If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in message hlink.net... "Mark Kolber" wrote in message ... [snipped] I think it ultimately comes down to this: The conference report that NATCA is complaining about permits privatization to a larger degree than the original House version and to a much larger degree than the Senate version. Bingo. Both the House and the Senate voted on bills that *prohibited* ATC privatization beyond the current contract tower program. The FAA lobbied against the bills as passed. The White House threatened a veto. The House and Senate bills went into the reconciliation process as an AOPA/NATCA victory against ATC privatization. During the reconciliation process, the conferees, under intense White House pressure, re-wrote the language in such a way that FAA VFR towers not currently privatized may be contracted out. There are 71 of those towers. 2 of them are in Alaska (PAMR and PAJN). The Administration agreed that the two Alaska towers in contention (both in the home state of Don Young, R- Alaska chairman of the reconcioliation conference) could stay FAA, leaving the other 69 to be contracted out. Also, rather than indefinitely prohibiting by law further outsourcing of other Federal ATC services (like Tracons and Centers), the reconciliation conference put into effect a "sunset clause", making 2007 the year that wholesale privatization of the system becomes possible. This disturbs controllers because both the Republican House and the Republican Senate voted decisively vefore the summer recess to prohibit ATC privatization. The Reconciliation team inserted the new language when they "reconciled" the two bills, LOL. Further disturbing controllers is that AOPA abandoned the fight at this point because other provisions of the reconciled bill are GA friendly. The fact remains, ATC is statistically the largest killer of common carrier passengers, except terrorists. Failure to maintain seperation cost the system a fortune in 737 PCUs that had no problem. Automation is something ATC Union has blocked for 30 years and it is time to correct the problem. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in message link.net... "John Smith" wrote in message ... [snipped] NATCA factually reports that the Congress is about to authorize ATC privatization by allowing the FAA to offer 69 FAA air traffic control towers to the lowest private sector bidder. I bid $1 - is that low enough to get them? How about 1c? How about just giving me the lot. Surely you mean the highest bidder?????? Err, no. I mean *lowest* bidder. The idea is to save money. The FAA (and your taxes) pays for the infrastructure. No, the idea is to find a way around ATC unions blocking automation. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in message
link.net... But not something that was in either the House bill or the Senate bill that was being reconciled. So? What's that got to do with the price of tea in China? What an interesting point to bring up. Let's see, and KCGX is what now, other than permanently *closed*? For reasons completely unrelated to the original agreements. The "sunset" language in the original agreements had NOTHING to do with the closure of Meigs. In fact, everyone agrees that the closure of Meigs was *CONTRARY TO* the agreements that included the sunset language. Surely you can see the difference. Surely you're not trying to say that the existence of sunset language in the Meigs agreement, along with the subsequent closure of the field support your assertions regarding this bill. Right? If not, then I suppose I'm starting to get an idea of why you're so upset about this bill. Pete |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Chip Jones" wrote in message [snippd] I asked for quotes. I know how to get the bill. But you're the one who's saying it privitizes ATC. Show me where it says that. I looked at the quotes Mark provided. All I see is language that *prohibits* the privitization of ATC, but which makes clear that the *existing* contract tower program is still legal. Since you are so sure of yourself, perhaps you could explain what language is found elsewhere in the bill that overrides the language presented so far. Here is a synopisis. 119. PROHIBITION ON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PRIVATIZATION House bill Prohibits DOT from privatizing the functions performed by its air traffic controllers who separate and control aircraft. States that this prohibition does not apply to the functions performed at air traffic control towers that are operated by private entities under the FAA's contract tower program. This exemption covers the current air traffic control towers that are part of the FAA contract tower program and to non-towered airports and non-federal towers that would qualify for participation in this program. Senate amendment Prohibits DOT from privatizing the functions performed by its air traffic controllers who separate and control aircraft and the functions of those who maintain and certify those systems. Section shall not apply to an FAA tower operated under the contract tower program as of the date of enactment. Conference substitute Prohibits DOT from privatizing air traffic control functions associated with the separation and control of aircraft, but ensures that the current contract tower program can continue and be expanded to new towers and VFR towers. The prohibition sunsets after 4 years. You can verify the accuracy of this synopsis by researching the House Bill, the Senate version of the language, and then the Conference substitute that will soon become law if NATCA loses her fight in the next few days. Or you can believe AOPA. Chip, ZTL |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in message news:POo5b.26667 119. PROHIBITION ON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PRIVATIZATION \ The