the minute? By controller mic time?

[Ron McKinnon]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:KO66b.274013$Oz4.73064@rwcrnsc54...
>
> Chip Jones wrote:
> >
> > Just curious David. Do Canadian pilots flying VFR largely have to use
ATC
> > service, or can you guys just do the squawk VFR thing and fly willy
nilly
> > around Canada without talking to ATC?
>
> They are a lot like us. One exception that will never fly here is that
> they are required to file and open a VFR flight plan for any flight over
> 25 miles.

You don't *have* to file a flight plan for such flights.
You can instead file a 'flight itinerary', or, less formally, leave the
information
with a 'responsible person' who will report you missing if you don't show
up
where you're supposed to be.

[Dennis O'Connor]

ATC fee for providing separation for each aircraft should definitely be
charged to each aircraft... The charge should be some tiny percentage of the
gross revenue earned on that flight ... Lets pick a multiplier, say 0.001..

Assume 300 passengers paying an average $300 ticket = $90,000 for KORD to
KDFT... times 0.001 = $90 that ABC Airlines sends to the feds... (actually
it is easier than that... Quarterly, ABC Airline sends 0.001 of it's gross
revenue and you don't have to fool with tracking routes)

Now, Joe Schmuk flying his Whizbanger Four flies the same route... Gross
revenue for the flight = $0.00... times 0.001.. Charge = $0.00

Seems fair to me...

Denny
" It costs the same
> to separate a 747 from a 172 as it does to separate the 172 from the 747.
> Obviously the 747 is paying a lot more for the service than the 172. The
> airlines want to change this and the 172 owner (and Gulfstream owner)
wants
> to keep it the same as it is now.

[Andrew Gideon]

Newps wrote:

> Come and listen sometime and tell me it costs the same. Most of the
> time it costs 3 times as much to separate the "Hawk because of his 25
> year old Narco Mk 12A.

Are separation requirements the same for the 'Hawk and the 747? Given that
the 747 covers more ground per sweep, does that play a role?

- Andrew

[Tom]

Collection will eventually be relagated to the infamous "EZ-PASS". You fly
low, under the transponder and your account is debited the amount of the
landing fee. If your account shows insufficient funds to pay any fee, a
giant fly swatter will appear, guided by the "giant hand" (actually the same
one that steered industry, but it is currently laid off), and it will swat
your ass into oblivion.

Tom
"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Rick Durden wrote:
> > >
> > > So long as ATC services are paid for via gasoline tax, things have
> > > worked very well.
> >
> > Not only that, but the cost of collection is negligible. As a
conservative
> > estimate, the cost of collecting user fees will triple the current
expense
> > of ATC (the cost of collecting tolls on the NJ toll roads is over 80% of
> the
> > total cost of that system).
> >
> Must be like the Chicago tollroads, where the tolls that were going to be
> done in ten years are now into their 40th year.
>
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

Pretty tough to see how you could keep the 172 farther from the 747 than the
747 is from the 172.

Mike
MU-2


"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> Newps wrote:
>
> > Come and listen sometime and tell me it costs the same. Most of the
> > time it costs 3 times as much to separate the "Hawk because of his 25
> > year old Narco Mk 12A.
>
> Are separation requirements the same for the 'Hawk and the 747? Given
that
> the 747 covers more ground per sweep, does that play a role?
>
> - Andrew
>

[Mike Rapoport]

Why should the charge for the same service be different for different
customers?

Mike
MU-2


"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
> ATC fee for providing separation for each aircraft should definitely be
> charged to each aircraft... The charge should be some tiny percentage of
the
> gross revenue earned on that flight ... Lets pick a multiplier, say
0.001..
>
> Assume 300 passengers paying an average $300 ticket = $90,000 for KORD to
> KDFT... times 0.001 = $90 that ABC Airlines sends to the feds...
(actually
> it is easier than that... Quarterly, ABC Airline sends 0.001 of it's gross
> revenue and you don't have to fool with tracking routes)
>
> Now, Joe Schmuk flying his Whizbanger Four flies the same route... Gross
> revenue for the flight = $0.00... times 0.001.. Charge = $0.00
>
> Seems fair to me...
>
> Denny
> " It costs the same
> > to separate a 747 from a 172 as it does to separate the 172 from the
747.
> > Obviously the 747 is paying a lot more for the service than the 172.
The
> > airlines want to change this and the 172 owner (and Gulfstream owner)
> wants
> > to keep it the same as it is now.
>
>

[John Clonts]

Because price is set more directly by value to the consumer than by cost to
the producer-- free enterprise 101.

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
.net...
> Why should the charge for the same service be different for different
> customers?
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > ATC fee for providing separation for each aircraft should definitely be
> > charged to each aircraft... The charge should be some tiny percentage of
> the
> > gross revenue earned on that flight ... Lets pick a multiplier, say
> 0.001..
> >
> > Assume 300 passengers paying an average $300 ticket = $90,000 for KORD
to
> > KDFT... times 0.001 = $90 that ABC Airlines sends to the feds...
> (actually
> > it is easier than that... Quarterly, ABC Airline sends 0.001 of it's
gross
> > revenue and you don't have to fool with tracking routes)
> >
> > Now, Joe Schmuk flying his Whizbanger Four flies the same route... Gross
> > revenue for the flight = $0.00... times 0.001.. Charge = $0.00
> >
> > Seems fair to me...
> >
> > Denny
> > " It costs the same
> > > to separate a 747 from a 172 as it does to separate the 172 from the
> 747.
> > > Obviously the 747 is paying a lot more for the service than the 172.
> The
> > > airlines want to change this and the 172 owner (and Gulfstream owner)
> > wants
> > > to keep it the same as it is now.
> >
> >
>
>

[Chip Jones]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> No way. Everything I have read, including anti-privatization pieces from
> AOPA, says fuel taxes and airlilne ticket taxes do not come close to
funding
> ATC and airport improvements. If it was already self funding, there would
> be no incentive to privatize it and the controllers union wouldn't be
afraid
> of privatization.

The controllers union isn't afraid of privatization because the of a system
funding issue. Whatever entity provides ATC in the system will have the
system users by the short hairs. Funding will be had because the system
users won't have a choice other than pay to play. Likewise, whatever entity
provides ATC in the system will employ air traffic controllers. The
Canadian controllers even got a raise when NavCanada was chartered. The
issue for American federal controllers isn't funding or job security. The
issue for American controllers is that we don't trust a for-profit private
entity to properly staff and run an ATC enterprise with a "safety above all"
corporate attitude. Hell, we hardly trust FAA, and FAA actually *does* have
a "safety above all" corporate attitude. We know that a contractor will be
in the game to make money, and that staffing levels, salaries and equipment
costs will all eat at the profits. Not good for us. We fear that
privatization will place us into an environment where the contractor pushes
us to cut major safety corners (you know, in the name of "efficiency") and
then when people get hurt or airplanes get too close, the poor SOB working
the sector will get fired for "poor job performance" rather than the
contractor getting sacked for putting the controller in that situation and
the people in the airplanes in that situation. Skyguard here we come...

Chip, ZTL

[David Megginson]

"Chip Jones" > writes:

> You pay an automobile tab fee to a private highway services
> contractor in order to drive out there in Big Sky Country?

I pay a fee to the Ontario government renew my car's license plates.
It's less than the Nav Canada fee for my plane, neither is very high
(i.e. both are far under USD 50.00/year).


All the best,


David

[Chuck Gerlach]

And isn't capitalism based upon the idea of competition. Where's the
competition in the case of ATC?


