"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.