AOPA, EAA and others oppose announced ATC privatization

G-Man

G-Man

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Messages
1,064
Location
Boulder, CO
Display Name
Display name:
AirmanG
(Starting a new thread since there is solid info now.)

From an Aircraft Electronics Association press release. PDF attached of actual letter. Please note AOPA and EAA are signators.

What can we as citizens and aviators do to oppose this?

====

June 5, 2017

President Donald J. Trump
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

This letter is in regard to your address today, which outlined principles for transportation-infrastructure investments, including those related to air traffic control.

Our associations represent the individuals and companies that make up a significant portion of the diverse and interrelated general aviation industry in the United States. This is an industry that generates more than one million jobs, and more than $200 billion for the nation's economy. It is worth noting that the majority of all general aviation in the world today takes place in the U.S. and we appreciate your support for our industry. Simply put, general aviation in America is the envy of the world.

Today, the U.S. air traffic control system is the best in the world, moving more aircraft, more safely and efficiently, than any other country. Working with Congress and the Federal Aviation Administration, aviation stakeholders have been able to ensure that our system operates for the public benefit, providing access for all stakeholders to airports, heliports and airspace, and encouraging competition and innovation.

As you know, for over a year, some big airlines have pushed for a new governance and funding model for our nation's aviation system, based on systems in other parts of the world. The general aviation community has very real and long-standing concerns, which include but are not limited to user fees. These concerns are based on our operating experiences in these foreign systems and the impact they have had on general aviation.

We respectfully request that you provide ample opportunity for all stakeholders and citizens to carefully review, analyze and debate any proposed legislation changing the governance and funding for air traffic control.

Sincerely,

Air Care Alliance
Aircraft Electronics Association
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
Citation Jet Pilots
Commemorative Air Force
Experimental Aircraft Association
General Aviation Manufacturers Association
Helicopter Association International
International Council of Air Shows
National Agricultural Aviation Association
National Association of State Aviation Officials
National Air Transportation Association
National Business Aviation Association
Recreational Aviation Foundation
U.S. Parachute Association
Veterans Airlift Command
 

Attachments

  • GA-Industry-Letter-Trump-ATC-Privatization.pdf
    95.9 KB · Views: 2
If this results fee system like Canada, I am in favor.
 
What can you do? Go back and find my posting. In summary:

1) Assemble FACTS! Facts include the economic impact of Aviation in general and GA in your state. That includes jobs and taxes
2) From your state Div of Transportation, get the numbers of how fuel taxes are collected and used within the state.
3) Get the details from Delta Airlines why it opposes privatization
4) Find the Transportation/Aviation staffer for your congress critter and present these facts along with:
  • Comparing the FAA ATC to other countries is irrelevant because the US has many times more flights in a given day (both domestic and international) than any other country (including Canada), probably more than multiple countries put together.
  • Point out that there's no quantitative analysis by the CBO or other non-partisan entity that shows benefit to privatization.
  • Point out Public Benefit Flying (PBF) such as Angel Flight
5) Rally the folks at your airport to do the same.

Try very hard to avoid pointing out that Shuster is buddy-buddy with A4A, the airline lobby.

Remember, GA is a tiny, almost irrelevant blip on anyone's radar. But to point out the safety and economic impact in general and for GA, these are compelling arguments. Try to avoid sounding like someone is taking away your toys.
 
Last edited:
I wrote this in the other thread that was locked unfortunately.

All AOPA has to say here is that user fees will discourage GA and VFR pilots from using the ATC system and will create a scenario by which pilots actively avoid talking to air traffic controllers thus making the entire safety of the flying public less safe and the media will seize on this and user fees will die. The media already uses small planes as the enemy and highlights the crashes and calls for investigations on safety( or their perceived lack of safety) every chance they get. If AOPA is smart, they will use this and say essentially "you think it's bad now, wait till small planes don't use the service designed to keep them away from airliners" and literally the public will run and scream at their local reps to oppose the user fees.
 
You can also show other examples of how privatization of govt services has been less than successful. Military housing is a good example.
 
murphey said:
Remember, GA is a tiny, almost irrelevant blip on anyone's radar. But to point out the safety and economic impact in general and for GA, these are compelling arguments. Try to avoid sounding like someone is taking away your toys.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I can always wait a couple of days for clouds to clear and go VFR, but the thought of being a passenger on an airliner flying in a privatized ATC system scares the crap out of me.
 
Fearless Tower said:
You can also show other examples of how privatization of govt services has been less than successful. Military housing is a good example.
Click to expand...

USPS is one. Amtrak, a government sponsored corporation is another.
 