"K. Ari Krupnikov" > wrote in message
...
> Chip, I don't know anything about privatization. This is why I'm in
> software engineering and not in economics or politics. I do know that
> yours are some of the most informative posts here. They usually make a
> lot more sense than most people's in this group. But in this thread,
> you confuse the hell out of me.
>
> "Chip Jones" > writes:
>
> > The controllers union isn't afraid of privatization because the of a
system
> > funding issue.
>
> He then writes:
>
> > The issue for American federal controllers isn't funding or job
> > security.
>
> And then he writes:
>
> > We know that a contractor will be in the game to make money, and
> > that staffing levels, salaries and equipment costs will all eat at
> > the profits. Not good for us.
>
> Ari.

[Mike Rapoport]

User fees cannot discriminate by ability to pay.

Mike
MU-2


"John Clonts" > wrote in message
...
> Because price is set more directly by value to the consumer than by cost
to
> the producer-- free enterprise 101.
>
> Cheers,
> John Clonts
> Temple, Texas
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> .net...
> > Why should the charge for the same service be different for different
> > customers?
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
> >
> >
> > "Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > ATC fee for providing separation for each aircraft should definitely
be
> > > charged to each aircraft... The charge should be some tiny percentage
of
> > the
> > > gross revenue earned on that flight ... Lets pick a multiplier, say
> > 0.001..
> > >
> > > Assume 300 passengers paying an average $300 ticket = $90,000 for KORD
> to
> > > KDFT... times 0.001 = $90 that ABC Airlines sends to the feds...
> > (actually
> > > it is easier than that... Quarterly, ABC Airline sends 0.001 of it's
> gross
> > > revenue and you don't have to fool with tracking routes)
> > >
> > > Now, Joe Schmuk flying his Whizbanger Four flies the same route...
Gross
> > > revenue for the flight = $0.00... times 0.001.. Charge = $0.00
> > >
> > > Seems fair to me...
> > >
> > > Denny
> > > " It costs the same
> > > > to separate a 747 from a 172 as it does to separate the 172 from the
> > 747.
> > > > Obviously the 747 is paying a lot more for the service than the 172.
> > The
> > > > airlines want to change this and the 172 owner (and Gulfstream
owner)
> > > wants
> > > > to keep it the same as it is now.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > No way. Everything I have read, including anti-privatization pieces
from
> > AOPA, says fuel taxes and airlilne ticket taxes do not come close to
> funding
> > ATC and airport improvements. If it was already self funding, there
would
> > be no incentive to privatize it and the controllers union wouldn't be
> afraid
> > of privatization.
>
> The controllers union isn't afraid of privatization because the of a
system
> funding issue. Whatever entity provides ATC in the system will have the
> system users by the short hairs. Funding will be had because the system
> users won't have a choice other than pay to play. Likewise, whatever
entity
> provides ATC in the system will employ air traffic controllers. The
> Canadian controllers even got a raise when NavCanada was chartered. The
> issue for American federal controllers isn't funding or job security.
The
> issue for American controllers is that we don't trust a for-profit private
> entity to properly staff and run an ATC enterprise with a "safety above
all"
> corporate attitude. Hell, we hardly trust FAA, and FAA actually *does*
have
> a "safety above all" corporate attitude. We know that a contractor will
be
> in the game to make money, and that staffing levels, salaries and
equipment
> costs will all eat at the profits. Not good for us. We fear that
> privatization will place us into an environment where the contractor
pushes
> us to cut major safety corners (you know, in the name of "efficiency") and
> then when people get hurt or airplanes get too close, the poor SOB working
> the sector will get fired for "poor job performance" rather than the
> contractor getting sacked for putting the controller in that situation and
> the people in the airplanes in that situation. Skyguard here we come...
>
> Chip, ZTL
>
>

The drive to lower cost, presumably through technology, would result in
fewer controller positions.

Mike
MU-2

[Chip Jones]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
...
> "Chip Jones" > writes:
>
> > You pay an automobile tab fee to a private highway services
> > contractor in order to drive out there in Big Sky Country?
>
> I pay a fee to the Ontario government renew my car's license plates.
> It's less than the Nav Canada fee for my plane, neither is very high
> (i.e. both are far under USD 50.00/year).
>
>

Down here in Dixie, I pay a rather large fee to the Georgia State government
to renew my car's tags as well. Technically, it's USD 20/year for a tag
fee, but they also collect an ad valorum tax at the same time that is fairly
pricey. What I was trying to dig at with Newps with is that the tag fee is
paid to the State government, just like you pay your Provincial government
up there to renew. You are not paying plate renewal fees to a private
middleman contractor in order to drive on road net built and maintained by
the state.

Just curious again with Nav Canada. When you pay your ATC fees up there, do
you pay Nav Canada directly, or do you pay your government who then pays Nav
Canada?

Chip, ZTL

[Chip Jones]

"K. Ari Krupnikov" > wrote in message
...
> Chip, I don't know anything about privatization. This is why I'm in
> software engineering and not in economics or politics. I do know that
> yours are some of the most informative posts here. They usually make a
> lot more sense than most people's in this group. But in this thread,
> you confuse the hell out of me.

LOL, I seem to do that a lot here. :-)

I was responding to the statement in this thread "If it [the NAS] was
already self funding, there would be no incentive to privatize it and the
controllers union wouldn't be afraid of privatization." I don't agree that
the controllers union is afraid of privatization simply because of the
source of system funding. At my level of ATC, there are a host of non-union
controllers who don't give a rat's ass who pays for their services, as long
as they get paid.


>
> "Chip Jones" > writes:
>
> > The controllers union isn't afraid of privatization because the of a
system
> > funding issue.
>
> He then writes:
>
> > The issue for American federal controllers isn't funding or job
> > security.
>
> And then he writes:
>
> > We know that a contractor will be in the game to make money, and
> > that staffing levels, salaries and equipment costs will all eat at
> > the profits. Not good for us.
>

It's context. NATCA isn't worried that privatization will result in the ATC
system going unfunded if it goes private. ATC is a monoply. It will get
funded at some level one way or the other. Someone will work as an air
traffic controller in that system. Current air traffic controllers are the
only people in the nation with the necessary job skills to work in such a
system. That's why I say that ATC funding and job security aren't NATCA's
core issues with privatzation. We see a clear conflict of interest for
*any* private contractor between safety and bottom line. For example, low
staffing levels mean high job security for those who are working the system,
but also high workload and high fatigue, which compromises safety.

Chip, ZTL

[David Megginson]

"Chip Jones" > writes:

> Just curious again with Nav Canada. When you pay your ATC fees up there, do
> you pay Nav Canada directly, or do you pay your government who then pays Nav
> Canada?

We pay Nav Canada directly. Don't forget, though, that any privatized
ATC will still be government-regulated, because it will be a monopoly.
It won't be able just to raise fees whenever it feels like it.


All the best,


David

[Chip Jones]

"Chuck Gerlach" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> And isn't capitalism based upon the idea of competition. Where's the
> competition in the case of ATC?
>

Agreed. Where's the competition in the US Public Health Service? How about
the TSA baggage screeners? How about the United States Marine Corps? How
about the NTSB? FBI? USDA? Social Security? ATC is not an inherintly
capitalistic endeavour- it is a government monopoly. Hell, ATC isn't even
inherintly a business with a commercial bottom line. In my opinion, ATC is
clearly an arm of the government, just like shrimp and seafood inspection.

