Control Tower Controversy brewing in the FAA

Paul Tomblin wrote:

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?


Because seafood inspectors are like FAA inspectors; inherently governmental.

ATC, on the other hand, provides a non-regulatory aircraft separation
service, with some secondary, also, non-regulatory, services.

The air traffic service takes such a giant bite out of the FAA budget that
the agency's regulatory duties (pilot and aircraft certification, design and
issuance of instrument flight procedures, etc) are seriously hurting. This
has been aggravated by the mandated security functions the FAA must now
provide, post 911.

The time might be overdue for the controller workforce to negotiate with a
private employer rather than the FAA Administrator.

wrote in message ...


Paul Tomblin wrote:

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?


Because seafood inspectors are like FAA inspectors; inherently
governmental.

ATC, on the other hand, provides a non-regulatory aircraft separation
service, with some secondary, also, non-regulatory, services.

Considering what government _IS_, why would this be a government function?

That gives me a warm fuzzy. Knowing the separation of aircraft in IFR
weather is done by low bidder's and profit based.


wrote in message ...


Paul Tomblin wrote:

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?


Because seafood inspectors are like FAA inspectors; inherently
governmental.

ATC, on the other hand, provides a non-regulatory aircraft separation
service, with some secondary, also, non-regulatory, services.

The air traffic service takes such a giant bite out of the FAA budget that
the agency's regulatory duties (pilot and aircraft certification, design
and
issuance of instrument flight procedures, etc) are seriously hurting.
This
has been aggravated by the mandated security functions the FAA must now
provide, post 911.

The time might be overdue for the controller workforce to negotiate with a
private employer rather than the FAA Administrator.

"vincent p. norris" wrote:

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?

Duh - of course everyone knows that. That doesn't answer the question
though.

I have seen nothing to suggest that privatizing air traffic control
services would meet any need of society. It would, however, make
SOMEBODY a bunh of money. "Philosophy" aside, I see absolutely no
benefit to privatizing ATC services - certainly not based on the
experiences of ATC privatization elsewhere.

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!"

So we now have increasing privatization of the military, the US Postal
Service is no longer run by the goverment, and Ashcroft wants to know
what books you've been reading at the library, a look at your credit
report, and what web sites you'be been looking at before he'll let you
fly to Dinseyland. How very eloquent.

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

Who stands to gain from ATC privatization?

I have seen nothing to suggest that privatizing air traffic control
services would meet any need of society. It would, however, make
SOMEBODY a bunh of money. "Philosophy" aside, I see absolutely no
benefit to privatizing ATC services - certainly not based on the
experiences of ATC privatization elsewhere.

In Australia our ATC has been 'corporatised' for several years now
and they into a 'cost minimisation/recovery' mode.,
ie. no face-to-face briefing offices, fees for IFR operations,
fees for landings at towered airports, charges for not lodging
flight-plans via the internet, and with the upcomming NAS revamp
there will be less enroute services in outback areas.
(and that's just ATC., the private airports have their own fees)

The only way a private operator will even think about running *any*
ATC system is if they can make a profit from it. This means either
recovering *all* costs from the end-users, or else by getting a subsidy
from the government.
If there are subsidies then the total cost will probably be *more*
than if the government provides the services themselves.

MC wrote:

Who stands to gain from ATC privatization?

I have seen nothing to suggest that privatizing air traffic control
services would meet any need of society. It would, however, make
SOMEBODY a bunch of money. "Philosophy" aside, I see absolutely no
benefit to privatizing ATC services - certainly not based on the
experiences of ATC privatization elsewhere.

In Australia our ATC has been 'corporatised' for several years now
and they into a 'cost minimisation/recovery' mode.,
ie. no face-to-face briefing offices, fees for IFR operations,
fees for landings at towered airports, charges for not lodging
flight-plans via the internet, and with the upcomming NAS revamp
there will be less enroute services in outback areas.
(and that's just ATC., the private airports have their own fees)

The only way a private operator will even think about running *any*
ATC system is if they can make a profit from it. This means either
recovering *all* costs from the end-users, or else by getting a subsidy
from the government.
If there are subsidies then the total cost will probably be *more*
than if the government provides the services themselves.

Of course - and all this is EXACTLY what we in the US should expect if the
Bush adminstration has its way and privatizes ATC. Your description of
the Australian experience with privatized ATC mirrors everything I've
heard about similar initiatives in other countries.

I have yet to hear a single credible benefit that ATC privatization would
provide. Only ideological rhetoric (oh, and somebody will pocket a bunch
of money). I also have yet to hear any evidence to suggest that whatever
shortcomings that the existing system may have are caused by the fact that
it's run by the government. The downsides of privatizing seem crystal
clear though. Yet Bush is intent on ramming it down the nation's throat.
WHY?

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

"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...."


COMMENTS:
I completely agree that there is an alternative driving force behind this.
Once of the funny things that I see is that if the white house were to
privatize the ATC functions it would have just another person to blame
outside the government for its failure to fix security related issues, the
increase in traffic as seen at airports (delays, longer holding patterns,
etc). If they really wanted to fix this issue they should probably start by
giving airports more grants and funding to accomplish advances in ATC
instead of trying to privatize it and then point the finger later at the
contractors failures. The federal government has pretty much failed in
regard to making these systems better for pilots. Instead of changing the
people they should change the bogus TFR's that pop up out of nowhere and
serve no real purpose. Im tired for one of a government that restricts the
population for its own personal uses and gains (or the gains of those
elected). If each one of the elected officials in Washington were affected
by TFR's, privatization of ATC and other issues you can bet that the rules
of engagement would have changed and for one the ADIZ in Washington DC
(which serves no purpose to prevent terrorism at all) would have been
removed by now. As I see it at 400MPH they could'nt stop a jetliner in time
anyway with the size of the ADIZ. Anyway im not gonna ramble on. I think the
entire system needs to be looked at and changed.

Kevin Wetzel
ISP Toolz
http://www.isptoolz.com/

"Kevin Wetzel - ISP Toolz" wrote in message
...

"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?

Payroll is where the money is.

The Bush administration sure does seem to have a major bug up its ass
about forcing ATC privatization - WHY?

Cheaper and safer?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

cheaper I might agree with... but safer??

maybe safer for the gov't that does not have to face a law suit when a gov't
controller "screws the deal" and ends up facing a lawsuit.. like the two
that hit at an cross intersection.. or what has been in all the aviation
mags lately.. the "position and hold" clearance down field, in front of
another aircraft that was "cleared for take off" at the beginning of the
runway.. tower thought the "position and hold" aircraft was also using full
length, not an intersection departure..

so the pilots (or surviving families) sue the "private ATC company" for the
screw up.. and not the gov't..

hence.. it is safer for the gov't

BT
"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

The Bush administration sure does seem to have a major bug up its ass
about forcing ATC privatization - WHY?

Cheaper and safer?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com