FAA Overhaul Bill to be Released July 1

SbestCFII said:
The ABS-B is less than five years from completion and the major holdup traditionally has been delays in congressional FAA funding. Now there is a republican-sponsored (so we can just set aside the Obama comment) initiative to put in place a USPS-like government sponsored corporation to make the system more efficient and institute user-fees. Anyone seen the inflated costs within a non-profit corporation lately. In the end, everyone pays more due to the inflated internal costs of the non-profit and you'll have a system that is ultimately less efficient and much more costly than the one we have now. Frankly, it's everything AOPA has been fighting against for the 23 years I've been in. And from a republican!?! It's like being shot in the back, but for Mr. Scheister, I'm sure whatever already hand-picked entity they have decided will administrate new corporation has already donated tens of thousands to his re-election campaign.
Click to expand...

Here is the problem with user fees for GA. The fuel tax is more than adequate share of a fair pay. The ATC system was built for the airlines, GA traffic for the most part is an after thought. The amount of resources that goes into servicing GA traffic is minuscule. If GA IFR traffic drops to next to nothing and little revenue is collected that will be of no impact to this new " corporation" . There will not be a corresponding reduction of the ATC workforce to match the reduction of traffic.

I am not union bashing here. I am all for private sector unions do what ever it is they do within the law. But this money grab is the reason some states prohibit public sector unions. Many states that do allow public sector unions are now being confronted with reality. After years of a system that allows public employees to bribe their bosses, the chickens are coming home to roost.

This new system will end most GA IFR flying.
 
SbestCFII said:
The ABS-B is less than five years from completion and the major holdup traditionally has been delays in congressional FAA funding. Now there is a republican-sponsored (so we can just set aside the Obama comment) initiative to put in place a USPS-like government sponsored corporation to make the system more efficient and institute user-fees. Anyone seen the inflated costs within a non-profit corporation lately. In the end, everyone pays more due to the inflated internal costs of the non-profit and you'll have a system that is ultimately less efficient and much more costly than the one we have now. Frankly, it's everything AOPA has been fighting against for the 23 years I've been in. And from a republican!?! It's like being shot in the back, but for Mr. Scheister, I'm sure whatever already hand-picked entity they have decided will administrate this new corporation has already donated tens of thousands to his re-election campaign.
Click to expand...
The inflated costs at non profits are executive salaries.
 
Between database costs, initial training, proficiency training, unknown future user fees, a new WAAS/LPV navigator for the Cardinal is looking less and less attractive.
 
bnt83 said:
Between database costs, initial training, proficiency training, unknown future user fees, a new WAAS/LPV navigator for the Cardinal is looking less and less attractive.
Click to expand...

:confused: I'm missing the connective logic to the user fees unless you are just planning on getting out of flying.:dunno:
 
Think of all those thousands of planes that will be lurking between 10-12.5k altitudes squawking 1200. In all kinds of weather. Suddenly the concept of VFR will become very liberal.

It is -- glorious.
 
vintage cessna said:
The controller retirement is more generous than you think. Controllers retirement consists of an annuity, TSP and a social security supplement . Adds up to at least 50% of base pay.
Click to expand...

Yup....

Jackson is one of the most expensive places to buy into and live... I know 3 retired ATC guys here,, one loves to fly and we go for flights all the time in my plane, the others and him all love to ski , snowmobile, and alot of other " non cheap" activities.

They all were hired after the PATCO strike...
They all are in their 50's.....
They all have been retired for a few years....
They all live in VERY nice homes...
They all have VERY nice toys....
None are struggling financially...

After a few beers at the 19th hole they all admit they get a 6 figure pension, with 50 bucks a year deductable medical plan, zero deductable dental plan...

With a COLA = (Cost Of Living Adjustment) clause, these guys will probably live another 30+ years and receive MILLIONS from their retirement plans...

Moral of this story.... They ain't eating cat food and living under a bridge..:no::no::nono:.....:rolleyes:
 
vintage cessna said:
That is not correct. The parties just have to go through a process first before a strike can happen.
Click to expand...
and before they walked off the job they would invoke the railway labor act and force them back to work. They have no power ever split from the government.
 
vintage cessna said:
Do you really think the controllers union would be in favor of this proposal if it meant workers would get paid less? This idea was also proposed in the 90's by the Clinton administration and the union, but they didn't have their ducks in a row at the time.

