AOPA, EAA and others oppose announced ATC privatization

[Palmpilot]

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!

People talking about whether they support the President or not is part of what got the last thread on this subject closed.

 

[ircphoenix]

Self funded by what? Rainbows and unicorns?

No. You're being obtuse. People will buy naming rights like stadiums. "Information Papa here at Pepsi-Los Angeles airport has been brought to you courtesy of Lever 2000, for all your 2000 parts."

 

[jspilot]

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.

I never said outlaw GA-- I was responding to a post that suggested it could be outlawed.

Moving on though, yes exactly what you say will happen is exactly what I've been suggesting throughout my responses in this thread and the locked one. User fees will decrease GA using ATC unless the FAR/AIM's are re-written requiring every plane in the air to contact ATC. Good luck with that as that will lead to 100% less efficient ATC because if every single VFR aircraft had to contact ATC in congested airspace like I fly out of on a beautiful Saturday, the controller simply could not handle that amount of workload and the frequency would be beyond congested with multiple pilots talking over each other and that annoying squelch like buzz ringing constantly in everyone's ear because multiple people would be keying to talk at the same time.... That does not sound like an "increase in efficiency" to me!

The other side effect you mention about airports is key to this argument too. Again, AOPA simply should say that GA will just fly more often from non-towered airports and therefore much of the existing towered class d and class c airports of which GA makes up a good amount of traffic( I'm assuming this to be true but I'd be curious what the numbers are) will be rendered ghost towns and then shut down-- especially a lot of the class d's by me who have literally no airline traffic or less than 5 commercial flights a day, and I'd imagine a exception will be made to VFR GA pilots so we can continue as is.

It's the American way to avoid "fees." We understand taxes and are ok with paying our lot but give us a chance to avoid "fees" and all of us will look for the loop hole in order to pay for a fee!

 

[wsuffa]

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.

It was over $200 in ATC and airport fees for a quick return flight from Linate to Lugano in Europe.

I never said outlaw GA-- I was responding to a post that suggested it could be outlawed.

Moving on though, yes exactly what you say will happen is exactly what I've been suggesting throughout my responses in this thread and the locked one. User fees will decrease GA using ATC unless the FAR/AIM's are re-written requiring every plane in the air to contact ATC. Good luck with that as that will lead to 100% less efficient ATC because if every single VFR aircraft had to contact ATC in congested airspace like I fly out of on a beautiful Saturday, the controller simply could not handle that amount of workload and the frequency would be beyond congested with multiple pilots talking over each other and that annoying squelch like buzz ringing constantly in everyone's ear because multiple people would be keying to talk at the same time.... That does not sound like an "increase in efficiency" to me!

The other side effect you mention about airports is key to this argument too. Again, AOPA simply should say that GA will just fly more often from non-towered airports and therefore much of the existing towered class d and class c airports of which GA makes up a good amount of traffic( I'm assuming this to be true but I'd be curious what the numbers are) will be rendered ghost towns and then shut down-- especially a lot of the class d's by me who have literally no airline traffic or less than 5 commercial flights a day, and I'd imagine a exception will be made to VFR GA pilots so we can continue as is.

It's the American way to avoid "fees." We understand taxes and are ok with paying our lot but give us a chance to avoid "fees" and all of us will look for the loop hole in order to pay for a fee!

Just to point out that the "new" model of highway tolling embraced by the DoT and others is demand-based pricing (with a floor). In the privatized toll lanes around here, a 6 mile trip may be less than $2 on a weekend night (little demand) - I've seen it rise above $18 on a day where the traffic was slower in the "free lanes" due to congestion.

Both parties have embraced the model for highway tolling - the R side because it is a free-market, demand-based approach, and the D side because it encourages more people to use public transportation & encourages folks to not drive alone. The parallel for ATC would be the demand-based approach and encouraging people to give up their private aircraft for airlines.

 

[jspilot]

It was over $200 in ATC and airport fees for a quick return flight from Linate to Lugano in Europe.



Just to point out that the "new" model of highway tolling embraced by the DoT and others is demand-based pricing (with a floor). In the privatized toll lanes around here, a 6 mile trip may be less than $2 on a weekend night (little demand) - I've seen it rise above $18 on a day where the traffic was slower in the "free lanes" due to congestion.

Both parties have embraced the model for highway tolling - the R side because it is a free-market, demand-based approach, and the D side because it encourages more people to use public transportation & encourages folks to not drive alone. The parallel for ATC would be the demand-based approach and encouraging people to give up their private aircraft for airlines.

The toll comparison falls apart because there is no safety element involved in collecting tolls and tolls are an not an optional service. ATC as currently is written is optional for VFR pilots and if given an option those pilots will not use the service and Ga Jets will take off from class G airports and fly VFR whenever possible even in shaky weather just to avoid the fees. Safety must be the focus here. It's so obviously not the best idea to punish people from using a service designed to make everyone safer.

 

[Shawn]

Curious who is really driving this push and to what end?