Walboy said:
I think Lockmart did a good job with FSS. I have no idea whether money has been saved. There seemed to be a huge uproar at the time as I recall.
Click to expand...
Do you still use Lockheed Martin Flight Service? After the third time in a row the briefer knew far less than I did about the weather and TFRs, I stopped calling. I assume this is their business model.
 
jspilot said:
I wrote this in the other thread that was locked unfortunately.

All AOPA has to say here is that user fees will discourage GA and VFR pilots from using the ATC system and will create a scenario by which pilots actively avoid talking to air traffic controllers thus making the entire safety of the flying public less safe and the media will seize on this and user fees will die. The media already uses small planes as the enemy and highlights the crashes and calls for investigations on safety( or their perceived lack of safety) every chance they get. If AOPA is smart, they will use this and say essentially "you think it's bad now, wait till small planes don't use the service designed to keep them away from airliners" and literally the public will run and scream at their local reps to oppose the user fees.
Click to expand...

With ADSB it won't matter if you contact them or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Heftiger said:
With ADSB it won't matter if you contact them or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Depends on how the system is setup. Yes, ADS-B makes it possible to track and bill any aircraft that takes to the skies, but the previous attempts at user fees were aimed at actual air traffic control users. I haven't seen anything trying to change that. It wouldn't jive with the airline lobbyists anyway. Their goal is to get GA out of the ATC system.
 
Who says fees are involved in the reform? Who says the carriers are taking over all of GA?

There are three main sources of revenue running the airports and skys. Taxpayers, passenger/carrier fees, and gas taxes. So far, GA is riding fairly free on the system. Unless GA becomes too big a burden on the system we probably won't see any change except who signs ATC paychecks.
 
wsuffa said:
USPS is one. Amtrak, a government sponsored corporation is another.
Click to expand...

Private prisons. Imprisoning people for profit. Questionable.

Unfortunately in most large systems, profit is directly at odds with service. Especially in the case of monopolies or near monopolies. How many people are satisfied with their cable TV provider?
 
ircphoenix said:
Private prisons. Imprisoning people for profit. Questionable.

Unfortunately in most large systems, profit is directly at odds with service. Especially in the case of monopolies or near monopolies. How many people are satisfied with their cable TV provider?
Click to expand...
Sure. And shall we talk about the fine airline IT meltdowns of late? Including the BA one where they tried to charge some passengers to change their flights?
 
citizen5000 said:
Who says fees are involved in the reform? Who says the carriers are taking over all of GA?

There are three main sources of revenue running the airports and skys. Taxpayers, passenger/carrier fees, and gas taxes. So far, GA is riding fairly free on the system. Unless GA becomes too big a burden on the system we probably won't see any change except who signs ATC paychecks.
Click to expand...
We do pay gas taxes (most of us, some use car gas). Some airports, landing and parking fees. In the closed thread, look who was involved in the announcement- the airlines. They won't take over GA, but would force a lot of GA out (corporate jets, FedEx and similar carriers are GA and are "rich" enough to pay a European-style user fee system).
 
ircphoenix said:
Private prisons. Imprisoning people for profit. Questionable.

Unfortunately in most large systems, profit is directly at odds with service. Especially in the case of monopolies or near monopolies. How many people are satisfied with their cable TV provider?
Click to expand...
"Red light cameras" is another. I've heard that, when profits are down, they change the yellow light timing to generate more tickets. I've no reference, just hear-say.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
"Red light cameras" is another. I've heard that, when profits are down, they change the yellow light timing to generate more tickets. I've no reference, just hear-say.
Click to expand...

I hate those things too. Ridiculous. Or *speed* cameras. Gift of public funds to private companies.
 
Regardless of what idiot proposes something as ridiculous as ATC privatization.
I think AOPA should fight it and fight it hard. ATC is a service where safety actually matters, privatization can only hurt it.
And this letter seems to be just a funny joke. I expected a much more strongly worded letter with the stance of general opposition.
I wonder if AOPA is planning on putting together something more meaningful and useful. I understand their resources must be scarce right now with summer vacations going on. Maybe this was just a placeholder letter and the real one will follow.
Really hoping.
 
citizen5000 said:
Who says fees are involved in the reform? Who says the carriers are taking over all of GA?

There are three main sources of revenue running the airports and skys. Taxpayers, passenger/carrier fees, and gas taxes. So far, GA is riding fairly free on the system. Unless GA becomes too big a burden on the system we probably won't see any change except who signs ATC paychecks.
Click to expand...

You might want to watch today's announcement by the President. His plan is an independent ATC system with no tax payer support.
 
Last edited:
I posted this on other forums and there have been some very worthwhile comments. As user Crestline posted on the AOPA forum: "Note that nowhere in the letter does it say AOPA opposes ATC Privatization.

For that matter, it looks like [AOPA leader Mark] Baker convinced other organizations, some who previously expressed opposition to ATC Privatization (e.g., EAA), to drop opposition to ATC Privatization in the letter."

