ATC User Fees

More port for big business?



-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 11, Number 17a -- April 25, 2005

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

D.C. LOOKS AT PRIVATIZATION...
The House Aviation Subcommittee last Wednesday held a hearing on
the commercialization of air traffic services, saying the FAA is
now in crisis and at a "crossroads." The FAA has failed to meet
schedules and deploy new technology despite billions of dollars in
spending, the committee said. At least 30 other countries have
switched from government services to private providers. The
committee heard testimony from representatives of Nav Canada and a
German air-traffic agency, but noted that in terms of operational
scale and airspace complexity it is difficult to compare the U.S.
National Airspace System and foreign systems.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#189632

...AS NATCA RESPONDS
U.S. air traffic controllers handle more than 64 million takeoffs
and landings each year, and Cleveland controllers alone handle
more operations annually than Canada's entire privatized system
... according to the National Air Traffic Controllers Association
(NATCA). NATCA President John Carr last week spoke out against
privatization. "We have the world's safest, largest and most
complex system. Why in the world would we ever dream of changing
it?" Carr said. "Risking the public's safety by putting air
traffic control up for sale should never be an option." The fiscal
crunch at the FAA is also raising more fears of user fees.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#189633

In a previous article, Larry Dighera said:
and landings each year, and Cleveland controllers alone handle
more operations annually than Canada's entire privatized system

Misleading if not outright lies.

According to NavCanada, they handle 11 million operations per year.
According to the FAA, Cleveland Center handles 3 million operations per
year.

Possibly they're counting Cleveland Center *plus* every take off and
landing handled by the controllers at the airports within the Cleveland
Center zone. But that's misleading too, because an aircraft that took off
from, say, Detroit and landed at, say, Pittsburg would could as three
operations then, but with NavCanada's integrated system, a similar flight
from Toronto to Montreal, or even Toronto to Vancouver, would only count
as one.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"The first rule of Usenet Cabal is: you do not talk about Usenet Cabal."

If I thought they would truly privatize ATC, I'd be for it. It would be
wonderful to truly take advantage of modern technology in a way that only
private business can roll out and employ.

However, you *know* what would happen. It would be "privatized" in the
same way that Chicago Tollways are "privatized", and become nothing but
sink-holes for graft and kickbacks.

Or, worse, it would be "privatized" like the Postal Service, or Medicare --
both of which exist in a half-private/half-public netherworld that seems to
combine the worst of both worlds...

At the moment I'm of the mind that if it's working, don't screw with it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:Srpce.26243$c24.22849@attbi_s72...

If I thought they would truly privatize ATC, I'd be for it. It would be
wonderful to truly take advantage of modern technology in a way that only
private business can roll out and employ.


To truly privatize it would require free market competition among providers
of ATC services. That simply is not possible.

To truly privatize it would require free market competition among
providers
of ATC services. That simply is not possible.

Exactly.

Economic sectors where only monopoly businesses can function pretty much
defines (in my mind) where "government" should exist.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:2mqce.34479$r53.15777@attbi_s21...
To truly privatize it would require free market competition among
providers
of ATC services. That simply is not possible.

They used to say that the phone company or the utility companies needed to
be monopolies.


Exactly.

Economic sectors where only monopoly businesses can function pretty much
defines (in my mind) where "government" should exist.

Such as?

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

They used to say that the phone company or the utility companies needed to
be monopolies.


That's not quite the same situation. True competition between phone and
utility companies would require each company to create their own
distribution networks in the same area. Separate phone, gas, and electrical
lines for each company. It could be done but at greater cost to the
consumer and less profit for the company.

You could have separate ATC providers, each providing their own
infrastructure in the form of radar sites, radio transceivers, etc., but
their clients would all be operating in the same airspace. Customers of
Acme ATC would be separated from other Acme ATC customers, and Consolidated
ATC clients would be separated from each other, but Acme ATC customers could
not be separated from Consolidated ATC clients.

"Matt Barrow" writes:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:2mqce.34479$r53.15777@attbi_s21...
To truly privatize it would require free market competition among
providers
of ATC services. That simply is not possible.

They used to say that the phone company or the utility companies needed to
be monopolies.

And, in fact, there is only *one* gas pipe, *one* water pipe, *one*
sewer pipe running down the street out front of my house. And only
*one* set of electrical wires in the neighborhood. And *one* set of
phone wires. And *one* set of cable company coax.

It's possible to multiplex services from different companies on them,
to some extent. It's not very meaningful for the water, phone,
electricity, or sewer; for the phone wires, also used for DSL, it
actually seems to work well to allow multiple ISPs to connect
through those lines. But tht's because it's a separate run from the
switching office to each house, whereas all the rest use shared
wiring/piping.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:

To truly privatize it would require free market competition among providers
of ATC services. That simply is not possible.

If you look at ATC services as being people who talk to you on the
radio and tell you where to go, then you're probably right. It's hard
to see how there could be competing services with that system.
However, if you look at ATC services as primarily being separation and
sequencing into the busiest airports, then I think we can find
different mechanisms for those that might allow for competition.

Start with a decent spec for air to air datalink and once pilots can
"see" other traffic, they can supply their own separation.
Competition is now between the vendors of radios that provide this
service.

Sequencing is a little harder but not much. The easy way out is to
say that it's still done by people on the ground talking on radios and
the competition is simply that which comes from bidding on the
contract to execute this service for the various airports that need
it.

I think a better answer would be to extend the datalink system so that
it could transmit approach corridor information to inbound aircraft
who then sequence themselves through different approach gates sorted
by speed.

I'm not sure we're ready to replace tower controllers with something
like this though Canada's idea of Mandatory Frequency airports is one
option that could reduce the number of airports that need towers.

-Dave

"David Bridgham" wrote in message
...

If you look at ATC services as being people who talk to you on the
radio and tell you where to go, then you're probably right. It's hard
to see how there could be competing services with that system.
However, if you look at ATC services as primarily being separation and
sequencing into the busiest airports, then I think we can find
different mechanisms for those that might allow for competition.

Start with a decent spec for air to air datalink and once pilots can
"see" other traffic, they can supply their own separation.
Competition is now between the vendors of radios that provide this
service.


I don't see any free market competition among providers of ATC services
there. It appears to me you've eliminated the provision of ATC services!
Who then is responsible for separation?



Sequencing is a little harder but not much. The easy way out is to
say that it's still done by people on the ground talking on radios and
the competition is simply that which comes from bidding on the
contract to execute this service for the various airports that need
it.


But then there'd be no free market competition among providers of ATC
services.