Chip, ZTL

[Chip Jones]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
>
> The drive to lower cost, presumably through technology, would result in
> fewer controller positions.
>

Theoretically, but how can you lower cost while you are trying to invent and
implement technology to replace human beings? Those of us on the inside
know that "technology" isn't forthcoming that is going to replace us. What
"technology?"

Also, IMO that ignores the issue of job security for those of us already in
the system and paying union dues to NATCA. At Atlanta ARTCC for example, we
are operating at about 65-70% of our *minimum* staffing numbers. ZTL is
operationally the busiest ATC facility in the world right now in terms of
operational count. I put our airspace complexity up against any ATC
facility in the world too. There are extremely busy, complicated night
shifts here where we run 8 controllers on a shift that has an official
minimum staffing requiremnt for 15 controllers. These 8 controllers manage
to work an area with 7 sectors for whole shift. We're doing six day weeks
here. Over half of us can retire within the next ten years. Ain't no
technology in the world that is within ten years of deployment that is gonna
replace us- we're already working below bare bones staffing in my ARTCC. We
have job security here. Our personal goal is to live long enough to retire
in a few years.


Of course, the DOT IG just testified to Congress that 75% percent of the
Centers are "overstaffed". LOL! Where are they, Seattle?


Chip, ZTL

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 14:40:53 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>The drive to lower cost, presumably through technology, would result in
>fewer controller positions.

Isn't there an imminent shortage of ATC manpower due to retirements
and an insufficient number training classes offered?


--

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

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 14:44:45 GMT, "Chip Jones"
> wrote in Message-Id:
et>:

>Current air traffic controllers are the only people in the nation with
>the necessary job skills to work in such a system.

Why wouldn't Boeing, LocMart, or Raytheon staff their privatized ATC
monopoly with ATC controllers based in India?


--

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

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 15:01:48 GMT, David Megginson
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>It won't be able just to raise fees whenever it feels like it.

Call me cynical, but that statement makes me laugh.

--

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

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 15:09:04 GMT, "Chip Jones"
> wrote in Message-Id:
et>:

>What "technology?"


"New air traffic management technologies abound..."



http://www.boeing.com/atm/bold/index.html
Air Traffic Management
Bold Approach


Introduction to Boeing Concept: Comprehensive Change

Boeing takes an uncommon approach to air traffic management. New air
traffic management technologies abound, and some of them are being
pilot-tested at airports and on airplanes today. On closer scrutiny,
however, these technology-driven solutions do not revolutionize the
air traffic system on a global scale. Boeing not only will integrate
all the discrete elements of an entire airspace system to achieve
lasting results, but we have the resources, intellectual property and
large-scale integration expertise to implement programs of this scope.
The objectives of the program are to:


Make flying even safer and more secure.

The concept will support real-time detection, response and consequence
management using a highly integrated global system perspective to
coordinate strategies among the many public and private stakeholders
when threats emerge.


Increase capacity, even as air traffic levels rise.

More accurate forecasts of traffic volume, real-time flight replanning
and tools for fast-forward simulation of system flows to evaluate
potential consequences of changes to a flight plan or traffic flow
will all help increase capacity.


Dramatically reduce congestion and delays.

Air traffic managers will use far more accurate aircraft monitoring to
alleviate congestion around crowded airports at peak times. New
procedures, tools and airspace design will enhance safety factors
while permitting closer minimum spacing than is possible today using
ground-based radar equipment.


Keep aviation affordable and accessible for commercial, military,
business and general aviation operators.

Equipage costs and airspace design will have a substantial effect on
user access to the aviation system. Boeing is working with major
stakeholders, including noncommercial operators, to define overall
system requirements.

See the graphic for an illustration of the envisioned system.

--

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >
> >
> > The drive to lower cost, presumably through technology, would result in
> > fewer controller positions.
> >
>
> Theoretically, but how can you lower cost while you are trying to invent
and
> implement technology to replace human beings? Those of us on the inside
> know that "technology" isn't forthcoming that is going to replace us.
What
> "technology?"

The same technology airplanes use now, Chip. The airborn portion of the
system is some of the most advanced technology in the world and the other is
trapped in the 1950's.

Costs will be lowered by reducing ATC induced delays and cancellations.

[Everett M. Greene]

Newps > writes:
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> > The big issue for AOPA and NBAA is allocating the costs. It costs the same
> > to separate a 747 from a 172 as it does to separate the 172 from the 747.
>
> Come and listen sometime and tell me it costs the same. Most of the
> time it costs 3 times as much to separate the "Hawk because of his 25
> year old Narco Mk 12A.

Methinks you exaggerate grossly.

[Tom S.]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
...
> "Chip Jones" > writes:
>
> > Just curious again with Nav Canada. When you pay your ATC fees up
there, do
> > you pay Nav Canada directly, or do you pay your government who then pays
Nav
> > Canada?
>
> We pay Nav Canada directly. Don't forget, though, that any privatized
> ATC will still be government-regulated, because it will be a monopoly.
> It won't be able just to raise fees whenever it feels like it.
>
Like the phone companies...the Postal (dis)service...

[Tom S.]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom S." > writes:
>
> >> We pay Nav Canada directly. Don't forget, though, that any privatized
> >> ATC will still be government-regulated, because it will be a monopoly.
> >> It won't be able just to raise fees whenever it feels like it.
> >>
> > Like the phone companies...the Postal (dis)service...
>
> Exactly. People may whine about the pennies, but we're not exactly
> paying $5/letter,

(So $4.00 a letter is okay?)

And the postal service is losing it's shirt now that it has to compete with
e-mail, FAX...

> and phone service has become cheaper over the past
> few years.

Since they brought in competition.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> The drive to lower cost, presumably through technology, would result in
> fewer controller positions.

I wouldn't presume it would be through technology. In the telecom industry,
the drive to lower cost simply resulted in the same amount of work being done
by fewer people. This actually results in more hours being worked (by those
fewer people), but less money paid in salaries because "professionals" don't
get overtime pay. It's less efficient, but it costs less. The only technology
advance is the purchase of pagers for those poor *******s left working 7/24.

George Patterson
A friend will help you move. A really good friend will help you move
the body.

[Chip Jones]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 14:44:45 GMT, "Chip Jones"
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> et>:
>
> >Current air traffic controllers are the only people in the nation with
> >the necessary job skills to work in such a system.
>
> Why wouldn't Boeing, LocMart, or Raytheon staff their privatized ATC
> monopoly with ATC controllers based in India?
>

For one thing, because the US National Airspace System is part of our
national security apparatus. I am required to maintain a security
clearance. If I lose it I am fired.

For another thing, who is going to train Indian controllers based in India
how to work Atlanta Center airspace? Boeing? NATCA? India? Not me...

Chip, ZTL

[Chip Jones]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 15:09:04 GMT, "Chip Jones"
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> et>:
>
> >What "technology?"
>
>
> "New air traffic management technologies abound..."
>

Pardon me Larry, but everything in the Boeing propoganda that you posted is
conceptual. *Specifically* what new technologies does Boeing have? Ever
notice how they don't get specific? Oh, that's right- it's proprietary.
"Give us a contract and then we'll let you know what we can do with it".

Chip, ZTL

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > k.net...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The drive to lower cost, presumably through technology, would result
in
> > > > fewer controller positions.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Theoretically, but how can you lower cost while you are trying to
invent and
> > > implement technology to replace human beings? Those of us on the
inside
> > > know that "technology" isn't forthcoming that is going to replace us.
What
> > > "technology?"
> >
> > The same technology airplanes use now, Chip.
>
> What technology? TCAS? ADS-B? No cognitive ground-based dynamic human
> being as referee? And all that in the next ten years? Are you kidding?
Do
> you fly?

