Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 83

Thread: AOPA against House bill on privatization

  1. #41

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    5,544
    Post Thanks / Like
    The problem here is that the concept of privatization of public functions is inherently political. We cannot rationally discuss such things without an ideological split.

    Being a leftie, I see places where Government can do a better job. My friends are "market triumphalists" and see no use for government in anything but warfare. The truth is somewhere in the middle, but it is striking to see where aviators come down on this particular issue.

    I personally could not afford privatization. I had four tower controllers working full time for me yesterday. The joke is, after 38 "operations" (7 1/2% of our average daily operations, and over ten percent of all 4th of July operations) my comment is "I guess I have to write your pay checks today!"

    I am just under 3% of all ops here. I think my share approaches a half million bucks a year, and that is assuming the airport and its employees (20 some-odd, not counting FAA folks) only costs 15 million per year. The taxes foregone on our real estate probably exceed that.

    User's fees will put me full time into model steam locomotives.

    For an interesting take on privatization I recommend Edward Kleinbard's excellent book "We Are Better Than This", chapter 10.
    Likes Gordon Misch liked this post

  2. #42
    Cub Special Ed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    MT/SD
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like
    I dont think we should change the system just to do something different because either way has its faults. As far as a ceo being well paid, I hope the ceo and share holders of the company I am employed by continue to make money. Ive never worked for a broke employer. The company is not in business so I have a job to go to, its there to make a profit.
    "There are 3 kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves." Will Rogers
    Likes Chicken Hawk, bigrock liked this post

  3. #43
    kase's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    MT
    Posts
    1,491
    Post Thanks / Like
    If your looking for a job where your over paid, have to much vacation time and way to many holidays off according to oldcrowe the FAA is hiring controllers this week if you want to apply.

    https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/473871400
    Likes Cub Special Ed liked this post

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Meanwhile,...
    Posts
    4,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by kase View Post
    If your looking for a job where your over paid, have to much vacation time and way to many holidays off according to oldcrowe the FAA is hiring controllers this week if you want to apply.

    https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/473871400
    Alan you missed my point/intent and I never said overpaid I said compensation appears fair except for excessive holidays and vacation time which simply does not exist at those levels in the private sector. As a controller you work through holidays you don't shut down, hence my point, production goes on, traffic is routed, commerce continues and disaster is avoided etc. and all that is figured into your total annual compensation with some as straight time, some as OT and some is Holiday pay but with other agencies and non-flight operation portions of the FAA it's a whole bunch different as they essentially just shut down anywhere near a Holiday because many will toss in some leave and presto all of a sudden the 4th of July is a week long event causing an agency outage. Get near the end of the year and need a permit to start a project right after the first of the year... forget it, making agency headway from mid November to mid January simply won't happen...I've spent 13 years working through a Congressionally authorized feasibility study with a major agency and it's just now approaching the milestone decision point and it's not that difficult of a project and it's a fix to a problem the very same agency created and congress said by law to fix and this study/decision should have taken maybe 3 years max to get to this point and that's my gripe.
    Last edited by OLDCROWE; 07-08-2017 at 06:36 AM.
    "Don't feed the hipsters"

  5. #45
    kase's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    MT
    Posts
    1,491
    Post Thanks / Like
    Kirby, you make a good point. All the more reason for privatization funded by user fees.

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Meanwhile,...
    Posts
    4,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    If I have angered or insulted any I apologize. Yesterday was a long day that involved 13 different controllers all who were busy and worked very hard to keep me and my family safe and just as I said at each hand off, "THANK YOU" for being the example of what the government can and should be.

    Policitally I'm a centrist and if I'm this frustrated I think it's easy to understand what makes red states. My father is 97, a member if the greatest generation and I believe we can and should match their example of doing right in the world.

    OC
    Last edited by OLDCROWE; 07-08-2017 at 07:40 AM.
    "Don't feed the hipsters"
    Thanks WindOnHisNose thanked for this post

  7. #47
    WindOnHisNose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Corcoran MN
    Posts
    3,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    You are a good man, Kase. You are a good man, Kirby. Thanks for your inputs and for your sensitivities...both are important in keeping productive dialogue going in a civilized manner. I am really happy to wake up to your post, Kirby.

    You two have a great day!

