Control Tower Controversy brewing in the FAA

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

Dear Mr. Secretary:

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,


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

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

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

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

"Follow the money...."

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

Bob Gardner

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

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

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

"Follow the money...."

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

Bob Gardner

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

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

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

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

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

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

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


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

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

--
Chris Hoffmann
Student Pilot @ UES
20 hrs

"Chris Hoffmann" wrote in message
...
"Tom S." wrote in message
...

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

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

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


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

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


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

So you AGREE with MacCauley?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Who stands to gain from ATC privatization?

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

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

vince norris

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

vince norris