I am an electrical engineer, chip.

How about we start with enabling mode-S inside ATC and some weather
information.

> >The airborn portion of the
> > system is some of the most advanced technology in the world and the
other is
> > trapped in the 1950's.
>
> The other is trapped by the amount of concrete available at the
destination
> airport. No matter how many airplanes you cram in the big sky, they have
to
> line up to land.

Concrete won't pour, in the current political envronment. (Green) We can
get 10 to 15% more capacity with automation and eliminate many weather
delays/cancellations, with information free from NOAH.

The US has already agreed to go to 8.33 com chaneling in 2010, for
sdstandardization with Europe. Some sort of data link capability could be
part of the radio operators will have to buy anyway. Austrailia used
internet technology to kick US ATC out of that business. Most of these
pilots can operate a palm pilot and so free flight might be enabled rather
easily.

> > Costs will be lowered by reducing ATC induced delays and cancellations.

> LOL, sure it will. I'm sure all of those nice airline CEO's will be
saying
> "After you sir", "No, after YOU sir", "No, let's let that nice Learjet
make his
> approach first..."

Airlines are where the money is and you know what is driving the change, as
well as I do.

[Mike Rapoport]

How is it less efficient to have fewer people do more? And is it really the
same amount of work or are there more calls being made every year?

Mike
MU-2


"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >
> > The drive to lower cost, presumably through technology, would result in
> > fewer controller positions.
>
> I wouldn't presume it would be through technology. In the telecom
industry,
> the drive to lower cost simply resulted in the same amount of work being
done
> by fewer people. This actually results in more hours being worked (by
those
> fewer people), but less money paid in salaries because "professionals"
don't
> get overtime pay. It's less efficient, but it costs less. The only
technology
> advance is the purchase of pagers for those poor *******s left working
7/24.
>
> George Patterson
> A friend will help you move. A really good friend will help you
move
> the body.

[John R. Copeland]

I'm sure you already knew the answer to both questions, Chip. :-)
---JRC---

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message =
ink.net...
>=20
>=20
> Are you kidding? Do
> you fly?
>=20
> Chip, ZTL
>

[Robert Perkins]

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 21:25:57 -0400, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>This actually results in more hours being worked (by those
>fewer people), but less money paid in salaries because "professionals" don't
>get overtime pay. It's less efficient, but it costs less. The only technology
>advance is the purchase of pagers for those poor *******s left working 7/24.


....combined with incredible resistance on the part of managment to
adopt technologies which would help those poor *******s telecommute,
thanks to their 24/7 assignment.

I was in that world. I got out as soon as I could after I realized,
one Christmas afternoon, that there were no conditions under which I'd
get a day off. I then watched at the next company I worked for as
first I was let go in a restructuring, how a friend of mine found
himself with 20% more work, then 50%, then 75%, as the people around
him bailed. Then they relocated him and started to *really* treat him
poorly as regards workload.

Rob

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 01:52:50 GMT, "Chip Jones"
> wrote in Message-Id:
et>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 15:09:04 GMT, "Chip Jones"
>> > wrote in Message-Id:
>> et>:
>>
>> >What "technology?"
>>
>>
>> "New air traffic management technologies abound..."
>>
>
>Pardon me Larry, but everything in the Boeing propoganda that you posted is
>conceptual. *Specifically* what new technologies does Boeing have? Ever
>notice how they don't get specific? Oh, that's right- it's proprietary.
>"Give us a contract and then we'll let you know what we can do with it".
>
>Chip, ZTL
>

Here's a little more information on Boeing's ATC activities:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 9, Number 28b July 10, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------

BOEING LOOKS TO THE ATC MARKET...
Boeing says it (with help from some other companies) has what it takes
to make the National Airspace System (NAS) more efficient and safer.
The company hopes to clinch a big deal with the FAA to design, produce
and implement a new, fully integrated air traffic flow system that
will maximize use of the capacity of the National Airspace System.
Boeing's Air Traffic Management business unit has formed a team to
tackle this daunting project. Joining Boeing are Raytheon Inc., Metron
Aviation Inc., KENROB, RLM Software and WSI Corporation.
http://www.avweb.com/newswire/9_28b/complete/185303-1.html#1a


Raytheon Inc.
http://www.raytheon.com/
http://www.raytheon.com/products/cnsatm/
http://www.raytheon.com/products/tracview/
http://www.raytheon.com/products/autotrac/
http://www.raytheon.com/products/caats/

Metron Aviation Inc.
http://www.metronaviation.com/
http://www.metronaviation.com/products.html
http://www.metronaviation.com/airspace-design.html
http://www.metronaviation.com/traffic-flow-mgt.html
http://www.metronaviation.com/op-support.html

KENROB
http://www.kenrob.com/
http://www.kenrob.com/index.mv?content=contractVehicles
http://www.kenrob.com/index.mv?content=synContent

RLM Software
http://www.rlmsoftware.com/About/
http://www.rlmsoftware.com/Products/

http://www.rlmsoftware.com/Products/IndustrySolutions/Aviation.asp

WSI Corporation
http://www.wsi.com/
http://www.wsi.com/solutions/aviation/



From the statement below one would assume Boeing had something on
paper *two* years ago:

U.S. aircraft manufacturer BOEING CO. is considering a joint
bid with the UK's BAe Systems for Britain's air traffic control
system, the Financial Times newspaper said. The paper said that
Boeing Chairman Phil Condit said his company and BAe Systems
"could be a combination" although the two parties had not yet had
any detailed talks on the subject. A combination would not be the
first link between two companies that some aerospace analysts
view as ideal candidates for a future merger. Boeing and BAe
Systems recently bid jointly for a 30% stake in Korea Aerospace
Industries.

(Reuters 07:28 PM ET 06/08/2000)

More:

http://w3.qurio.net/news/lookup?a=5194&m=100500020013700033725a&s=rb000608


But, 4 months later something soured Boeing on British ATC:

Aerospace and defence group BAE SYSTEMS and aerospace giant
BOEING CO have both pulled out of the bidding process to take a
46% stake in Britain's National Air Traffic Service, the
Financial Times said. Citing no sources, the FT said that BAE had
informed the government and Credit Suisse First Boston, the
investment bank advising the state, that it was withdrawing from
the process. Preliminary bids were due to be submitted today.
Boeing said on Thursday that it was not intending to submit an
offer as a lead investor but it would continue to consider
possible partnerships in other consortia.

(Reuters 10:35 PM ET 09/28/2000)

More:

http://q1.schwab.com/news/lookup?a=65110&m=100500020134474229578a&s=rb000928


But 5 months after that, Boeing is back in the running again:

BOEING CO. is to join forces with Britain's leading airlines
in their bid for a 46% stake in Britain's air traffic control
system, British newspapers reported. The papers said the U.S.
manufacturer had written to Minister of Transport Lord Macdonald
to throw its weight behind the Airline Group, a consortium
comprising eight British airlines including BRITISH AIRWAYS and
Virgin Atlantic.

(Reuters 07:13 PM ET 03/01/2001)

More:

http://q1.schwab.com/news/lookup?a=159534&m=100500020319605593971a&s=rb010301


Meanwhile at home, Boeing is twisting arms to get their hands on U.S.
ATC (presumably without benefit of a competitive bidding process):

As it pitches a space-age air traffic management system
upgrade to the U.S. government, BOEING CO. might provide billions
in financing to help seal the deal, the aerospace giant said on
Tuesday. Hoping to leverage its satellite-making and launch
business and its vast collection of navigational charts, Boeing
last year created a separate air traffic unit, with its eye on a
multibillion upgrade to the antiquated U.S. system. That unit's
president, John Hayhurst, will formally present Boeing's proposal
to the FAA this spring, and that plan could include lending the
government the money to get started.