converence report (which has yet to be acted on): (a) IN GENERAL- Until October 1, 2007, the Secretary of Transportation may not authorize the transfer of the air traffic separation and control functions operated by the Federal Aviation Administration on the date of enactment of this Act to a private entity or to a public entity other than the United State Government. (b) LIMITATION- Subsection (a) shall not apply-- (1) to a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control tower operated under the contract tower program on the date of enactment of this Act; (2) to any expansion of that program through new construction under subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code; or (3) to a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control tower (other than towers in Alaska) identified in the Report of the Department of Transportation Inspector General dated April 12, 2000, and designated `Contract Towers: Observations on the Federal Aviation Administration's Study of Expanding the Program'. What is added is the sunset limitation. This is really not much of an issue as it's off 3 fiscal years and most likely would be modified by a subsequent reauthorization bill. It's purely wishful thinking on someone's part that it wouldn't be modified before then. So that brings us the new langauge added as item (b)(3) above. The referenced document is he http://www.oig.dot.gov/show_pdf.php?id=95 Essentially, this opens up 71 VFR towers to possible consideration for contracting out. However, none of this is really how most people (other than the federal ATC employees and their union) define the core privatization issue. AOPA clearly has to pick their battles on where they throw their weight. The possible subbing out of controller jobs in these facilities is just not worth them fighting over and the influence this has on their membership (GA pilots/owners) is negligable. If NATCA forces the conference report down, then we're likely to hurt badly as it will possibly hold up the reauthorization bill past the fiscal year deadlines. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message m... "Chip Jones" wrote in message news:POo5b.26667 119. PROHIBITION ON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PRIVATIZATION \ The converence report (which has yet to be acted on): (a) IN GENERAL- Until October 1, 2007, the Secretary of Transportation may not authorize the transfer of the air traffic separation and control functions operated by the Federal Aviation Administration on the date of enactment of this Act to a private entity or to a public entity other than the United State Government. (b) LIMITATION- Subsection (a) shall not apply-- (1) to a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control tower operated under the contract tower program on the date of enactment of this Act; (2) to any expansion of that program through new construction under subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code; or (3) to a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control tower (other than towers in Alaska) identified in the Report of the Department of Transportation Inspector General dated April 12, 2000, and designated `Contract Towers: Observations on the Federal Aviation Administration's Study of Expanding the Program'. What is added is the sunset limitation. This is really not much of an issue as it's off 3 fiscal years and most likely would be modified by a subsequent reauthorization bill. It's purely wishful thinking on someone's part that it wouldn't be modified before then. I disagree. The sunset limitation was added during the conference. Both the House and the Senate Bill expressly forbade ATC privatization indefinitely. This battle was fought and won by both NATCA and AOPA in both houses of the Congress. The addition of sunset language in Conference that did not exist in either version of the Bill is extraordinary. So that brings us the new langauge added as item (b)(3) above. The referenced document is he http://www.oig.dot.gov/show_pdf.php?id=95 Essentially, this opens up 71 VFR towers to possible consideration for contracting out. Negative. Essentially, this opens up 69 VFR towers to contracting out, not 71. All 71 towers have already been considered. However, Don Young (R-AK) was chairman of the reconciliation Conference. The FAA and the Administration agreed to take the two Alaska FAA VFR towers off of the privatization table. Why? 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? However, none of this is really how most people (other than the federal ATC employees and their union) define the core privatization issue. How then do you pilots define the "core" privatization issue if not the provision of contract ATC services versus government ATC services? AOPA clearly has to pick their battles on where they throw their weight. The possible subbing out of controller jobs in these facilities is just not worth them fighting over and the influence this has on their membership (GA pilots/owners) is negligable. In the short term, it is negligible for AOPA. I dount the hundred or so AOPA/NATCA members who have cancelled their AOPA memberships are even a drop in the AOPA bucket. In the long term however, it is extremely negative. The only way the corporate raiders of the aviation world can manage to privatize the American ATC system is going to be piece by piece. The President has laid the groundwork for 2007 and beyond by declaring ATC an inherintly commercial activity. By shedding the smaller pieces of the NAS between now and 2007 (things like unionized federal VFR towers, unionized federal FSS functions, unionized airways facilities personnel etc) the Administration will have a far easier time selling off the bigger pieces later. After all, the services on the block right now do not negatively effect the big-boy commercial users like the