    Randy
    Likes SJ liked this post

  8. #48
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    6,879
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by kase View Post
    Kirby, you make a good point. All the more reason for privatization funded by user fees.
    Providing the user fees can be properly managed and assessed. We currently pay user fees through a gas tax which has been mismanaged by congress. Properly done the current fees should be assigned correctly so that we as users will feel no difference from our wallets.
    N1PA
    Likes OLDCROWE liked this post

  9. #49
    Eddie Foy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,080
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hell, Kirby, the list of people I have angered or insulted is long and distinguished. You are a light weight.
    Eddie Foy
    "Put out my hand and touched the face of God"
    Likes OLDCROWE liked this post

  10. #50
    aviationinfo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Southwest WA
    Posts
    701
    Post Thanks / Like
    I feel strongly against this for a number of reasons, but the one that hits home the most involves a simple comparison with Europe or Canada. How's the GA industry doing over there, at the level we all care about? Is it any cheaper than it is here? Does it face more regulation, or less? Can they staff their airlines, or do they have to hire zero time cadets because there is no GA industry where they can gain experience? (Granted we are heading in that direction in the US but we're not quite there yet...)

    It should really not be too difficult to see the answer. It starts with privatization of ATC in this case and will eventually go far deeper as proponents claim our system isn't "profitable." Guess what, it's not supposed to be, it's not a business, we're not using it to generate cash, that's not why it exists. I hear similar claims against public transit systems literally all the time. Promoters can say this is "not for profit" but come on, what other incentive could there possibly be? The contractor gets a slice and the airlines pawn major portions of their costs onto others. Namely, us.

    Looking deeper, I have a fundamental problem with taking a public asset built up over decades through public funding and handing it over to a private entity run by a board over which we as voters have absolutely no oversight. So that the private entity can profit from it without having had to pay for the asset in the first place.

    No thanks. If there are structural problems with procurement for ATC then fix them. We don't need to change our funding or governance mechanisms to accomplish that goal.

    EDIT:

    PS--- As for FAA funding via Reauthorization being held hostage by politicians in charge of the budget: that is easily solved by switching out the politicians who withhold Reauthorization in order to make a political statement.
    Last edited by aviationinfo; 07-09-2017 at 12:01 AM.
    Aviationinfo
    Thanks mvivion thanked for this post
    Likes Gordon Misch, skywagon8a liked this post

  11. #51
    Gordon Misch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Toledo, Wa (KTDO)
    Posts
    2,540
    Post Thanks / Like
    And furthermore, non-profit applies to corporate profit, not salaries and benefits paid to those who operate the corporation. They can pay themselves handsomely, perhaps to help ensure there is no profit.
    Gordon

    N4328M KTDO
    My SPOT: tinyurl.com/N4328M (case sensitive)
    Likes aviationinfo, skywagon8a liked this post

  12. #52
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    16,041
    Post Thanks / Like
    I watched the Transportation hearing on this subject. All I can say is I know why Congress can't get anything done. Both sides painted the worst picture possible. I believe the truth is somewhere in between. They kept comparing our ATC system to those of Canada and the UK which I found funny how much larger our system is by leeps and bounds and the fact that some many foreign countries train their pilots over here. They are calling for a huge change, I can't see anyone wanting to stick their head out that far if it fails.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers
    Likes Jim Hann liked this post

  13. #53
    PerryB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Northern Calif.
    Posts
    1,149
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon Misch View Post
    And furthermore, non-profit applies to corporate profit, not salaries and benefits paid to those who operate the corporation. They can pay themselves handsomely, perhaps to help ensure there is no profit.
    Heck Gordon, you don't even have to wink. That's exactly how non/not for profits work, no secrets about it. Perfectly legal. It's been so many years since I was officially educated on the subject (Poli-Sci) but there were some general tenets regarding salary structures. It wasn't a free-for-all but the structure was very loose and hard to enforce. I'm not sure what all has changed over the years because I lost all interest in going that direction. Now I'm a farmer who lives under a rock and wears a tinfoil hat.
    After Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says WTF !
    Likes Gordon Misch liked this post

  14. #54
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    6,879
    Post Thanks / Like
    Having flown extensively in the US, Canadian (both before and after privatization) and the UK/European/Russian (think primary nav as being ADF) systems, I can say that they all operated in an efficient manner from this pilot's perspective. Now knowing how the US congress along with airline management has the unique ability to muck up a backyard cook out, this whole privatization idea should be shelved. Perhaps separating the ATC division from the rest of the FAA would be a good solution to the question? After all ATC is in place for the benefit of all persons in the USA and should not be considered a profit center for any. I was even flying on the day that PATCO went on strike, no delays everything went smoothly. Remember privatization can lead to labor striking issues which occasionally happen in other countries. We don't want those issues in the USA.
    N1PA
    Likes OLDCROWE liked this post

  15. #55

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    67.8N,115.1W CYCO Canada
    Posts
    662
    Post Thanks / Like
    I find it a bit funny that a good portion of posters on this subject (US-based) feel that their government can't possibly make privatization work. We didn't have any problem making it work here in Canada. Nav Canada does a pretty decent job, I think. I pay about $70 a year for the service (in my case it's just flight plan filing and airport advisory service). It's obvious that the major airlines are picking up the tab for the bulk of the costs, as they should.