You guys are all wrapped up about third class medical reform while this disaster for GA has been stewing right under your nose.
Click to expand...

Where did anyone say NATCA was for it? They aren't, rinaldi stood in front of congress and essentially said we don't like this, but if it's what's going to happen want to be involved in the process.
 
PeeGee said:
and before they walked off the job they would invoke the railway labor act and force them back to work. They have no power ever split from the government.
Click to expand...

We all know they can create a " work slowdown" that will be just as effective and next to impossible to prove...

The general public ain't as dumb as some believe they are...:rolleyes:
 
N801BH said:
Yup....

Jackson is one of the most expensive places to buy into and live... I know 3 retired ATC guys here,, one loves to fly and we go for flights all the time in my plane, the others and him all love to ski , snowmobile, and alot of other " non cheap" activities.

They all were hired after the PATCO strike...
They all are in their 50's.....
They all have been retired for a few years....
They all live in VERY nice homes...
They all have VERY nice toys....
None are struggling financially...

After a few beers at the 19th hole they all admit they get a 6 figure pension, with 50 bucks a year deductable medical plan, zero deductable dental plan...

With a COLA = (Cost Of Living Adjustment) clause, these guys will probably live another 30+ years and receive MILLIONS from their retirement plans...

Moral of this story.... They ain't eating cat food and living under a bridge..:no::no::nono:.....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
COLA doesn't raise your salary when the high three is calculated. Locality does.
You don't get locality or cola in retirement.
the federal salary is capped well below 200k
no one is making 100k a year on pension alone in FERS. You would need a high three average of 200k which isn't possible.
their medical plans are the same medical plans I have available and none of that is true unless they're over 65 and are on medicare like the rest of the population.
but please continue with your anecdotal evidence :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
N801BH said:
We all know they can create a " work slowdown" that will be just as effective and next to impossible to prove...

The general public ain't as dumb as some believe they are...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I forgot, everyone around here knows everything :rolleyes:
I don't know why I bother trying to explain anything.
 
PeeGee said:
COLA doesn't raise your salary when the high three is calculated. Locality does.
You don't get locality or cola in retirement.
the federal salary is capped well below 200k
no one is making 100k a year on pension alone.
but please continue with your anecdotal evidence :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I am 100% sure..... You are wrong...
 
N801BH said:
I am 100% sure..... You are wrong...
Click to expand...


Not completely. COLA increases follow normal increases.

Pension is roughly 1% per year served, based on highest three year average salary.

The rest of retirement comes from TSP, which is self-funded. It's a 401k with a different name.

This is all public information that can be found with general Google knowledge.

As for slowing down traffic, give me a break. The 1970's were a LONG time ago. And that was the last time any slowdown occurred.

Scratch that, maybe things do get slowed down...when we have more and more rules and procedures to follow because of "knee jerk" reactions. CRDA, ODO, RECAT, you name them...but I digress.
 
Last edited:
SbestCFII said:
Name that film (Without Google), "You've managed to kill just about everyone else, but like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target!"
Click to expand...


I can't even read it without hearing the staccato intonation in my head.
 
MarkZ said:
Not completely. COLA increases follow normal increases.
Click to expand...
depends on which cola, allowance or adjustment. col(allowance) was/is being phased out in favor of locality. col(adjustment) yes is still in effect. COL(allowance) didn't calculate in your high three like locality does just like everyone on social security and every federal retiree.
 
Last edited:
PeeGee said:
Yeah! You caught me! I have no idea how my own retirement works.
jesus ****ing christ. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Now you are changing your story........

Apparently you do NOT know how your own retirement works...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::(
 
N801BH said:
I am 100% sure..... You are wrong...
Click to expand...
technically he's right....but when you add it up...you're right. :D


TSP = 100% matching - (20 yrs * 5%+5% @ $140K) - with interest $850K ~ $5,000/mo
SS = $2,500/mo
pension = $4,460/mo

bout $11,960/mo.....not shabby for a day's work. :D

that's bout $143,520 annually.
 
