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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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." |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:Srpce.26243$c24.22849@attbi_s72... If I thought they would truly privatize ATC, I'd be for it. It would be wonderful to truly take advantage of modern technology in a way that only private business can roll out and employ. To truly privatize it would require free market competition among providers of ATC services. That simply is not possible. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
To truly privatize it would require free market competition among
providers of ATC services. That simply is not possible. Exactly. Economic sectors where only monopoly businesses can function pretty much defines (in my mind) where "government" should exist. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:Srpce.26243$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. 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... Think: Amtrak |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:2mqce.34479$r53.15777@attbi_s21... To truly privatize it would require free market competition among providers of ATC services. That simply is not possible. They used to say that the phone company or the utility companies needed to be monopolies. Exactly. Economic sectors where only monopoly businesses can function pretty much defines (in my mind) where "government" should exist. Such as? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:
To truly privatize it would require free market competition among providers of ATC services. That simply is not possible. If you look at ATC services as being people who talk to you on the radio and tell you where to go, then you're probably right. It's hard to see how there could be competing services with that system. However, if you look at ATC services as primarily being separation and sequencing into the busiest airports, then I think we can find different mechanisms for those that might allow for competition. Start with a decent spec for air to air datalink and once pilots can "see" other traffic, they can supply their own separation. Competition is now between the vendors of radios that provide this service. Sequencing is a little harder but not much. The easy way out is to say that it's still done by people on the ground talking on radios and the competition is simply that which comes from bidding on the contract to execute this service for the various airports that need it. I think a better answer would be to extend the datalink system so that it could transmit approach corridor information to inbound aircraft who then sequence themselves through different approach gates sorted by speed. I'm not sure we're ready to replace tower controllers with something like this though Canada's idea of Mandatory Frequency airports is one option that could reduce the number of airports that need towers. -Dave |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:07:14 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in Srpce.26243$c24.22849@attbi_s72:: 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 in the same way that energy was privatized in California: http://www.westmarinalliance.org/glo...rgy_crisis.htm Deregulation and Privatization of Public Services under FTAA California’s energy crisis is quickly becoming old news. The mainstream press is saturated with reports of exorbitant rates and rolling blackouts that have plagued the state in the years since its ill-fated move to deregulate and privatize utilities. Hardly a soul in Sacramento these days would dare subscribe to the notion that deregulation has been good for the California economy. Thousands of utility workers have been laid off, union contracts have been steadily eroded, the health and safety of low-income, elderly and sick Californians – all of whom suffer the most because of blackouts and rate hikes – has been put at risk. And yet further deregulation and privatization of essential public services is exactly what the federal government has in store for us under the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). ... Can you say Enron? :-( |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
User Fees | Dude | Owning | 36 | March 19th 05 05:57 PM |
NAA Fees to the US Team | Doug Jacobs | Soaring | 2 | October 29th 04 01:09 AM |
LXE installation XP, strict user permissions. | Hannes | Soaring | 0 | March 21st 04 11:15 PM |
The Irony of Boeing/Jeppesen Being Charged User Fees! | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 9 | January 23rd 04 12:23 PM |
Angel Flight pilots: Ever have an FBO refuse to wave landing fees? | Peter R. | Piloting | 11 | August 2nd 03 01:20 AM |