    For background:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nav_Canada

  16. #56
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    9,206
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by NunavutPA-12 View Post
    I find it a bit funny that a good portion of posters on this subject (US-based) feel that their government can't possibly make privatization work. We didn't have any problem making it work here in Canada. Nav Canada does a pretty decent job, I think. I pay about $70 a year for the service (in my case it's just flight plan filing and airport advisory service). It's obvious that the major airlines are picking up the tab for the bulk of the costs, as they should.

    For background:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nav_Canada
    But, do the airlines run NavCanada? That's the kicker in this deal. Kinda like giving the keys to the henhouse to the fox.

    MTV
    Likes OLDCROWE liked this post

  17. #57

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    67.8N,115.1W CYCO Canada
    Posts
    662
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mvivion View Post
    But, do the airlines run NavCanada? That's the kicker in this deal. Kinda like giving the keys to the henhouse to the fox.

    MTV
    Well, they do have four seats on the board as opposed to GA's one seat, so you might be right that they run the show. Nevertheless, I don't think that GA has suffered any adverse effects from this "control" (real or imagined). In fact, it could be argued, especially in this time of looming pilot shortages, that the airlines have a vested interest in keeping a healthy GA sector.
    Last edited by NunavutPA-12; 07-09-2017 at 11:49 AM.

  18. #58
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    6,879
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by NunavutPA-12 View Post
    I find it a bit funny that a good portion of posters on this subject (US-based) feel that their government can't possibly make privatization work. We didn't have any problem making it work here in Canada. Nav Canada does a pretty decent job, I think. I pay about $70 a year for the service (in my case it's just flight plan filing and airport advisory service). It's obvious that the major airlines are picking up the tab for the bulk of the costs, as they should.

    For background:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nav_Canada
    The citizens of Canada have a different mindset than the citizens of the US, respect. The difference is obvious when flying through Canada and communicating with Canadian airplane people, altogether different. The Canadians could make it work. I doubt that the Americans could stop fighting over it, or stop trying to divert the funds for some pet project. Some make take affront with what I've said, that has been my observation.
    N1PA
    Likes mvivion, aviationinfo liked this post

  19. #59
    WindOnHisNose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Corcoran MN
    Posts
    3,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    I just received an urgent request from Peter J. Bunce, President and CEO of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) regarding Shuster's FAA Reauthorization Bill (H.R. 2997). Peter states, amongst other things, "Throughout my years at GAMA, I have never witnessed a time where direct engagement with members of Congress is more critical to the future health of general and business aviation than it is this week."

    I will provide the entire text of his letter below, but want to urge you to do your own research, quickly, and if you agree with Peter, please contact your Representative, or their Chief of Staff, and voice your strong opposition to H.R. 2997.

    Please contact your Congressperson now, if you are so inclined.

    Randy

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	GAMA ATC Privitization.JPG 
Views:	308 
Size:	148.0 KB 
ID:	32055

  20. #60

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Sandpoint, ID
    Posts
    1,556
    Post Thanks / Like
    Never fear...government oversight will overcome common sense and practical operation of any move to put private industry in charge of ATC. Airlines must only get a 49% vote on anything, especially funding!!!

    Meanwhile, I'm glad I'm on medicare with VA to fall back on...but it scares me.
    Somewhere along the way I have lost the ability to act politically correct. If you should find it, please feel free to keep it.

  21. #61
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    9,206
    Post Thanks / Like
    Captain Sullenberger weighs in on this issue: https://www.yahoo.com/katiecouric/su...123442350.html

    MTV
    Thanks aviationinfo, cubdriver2 thanked for this post

  22. #62
    WindOnHisNose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Corcoran MN
    Posts
    3,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    I just watched the AOPA Live link in which they describe the urgency of calling your Congressman NOW to urge them to vote against H.R. 2997. They also did a nice story about Roger and Darren Meggers, who are building the AOPA Sweepstakes Super Cub in Baker MT. Nicely done!

    https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...ign=170713ALTW

    They offer a good summary, at the end, as to why it is important to stop the House version (H.R. 2997), which includes privitization. The Senate version does NOT contain this language, hence the lack of push to stop that bill. The danger lies in what happens in a conference committee, should the House and Senate versions pass...the devil would be in the compromise that would be reached.

    They also point out that we should not be intimidated by the staff person who picks up the phone at your Congressman's office. That person wants to know: 1. your address with zip code; 2. the bill you are calling about (H.R. 2997); and 3. whether you want them to vote yes or no. I found this to be true when I have called my Congressman and our (worthless) Senators Klobuchar and Franken. They don't want a discussion about why you want them to vote yes or no, they want bottom line. Give it to them.