N801BH said:
Now you are changing your story........

Apparently you do NOT know how your own retirement works...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::(
Click to expand...
I haven't changed a ******** thing. You still don't have a clue.
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
technically he's right....but when you add it up...you're right. :D


TSP = 100% matching - (20 yrs * 5%+5% @ $140K) - with interest $850K ~ $5,000/mo
SS = $2,500/mo
pension = $4,460/mo

bout $11,960/mo.....not shabby for a day's work. :D

that's bout $143,520 annually.
Click to expand...

He said 100k on pension alone. When is 4460 times 12 100k?
 
Unit74 said:
FERs is 1% for each year of service, based on high three right now. So work 30 years, high three $100k, you make $30k pension for simple math calculations.



TSP is basically a 401k where the first three % are dollar for dollar. After that, it's fifty cents on the dollar to five %. So if you contribute 5%, the gov matches 4%.



You would be absolutely shocked at how much contracting is occurring in the federal government. It's almost like they are trying to shed employees and passing it off as cost savings while allowing the quality of product to slowly suffer. Much like our industrial sector... More imports with lower quality just to save a buck.
Click to expand...



Henning said:
Well, that's the "smaller government" everyone keeps crying for. "Let the business sector take it over, they know how to make money!" Well, that is what this is.
Click to expand...



Henning said:
How is it not a reduction in government when government employees and services are replaced by private sector ones?:dunno:
Click to expand...


Because it's not a reduction in government spending.

By the above logic, if my company decided tomorrow to change all of us from employees to contractors and left all of our benefits and their costs intact, the company would be smaller.

Contractor or employee doesn't matter at all. It's about services and the bottom line.

My county paved four miles of dirt road. No one expected it, nor wanted it, and they hired a contractor for it at a price tag of $2.3M. If we aren't calling contracted work "government" then sure, they didn't grow the size of government in the county.

But that's not how we measure such things. They grew the cost of government.

Measuring services by who wrote the last check to the employee is silly. You have to measure it by who wrote the first check.
 
Unit74 said:
FERs is 1% for each year of service, based on high three right now. So work 30 years, high three $100k, you make $30k pension for simple math calculations.

TSP is basically a 401k where the first three % are dollar for dollar. After that, it's fifty cents on the dollar to five %. So if you contribute 5%, the gov matches 4%.

You would be absolutely shocked at how much contracting is occurring in the federal government. It's almost like they are trying to shed employees and passing it off as cost savings while allowing the quality of product to slowly suffer. Much like our industrial sector... More imports with lower quality just to save a buck.
Click to expand...

An Air traffic Controllers annuity portion of retirement under FERS is calculated differently than the standard Federal employee.

For the first 20 years of service, take the average high salary of the last three years of service and multiply by 1.7 %, then multiply that by 20. Then for years over 20, take the average high salary and multiply by 1%. , then multiply that by the number of years of service above twenty, then add both together.

A typical years of service would be about 25, and since the majority of controllers work in a Center or major Tracon, average high 3 would be somewhere between 150,000 to 160,000. Then add in an Social Security , which they are entitled to immediately upon retirement, and you are up around 50% without even counting TSP.
 
vintage cessna said:
An Air traffic Controllers annuity portion of retirement under FERS is calculated differently than the standard Federal employee.

For the first 20 years of service, take the average high salary of the last three years of service and multiply by 1.7 %, then multiply that by 20. Then for years over 20, take the average high salary and multiply by 1%. , then multiply that by the number of years of service above twenty, then add both together.

A typical years of service would be about 25, and since the majority of controllers work in a Center or major Tracon, average high 3 would be somewhere between 150,000 to 160,000. Then add in an Social Security , which they are entitled to immediately upon retirement, and you are up around 50% without even counting TSP.
Click to expand...

ATCers have a 1.7% per creditable year multiplier for the first 20? Good for them! The rest of us FERS orphans get that 1% garbage. For 25 years that's 39% plus whatever for SS for ATC. For a vanilla FERS guy you're looking at a 25% pension. Oh and these days if you were hired after 2014 the yearly cost due to the pension system is 4.4% of your salary. Every. year. Yeah buddy, now you have to spend another 5% into TSP to at least get 4% back that they took from ya in order to pay into the pension. And that's locked out in a 401k account, so it's not really getting anything back to affect your working age lifestyle, which matters more to me than retirement lifestyle.