(Reuters 05:52 PM ET 01/30/2001)

More:

http://q1.schwab.com/news/lookup?a=138623&m=100500020289487721280a&s=rb010130


But, Boeing may face competition from FAA:

The Federal Aviation Administration and BOEING CO. said on
Monday they will separately announce major air traffic
initiatives on Wednesday. The aerospace giant will detail its
planned satellite-based air traffic initiative, while the FAA
will outline its 10-year modernization plan. The federal agency
had planned to detail its long-range outlook on Tuesday, but
delayed the timing without giving a reason.

(Reuters 06:21 PM ET 06/04/2001)

More:

http://q1.schwab.com/news/lookup?a=222507&m=100620020403372134741a&s=rb010604


It would appear that Boeing has convinced FAA:

BOEING CO. said its proposed air traffic management system,
combined with improvements by the Federal Aviation
Administration, could cut air traffic delays by 45%. Boeing would
use satellites to give pilots and air traffic controllers better
flight data and navigation tools, helping squeeze more aircraft
into crowded U.S. skies than under the current system, which uses
ground-based radar. The FAA unveiled an $11 billion plan to
modernize airports and boost air traffic control capacity by 30%
over 10 years, pledging to work with Boeing on one of the
nation's biggest transportation problems.

(Reuters 01:14 PM ET 06/06/2001)

More:

http://q1.schwab.com/news/lookup?a=223820&m=100620020405072950751a&s=rb010606


And, Boeing is poking a toe in the door in Japan:

U.S. aerospace giant BOEING and Japan's Mitsubishi Electric
Corp. said they had formed a "strategic alliance" to broaden
co-operation in the global satellite business. The alliance will
focus on space-based communications, air traffic management,
multimedia navigation, space and communications services, launch
services and space infrastructure markets, the companies said.
Boeing has invested heavily in satellite factories and a new
satellite launch series and sees the MELCO alliance as a key to
capturing lucrative Asian contracts.

(Reuters 08:31 AM ET 06/20/2001)

More:

http://q1.schwab.com/news/lookup?a=231680&m=100620020418281237847a&s=rb010620


And in Europe:

BOEING CO. will install its European research and development
center in Spain, sources at Spain's Industrial State Holding Co.
said. Boeing, which is due to hold a press conference on Friday
in Madrid, opted for Spain after the talks with SEPI's investment
promotion office, the sources said. The R+D center will be
located in the Madrid region and functioning by the end of the
year. It will analyze controls for acoustic and smoke emissions
and development of air traffic control systems.

(Reuters 03:14 PM ET 05/10/2001)

More:

http://q1.schwab.com/news/lookup?a=208610&m=100620020384456477171a&s=rb010510



--

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

[G.R. Patterson III]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> How is it less efficient to have fewer people do more?

Tired people don't work as well and it takes time to switch from one task to
another. The total number of hours worked goes up. Typically, the quality of
the results also goes down. As far as I'm concerned, the people who are left
are working less efficiently than before.

> And is it really the same amount of work

Yes, it's really the same amount of work. Until the company loses the contract.
When that happens, the entire group gets canned.

The area of telecom about which I'm speaking is the software, planning, and
management side. The sections of the telecom industry that actually handle
calls are union. When people get paid time-and-a-half, it's usually not a good
idea to downsize the work force unless the amount of work actually decreases.

George Patterson
A friend will help you move. A really good friend will help you move
the body.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Everett M. Greene" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > writes:
> > "Chip Jones" > wrote
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote
> [snip]
> > > > Costs will be lowered by reducing ATC induced delays and
cancellations.
> > > LOL, sure it will. I'm sure all of those nice airline CEO's will be
> > > saying "After you sir", "No, after YOU sir", "No, let's let that nice
> > > Learjet make his approach first..."
> >
> > Airlines are where the money is and you know what is driving the change,
as
> > well as I do.
>
> Someone did a study and found that subtracting all the investments
> from the net profits of all the airlines in the entire history
> of the industry, the result is negative. So, what is the objective
> of the industry?

Jobs and freedom to travel for the People.

[Chip Jones]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...

[good links snipped, although some of the links were dead]

Larry, thanks a lot for taking the time to post all of those links. Like I
said, Boeing's ATC moves are conceptual in nature. Except for the new "Flow
Control" bid this summer, Boeing has been very quiet on *actual* ATC plans
and nascent ATC technology since 2001. That was the year the FAA 10-year
OEP seriously embarrassed Boeing. That was the summer that FAA announced
specific, actual steps for ATC modernization over this decade. At the same
time, Boeing could not produce any evidence of either a specific plan or a
specific technology to accomplish the vaporous ATC "improvement" goals
their quest for a *non-competitive contract* would "produce". Boeing
claimed that their plan and the technology to make it work was "secret and
proprietary". To most of us in the system, that was code for "we don't have
a plan, we don't even have the technology yet to develop a plan, but throw
us a contract anyway and we'll make it work..."

I'd also like to point out that the consortium of contractors that Boeing is
putting together to make a run on a Central Flow Control contract is not the
same as providing contract ATC services. Central Flow doesn't control
airplanes, it is staffed with displaced weenies from flight service stations
and terminal environments who don't have a clue about the actual nuts and
bolts mechanics of enroute air traffic control, and it breaks down early and
often every year. It's about the biggest collection of egg-headed FAA
management want-to-be's in the whole NAS. If Boeing and friends can clean
all of those strap hangers out the central command bunker, more power to
them.

FAA ought to let Boeing take over running all of the Regional offices
too. We have over 600 enroute CPC "controllers" working as "traffic
management coordinators" in the system right now. We have over 900 CPC
"controllers" working as air traffic office staff in the various Regional
offices, Hubs, and ARTCC's. Let Boeing run the offices and the command
center. Then we could ship those FAA central flow and office staff
"controllers" back out to the embattled field facilities, head set in hand,
to do the actual job they are getting top tax dollar to perform.

Chip, ZTL

[Mike Rapoport]

The same thing can be said for semiconductors. Both industries are
profitless but are major contributors to the economy. Both suffer from the
same problem. They are high fixed-cost businesses and pricing tends to be
driven to variable cost.

Mike
MU-2


"Everett M. Greene" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > writes:
> > "Chip Jones" > wrote
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote
> [snip]
> > > > Costs will be lowered by reducing ATC induced delays and
cancellations.
> > > LOL, sure it will. I'm sure all of those nice airline CEO's will be
> > > saying "After you sir", "No, after YOU sir", "No, let's let that nice
> > > Learjet make his approach first..."
> >
> > Airlines are where the money is and you know what is driving the change,
as
> > well as I do.
>
> Someone did a study and found that subtracting all the investments
> from the net profits of all the airlines in the entire history
> of the industry, the result is negative. So, what is the objective
> of the industry?

