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 |
#471
|
|||
|
|||
ATC competition
Hmmmmmm. Thats the beef in this whole topic. They don't want to follow
the "rule" book....... Newps wrote: Ron Lee wrote: That comment raises an interesting question. Let's imagine that ATC services are bid by some logical boundary (center?). Would different companies manning different sectors really mean a loss of separation? Of course not, that's an assinine assertion. My initial thought is NO. What professional ATC person will "sabotage" any element of the system to make another company look bad? They all work under the same rule book. |
#472
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
What question did I ask that doesn't address the original point you raised?
I expect you will ignore that question. Right you are! :-) I know I can be replaced tomorrow by someone younger, stronger, and cheaper, but I cannot be replaced by anyone smarter. Viper: "That's pretty arrogant, considering the company you're in. I *like* that in a pilot." ;-) Privatization doesn't require any changes in how ATC is paid for. Now that is an interesting point. Most promoters of privatizing ATC are also in favor of additional user fees. Although you are correct in stating that ATC could be privatized without changing the funding structure, I haven't seen much discussion of it being done that way. What do you think of this as a possibility? -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#473
|
|||
|
|||
ATC competition
|
#474
|
|||
|
|||
ATC competition
("Newps" wrote)
That comment raises an interesting question. Let's imagine that ATC services are bid by some logical boundary (center?). Would different companies manning different sectors really mean a loss of separation? Of course not, that's an assinine assertion. My initial thought is NO. What professional ATC person will "sabotage" any element of the system to make another company look bad? They all work under the same rule book. So did AT&T ...at one time ...not so long ago. g Montblack Wait, I'm getting a call ...drat, "dropped," again, right in the middle of our conversation. Oh well. |
#475
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message oups.com... Right you are! :-) That's okay, we both know the answer. Now that is an interesting point. Most promoters of privatizing ATC are also in favor of additional user fees. Although you are correct in stating that ATC could be privatized without changing the funding structure, I haven't seen much discussion of it being done that way. What do you think of this as a possibility? I think privatization is a bad idea. I think air traffic control is an inherently government function and it should be performed by the federal government. But I don't think runway traffic control is. I think control towers should be operated by whatever entity owns the airport and the federal government should limit itself to airspace and federally owned airfields. |
#476
|
|||
|
|||
ATC competition
"Ron Lee" wrote in message ... "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "Jay Honeck" wrote in message oups.com... You think there's no one waiting in the wings to bid against Lockheed-Martin? I'll bet there's at least half a dozen companies, all willing to bid on the ATC contract, all promising to do it "cheaper-faster-better"... That may be, but that's not competition. Competition will come to ATC when the user has his choice of providers. Of course, when that happens, ATC will no longer be able to ensure separation. That comment raises an interesting question. Let's imagine that ATC services are bid by some logical boundary (center?). Would different companies manning different sectors really mean a loss of separation? No, but different companies manning the same sectors would. |
#477
|
|||
|
|||
ATC competition
wrote in message oups.com... Hmmmmmm. Thats the beef in this whole topic. They don't want to follow the "rule" book....... The "rule book" he's referring to is FAA Order 7110.65 Air Traffic Control. The "rules" you're referring to are the new work rules imposed in lieu of a contract. |
#478
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 02:15:34 +0000, john smith wrote:
Wait a minute... you re-wrote his code and you are giving him credit for it working? It can be true. But it also shows that "working" is necessary but insufficient for "good" (or even "decent"). Sadly, those looking in from outside the industry cannot discern the difference. That is one reason why so many have been burned by bad programming of one sort of another. For example, something can work but be so fragile that it cannot withstand any evolution of requirements (and therefore enhancement of the software). This is why God invented Code Reviews. - Andrew |
#479
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote I think privatization is a bad idea. I think air traffic control is an inherently government function and it should be performed by the federal government. But I don't think runway traffic control is. I think control towers should be operated by whatever entity owns the airport and the federal government should limit itself to airspace and federally owned airfields. You know, it could be that you make more sense on this, than anything you have ever written, here. ;-) That it makes sense, means it will never happen, unfortunately. Is such a split even being considered as a possibility? -- Jim in NC |
#480
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
I think privatization is a bad idea. I think air traffic control is an
inherently government function and it should be performed by the federal government. But I don't think runway traffic control is. I think control towers should be operated by whatever entity owns the airport and the federal government should limit itself to airspace and federally owned airfields. You know, it could be that you make more sense on this, than anything you have ever written, here. ;-) I agree -- that is an idea that makes a lot of sense. And it's certainly one I've never seen proposed. So, Steven, is this something that has been seriously discussed? Or is this an entirely new idea that you just spawned? -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
An ACE goes down in flames. | PoBoy | Naval Aviation | 25 | December 9th 05 01:30 PM |
AOPA and ATC Privatization | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 139 | November 12th 03 08:26 PM |
AOPA and ATC Privatization | Chip Jones | Piloting | 133 | November 12th 03 08:26 PM |