Folks before 2014 were looking at 0.8% due to the pension system every year in contrast. So not only is your pension a half from CSRS days, you also suffer a net paycut in working life due to the deductions. Those greedy greedy young federal workers I tell ya...:rolleyes2: gimme a break.


I don't know what's with all the hate. In the military our multiplier is 2.5, and they're working hard at reducing it. It also has a vesting period of 20 years, so it's hard for most to get it considering the crappy QOL afforded by many duty stations and job descriptions, never mind the pointless deployments and political BS while in garrison. Considering the majority of these folks are enlisted, 50% of an enlisted salary is not enough to retire on, so most of these folks find themselves right back at work, many at significant paycuts. Bottom line, hardly anyone is walking around on pensions that replace the full 70% replacement income that is required to truly sit on your rear and tell the world to go eff itself. I don't know when it turned cool to display such schadenfreude against defined benefit workers.
All 401ks are doing for the rank and file W2 worker is providing a lower standard of American living in working life, for an equally monastic lifestyle in retirement. The only reason one would ever applaud or cheer that dynamic on, as children of people who had it better (my parents are boomers and both have 75% state pensions) mind you, is schadenfreude. That's toxicity and doesn't leave anyone better off.

I'm not against defined contribution....when it's in the form of an emploYER funded B-fund with at least 14% contribution. But employee-contributed plans? Get out of town with that paycut. :no:
 
Last edited:
Costs are going up, freedom down. Any questions?
 
denverpilot said:
Because it's not a reduction in government spending.

By the above logic, if my company decided tomorrow to change all of us from employees to contractors and left all of our benefits and their costs intact, the company would be smaller.

Contractor or employee doesn't matter at all. It's about services and the bottom line.

My county paved four miles of dirt road. No one expected it, nor wanted it, and they hired a contractor for it at a price tag of $2.3M. If we aren't calling contracted work "government" then sure, they didn't grow the size of government in the county.

But that's not how we measure such things. They grew the cost of government.

Measuring services by who wrote the last check to the employee is silly. You have to measure it by who wrote the first check.
Click to expand...
Of course it's not a cut in spending, if government cut spending it would alter the "demand" side of the supply and demand situation and then business would have to lower their profits to recreate demand which would throw the stock markets into chaos; that will not be allowed, and is not on the current agenda. We want a healthy stock market above all, and this is how the wealthy manage to keep it growing.
 
hindsight2020 said:
ATCers have a 1.7% per creditable year multiplier for the first 20? Good for them! The rest of us FERS orphans get that 1% garbage. For 25 years that's 39% plus whatever for SS for ATC. For a vanilla FERS guy you're looking at a 25% pension. Oh and these days if you were hired after 2014 the yearly cost due to the pension system is 4.4% of your salary. Every. year. Yeah buddy, now you have to spend another 5% into TSP to at least get 4% back that they took from ya in order to pay into the pension. And that's locked out in a 401k account, so it's not really getting anything back to affect your working age lifestyle, which matters more to me than retirement lifestyle.

Folks before 2014 were looking at 0.8% due to the pension system every year in contrast. So not only is your pension a half from CSRS days, you also suffer a net paycut in working life due to the deductions. Those greedy greedy young federal workers I tell ya...:rolleyes2: gimme a break.




I don't know what's with all the hate. In the military our multiplier is 2.5, and they're working hard at reducing it. It also has a vesting period of 20 years, so it's hard for most to get it considering the crappy QOL afforded by many duty stations and job descriptions, never mind the pointless deployments and political BS while in garrison. Considering the majority of these folks are enlisted, 50% of an enlisted salary is not enough to retire on, so most of these folks find themselves right back at work, many at significant paycuts. Bottom line, hardly anyone is walking around on pensions that replace the full 70% replacement income that is required to truly sit on your rear and tell the world to go eff itself. I don't know when it turned cool to display such schadenfreude against defined benefit workers.
All 401ks are doing for the rank and file W2 worker is providing a lower standard of American living in working life, for an equally monastic lifestyle in retirement. The only reason one would ever applaud or cheer that dynamic on, as children of people who had it better (my parents are boomers and both have 75% state pensions) mind you, is schadenfreude. That's toxicity and doesn't leave anyone better off.