[Tom S.]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> The same thing can be said for semiconductors. Both industries are
> profitless but are major contributors to the economy. Both suffer from
the
> same problem. They are high fixed-cost businesses and pricing tends to be
> driven to variable cost.
>
TI, Intel and Motorola are profitless? I'm dumping my stock...where's my
broker?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
>
> My understanding:
> The system as it is currently financed is from fuel and gate (ticket)
> taxes. The system is not only self supporting, but actually
> accumulates money. Unfortunately the way the system is set up the FAA
> has to justify the money they spend as if it comes from the general
> fund. Only those who fly and use aviation fuel are paying in to the
> system, not he general taxpayer.
>
> It is one of the few government agencies that has been self
> supporting, even if it does have some problems. Many of which are due
> to the way congress lets them have their own money.
>

My understanding is that Air Traffic is about 85% funded by the trust fund,
at least it was several years ago. It shouldn't be funded exclusively from
aviation taxes because Air Traffic also provides services to the military.

[Dan Luke]

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

> > Someone did a study and found that subtracting
>> all the investments from the net profits of all the
>> airlines in the entire history
> > of the industry, the result is negative.
>> So, what is the objective
> > of the industry?
>
> Jobs and freedom to travel for the People.

LOL. Thank you, Chairman Mao...uh, Tarver.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" wrote:
>
> > > Someone did a study and found that subtracting
> >> all the investments from the net profits of all the
> >> airlines in the entire history
> > > of the industry, the result is negative.
> >> So, what is the objective
> > > of the industry?
> >
> > Jobs and freedom to travel for the People.
>
> LOL. Thank you, Chairman Mao...uh, Tarver.

There is no right to travel in China.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 15:54:36 GMT, "Chip Jones"
> wrote in Message-Id:
.net>:

>Fighting this battle on the field of 2007, we will be 69 ATC towers closer
>to ATC user fees.

Perhaps this is the reason:


-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 9, Number 37a September 8, 2003

-------------------------------------------------------------------

CONTRACT TOWERS SAFE, EFFICIENT SAYS OIG
Sometimes you need to be careful what you wish for. The National
Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA), which is in a pitched
battle with the FAA over the proposed privatization of VFR control
towers, recently asked the Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
to compare the performance of 71 FAA-staffed towers, 69 of which
are potentially on the auction block, with the 189 VFR towers
already in private hands. Inspector General Ken Mead produced what
amounted to a glowing endorsement of the contract towers as
cost-efficient, safe operations that cost taxpayers about $173
million a year less to run than if they were in government hands.
Contract towers, according to the OIG, have fewer staff and pay
them less but they also manage to make fewer mistakes than
FAA-staffed facilities.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/125-full.html#185641
--

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

[Ron Natalie]

Heard the NATCA ad claiming the US air safety is being auctioned
off to the lowest bidder this morning. I've never heard a more distored,
designed to inflame, pack of half-truths since the last election.
My opinion of them is lower than it was before.

[Mike Rapoport]

Actually those companies make up perhaps 25% of the market. Semicondutor
market will be about $170B this year. Also note that MOT's semiconductor
business doesn't make money very often.

Mike
MU-2


"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > There are profitable players but the industry as a whole is close to
> > breakeven. Add up all the up and down cycles.
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
>
> Considering these three make up about 80% of the industry (with NEC I
> believe), that the rest could bring down the industry to "break even" is
not
> quite believeable.
>
> IIRC, Intel has never taken a loss, TI is much the same (except for two
> years in the last 25). Motorola took it's biggest hit in the cell phone
> arena.
>
> > > >
> > > TI, Intel and Motorola are profitless? I'm dumping my stock...where's
my
> > > broker?
>
>

[Dennis O'Connor]

That the officers of a corporation get huge salaries, zero interest loans,
corporate cars, condos, hot tubs, bennies, and a golden parachute... What
did you think the objective of a corporation is?
hint: (think Enron / think WorldCom / think hard)

Denny
"Everett M. Greene" > wrote in message
.. So, what is the objective
> of the industry?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Heard the NATCA ad claiming the US air safety is being auctioned
> off to the lowest bidder this morning. I've never heard a more distored,
> designed to inflame, pack of half-truths since the last election.
> My opinion of them is lower than it was before.

There is nothing new in what they are doing. The attempt to keep ATC a
1950's operation has been going strong for 30 years.

[Chip Jones]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Heard the NATCA ad claiming the US air safety is being auctioned
> off to the lowest bidder this morning. I've never heard a more distored,
> designed to inflame, pack of half-truths since the last election.
> My opinion of them is lower than it was before.
>

Funny Ron, that's the way I feel about the current Republican Administration
and their claim that all of these "little" towers on the block are "rural".
Maybe you could pick out the distorted "half truths" in the NATCA ad and
debunk them here on the forum.

Chip, ZTL

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
> > Heard the NATCA ad claiming the US air safety is being auctioned
> > off to the lowest bidder this morning. I've never heard a more
distored,
> > designed to inflame, pack of half-truths since the last election.
> > My opinion of them is lower than it was before.
> >
>
> Funny Ron, that's the way I feel about the current Republican
Administration
> and their claim that all of these "little" towers on the block are
"rural".

It is a Gore plan for privatization, Chip.

> Maybe you could pick out the distorted "half truths" in the NATCA ad and
> debunk them here on the forum.

Pot kettle.

[Ron Natalie]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message news:bf37b.9672
>
> Funny Ron, that's the way I feel about the current Republican Administration
> and their claim that all of these "little" towers on the block are "rural".
> Maybe you could pick out the distorted "half truths" in the NATCA ad and
> debunk them here on the forum.
>
The commercial implies that the entire ATC system is going to be auctioned
off by HR 2115. This is an outright lie. They don't even resort to your
slippery slope argument. As far as anybody who really doesn't know what's
going on, this has nothing to do with 69 towers, it's the end of the world as
we know it when it comes to ATC.

NATCA and any other lobbying group does itself a great disservice by
resorting to hysteria rather than sane persuasion. All that's going to happen
out of this is that a lot of congressional staffers are going to have to explain
the truth to the few people who take NATCA's recommendation of voting
down all of 2115 to let them know what the issue really is.

I'll let people listen to this drivel and decide for themselves:
http://www.natca.org/assets/Multimedia/auction_ad.rm

They lose the good message about the problems with privatization with the
wildass opening statement:

A bill is in Washington that put air safety on the auction block. The bill
would sell off the world's safest air traffic control system to the lowest bidder.

The "SYSTEM" is not 69 control towers.
The contracting oiut process is not "auctioning off to the lowest bidder"

Other than that it's a great commercial.

[Chip Jones]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> > Maybe you could pick out the distorted "half truths" in the NATCA ad and
> > debunk them here on the forum.
>
> Pot kettle.
>

Agreed. :-P

[Chip Jones]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message news:bf37b.9672
> >
> > Funny Ron, that's the way I feel about the current Republican
Administration
> > and their claim that all of these "little" towers on the block are
"rural".
> > Maybe you could pick out the distorted "half truths" in the NATCA ad and
> > debunk them here on the forum.
> >
> The commercial implies that the entire ATC system is going to be auctioned
> off by HR 2115. This is an outright lie.

How can an implication be an "outright lie"? An outright lie is something
like the DOT IG's claim to Congress that 75% of the FAA's enroute ARTCC's
are "overstaffed."


>They don't even resort to your
> slippery slope argument.
>As far as anybody who really doesn't know what's
> going on, this has nothing to do with 69 towers, it's the end of the world
as
> we know it when it comes to ATC.

I agree with you there. It is not the end of the world when it comes to
ATC. It is simply the beginning of the end of it for American General
Aviation. ATC will survive, but it will become the servant of a new master-
big business catering to big airlines. Mark my words, by the time 2020
rolls around, you will be paying so much money in ATC user fees, GA will be
an exclusive province of the rich and privileged. Why? Because in 2008,
when they begin to dismantle the rest of the system, piece by piece, this
first defeat will be fait accompli. Too bad I can't make any Hitler
references.