Of all the government agencies that need to be nixed/privatized/overhauled, ATC has got to be so far down on that need for immediate attention list I just wanna know what special interest will get their palms buttered as a result of this if it passes?

 

[Chip Sylverne]

No. You're being obtuse. People will buy naming rights like stadiums. "Information Papa here at Pepsi-Los Angeles airport has been brought to you courtesy of Lever 2000, for all your 2000 parts."

The next 20 minutes of 121.5 brought to you by Depends...

 

[wsuffa]

The toll comparison falls apart because there is no safety element involved in collecting tolls and tolls are an not an optional service. ATC as currently is written is optional for VFR pilots and if given an option those pilots will not use the service and Ga Jets will take off from class G airports and fly VFR whenever possible even in shaky weather just to avoid the fees. Safety must be the focus here. It's so obviously not the best idea to punish people from using a service designed to make everyone safer.

Not accurate if you base in the DC SFRA, any airport that has a tower, any airport within or butt up against the surface area of an airport with a tower, operating in or near a VIP TFR, operating near or in a stadium TFR, and so forth.

Where I live and where I used to base the plane it was mandatory (SFRA/FRZ). And for practical travel on the east coast and parts of the gulf coast (and parts of California), not being able to go IFR means not going. I suppose it will boost sport pilot because flying then becomes just recreational.

And what happens if/when there is another event that closes airspace to everything except IFR traffic?

Yes, there will be more scud running, but ADSB will make aircraft easy to identify, and it's entirely possible that the FAA will put more restrictions on VFR flight ('for safety purposes').

Nope, no impact at all

 

[jspilot]

Not accurate if you base in the DC SFRA, any airport that has a tower, any airport within or butt up against the surface area of an airport with a tower, operating in or near a VIP TFR, operating near or in a stadium TFR, and so forth.

Where I live and where I used to base the plane it was mandatory (SFRA/FRZ). And for practical travel on the east coast and parts of the gulf coast (and parts of California), not being able to go IFR means not going. I suppose it will boost sport pilot because flying then becomes just recreational.

And what happens if/when there is another event that closes airspace to everything except IFR traffic?

Yes, there will be more scud running, but ADSB will make aircraft easy to identify, and it's entirely possible that the FAA will put more restrictions on VFR flight ('for safety purposes').

Nope, no impact at all

You are making my point for me. All of these reasons are exactly why User Fees are a terrible idea and must not happen. This is why I believe any recommended changes must have a carve out for non-revenue producing flights as this is clearly an attempt to make the system more efficient so the airlines can make more money. Therefore let them foot the bill. The current system works well for me and the entire flying community. I have no issue with the corporate side GA paying to use the service because their is an incentive for them to do so( more optimal service-- in theory of course-- equals more money for them.)

If user fees pass it will be the death of the small plane weekend warrior type pilot for all the obvious reason!

 

[FloridaPilot]

I agree,

Due to the fact the airlines will have control of ATC and are always running on a tight schedule, (Which will never change). I'm wondering will they treat GA the same way as a 747 that needs to land to be there on time?

 

[bflynn]

If user fees pass it will be the death of the small plane weekend warrior type pilot for all the obvious reason!

I don't want to see user fees, but I have to disagree with you because you don't what's being proposed. In Canada today, user fees might be something like $150/year for an average GA airplane, while an airline jet might be charged several thousand dollars a year. Realistically, it will be the airlines (or airline passengers) funding the system and what a GA user will pay won't really be all that large. Overall I'd say it probably adds $5-$10 max per flight hour, which is hardly going to be death of weekend pilots (who are probably flying VFR anyway). Of course we won't know until it is proposed and then it might be too late, which is where fear over user fees come in.

I'm also concerned about the safety angle because giving GA pilots an incentive to fly outside the system is sure to cause more accidents. That is a strong argument for exempting any airplane under say 6,000 lbs from every having user fees.

 

[jspilot]

I don't want to see user fees, but I have to disagree with you because you don't what's being proposed. In Canada today, user fees might be something like $150/year for an average GA airplane, while an airline jet might be charged several thousand dollars a year. Realistically, it will be the airlines (or airline passengers) funding the system and what a GA user will pay won't really be all that large. Overall I'd say it probably adds $5-$10 max per flight hour, which is hardly going to be death of weekend pilots (who are probably flying VFR anyway). Of course we won't know until it is proposed and then it might be too late, which is where fear over user fees come in.

I'm also concerned about the safety angle because giving GA pilots an incentive to fly outside the system is sure to cause more accidents. That is a strong argument for exempting any airplane under say 6,000 lbs from every having user fees.

Yes I've made the argument many times that an exception is clearly the way to go with GA and smaller planes under 6,000 on non revenue producing flights. It's a no brainier really from that standpoint.

You are correct that if its 150 dollars a year than GA will be able to foot that bill no issue at all. However if it's each flight and a substantial amount each time than its looking pretty rough.