I'm not against defined contribution....when it's in the form of an emploYER funded B-fund with at least 14% contribution. But employee-contributed plans? Get out of town with that paycut. :no:
Click to expand...

I was just trying to clarify what the reality is for ATC. A controller retiring under FERS can easily have a six figure retirement. I don't think most people know what is going on in this field.

I retired several years ago and I was taking in over 200K gross per annum. There is almost no turnover in this occupation , it is so good. And you don't have to worry about getting fired or layed off. I worked in a major Center and the average time on position, that is the average time per shift actually working traffic during an 8 hour shift was 3.5 to 4 hours.

You know as a pilot that if you violate airspace or screw up in some manner that you could be facing a suspension of your certificate. Do you know what happens when a controller screws up? Nothing, they have immunity. That still doesn't prevent them from claiming up to 45 days off under workmans comp since they are " traumatized". Not saying all or even the majority of controllers abuse the system that way but it is easy to do if one wants to. Throw in about 5 weeks of vacation time and 2 and a half weeks sick leave, a super retirement and it should be easy to see that getting a job as an ATC is akin to winning the lottery.
 
Unit74 said:
So.....what your saying is 78% of your organization is contractors, correct? I think you just validated my statement. :yes:

Not sure how that makes me in error. Please elaborate.
Click to expand...

I was looking at the statement of "quality of work suffering" because of contractor vs govt. it's the contractors where I work that train the military in how it's done and then they move on to other "jobs" and eventually earn enough experience and rank to oversee the contract.

A few years ago at Edwards AFB, they decided they had too many contractors and converted contract positions to govt jobs. They could not find the people willing to fill those positions. Experienced contractors choose to retire rather than bid for and work in the govt system.

Some did take the govt positions as they were "too young" to retire, and the were caught in govt red tape and stalled pay and locked down promotion process.

And the work suffered for it.
 
vintage cessna said:
The penalty for a federal worker engaged in an illegal work action is dismissal. History books indicate several thousand controllers were dismissed.

This new orginisation will benefit no one but controllers. The idea that it will be self sufficient is fantasy. We are going to let a monopoly control a fair amount of our economy, not a good idea.

The 1981 negotiations were not botched, the controllers were offered a pretty good deal but unfortunately they believed their own propaganda and thought Regan was bluffing.
Click to expand...

It was not that great an offer. They were threatened with conversion to the Social Security system for retirement, but could not draw on SS until age 62 and still had mandatory retirement at age 56 with no information on what would cover the gap.

Early medical retirement was available, but for 2 years leading up to 1981, FAA had been denying medical retirement to those that could no longer pass the Class II medical due to job related hypertension health problems. They were let go with no pension opportunities.

The federal pay cap was applied to every two week pay period, not annually. Holiday, night diff, Sunday diff, and then asked to stay an extra two hours at end of shift to get through a traffic crunch and you found out you worked for free because of the pay cap. You did not get it back in the next pay period when you were well below the cap, it was gone, never to be recovered.

Then add the rotating shifts and rotating days off and let's talk about circadian rhythm on sleep/work cycles and the problems that result.

The contract "offer" did not cover any of those issues. Plus the fact that govt raises had been well behind the public sector and inflation for years and the "offer" did not come close to making it up.
 
PeeGee said:
COLA doesn't raise your salary when the high three is calculated. Locality does.
You don't get locality or cola in retirement.
the federal salary is capped well below 200k
no one is making 100k a year on pension alone in FERS. You would need a high three average of 200k which isn't possible.
their medical plans are the same medical plans I have available and none of that is true unless they're over 65 and are on medicare like the rest of the population.
but please continue with your anecdotal evidence :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking.
 
old cfi said:
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=42a2bce0-45ab-4f4b-9034-08e4f7e2537b

Establish a stable, self-sustaining, fair user fee structure, insulated from the federal budget process and threats of related sequesters, furloughs, agency closures, and shutdowns. (emphasis ours)

This line sounds a little scary!
Click to expand...