>
> NATCA and any other lobbying group does itself a great disservice by
> resorting to hysteria rather than sane persuasion. All that's going to
happen
> out of this is that a lot of congressional staffers are going to have to
explain
> the truth to the few people who take NATCA's recommendation of voting
> down all of 2115 to let them know what the issue really is.

Sane persuasion? Let's review, shall we? NATCA and AOPA won a major
victory in both Houses of Congress at the beginning of summer. They used
sane persuasion against the AAAE, CTA, ATA, PATCO and even against the
Administration and the FAA itself to argue against allowing federal ATC to
become a commercial endeavor. The House and the Senate both passed bills
that prohibited the FAA from contracting out ATC services (other than what
was already contracted out) until a further act of Congress (i.e.-
indefinite
and "permanent" language). AOPA and NATCA declared victory. The White
House threatened veto.

At the end of the summer, both versions of the legislation went to
Conference to be reconciled. During the closed door reconciliation hearing,
the FAA cut a deal with Don Young (R-AK) to protect the federal ATC
facilities in his home state. Young and the staffers of the Republicans in
the conference then inserted (quid pro quo) the contract ATC language that
had been expressly defeated by the full House and the full Senate six weeks
earlier. The Democrats in the conference refused to sign and walked out of
the conference. The Administration, , FAA, ATA, AAAE, CTA and PATCO all
declared victory. AOPA looked at the new law as re-written and decided that
since it had other provisions in it that were good for GA that they could
live with the sunset clause and the contracting out of the 69 towers. Thus,
AOPA abandoned the fight.

Exactly what hope does NATCA have of using sane persuasion to defeat a
steamrolled bill when her major ally defects to the opposing camp? Sane
persuasion worked in June when Congress voted the first time. It was
defeated in the Night of the Long Knives during the conference. The issue
*really is* contract ATC services to be performed by the lowest bidder. If
(or when, LOL) Vision 100 becomes law, the battle is lost. I don't really
think NATCA is doing itself a disservice at all by being hysterical. The
real fight is right bow, and NATCA is losing. What harm done by going full
bore to the public right now and make them aware of the issues. I promise
you that many those who are calling Congressional staffers aren't going to
hear the "real issues" the way AOPA, ATA, PATCO and other organizations
currently describe them. That's about the only play NATCA has left, IMO.

>
> I'll let people listen to this drivel and decide for themselves:
> http://www.natca.org/assets/Multimedia/auction_ad.rm
>
> They lose the good message about the problems with privatization with the
> wildass opening statement:
>
> A bill is in Washington that put air safety on the auction block.

What is inaccurate about this statement? A Bill *is* in Washington that
will put air safety on the auction block. ATC towers are engaged in the air
safety business. If this legislation passes, 69 of those towers will be
auctioned off to the lowest bidder. What is "drivel" about that statement?

>The bill
> would sell off the world's safest air traffic control system to the lowest
bidder.
>
> The "SYSTEM" is not 69 control towers.

69 control towers are not all that this bill specifically threatens by
legislation. The entire federal system sunsets in 2007. The 69 towers are
just the beginning. I grant you it is a stretch to claim that the bill
sells off the entire system right now upon passage, but I do not believe
that it is much of a stretch to see that wholesale privatization becomes a
wide open prospect once the bill becomes law. Because it does. NATCA will
likely lose this fight on this bill because NATCA is now standing alone, but
American GA will be the ultimate victim.


> The contracting out process is not "auctioning off to the lowest bidder"

It's not? How would you describe the "contracting out process?"

Chip, ZTL

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
news:bf37b.9672
> > >
> > > Funny Ron, that's the way I feel about the current Republican
> Administration
> > > and their claim that all of these "little" towers on the block are
"rural".
> > > Maybe you could pick out the distorted "half truths" in the NATCA ad
and
> > > debunk them here on the forum.
> > >
> > The commercial implies that the entire ATC system is going to be
auctioned
> > off by HR 2115. This is an outright lie.
>
> How can an implication be an "outright lie"? An outright lie is something
> like the DOT IG's claim to Congress that 75% of the FAA's enroute ARTCC's
> are "overstaffed."

I'd have to go with Mead.

[Andrew Gideon]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> Pretty tough to see how you could keep the 172 farther from the 747 than
> the 747 is from the 172.

Why must distance be a symetric relationship? I'm sure that a privatized
ATC would do away with such silly assumptions.

More seriously: that's not quite what I meant. I'm thinking of a "bubble"
of a certain size that must be kept clear. I'm sure there's an official
term, but I don't know it.

I'd imagine that this "bubble" needs to be larger around a fast-mover than a
slow-mover. In other words, a sky of 172s could be permitted to be more
densely packed than a sky of 747s.

At least, that's my assumption. I've no idea whether or not it's correct.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Tom S. wrote:

> Like the phone companies...the Postal (dis)service...

Or like the distribution of electricity.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Chip Jones wrote:

> We fear that
> privatization will place us into an environment where the contractor
> pushes us to cut major safety corners (you know, in the name of
> "efficiency") and then when people get hurt or airplanes get too close,
> the poor SOB working the sector will get fired for "poor job performance"
> rather than the contractor getting sacked for putting the controller in
> that situation and
> the people in the airplanes in that situation.

From reading postings here by ATC-ers, I thought that the above was
occurring today in some places in the current system.

- Andrew

[Chip Jones]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
[snipped]
> >
> > How can an implication be an "outright lie"? An outright lie is
something
> > like the DOT IG's claim to Congress that 75% of the FAA's enroute
ARTCC's
> > are "overstaffed."
>
> I'd have to go with Mead.
>

That doesn't surprise me.

Chip, ZTL

[Chip Jones]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > [snipped]
> > > >
> > > > How can an implication be an "outright lie"? An outright lie is
> > something
> > > > like the DOT IG's claim to Congress that 75% of the FAA's enroute
> > ARTCC's
> > > > are "overstaffed."
> > >
> > > I'd have to go with Mead.
> > >
> >
> > That doesn't surprise me.
>
> He is my hand picked guy. Back when I used a first amendment petition to
> get the ACOs to produce qualified degignees, Mead at GAO was also involved
> on the MIDO side; with the same issue. Mead was removed from aviation
> issues at GAO, as punnishment for being honest. I used my Congressman's
> staff to put Mead at USDOT, as I felt it was a huge waste of 20 years of
> aviation experiance. I talked to Ken after that and he got a nice raise
to
> be IG.
>

Ah, now it all becomes clear. YOU put Mead where he is. That explains why
he knows as much about Air Traffic Control as you do. Thanks for clearing
that up for me.

Chip, ZTL

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> > > > ink.net...
> > > [snipped]
> > > > >
> > > > > How can an implication be an "outright lie"? An outright lie is
> > > something
> > > > > like the DOT IG's claim to Congress that 75% of the FAA's enroute
> > > ARTCC's
> > > > > are "overstaffed."
> > > >
> > > > I'd have to go with Mead.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That doesn't surprise me.
> >
> > He is my hand picked guy. Back when I used a first amendment petition
to
> > get the ACOs to produce qualified degignees, Mead at GAO was also
involved
> > on the MIDO side; with the same issue. Mead was removed from aviation
> > issues at GAO, as punnishment for being honest. I used my Congressman's
> > staff to put Mead at USDOT, as I felt it was a huge waste of 20 years of
> > aviation experiance. I talked to Ken after that and he got a nice raise
to
> > be IG.
> >
>
> Ah, now it all becomes clear. YOU put Mead where he is.

