Proposal Shifts Command of ATC Workforce to the Military.

This sounds like a bad idea to me:


-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 9, Number 44a October 26, 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------

With the House and Senate (not to mention Republicans and Democrats)
still wrangling over language about privatization in that FAA funding
bill, a bit more fuel was added to the fire last week. Rep. John Mica
(R-Fla.), chair of the House Aviation Subcommittee, proposed shifting
command of the air traffic control workforce to the military. Mica
plans to hold a hearing Nov. 6 to discuss the possibility. National
Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) President John Carr said
Mica's idea "recognizes the inherently governmental function of air
traffic control, although we believe the military's priority should be
military air traffic control, not civilian," Congress Daily reported
last Wednesday. However, such a move would prevent air traffic
controllers from joining a union, according to Congress Daily. Carr
also expressed concern that a military currently fighting the war on
terror in Iraq and Afghanistan may already be spread too thin to take
on the responsibility of the domestic air traffic control system. Of
course, it goes without saying that NATCA would oppose any move that
would eliminate union representation for the controllers. "We think we
should stick with the system we have now," NATCA spokesman Doug Church
told AVweb over the weekend. "It's the best system in the world."

Larry Dighera wrote:

This sounds like a bad idea to me:

Doesn't sound good to me either. I took a tour of McGuire AFB a couple years
ago. They had staffing problems. This was before Iraq, and they had several
civilian controllers manning screens 'cause there weren't enough military ones
to go around. They said lots of them only do one hitch and it takes much of
that enlistment to train them.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

On 10/28/2003 6:30 AM after considerable forethought, G.R. Patterson III
wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:

This sounds like a bad idea to me:


Doesn't sound good to me either. I took a tour of McGuire AFB a couple years
ago. They had staffing problems. This was before Iraq, and they had several
civilian controllers manning screens 'cause there weren't enough military ones
to go around. They said lots of them only do one hitch and it takes much of
that enlistment to train them.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

I think the current trend is to privatize even the military ATC.
Vandenburg AFB CA is now staffed by a private company "freeing up
military personnel".

Steve P

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

This sounds like a bad idea to me:


It is a laughable idea, proposed by a Congressman who is personally ****ed
off at NATCA for embarrassing him over the FAA Reauthorization fight. His
idea is that if ATC were "militarized" then there could be no union. Mr.
Mica apparently didn't even serve in the military himself, and he
has no idea just how thinly stretched it is right now. At least he's
playing right into the hands of the union he blames for blocking
privatization, because the military is inherently governmental (at least
until big business figures out a profitable, "cost saving" way to spin
the use of US mercenary units in the defense of the Republic, LOL).

Chip, ZTL

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:03:35 GMT, "Chip Jones"
wrote:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

This sounds like a bad idea to me:


It is a laughable idea, proposed by a Congressman who is personally ****ed
off at NATCA for embarrassing him over the FAA Reauthorization fight.

How was he embarrassed?

[...]

At least he's playing right into the hands of
the union he blames for blocking privatization, ...

I was under the impression that AOPA backed Mica's budget proposal,
because he inserted language that staved off ATC privatization for 4
years. But that must have been another congressman considering your
assertion.

At least Mica's finally got one thing right.

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...03-4-047x.html
Mica said he wants security issues based on "risk and common
sense, not bureaucracy."