    You can find out who to call by googling "who is my Congressman". Call them right now.

    Randy
    Thanks OLDCROWE thanked for this post

  23. #63

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Meanwhile,...
    Posts
    4,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    It's time for the press. I spoke with Senator Inhofe's office yesterday and they need help. Remember, this is the same committee chair/author that stopped the origional PBR-2 that included elimination of the third class medical in favor of the "comprise" we got.

    If you're against the house bill and privitazation it is absolutely time to call your deligation. Do it on MONDAY.

    Oh and if you're for this POS anti-GA bill your designated day to call is the second Tuesday of next week
    Last edited by OLDCROWE; 07-15-2017 at 10:18 AM.
    "Don't feed the hipsters"

  24. #64

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    5,544
    Post Thanks / Like
    I will call - I have always written letters before.

    Being the local lib, I am of the opinion that privatizing a monopoly is a seriously dumb thing to do.

  25. #65
    wireweinie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    1,468
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by bob turner View Post
    . . . I am of the opinion that privatizing a monopoly is a seriously dumb thing to do.
    That's a generalization I'll never agree with. I think the key, in this particular situation, is the airline oversight. This seems to be the common thread throughout THIS thread. How about replacing the oversight board with a budget office with oversight powers?

    After a bidding process, which includes proof of abilities, award the contract to perform ATC functions, to a private company. They need to perform all functions in accordance with standard FAA regs (procedures, patterns, terminology, etc) for ALL airports in their region. As with any company performing services under contract, a pattern of complaints/poor performance will result in loss of revenue. If the poor performance continues, this constitutes breach of contract and said contract is then awarded to another company. This maintains an incentive to perform at all locations and eliminates the incentive to cater to the 'big guys'. After all, the airlines are not in control of the funding or hiring. This also allows the private company to pay wages in accordance to the local economy and skill level.

    I will always be in favor of privatization of nearly all functions/infrastructures, but I do agree that the possibilities of screwing this up are high. In a nutshell, we have government bureaucrats trying to form a program to privatize an organization and make it 'just like' the original. What could go wrong?!

    Web
    Life's tough . . . wear a cup.

  26. #66
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    9,206
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by wireweinie View Post
    That's a generalization I'll never agree with. I think the key, in this particular situation, is the airline oversight. This seems to be the common thread throughout THIS thread. How about replacing the oversight board with a budget office with oversight powers?

    After a bidding process, which includes proof of abilities, award the contract to perform ATC functions, to a private company. They need to perform all functions in accordance with standard FAA regs (procedures, patterns, terminology, etc) for ALL airports in their region. As with any company performing services under contract, a pattern of complaints/poor performance will result in loss of revenue. If the poor performance continues, this constitutes breach of contract and said contract is then awarded to another company. This maintains an incentive to perform at all locations and eliminates the incentive to cater to the 'big guys'. After all, the airlines are not in control of the funding or hiring. This also allows the private company to pay wages in accordance to the local economy and skill level.

    I will always be in favor of privatization of nearly all functions/infrastructures, but I do agree that the possibilities of screwing this up are high. In a nutshell, we have government bureaucrats trying to form a program to privatize an organization and make it 'just like' the original. What could go wrong?!

    Web
    And, who will ensure COMPLIANCE with "perform all functions in accordance with standard FAA regs (procedures, patterns, terminology"? Why, the FAA, of course. Why? Because they're the "experts".

    So, what have you now accomplished? Yet another layer of bureaucracy, delays, meetings, oversight and COST.

    This proposal would not streamline anything, nor would it improve service and it most certainly would not save money. Those board members salaries would be primo, I'm guessing. And, the airlines need another subsidy or four.

    MTV
    Likes OLDCROWE, WindOnHisNose liked this post

  27. #67
    WindOnHisNose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Corcoran MN
    Posts
    3,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    If you feel led to do so, please phone your Representative's office today and urge that they vote NO on H.R. 2997. It is easy to do, takes only a minute (literally).

    Captain Sullenberger has come out strongly against the bill, whereas Senator Graves (who has been an ardent supporter of general aviation) is for the bill.

    Why the difference? Senator Graves has apparently "worked a deal" so that in return for supporting a bill that virtually every aviation group has opposed he will gain power in a committee appointment.

    Two years ago I had an experience through which I learned how the process of "legislation" worked...at least in the context of that experience. I can only assume that the same goes on at a higher level of government.