I made it possible for Mead to go where he is. Anytime a civil servant is
removed from an issue, they require an advocate to bring them back. It
helped that my Congressman was Chair of Government Oversight and Reform back
then, he is now Chair of Ways and Means. The reform of FAA has been a very
effective Republican political issue, not to mention the lives that have
been saved.

> That explains why
> he knows as much about Air Traffic Control as you do.

LOL

If you say so. Perhaps your partisanship to the issue has blinded you. I
seriously doubt either of us knows as much about air traffic control as
Mead.

> Thanks for clearing
> that up for me.

Mead is an honest guy, who tells it like it is.

[Tom S.]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Actually those companies make up perhaps 25% of the market. Semicondutor
> market will be about $170B this year. Also note that MOT's semiconductor
> business doesn't make money very often.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
Yup...I was thinking of CPU's and the like. 'Scuze me.

[journeyman]

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 16:00:25 -0400, Andrew Gideon
> wrote:
>
>More seriously: that's not quite what I meant. I'm thinking of a "bubble"
>of a certain size that must be kept clear. I'm sure there's an official
>term, but I don't know it.
>
>I'd imagine that this "bubble" needs to be larger around a fast-mover than a
>slow-mover. In other words, a sky of 172s could be permitted to be more
>densely packed than a sky of 747s.
>
>At least, that's my assumption. I've no idea whether or not it's correct.

Not. The "bubble" is the same size (5 miles for ARTCC?). This means
that a sky full of 747s can be packed as densely as a sky full of 172s.
What really messes up the works is a mixed sky of fast-movers and
slow-movers.


Morris (slow mover)

[Tom S.]

"journeyman" > wrote in message
u.com...
> What really messes up the works is a mixed sky of fast-movers and
> slow-movers.

Kinda like the freeway at rush hour.

[Everett M. Greene]

"Tarver Engineering" > writes:
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
[snip]
> > Ah, now it all becomes clear. YOU put Mead where he is.
>
> I made it possible for Mead to go where he is. Anytime a civil servant is
> removed from an issue, they require an advocate to bring them back. It
> helped that my Congressman was Chair of Government Oversight and Reform back
> then, he is now Chair of Ways and Means. The reform of FAA has been a very
> effective Republican political issue, not to mention the lives that have
> been saved.

You mean you got him to do something for one of his constituents?
I thought he last represented his district 20 years ago when he
understood that DoD operations impact a large portion of the
people of his district. He's now so busy wheeling and dealing
inside the Beltway that I'm not certain he could find his
district on a map.

[Andrew Gideon]

journeyman wrote:

>>At least, that's my assumption. I've no idea whether or not it's correct.
>
> Not. The "bubble" is the same size (5 miles for ARTCC?).

Interesting, and somewhat surprising to me. If you view separation as a
function of time (ie. targets are separated based upon how much time it
would take for them to reach one another), this model appears to offer the
fast-movers less of a cushion.

Ah, well. It'll certainly not be the last thing that surprises me.

- Andrew

[Ron Natalie]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> journeyman wrote:
>
>>> At least, that's my assumption. I've no idea whether or not it's correct.
>>
>> Not. The "bubble" is the same size (5 miles for ARTCC?).
>
> Interesting, and somewhat surprising to me. If you view separation as a
> function of time (ie. targets are separated based upon how much time it
> would take for them to reach one another), this model appears to offer the
> fast-movers less of a cushion.

No, it's not an issue of time to act so much as it is the certainty of the location of
the aircraft. It's the controller's job to take into account the relative speeds of the
aircraft and to act so that the 5 mile bubbles don't burst. He has to look further
ahead of faster movers.

[Andrew Gideon]

Ron Natalie wrote:


> No, it's not an issue of time to act so much as it is the certainty of the
> location of
> the aircraft.

I'd think both were factors. That is, a fast-mover can move further from
it's last known point between RADAR queries, and a fast-mover can move
further between the time it takes to notice a problem and correct it.

> It's the controller's job to take into account the
> relative speeds of the
> aircraft and to act so that the 5 mile bubbles don't burst. He has to
> look further ahead of faster movers.

Ah...so there's a second bubble. One is the legal "requirement", and the
other is what is used for planning into the future.

That makes sense to me.

However (and this is where the thread diverged onto this subtopic), doesn't
that "look further ahead" warrant an increased ATC service fee <grin>?

- Andrew

[Tarver Engineering]

"Everett M. Greene" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > writes:
> > "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> [snip]
> > > Ah, now it all becomes clear. YOU put Mead where he is.
> >
> > I made it possible for Mead to go where he is. Anytime a civil servant
is
> > removed from an issue, they require an advocate to bring them back. It
> > helped that my Congressman was Chair of Government Oversight and Reform
back
> > then, he is now Chair of Ways and Means. The reform of FAA has been a
very
> > effective Republican political issue, not to mention the lives that have
> > been saved.
>
> You mean you got him to do something for one of his constituents?

Yes. Several years ago we had a box installed IAW AC143.13, instead of our
installation manual. The report back was, "cockpit filled with smoke" and
so Iwent down to the ACO to get athority to write the installs myself. I
discovered that Douglas didn't want professional engineers and I couldn't
play. FAA thought I was very funny when I expected them to fix their
problem.

> I thought he last represented his district 20 years ago when he
> understood that DoD operations impact a large portion of the
> people of his district. He's now so busy wheeling and dealing
> inside the Beltway that I'm not certain he could find his
> district on a map.

Thomas still comes here and meets the Republicans.

[John]

Well it is and it is not, one needs to know a little about govenment
to understand the system. Just like commercial fuel taxes at the gas
station pays for the interstate highway system, the fuel tax and other
fees pay for the airway jetroute system. Each system of
transportation is mostly self supporting.

It is also very interesting how much each system ties into the other.
Ever wonder why a VFR C150 can fly into ORD on the busiest day and why
at such a busy commerical place they dont try and restrict slow
private aircraft. Once they do, then Grayhound Bus could demand the
same thing over the George Washington Bridge into NYC. And we all
know the little guy driving the VW Bug has the same right to the road
as the driver of the Greyhound bus.











"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message >...
> "Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > My understanding:
> > The system as it is currently financed is from fuel and gate (ticket)
> > taxes. The system is not only self supporting, but actually
> > accumulates money. Unfortunately the way the system is set up the FAA
> > has to justify the money they spend as if it comes from the general
> > fund. Only those who fly and use aviation fuel are paying in to the
> > system, not he general taxpayer.
> >
> > It is one of the few government agencies that has been self
> > supporting, even if it does have some problems. Many of which are due
> > to the way congress lets them have their own money.
> >
>
> My understanding is that Air Traffic is about 85% funded by the trust fund,
> at least it was several years ago. It shouldn't be funded exclusively from
> aviation taxes because Air Traffic also provides services to the military.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Ever wonder why a VFR C150 can fly into ORD on the busiest day and why
> at such a busy commerical place they dont try and restrict slow
> private aircraft.
>

A VFR C150 can't fly into ORD on the busiest day and private aircraft of all
speeds are restricted at such busy airports. ORD is in Class B airspace and
on the busiest day a VFR aircraft seeking entry will be told to remain clear
of the Class B airspace. ORD is a high density traffic airport under FAR
Part 93, it is limited to just ten IFR operations per hour by general
aviation aircraft.