- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 23,968
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Noel
would the farmed out ATC be union or non-union?
Big Airline push to Privatize ATC - User Fees
- Thread starter SCCutler
- Start date
would the farmed out ATC be union or non-union?
MarkZ
En-Route
Incorrect. A more factual statement would be, "Lockmart has consolidated facilities and personnel in the name of 'cost savings,' but at the cost of intangible experience and service provided."
Anyone who dealt with an FAA v. LM briefer will tell you FSS has not improved.
MarkZ
En-Route
What does union/non-union have to do with addressing "ATC problems"?
Of course they are. Everything in America is about 'the bottom line'; how much money can be syphoned off society. If there is a dollar left in society that could get funneled and skimmed on Wall Street, that is what our government is mandated to do. Ergo, too much money going to people is a problem with ATC.
Don't be confused with what ATC's function is, it's to keep the money flowing to Wall Street. That's why the whole bloody country is so inefficient.
roncachamp
Final Approach
The cost of federal retirement benefits and high pay scales are not ATC-specific problems.
I possess no confusion whatsoever with what ATC's function is. You do.
What makes you think that privatization of government services is ATC specific?
This is just but one example no different from many others. Take prisons, it's turning into a 'For Profit' industry, and that is what is being done wth ATC as well.
The real purpose of everything in America is to make money, everything else is just seen as a tool in those regards.
roncachamp
Final Approach
What makes you think that privatization of government services is ATC specific?
What led you to believe this discussion was about any government service other than ATC?
JoseCuervo
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,868
- Display Name
Display name:
JoseCuervo
I always enjoy hearing stories of guys retiring from the military and then getting a job with a contractor, making even more.
The whole privatizing government services is a false economy. And dishonest legislators do it just because they want to get the service off their books.
The whole privatizing government services is a false economy. And dishonest legislators do it just because they want to get the service off their books.
You were asking what ATC can do better privatized, the answer is "Make Wall Street a profit". Like I said, you are under a false impression of what ATC, the FAA, and government in general is all about.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Wrong. I asked; "Can anyone explain what problems there are currently in ATC that would be solved by farming it out?"
Saying that does not make it so, it merely indicates a vast disparity between your understanding and reality.
TexasAviation
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2014
- Messages
- 214
- Display Name
Display name:
TexasAviation
Let's do it the libertarian way. Close the tower at JFK airport and declare a CTAF frequency. See how long it takes the airlines to pony up the funds to re-open it and/or build their own private tower. 
(I jest. A little.)
(I jest. A little.)
What part of "It does not make a profit on Wall Street." Are you having trouble accepting here? Look, I'm not making this **** up, Eisenhower, Kennedy, I learned it from them.
roncachamp
Final Approach
All of it. I reject it because I know it to be untrue.
I'm sure you believe that but it's simply not reality.
Ok, if you refuse to accept reality, there is no answer to your question. As far as providing service, ATC does a pretty exemplary job of it.
Now, in the light of that fact, as well as the push to privatization that continues in that light; which makes more sense, my reality or yours?
roncachamp
Final Approach
There is only one reality.
No sir, not in the slightest. Every perception is its own reality if someone acts on it.
roncachamp
Final Approach
In your mind, but not in reality.
No ATC operational issues would be fixed by privatization. Our current ATC works pretty darned well.
Correct.
Probably non-union for the extremely brief period prior to the representation election, after which it would be a union shop.
Nope.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Correct.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
The argument in favor is this.
So, in a nutshell, modernization is constrained by the Federal budget process. If ATC was privatized it would bypass this. That was also part of the argument for Canada privatizing their ATC system. Note that I am not taking sides on this, just clarifying the argument.
article in the OP said:
So, in a nutshell, modernization is constrained by the Federal budget process. If ATC was privatized it would bypass this. That was also part of the argument for Canada privatizing their ATC system. Note that I am not taking sides on this, just clarifying the argument.
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
ATC charges the airlines too much and general aviation too little, and general aviation sometimes delays airlines. Or so "they" say.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 23,968
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Noel
In the past, controllers have participated in user evaluations of ATC systems being developed.
It was noted that there was a strong correlation between controllers complaining about the systems and contract negotiations. Once union contracts were renegotiated, the controllers got less ****y about the systems under development.
I'm sure it nothing to do the contract negotiations between the union and the FAA.