    I was called to testify against a bill that was put forth in the MN House which would effectively ban using gestational carriers...where one woman would carry a pregnancy for a woman who could not safely do so. We have done this only in situations where there was a medical condition which rendered it to be impossible (hysterectomy) or unsafe (a number of medical conditions). An example that I described was a couple who had their only child killed in an automobile accident, and the mother had undergone a hysterectomy (removal of her uterus) for a tumor that had caused her significant problems. This mother, who was now childless, wanted to use her eggs, with her husband's sperm, and have her best friend from college carry for them. It worked, much to everyone's delight.

    I was one of 4 people who testified, 2 for and 2 against the legislation. Much to my surprise one of the people who were for the legislation was a spokesperson for a prominent and active gay rights organization. I was incredulous that this person would speak in favor of a bill that would effectively eliminate a medical approach through which a gay couple could have a family (using donor eggs and a surrogate)! At the recess I was approached by this gentleman, who came to me to introduce himself and tell me that several of his friends had come to see me and how happy they were with the care they had received. I looked at him and said "What were you thinking about in there? Do you realize that you and your organization just threw your support to a bill that would eliminate the only way, short of adoption, that you would "have children?!" His response: "I know, but we worked a deal with the sponsors of this bill so that if we helped them on this one they will help us on an even more important bill!"

    Kirby, correct me if I am wrong, but I think this is the way of Washington. I suspect this is what happened to Graves, that is what is happening to us.

    Randy

  28. #68

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Meanwhile,...
    Posts
    4,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    Randy if your information regarding Graves is so, I always thought that Committee Chairmanships were awarded by seniority and party fundraising but if Graves is supporting the bill that may signal that Senate leadership may support privatization, possibly for some other consideration and as politics go lets face it there are some other really big bills in play this these days.

    All the more reason to make those calls!
    Last edited by OLDCROWE; 07-18-2017 at 05:03 AM.
    "Don't feed the hipsters"

  29. #69
    Paul Jackson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    99
    Post Thanks / Like
    I hear a lot of hyperbole and not many facts in the arguments for and against this proposal. I know most of the GA groups I support have come out against this proposal. I personally am a cautious supporter of it after having worked in DC as a lobbyist for several years and dealing first hand with the FAA and having a front row seat to their continued failure to deliver on NextGen technologies.

    There have been several statements about this being a grab by the airlines at control, The proposed board that will oversee the not-for profit corporation will be made up as follows under latest proposal:

    The makeup of the 13-member board will have one seat each to be given to people nominated by:

    (1)Part 121 carriers
    (1)cargo carriers
    (1)regional carriers
    (1)airports
    (1)business aviation
    (1)general aviation
    (1)air traffic controllers union
    (1)Airline pilot's unions
    (2)The Department of Transportation
    (2)Two “at large” seats (ostensibly for people with financial backgrounds)
    (1)CEO to lead Board

    There are checks and balances there and it is certainly not representative of where funding to this entity is coming from in terms of balance. I believe that GA and Business Aviation are fairly represented there and will be able to have their collective voices heard and find allies up and down the board on various issues.

    The biggest change for the positive in my mind is directly funding ATC from the users (airline flights). The airline ticket tax which theoretically funds a majority of the FAA's ATC costs (after it is washed through the US government fiscal budgeting process) will be transitioned to a user fee on each airline operation and not on the revenue amount. General Aviation, as it is in Canada, would be exempt from user fees rather charged a low annual fee for IFR services and nothing for VFR services. This will be a direct funding from user fees to the operation and equipping of the system. This I see as a huge improvement to implementing and putting systems online rather than depending on Congressional budgeting from year to year and cycle to cycle.

    The reasons for the proposal are many but I look at the black hole of $36 Billion in NextGen budget and spending that has gotten us virtually no where in terms of major system improvements. We need to transition away from a radar based system and NextGen is not delivering on that need with the DOT's Inspector General putting the price tag at $100 Billion to reach the program's goals as far back as 2009.

    The move to privatization is already underway in many forms. FAA Flight Service and many of the towers that you operate out of are already privatized service companies. There are huge inefficiencies and even larger procurement issues with the present oversight and management of ATC services by the FAA. Making them more efficient is the goal.

    What this means is a better chance at operational improvement in the system. NextGen has cost billions and is out of date every time it has moved a product to the line. I spend my professional life in a modern cockpit that can place my aircraft to the second over a fix at a given altitude. I operate daily in a 1950's radar based system that still uses miles as a measure to meter traffic. It is based on arcane rules and policies for flowing traffic regardless of conflict and without concern for economics and fuel burn. You cross 50 out of Lubbock at 10,000 because that is the agreement between Center and Approach regardless of traffic or time of day. It's not the controllers; it's the system.