airlines or the big government contractors. Later on, when the bigger parts go up for grabs late this decade, AOPA's concerns will be drowned out by the corporate bottom lines of airlines looking to take advantage of a commercial ATC system, and by the profit margins of the big name private contractors who will be providing it. If NATCA forces the conference report down, then we're likely to hurt badly as it will possibly hold up the reauthorization bill past the fiscal year deadlines. According to AOPA's statement concerning their new position on FAA reauthorization, [NATCA] "Union leaders don't necessarily care about the cost of flying, or GA airports, or pilot regulation, or airspace restrictions unless there are union jobs attached. They look at what's good for organized labor, not what's good for aviation or the taxpayer." But of course, no offense is intended, dear controllers. After all, "AOPA certainly has no gripe with the dedicated, hard-working air traffic controllers who supply needed services to the entire aviation community." How offensive and odious those remarks are to those of us who defend GA from *within* the system! On the one hand, federal controllers are greedy government employees looking to line their own pockets at the expense of the flying public, and then in the next breath they are altruistic hard workers struggling in the trenches for GA. Which is it, AOPA? When the bell tolls for American GA in 2007, don't look to your local air traffic controllers for anti-user fee support. Sadly, they'll all be working for some fat-cat, unscrupulous government contractor instead of your government's FAA. In the end, we all get what we pay for... Chip, ZTL |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "Chip Jones" wrote in message link.net... "John Smith" wrote in message ... [snipped] NATCA factually reports that the Congress is about to authorize ATC privatization by allowing the FAA to offer 69 FAA air traffic control towers to the lowest private sector bidder. I bid $1 - is that low enough to get them? How about 1c? How about just giving me the lot. Surely you mean the highest bidder?????? Err, no. I mean *lowest* bidder. The idea is to save money. The FAA (and your taxes) pays for the infrastructure. No, the idea is to find a way around ATC unions blocking automation. No, the latter is the motive of contractors like *you*, Tarver, not for the *actual* real-life users and operators of the safest ATC system in the world... Chip, ZTL |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in message hlink.net... "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "Chip Jones" wrote in message link.net... "John Smith" wrote in message ... [snipped] NATCA factually reports that the Congress is about to authorize ATC privatization by allowing the FAA to offer 69 FAA air traffic control towers to the lowest private sector bidder. I bid $1 - is that low enough to get them? How about 1c? How about just giving me the lot. Surely you mean the highest bidder?????? Err, no. I mean *lowest* bidder. The idea is to save money. The FAA (and your taxes) pays for the infrastructure. No, the idea is to find a way around ATC unions blocking automation. No, the latter is the motive of contractors like *you*, Tarver, not for the *actual* real-life users and operators of the safest ATC system in the world... I am not offering engineering services to ATC. In fact, I am also not a contractor, so even your personal attack is poorly aimed, Chip. ATC unions have blocked automation for 30 years, but it was not until lately that the catastrophic events generated by ATC seperation error became the majority of the total body count. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in message link.net... "Ron Natalie" wrote in message m... "Chip Jones" wrote in message news:POo5b.26667 119. PROHIBITION ON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PRIVATIZATION \ The converence report (which has yet to be acted on): (a) IN GENERAL- Until October 1, 2007, the Secretary of Transportation may not authorize the transfer of the air traffic separation and control functions operated by the Federal Aviation Administration on the date of enactment of this Act to a private entity or to a public entity other than the United State Government. (b) LIMITATION- Subsection (a) shall not apply-- (1) to a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control tower operated under the contract tower program on the date of enactment of this Act; (2) to any expansion of that program through new construction under subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code; or (3) to a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control tower (other than towers in Alaska) identified in the Report of the Department of Transportation Inspector General dated April 12, 2000, and designated `Contract Towers: Observations on the Federal Aviation Administration's Study of Expanding the Program'. What is added is the sunset limitation. This is really not much of an issue as it's off 3 fiscal years and most likely would be modified by a subsequent reauthorization bill. It's purely wishful thinking on someone's part that it wouldn't be modified before then. I disagree. The sunset limitation was added during the conference. Both the House and the Senate Bill expressly forbade ATC privatization indefinitely. This battle was fought and won by both NATCA and AOPA in both houses of the Congress. The addition of sunset language in Conference that did not exist in either version of the Bill is extraordinary. An excellent idea, however. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"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. 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. 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. 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|