AOPA and ATC Privatization

My AOPA membership comes up for yearly renewal at the end of September.
Today, I got a membership renewal request via email from the organization.

Here is my response:



Dear AOPA,

The question arises. Why should an FAA enroute air traffic controller who
is neither a pilot nor an aircraft owner continue to financially support
AOPA? AOPA has publicly accused my labor organization (NATCA) of misleading
other AOPA members concerning the looming Congressional action on ATC
privatization.

AOPA has been running the following quotes on the AOPA website:

"AOPA members are asking about TV ads claiming that Congress is about to
privatize air traffic control. Others have been asked to sign post cards
misrepresenting both AOPA's position and what Congress has done. Both the
ads and the cards are the efforts of labor unions. And both are bending the
truth."

NATCA is not misleading the flying public on this issue. 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. Some of these towers are among the busiest towers in
the nation. The pending FAA reauthorization bill's language is clear and
not subject to misinterpretation or wishful thinking. It will authorize the
FAA to contract out ATC services to the lowest bidder. Further, after the
year 2007, all FAA air traffic services will be on the table for possible
out sourcing. Privatization is privatization. There is no bending of the
truth involved.

"Make no mistake. AOPA is adamantly opposed to any effort to privatize air
traffic control or charge user fees for safety services," said AOPA
President Phil Boyer. "We have fought, and will continue to fight, attempts
to take the responsibility for aircraft separation and control away from the
federal government " and "If anybody tries to tell you that AOPA supports
privatizing ATC, you tell them that's a damned lie," Boyer said. "AOPA is
dedicated to the benefit of all general aviation, particularly GA pilots.
It's a much broader vision than that of a union leader."

What a bunch of hot air! That AOPA can swallow the rest of the current FAA
reauthorization bill before the Congress in spite of the clear language
authorizing ATC privatization seems to point to one of two things. Either
AOPA is extremely short sighted or else AOPA is bending the truth herself on
this issue. National ATC privatization is a clear threat to general
aviation interests, yet AOPA seems willing to allow such privatization to
begin, piece by piece, tower by tower, because the "rest of the bill" is
beneficial to GA. Not with my money...

I will gladly renew my AOPA dues if you can convince me that AOPA is on the
right side of the current ATC privatization issue.

Chip Jones
AOPA 04557674
Atlanta ARTCC


For even money, I'll betcha they don't even answer me...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message news:__45b.16414

The question arises. Why should an FAA enroute air traffic controller who
is neither a pilot nor an aircraft owner continue to financially support
AOPA?

I'm asking myself the same question.

Ron Natalie wrote in message I'm asking myself the same question.

Upon first glance, it may seem that a controller's interest in this matter
would be self-preservation. However, Mr. Jones may well be one of us in the
future. So...

Let's look at the bigger picture. If 69 towers go private, safety may or may
not be compromised. However, what will be compromised is the ability of AOPA
members to fend off USER FEES in the future. The federal budget is in bad
shape. It's worse than the published figures. The Whitehouse administration
is working extremely hard for the economy to stay contained until the next
election is secure. After the election, the economy will break. The
administration will be more than happy to foist the cost of ATC services
onto all of us.

D.

"Chip Jones" wrote in message thlink.net...
My AOPA membership comes up for yearly renewal at the end of September.
Today, I got a membership renewal request via email from the organization.

Here is my response:
...
For even money, I'll betcha they don't even answer me...

Well, let us know.

Cheers,
Sydney

Darn it, missed my cue!....

"Chip Jones" wrote in message thlink.net...

The question arises. Why should an FAA enroute air traffic controller who
is neither a pilot

You can fix that any day, Chip

Sydney

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
Darn it, missed my cue!....

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
thlink.net...

The question arises. Why should an FAA enroute air traffic controller
who
is neither a pilot

You can fix that any day, Chip


Yep. I guess I'd better hurry while I can still afford it! :-)

Chip, ZTL

Chip,

Thank you for raising this issue. I saw AOPA's post on this issue their
website last week and was dismayed by what I saw: AOPA seemed to be going out
of their way to pick a fight with the controllers union, and seemed to be not
only siding with the administration, they seemed to be cozying up to them.
What most visitors to AOPA's website probably don't realize is that the story
that currently appears on their website is actually toned down quite a bit -
the original version was even worse. When I saw their first posting, it made
me grab the phone and call them asking what the hell they were thinking. They
did change the story soon after I finished my call (I copied the original
language so I could check to see if they changed theirs - they did), but the
overall tone of the story remains incedibly short-sighted, if you ask me.

Here are the points about their initial story that I made when I called AOPA:

Throughout the story, they referred repeatedly to "union bosses." This is a
term often used by anti-union activists and likely to at the very least rub
people in the controllers unions the wrong way. I pointed out that Phil Boyer
probably wouldn't appreciate being referred to as "the pilot lobby boss" and
suggested they modulate their rhetoric a bit. After my call, they removed
several references to "union bosses" (changing them to people "in leadership
positions of unions representing FAA employees") but not all of them.
Regardless of your political affiliation or your overall views on the relative
merits and shortcomings of the labor movement, that this is not the language
that any organization uses to refer to their friends and allies. It's the
language you use to refer to your enemies and opponents. This may not make any
difference to you or me, but language counts, and most people in labor unions
are pretty sensitive to this sort of thing - it's a "codeword" they are very
familiar with (ask any union representative, they know what it means when
someone uses this term). It sets a really bad tone for future relations, and
it's completely unnecessary - what does it get you? Seems very petty and
misguided to me.