    Meanwhile a privatized system runs the Atlantic Ocean system. To accommodate the twice-daily stampede, air traffic planners in Gander, Newfoundland and Prestwick, Scotland create weather optimized routes across the Atlantic, called the North Atlantic Organized Track system (NATs). NATs are like a multi-lane, one-way highway in the sky. The tracks change each day to provide the most efficient routes for the airlines.

    The British and for that matter all of Europe have a privatized ATC system in one form or another since the 1980's. General Aviation in Europe is not dead because of ATC. There are enough reasons why to fill a whole other thread, but it is not because of their ATC system.

    Globally, over 60 countries have moved to privatization to date. Canada is perhaps the best example of how a shift in air-traffic governance can benefit the flying public. Since privatizing air-traffic control in 1996, operating costs have fallen, labor relations have improved, and the government has been freed from what was then a loss-making enterprise. Nav Canada has been pointed to by several on here as not killing GA in Canada. It is different, but it is not killing off GA.

    I am a GA guy to my soul and as always we must remain vigilant to the threats to General Aviation. However, I cannot, after working in DC for several years, support continued waste and lack of progress by the FAA who is one of the most inefficient bureaucracies. At some point doing the same thing over and over and getting the same result is insanity. Pulling ATC services out from under a department of the government and handing it's management to a stake holder led board free from the malaise of a government bureaucracy is the best path I see to implement a modern and efficient ATC system.

    Fire away.

  30. #70
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    6,879
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Jackson View Post
    There have been several statements about this being a grab by the airlines at control, The proposed board that will oversee the not-for profit corporation will be made up as follows under latest proposal:

    The makeup of the 13-member board will have one seat each to be given to people nominated by:

    (1)Part 121 carriers
    (1)cargo carriers
    (1)regional carriers

    (1)airports
    (1)business aviation
    (1)general aviation

    (1)air traffic controllers union
    (1)Airline pilot's unions
    (2)The Department of Transportation
    (2)Two “at large” seats (ostensibly for people with financial backgrounds)
    (1)CEO to lead Board

    There are checks and balances there and it is certainly not representative of where funding to this entity is coming from in terms of balance. I believe that GA and Business Aviation are fairly represented there and will be able to have their collective voices heard and find allies up and down the board on various issues.
    I disagree with your assessment that business and general aviation are fairly represented. I've colored those who operate primarily in the IFR environment in red and those who operate in the VFR environment in green. That gives the "airlines" 4-1/2 members on the board and us "general aviation" 1-1/2. How is that a fair representation? It most definitely indicates an airline grab for control. You know as well as I that the Airline pilot's unions always come out against that which benefits general aviation. Their stance on the recent "basic med" legislation where the bill was changed to suit some of their wishes for example. There is not one airline pilot who could operate with "basic med". Their opinion should not have been considered, yet it was. You already know where their votes lie.

    Yes, the FAA is very adept at making elephants out of mice. And they certainly have done so with the "next gen" process. This particular elephant seems to be the incentive for the current separation push (not the first time). I suggest that it may be more appropriate to remove ATC from FAA and allow them to operate air traffic control without FAA input. There are adequate regulations already in place. This can be accomplished using the current personnel without any bureaucratic expansion. Then if a separate ATC is unable to function we could consider a Canadian type of system.

    The suggested board makeup is seriously overweight in favor of the airline industry. I have spent 34 years being full time involved in the airline industry simultaneously with 60 years of being full time involved in general aviation. I do not trust that this "new" ATC will be fairly operated without tremendous expense and control of general aviation. Every time that some "new and improved" action takes place, general aviation looses ground. Personal private flyers throw in the towel. The "little people" who have little disposable income are forced out. General aviation dies a little more. Youngsters are discouraged from "hanging out" at the local airports. Aviation dies a little more from the roots. Case in point, during the 70s thousands of general aviation airplanes were built every year to meet the demand. Look at today's production volumes. I look up in the sky everyday, where are the small planes? They used to be there everyday all day, now it is only on weekends. Hours go by without hearing plane noises and I live near a big metropolis. Yes there are jets going into the big city, but no little people. Yes what we have now is broken. This "new" system as it is proposed is not the fix.
    Last edited by skywagon8a; 07-18-2017 at 07:23 AM.