I'm sure.
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
Anyone remember AAS?
If the first part of that were a real motivation, it could be addressed by modifying the tax structure, while avoiding the disruption in services that would come during a transition to a privatized organization. (See the FSS privatization transition for an example.
)
roncachamp
Final Approach
Delays are caused by demand exceeding capacity at a few dozen US airports and ATC "privatization" will not change that. No new ATC technology will have much effect on it either. Minimum radar separation is three miles but wake turbulence requirements can push it up to six miles. These capacity issues affect enroute operations as well. 25 years ago I was a controller at Chicago ARTCC. We had to provide, IIRC, 30 miles in trail sequencing regardless of altitude on aircraft bound for JFK. Minimum separation was five miles or 2000 feet. There are only two realistic ways to reduce delays at these airports; increase capacity by pouring concrete or decrease demand by raising the cost of slots.
roncachamp
Final Approach
ATC doesn't charge anyone anything.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Affirmative.
Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to just change the procurement process to the same one private industry would use and save their management fee?
All you have to change is a few words, and the people who change them are already being paid. Why would they choose to incure the costs of seven figure executive management when they already have it in the low sixes?
Last edited:
How can we expect civil service to provide as efficient of service as the private sector, when we don't allow it? You don't trust government with money, but you trust the billionaires who profit off government programs with money. Is there something not obviously wrong with the logic there? If we make these rules to secure the procurement process against fraud, and then hire the people we were guarding against to get around those very rules, why do we have those rules on Civil Servants?
There is only one explanation, and it is no secret or conspiracy, it's in every corporate charter, the mandate is to protect the interest of the shareholder. We ask for, no, we demand a government that is responsible to Wall Street. Well, this is what that represents. We're still full on 'trickle down' economics even though Greenspan renounced it as an utter failure that, "doesn't work".
There is only one explanation, and it is no secret or conspiracy, it's in every corporate charter, the mandate is to protect the interest of the shareholder. We ask for, no, we demand a government that is responsible to Wall Street. Well, this is what that represents. We're still full on 'trickle down' economics even though Greenspan renounced it as an utter failure that, "doesn't work".
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
I thought the idea was that new technology would allow reduced separation and more capacity using the existing pavement.
Part of the theory I heard as well, 'tighten up traffic'.
roncachamp
Final Approach
How can we expect civil service to provide as efficient of service as the private sector, when we don't allow it? You don't trust government with money, but you trust the billionaires who profit off government programs with money. Is there something not obviously wrong with the logic there? If we make these rules to secure the procurement process against fraud, and then hire the people we were guarding against to get around those very rules, why do we have those rules on Civil Servants?
ATC, that is Air Traffic Control, the separation of aircraft in flight, is an inherently governmental function. The private sector cannot guarantee separation between aircraft operating in the commons because it cannot require aircraft to participate.
Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,679
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
Once your on the pavement you still need a gate and ATC technology has nothing to do with that.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
I think this is especially true of airport with parallel runways which are sometimes limited during bad weather because of the spacing between the runways.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
I don't see that as being an ATC problem. If airports think they need more gates they can build them.
roncachamp
Final Approach
New ATC technology? I don't see how. If some new technology allowed a reduction of separation from three miles to two but wake turbulence still requires six mile spacing capacity is not affected.
About fifteen years ago some new technology allowed a reduction in enroute vertical separation minima. Six previously unavailable flight levels meant a significant increase in available airspace. The effect on delays was insignificant. When aircraft have to be sequenced regardless of altitude increasing available altitudes does not increase capacity.
JoseCuervo
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,868
- Display Name
Display name:
JoseCuervo
New technology would allow the data the controllers use to be routed to Control Centers in India allowing for much lower costs.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
That's because the number of flights have increased. I'll bet if we went back to non-RVSM airspace tomorrow there would be massive delays.
You also did not address the fact that improved technology could allow for better use of parallel runways in bad weather. This is a real problem at KSFO.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
That's because the number of flights have increased. I'll bet if we went back to non-RVSM airspace tomorrow there would be massive delays.
You also did not address the fact that improved technology could allow for better use of parallel runways in bad weather. This is a real problem at KSFO.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Why weren't delays reduced upon the introduction of RVSM?
ISTR a reduction in the minimum distance between runways some years ago as a result of new ATC radars. What improved technology do you envision that would allow another reduction?