Here is the key sentence in the letter:
"As you know, for over a year, some big airlines have pushed for a new governance and funding model for our nation's aviation system, based on systems in other parts of the world. The general aviation community has very real and long-standing concerns, which include but are not limited to user fees. These concerns are based on our operating experiences in these foreign systems and the impact they have had on general aviation."

This is an important distinction!
 
Heftiger said:
With ADSB it won't matter if you contact them or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't see how the two are connected. They may be able to identify my airplane as airborne but no where in true FAR/AIM does it require me to contact ATC when departing a non-towered airport and flying in class E airspace. I currently chose to contact ATC to provide a service that makes everyone safer. However, if I'm forced to now pay a substantial amount more for that service( which we already pay for each time gas gets put in the plane) I'll probably opt out more often than not.

It's such an easy spin for AOPA and GA to fight this user fee model with simple safety oriented lines. User fees are just an absurd idea because they discourage use. If ATC gets privatized I'm not against that-- and if airlines want to fund the bill to make it more efficient so they can make more money, sure go right ahead I don't care, free market makes the world a better place. However, I won't support user fees and only will support any form of fees if an exception is carved out for planes flying VFR as non-revenue producing flights as it makes no sense to charge the guy flying to breakfast in a 172 money for using a service he can legally not use!
 
What is the benefit to groups like AOPA or the NRA to actually getting the things their members want accomplished. They are far better off when there is opposition to their members views. They can then keep begging for money all while making lame attempts to solve a problem they don't really want solved because once solved it will impact their ability to raise money.
 
Oh I'm sure AOPA will use this to get us cancelled members back...
 
AOPA opposes ATC privatization. I may have a heart attack from the surprise.

With luck there are enough Congresscritters with their heads screwed on straight to prevent this from happening.
 
jspilot said:
I don't see how the two are connected. They may be able to identify my airplane as airborne but no where in true FAR/AIM does it require me to contact ATC when departing a non-towered airport and flying in class E airspace. I currently chose to contact ATC to provide a service that makes everyone safer. However, if I'm forced to now pay a substantial amount more for that service( which we already pay for each time gas gets put in the plane) I'll probably opt out more often than not.

It's such an easy spin for AOPA and GA to fight this user fee model with simple safety oriented lines. User fees are just an absurd idea because they discourage use. If ATC gets privatized I'm not against that-- and if airlines want to fund the bill to make it more efficient so they can make more money, sure go right ahead I don't care, free market makes the world a better place. However, I won't support user fees and only will support any form of fees if an exception is carved out for planes flying VFR as non-revenue producing flights as it makes no sense to charge the guy flying to breakfast in a 172 money for using a service he can legally not use!
Click to expand...

This makes a lot of sense to me.

I don't know the ins and outs of all the points at all, but it would be nice if discussions didn't digress again enter peeves against AOPA, etc.

I'm just wondering,
1) it seems from the commercial airlines viewpoint "it needs fixing". Why?
2) I'm not so clear if there is any consensus among GA private pilots as to whether ATC "needs fixing" or is "broke" and may have missed it but even privatization ideologues seem to me to be admitting it isn't broke.

Just my opinion, but i don't think if it is enacted, it is going to be like Canada, or Europe. I think when this gets negotiated, bid out, etc. there will be many chances for profit interests, and that worries me. My experience with huge corporations is they spend a lot of time thinking up ways to maximize profit. You can call it "more efficient" but I don't see it as such, unless efficient at extracting every penny they can. It's not a critique, it is made to maximize profit.
 
Is there a synopsis of the bill as written? Privatizing ATC may or may not be a bad thing, but without specifics, there is no way to tell.
 
jspilot said:
I wrote this in the other thread that was locked unfortunately.

All AOPA has to say here is that user fees will discourage GA and VFR pilots from using the ATC system and will create a scenario by which pilots actively avoid talking to air traffic controllers thus making the entire safety of the flying public less safe and the media will seize on this and user fees will die. The media already uses small planes as the enemy and highlights the crashes and calls for investigations on safety( or their perceived lack of safety) every chance they get. If AOPA is smart, they will use this and say essentially "you think it's bad now, wait till small planes don't use the service designed to keep them away from airliners" and literally the public will run and scream at their local reps to oppose the user fees.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I think this tactic is at least as likely to cause an outcry to "ground those dangerous small planes!" Most media folks don't understand us (at best) and actively dislike us (at worst). Our current social and political climate is much more geared to "if it's not safe, outlaw it. The children!"

John
 
John-

This is a good point. I think simply out lawing GA is not in the cards as it is a vital piece to many small communities and a form of transportation that carries supplies all throughout the nation. A small amount of scare tactic and general information so the public eye actually knows how the ATC system actually works should combine to make the general mood around user fees turn more negative.