  31. #71
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    6,879
    Post Thanks / Like
    I might add that Donald Trump is openly in favor of this proposition. No sj this is not political. I suspect that since Donald is fortunate to be able to fly a 757 as his general aviation airplane and his reasoning is that his personal pilot may be in favor.
    N1PA

  32. #72
    WindOnHisNose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Corcoran MN
    Posts
    3,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Paul, I greatly appreciate you sharing your thoughts, and your opinions.

    skywagon8a, you did a superb job in your discussion of Paul's post, and I am in total agreement with you. "Overweight" in favor of airlines is an understatement. We need a serious BMI discussion as it applies to this proposal .

    imho

    Randy
    Thanks OLDCROWE, skywagon8a thanked for this post

  33. #73
    SJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Kansas City, USA
    Posts
    13,225
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    I might add that Donald Trump is openly in favor of this proposition. No sj this is not political. I suspect that since Donald is fortunate to be able to fly a 757 as his general aviation airplane and his reasoning is that his personal pilot may be in favor.
    Actually, this is SUPER political, but you are all doing a pretty good job of sticking with the meat of it - SO FAR. It is important to all of us.

    sj
    "Often Mistaken, but Never in Doubt"
    ------------------------------------------
    Likes WindOnHisNose liked this post

  34. #74
    aviationinfo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Southwest WA
    Posts
    701
    Post Thanks / Like
    Airline and business aviation are clearly overrepresented on the board. Those interests will vote as a bloc. And I would also ask---where's the congressional oversight? The DOT isn't Congress. We don't Elect anyone who works for the DOT.

    Let's say that this new structure will revolutionize ATC and it will be new and improved, and NextGen will be implemented perfectly. Where will this hyper-efficient nongovernment organization park all those efficiently-routed and highly capable jets like many on this site fly, if the airport infrastructure remains the same? Oh we'll all fly direct, and then we'll hold while we wait to get in. In other words, this is no panacea. Even if ATC procurement is improved (and that's arguable) the fact remains only so many planes can utilize a runway at once. So if we're going to compare other countries' systems we better include the fact that they represent a fraction of the traffic being handled by ATC in this country. The bottlenecks aren't enroute, they're at either end of the journey.

    This is a 100% political issue. The fact is, we don't have a funding problem, we don't have a fundamental ATC problem, we have infrastructure issues that cannot be fixed simply through changing the ownership of revenue streams. And if we think this private corporation can cut through FAA procurement policy and regulations because suddenly those won't apply, well, I have a toll bridge in Florida for sale...
    Aviationinfo
    Thanks Gordon Misch thanked for this post
    Likes skywagon8a, OLDCROWE, Bill Rusk liked this post

  35. #75

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Meanwhile,...
    Posts
    4,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    With the apparent latest significant Health Care bill failure I look for the FAA reauthorization/privatization to become center stage in the Administration's push to get something approved, on the President's agenda.

    No doubt about it the game is afoot.
    Last edited by OLDCROWE; 07-18-2017 at 12:06 PM.
    "Don't feed the hipsters"

  36. #76
    WindOnHisNose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Corcoran MN
    Posts
    3,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by aviationinfo View Post
    Airline and business aviation are clearly overrepresented on the board. Those interests will vote as a bloc. And I would also ask---where's the congressional oversight? The DOT isn't Congress. We don't Elect anyone who works for the DOT.

    Let's say that this new structure will revolutionize ATC and it will be new and improved, and NextGen will be implemented perfectly. Where will this hyper-efficient nongovernment organization park all those efficiently-routed and highly capable jets like many on this site fly, if the airport infrastructure remains the same? Oh we'll all fly direct, and then we'll hold while we wait to get in. In other words, this is no panacea. Even if ATC procurement is improved (and that's arguable) the fact remains only so many planes can utilize a runway at once. So if we're going to compare other countries' systems we better include the fact that they represent a fraction of the traffic being handled by ATC in this country. The bottlenecks aren't enroute, they're at either end of the journey.

    This is a 100% political issue. The fact is, we don't have a funding problem, we don't have a fundamental ATC problem, we have infrastructure issues that cannot be fixed simply through changing the ownership of revenue streams. And if we think this private corporation can cut through FAA procurement policy and regulations because suddenly those won't apply, well, I have a toll bridge in Florida for sale...
    Amen, Brother, Amen...

    Randy

  37. #77
    WindOnHisNose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Corcoran MN
    Posts
    3,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by aviationinfo View Post
    Airline and business aviation are clearly overrepresented on the board. Those interests will vote as a bloc. And I would also ask---where's the congressional oversight? The DOT isn't Congress. We don't Elect anyone who works for the DOT.

    Let's say that this new structure will revolutionize ATC and it will be new and improved, and NextGen will be implemented perfectly. Where will this hyper-efficient nongovernment organization park all those efficiently-routed and highly capable jets like many on this site fly, if the airport infrastructure remains the same? Oh we'll all fly direct, and then we'll hold while we wait to get in. In other words, this is no panacea. Even if ATC procurement is improved (and that's arguable) the fact remains only so many planes can utilize a runway at once. So if we're going to compare other countries' systems we better include the fact that they represent a fraction of the traffic being handled by ATC in this country. The bottlenecks aren't enroute, they're at either end of the journey.