You scare easily. (Not a fan of that site; the original document exists here: http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/faa_bill_principles.pdf)

Keep in mind that terminal and en-route air traffic control began operation under the control of private entities such as airports and airlines [1][2][3]. Government control came years later.

With the exception of a report commissioned by NATCA [4], most others have found that privatization/commercialization of ATC did lead to control of cost increases and safety improved [5][6]. In terms of IFR movements per controller or GA aircraft per controller, when compared to the "commercialized" ATCs of France, the UK, Canada, and Germany, the US comes out as being more inefficient than all but France.[6]

Some slightly in-depth pro commercialization/privatization articles are in [7], [8], and [9]. A more ambivalent to slightly negative article is in [10].

As an aside, my personal observation of some PoA members is that many who I would have thought (based on their posts on other subjects) were principled libertarians, turn out instead to be opportunistic "libertarians" when they are the unfair benefactors of a social government redistribution of wealth. Then they tend to object to a change in the status quo that propose to makes things more fair. (By contrast, principled libertarians have consistently championed ATC privatization for a couple decades. [7])

[1] http://avstop.com/history/atc/air_traffic_control_begins.htm
[2] http://www.faa.gov/news/communicati...s of Federal Air Traffic Control 06-21-11.pdf
[3] http://catsr.ite.gmu.edu/SYST460/Chap1HistoryofAirTrafficControl.pdf
[4] http://mycourses.flyuvu.com/external_media/class_files/4700/pitfalls_of_atc_privatization.pdf
[5] http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1521&context=jaaer
[6] https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/FAA Reform March 2015 Long Statement_final_rev_508.pdf
[7] http://reason.org/files/apr-2014-air-transportation.pdf
[8] http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...ystem-offers-alternative-cost-cutting-nations
[9] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-l-schank-phd/a-few-clarifications-abou_b_7461168.html
[10] https://www.americanprogress.org/is...ions-about-air-traffic-control-privatization/
 
Jim Logajan said:
You scare easily. (Not a fan of that site; the original document exists here: http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/faa_bill_principles.pdf)

Keep in mind that terminal and en-route air traffic control began operation under the control of private entities such as airports and airlines [1][2][3]. Government control came years later.

With the exception of a report commissioned by NATCA [4], most others have found that privatization/commercialization of ATC did lead to control of cost increases and safety improved [5][6]. In terms of IFR movements per controller or GA aircraft per controller, when compared to the "commercialized" ATCs of France, the UK, Canada, and Germany, the US comes out as being more inefficient than all but France.[6]

Some slightly in-depth pro commercialization/privatization articles are in [7], [8], and [9]. A more ambivalent to slightly negative article is in [10].

As an aside, my personal observation of some PoA members is that many who I would have thought (based on their posts on other subjects) were principled libertarians, turn out instead to be opportunistic "libertarians" when they are the unfair benefactors of a social government redistribution of wealth. Then they tend to object to a change in the status quo that propose to makes things more fair. (By contrast, principled libertarians have consistently championed ATC privatization for a couple decades. [7])

[1] http://avstop.com/history/atc/air_traffic_control_begins.htm
[2] http://www.faa.gov/news/communicati...s of Federal Air Traffic Control 06-21-11.pdf
[3] http://catsr.ite.gmu.edu/SYST460/Chap1HistoryofAirTrafficControl.pdf
[4] http://mycourses.flyuvu.com/external_media/class_files/4700/pitfalls_of_atc_privatization.pdf
[5] http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1521&context=jaaer
[6] https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/FAA Reform March 2015 Long Statement_final_rev_508.pdf
[7] http://reason.org/files/apr-2014-air-transportation.pdf
[8] http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...ystem-offers-alternative-cost-cutting-nations
[9] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-l-schank-phd/a-few-clarifications-abou_b_7461168.html
[10] https://www.americanprogress.org/is...ions-about-air-traffic-control-privatization/
Click to expand...

Except what is being proposed is not "privatization ". If it is going to be truly private put it out for bid. The entire system could probably be entirely automated within the next 20 years if it was really private.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top