Again, the key here is the airlines want this to make the system more efficient. If they want it, they should foot the bill. Unfortunately I know that's not how these things work in real life but the simple out for us GA guys is to continue to advocate that the ATC system makes us all safer and everyone should be encouraged to use it.
 
jspilot said:
John-

This is a good point. I think simply out lawing GA is not in the cards as it is a vital piece to many small communities and a form of transportation that carries supplies all throughout the nation. A small amount of scare tactic and general information so the public eye actually knows how the ATC system actually works should combine to make the general mood around user fees turn more negative.

Again, the key here is the airlines want this to make the system more efficient. If they want it, they should foot the bill. Unfortunately I know that's not how these things work in real life but the simple out for us GA guys is to continue to advocate that the ATC system makes us all safer and everyone should be encouraged to use it.
Click to expand...
It doesn't need to be outlawed. If it's simply assessed the hourly fees that the kerosene burners will pay, it'll kill it quickly. Likewise if access is restricted to certain airspace or airports (rationed). If forced to pay anything other than minimal, nominal ATC fees, you can kiss goodbye to every airport in the DC SFRA, for example, because there is no VFR option without ATC - same for every VIP TFR.
 
To clarify: I said there'd be calls to outlaw it if we raise the safety issue of user fees. I didn't say they'd actually do it. But they might require everybody to use ATC (think of the SFRZ around D.C. Over the whole country), and then fee us to death. And I'd guess the majority of the public would go along because they already don't understand why we don't have to file flight plans and talk to ATC.

It's the PR nightmare that worries me.
John
 
Don't worry, I will be part of the team with the winning bid. It will all be fantastic!
 
According to this article, "Funding for air-traffic control would shift from the collection of taxes on fuel and airline tickets to a user-fee model that would be established by a 13-member board." As I interpret the result of that, each ticket will probably bear a user-fee supplement of some sort - a pass through.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ants-to-privatize-air-traffic-control/529200/

Perhaps they'd continue to tax 100LL and earmark it for transfer to the private ATC co-op, but I'd guess that user fees for non-commercial users would be more likely.
 
Last edited:
I've got pilot friends in Europe that are amazed at how much better our ATC system works than theirs.

One said that if I really want to see the impact of privatizing ATC all I had to do was look up and count the small GA planes I could see overhead. I told him that I didn't see any the entire time I was in Italy and France and didn't see any in Switzerland that weren't very close to a small airport.

His response was 'exactly'.
 
GaryV said:
I've got pilot friends in Europe that are amazed at how much better our ATC system works than theirs.

One said that if I really want to see the impact of privatizing ATC all I had to do was look up and count the small GA planes I could see overhead. I told him that I didn't see any the entire time I was in Italy and France and didn't see any in Switzerland that weren't very close to a small airport.

His response was 'exactly'.
Click to expand...

Are all the European countries ATC's privatized?

John
 
The whole thing would be a giant experiment, with the flying public as the guinea pigs.

I think it needs to be pointed out that when Flight Service was privatized, it was a zoo for a year or two, and that privatizing ATC would be a MUCH bigger job, with many more things that could and would go wrong while ATC Incorporated was climbing the learning curve. We need to point out that subjecting airline passengers and general aviation alike to the resultant safety risks would not be a plus when it comes time to get reelected.

It also needs to be pointed out that the only reason U.S. airlines can find enough 1500-hour pilots to hire is because we have a viable general aviation industry for them to get trained and get their experience in. And we should point out that allowing them to hire low time pilots like Europe does would increase the chances that a suicidal pilot like Andreas Lubitz would live long enough to get behind the controls of an airliner.
 
jsstevens said:
Are all the European countries ATC's privatized?
Click to expand...

Yes, and it's all available to GA too. There just isn't much GA, in part because of the costs of the privatized ATC.
 
I look at it this way, I actually agreed with Chuck Schumer this week, and therefore about fell out of my chair. As a supporter of the President, I am against him on this one. "Tickets will be cheaper, no more 20% of the ticket to the FAA, this non-profit organization will be self funding!". Self funded by what? Rainbows and unicorns? Nope user fees, which guess what? The airlines will still pass a long to the passengers, and as far was GA? I don't know about ya'll, but unless I absolutely need to, I'm not calling ATC if I have to pay for it. Not only will (in my opinion) be the opposite of an improvement in safety (here comes the ADS-B brigade). What about that whole pilot shortage thing? Good luck with that, because making GA more expensive ain't gonna make more pilots. "But Canada has privatized ATC!" Gee Golly, yes we should be more like Canada! (No offense to our neighbors to the north).

If only they would mandate the AOA, we would really be on track!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top