A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

ATC User Fees



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 29th 05, 05:11 AM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 29th 05, 08:02 AM
Paul Tomblin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 29th 05, 01:07 PM
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 29th 05, 02:02 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old April 29th 05, 02:09 PM
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 29th 05, 03:32 PM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old April 29th 05, 03:34 PM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old April 29th 05, 03:53 PM
David Bridgham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old April 29th 05, 05:04 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 29th 05, 07:55 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
User Fees Dude Owning 36 March 19th 05 06:57 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 22nd 04 12:15 AM
The Irony of Boeing/Jeppesen Being Charged User Fees! Larry Dighera Piloting 9 January 23rd 04 01:23 PM
Angel Flight pilots: Ever have an FBO refuse to wave landing fees? Peter R. Piloting 11 August 2nd 03 01:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.