    This is a 100% political issue. The fact is, we don't have a funding problem, we don't have a fundamental ATC problem, we have infrastructure issues that cannot be fixed simply through changing the ownership of revenue streams. And if we think this private corporation can cut through FAA procurement policy and regulations because suddenly those won't apply, well, I have a toll bridge in Florida for sale...
    Amen, Brother, Amen...

    Randy

  38. #78

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Meanwhile,...
    Posts
    4,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    I believe we have their attention:

    AOPA "A bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration and privatize air traffic control was delayed in the US House of Representatives, and the bill did not appear to be scheduled for a vote during the week of July 17, as had been expected."
    Last edited by OLDCROWE; 07-18-2017 at 01:26 PM.
    "Don't feed the hipsters"

  39. #79
    Paul Jackson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    99
    Post Thanks / Like
    Good debate and one that has to happen. Civil people can have civil discussions.

    I am confident that the FAA will retain command and control over all rule making pertaining to access and to fairness in the system. What I struggle with is what the fear is and where is it evidenced by the privatization that has occurred globally specifically in Canada. Better equipment and better processes do aid the airlines as they are the consumer of IFR services by a vast margin in terms of hours and operations. It also aids Business aviation and I have not heard any hard facts about how piston GA has been harmed.

    77% of airports in the US are general aviation only. These airports provide full access to communities that they serve. This measure does little to nothing to change or threaten those airports. You can argue about services at these airports being reduced but GA has shrunk and is shrinking for many reasons. The services provided need to match these new realities. Again, fact is there are towers that need to be closed and radar facilities that aren't needed due to lost volume over time. This measure will accelerate the inevitable that is occurring at a slower rate under the present system.

    What can happen under a new system is acceleration of efficiency and new technologies. Rolling up approach radar facilities in regions and providing more centralized radar services is already underway. Areas like Southern California have single SOCAL approach that is centralized and provides approach radar services at all airports in the region. This is efficiency and it is coming in drips with the FAA overseeing management as budget saving is an oxymoron. A private based entity would be free to accelerate these programs and push efficiency in the model. I don't see a threat to GA in this type of move and a case could be made that some communities could retain services rather than lose them. There is no reason to have separate approach radar facilities when consolidating them does not harm services and improves efficiency.

    In terms of access for VFR, at present you need permission to enter many air spaces VFR and it is denied on volume at times. I would hope that pushing more efficient technologies would increase access and not limit it. Today you are limited due to a lack of ability to handle volume due to a radar based system and antiquated procedures.

    General Aviation as an IFR consumer is not charged more than an annual fee under the present proposal. Even if the per operation fees were added later the low volume of IFR operations by piston GA in comparison to the operations by airlines would not amount to much. There just isn't enough volume to make a case that there is a pot of money waiting to be had in user fees for piston general aviation.

    Rules and policy decisions will still reside with the FAA. What is changing is how ATC services are funded and operated. I can see the fear of airline bias but I can't see how that manifests itself directly into harm to GA as a fact to be argued. My 180 will still go where it needs for my recreational needs. I welcome ADS-B into my cockpit and have already seen the price tag for it drop into the realm of affordability and we are still far out from the 2020 mandate. I do believe that there needs to be waivers for some as it just makes little to no sense to require ADS-B in remote and low traffic areas. But that is an FAA decision not one to be made by this new entity.
    Thanks WindOnHisNose thanked for this post
    Likes Chicken Hawk, Gordon Misch liked this post

  40. #80
    Marty57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nipomo, Ca
    Posts
    1,203
    Post Thanks / Like
    A little better news today; the House announced they had delayed the vote. It's currently not on the calendar for the week. According to the news from AOPA, that could indicate they don't have to votes to move forward with the bill. Keep calling your Congressman about this; I called mine yesterday. From the conversation I had with the staffer that answered the phone in DC they were getting a lot of calls about this, none of them in favor of the bill. Here's a link to the AOPA article:
    https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...medium=Content

    Marty57
    N367PS
    Psalm 36:7 "High and low among men find refuge in the shadow of His wing"
    www.marty2plus2.com
    Likes WindOnHisNose liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Is Bill Quirk still around?
    By Dave Calkins in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-30-2016, 12:53 PM
  2. Bill Knight
    By cubdriver2 in forum Gone West
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-11-2016, 11:36 AM
  3. Replies: 55
    Last Post: 12-09-2015, 02:52 PM
  4. Bill Rusk
    By JimC in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-30-2013, 01:27 AM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •