AOPA against House bill on privatization

CharlieN said:

Good thought, makes the electronic fuel injection a bit tough to manage though.

Click to expand...

Not really, Have a battery with enough capacity and a wind driven generator. I'm running P-mag electronic ignition and some electric instruments on battery alone. The battery is good for many starts in a day. Wind driven generator is the key.

Cub Special Ed said:

The problem is the government. They screw up everything they touch and want more money to fix it. Then screw it up more and want more money ect... jmho

Click to expand...

While I won't debate government efficiency I will debate the merits of any form of government which held up as better than our own.

Term limits is a start and get rid of lobbies.

I spent almost 38 years doing the July budget dance..."spend it or lose it" whether you need it or not before the end of September. We need adult leadership and that's hard to find at the top of the US Government.

OLDCROWE said:

While I won't debate government efficiency I will debate the merits of any form of government which held up as better than our own.

Click to expand...

No form of govt is better than the one our founding fathers set up. The debate is, where in the constitution does it grant the federal govt the authority over anything other than military or foriegn trade? Evrything else should be left to the states.

Folks, you are wandering off into politics here let's stay on point please.


Sent from my iPad using SuperCub.Org

Since I work for a government controlled industry that was spun off to be managed by private industry, I can relate my experience with it. The private contractor took over, stripped away the benefits for new employees, still works under the thumb of the federal government with all their inherent idiocracy and inefficiencies. There was no increase inefficiency. Worker benefits were significantly reduced. And the management fee for the contract went up by a factor of 10 as compared to when we were managed by a University. After 10 years of privatization, the feds are firing the contract company they brought in, and will award the management to a new contract company, thinking that's going to fix the problems. We can expect to lose more employee benefits, costs to go up, and still the same inefficiencies thanks to the federal government oversight since they are the source of the problems. I really don't think I want to see the FAA go that route. However, AOPA and EAA have to have a crisis, whether real or imagined, to maintain their membership roles to lobby in Washington. I'm not so sure I like being a part of that either.

-Cub Builder

Cub Builder, thanks for your note. Your insight is helpful, and I also really don't want any part of privitization of ATC, for those reasons.

With regard to your comment about AOPA and EAA, I would agree with your concerns with regard to EAA, but not AOPA. AOPA has done a quite remarkable job in getting legislation through that five years ago I really thought was not at all likely. Knowing Mark Baker, it is my sense that he really would rather not have this battle emerge just when they were catching their breath from the PBR2 legislative push...and it was a significant push.

Randy

My experience as a government contractor was quite different. When I started my current job, we were a very small part of a very large defense contractor. Good pay, great work rules, and the company left us alone as long as we kept our customers happy. Then, some wonk decided our job was "inherently governmental" and made us GS. We got a 20% pay cut, eight layers of bs bureaucracy, and it didn't save the govt any money at all.

That said, I am against ATC privatization. With the airlines running it, what do you think will happen? The only things airlines have been consistently good at is keeping their CEOs well paid.

txpacer said:

That said, I am against ATC privatization. With the airlines running it, what do you think will happen? The only things airlines have been consistently good at is keeping their CEOs well paid.

Click to expand...

And, that is specifically the issue I see with this proposal. It has nothing to do with government or private contractors working in the field or even managing it. The fact is, this proposal suggests that a board will be formed to manage ATC, and it is clear that said board will be dominated by airline management. If you think it's hard to get government or non profits to listen to and advocate for general aviation issues, where do you think this proposal will put General Aviation in the "pecking order" when it comes to ATC/Airspace utilization, etc?

Does anyone here seriously think that the airline industry would manage the ATC system in any way other than to benefit themselves? Based on the airline industry's history in this country, does anyone here seriously think that these people are capable of managing ANYTHING?

But, the point is, this is not just changing management of a government function to a private entity that's being proposed.....it's effectively giving our access to the national airspace system to the airline industry, to do with as they wish.

If it were done right, I have no problem with the ATC system being managed by a contractor......IF it were done right. What is being proposed here is not "done right" in my opinion.

MTV

The Senate bill, which has AOPA support is out of committee, but does not yet appear to have been published.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1405

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.

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.

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

kase said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Kirby, you make a good point. All the more reason for privatization funded by user fees.

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

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

kase said:

Kirby, you make a good point. All the more reason for privatization funded by user fees.

Click to expand...

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.

Hell, Kirby, the list of people I have angered or insulted is long and distinguished. You are a light weight.
;-)

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.

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.

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.

Gordon Misch said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

NunavutPA-12 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

mvivion said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

NunavutPA-12 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

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.