There was also a sentence that read, "But the ad uses some Clinton-like word
tricks." I questioned what Bill Clinton had to do with this issue, and pointed
out that many Americans (and presumably at least some AOPA members) might feel
that the present adminstration has its own well-documented record of deceit to
account for, and in any event it seemed stupid to me to inject partisan
politics into this issue where there didn't seem to be any. Going into a
fight, why the heck do you poke people (from whom you may need help) in the eye
and potentially alienate those who could othrwise be your allies?

My overall point was that while AOPA and the controllers unions (which AOPA
never identifies by name, which seemed odd) appear to have some differences of
opinion, we (pilots, and as our representative, AOPA) ought to be looking at
each other as allies, not adversaries. We all know that the present
administration is pushing hard for ATC privatization, and they're not going to
stop with just 69 towers. When the next battle comes, and it will as sure as
the sun will rise tomorrow, how strong is our alliance with the ATC unions
going to be? With this kind of juvenile ****ing-match that AOPA seems engaged
in, do you think the ATC unions are going to stick their necks out for pilots?

MAYBE some of the union's statements were not 100% accurate - I don't know, I
haven't seen them (and AOPA doesn't offer any examples up as proof) but it
looks to me like Phil Boyer got tweaked off by something he saw ("if anybody
tells you that AOPA supports privatizing ATC, you tell them that's a damn
lie"). Great. Good job of finessing the diplomacy there, Phil. Look, we're
going to NEED these people on our side in the next round. Maybe we don't agree
on every single detail, but lets not work to make the divisions any greater
than they already are. Beating up on the controllers union may feel good for
the moment, but the next time the white house is looking for a piece of
government to sell off to the lowest bidder, don't you think it might be useful
if the head of the ATC union was inclined to take your call?

I think AOPA needs to really take a good, long, hard look at itself and how it
has mishandled relations with the controllers unions. This is politics 101,
and I expect a heck of a lot more nuance and sophistication from a group that
represents 400,000 pilots. It doesn't take a lifetime of experience lobbying
at the federal level to know how to finess tactical differences and come out
with a public position that at least makes it LOOK like you're standing
shoulder-to-shoulder with your natural allies. Unfortunately, AOPA's public
position on this strikes me as childish, amaturish, and ultimately
self-inflicted damage.

I hope other AOPA members will let them know that the folks in ATC are not the
enemy here and that AOPA had better stop bashing them if they expect them to
lend a hand the next time their help is needed...'cause it's going to be.

Just my 4 cents,

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

Chip Jones wrote:

My AOPA membership comes up for yearly renewal at the end of September.
Today, I got a membership renewal request via email from the organization.

Here is my response:

Dear AOPA,

The question arises. Why should an FAA enroute air traffic controller who
is neither a pilot nor an aircraft owner continue to financially support
AOPA? AOPA has publicly accused my labor organization (NATCA) of misleading
other AOPA members concerning the looming Congressional action on ATC
privatization.

AOPA has been running the following quotes on the AOPA website:

"AOPA members are asking about TV ads claiming that Congress is about to
privatize air traffic control. Others have been asked to sign post cards
misrepresenting both AOPA's position and what Congress has done. Both the
ads and the cards are the efforts of labor unions. And both are bending the
truth."

NATCA is not misleading the flying public on this issue. 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. Some of these towers are among the busiest towers in
the nation. The pending FAA reauthorization bill's language is clear and
not subject to misinterpretation or wishful thinking. It will authorize the
FAA to contract out ATC services to the lowest bidder. Further, after the
year 2007, all FAA air traffic services will be on the table for possible
out sourcing. Privatization is privatization. There is no bending of the
truth involved.

"Make no mistake. AOPA is adamantly opposed to any effort to privatize air
traffic control or charge user fees for safety services," said AOPA
President Phil Boyer. "We have fought, and will continue to fight, attempts
to take the responsibility for aircraft separation and control away from the
federal government " and "If anybody tries to tell you that AOPA supports
privatizing ATC, you tell them that's a damned lie," Boyer said. "AOPA is
dedicated to the benefit of all general aviation, particularly GA pilots.
It's a much broader vision than that of a union leader."

What a bunch of hot air! That AOPA can swallow the rest of the current FAA
reauthorization bill before the Congress in spite of the clear language
authorizing ATC privatization seems to point to one of two things. Either
AOPA is extremely short sighted or else AOPA is bending the truth herself on
this issue. National ATC privatization is a clear threat to general
aviation interests, yet AOPA seems willing to allow such privatization to
begin, piece by piece, tower by tower, because the "rest of the bill" is
beneficial to GA. Not with my money...

I will gladly renew my AOPA dues if you can convince me that AOPA is on the
right side of the current ATC privatization issue.

Chip Jones
AOPA 04557674
Atlanta ARTCC

For even money, I'll betcha they don't even answer me...

"David H" wrote:
[excellent post snipped]

What a refreshing voice of reason. I hope you mailed Phil a copy.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM