Trump pushing to privatize ATC

This has been happening every budget proposal for many years now. It has a new significance now.
Hail CEO,
One Branch down,
Two to go
 
We held it off for a long time. A lot longer than even I thought possible. I think it's more likely now than ever before.
 
The Presidential "budget" is a work of fiction mostly used to freak people out, prior to the other four major steps in creating actual budget bills in Congress. The release of said fiction is always followed with numerous reports that the sky is falling.

Unless he has the balls to use the line item veto in October, and no President has in my lifetime, there's little chance the Congressional budget bills will look anything like the Presidential one. Also hasn't ever happened in my lifetime.
 
Zeldman said:
I have been to airports with privatized towers. Could not tell any difference between the two.
Click to expand...
Privatized tower is not the same as privatized ATC, only a small subset of it. It's the camel's nose under the tent. It's the first step in user fees. This is where the DOD will probably be GA's Best Friend. Looking at Schuster's perennial ATC Privatization plan, the DOD does NOT have a seat at the table.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Probably because the controllers in those towers are mostly retired FAA controllers.
Click to expand...

A few might have been retired from the FAA. Most of the people I met there were in their 20s or 30s and were unable to get in with the FAA due to hiring freeze and other budget restraints of the time.
 
Of course the airlines are loving the thought of private atc. They would basically own it with maybe 1 seat on the board for Business/GA.

I could easily see things like part 121 ops getting preferential ifr release slots, more airspace practically reserved for them so they can fly more direct and save money, user fees- sure n o worries they just pass them on to the customer. If your flying a 172 as an individual who is your customer.

Their big spiel is "FAA too slow to modernize, yada yada yada, if it was a private corp we could do it faster". Well, instead congress could exempt the FAA or certain programs from all the gubment' red tape and create a group, board, whatever from 121, 135, 91, DOD, ATC, etc and let them hash out the solution and implement.

Every time I hear about guys flying thru Canadian airspace then getting that $25/qtr bill or whatever it is Im thankful that i fly in 'Merica. its abd enough those money grubbing SOB's get tax dollars for highways, then charge you to drive on said highway (toll roads). Im not going to pay taxes (av fuel) and then pay a fee to fly thonks to some CEO at some money grubbing airline (Delta, American, United I'm looking at you).
 
Folks, ATC privatization has been a topic for many years and many administrations.

Let's not turn this into a political thread bashing our politician of choice. That will result in a shutdown.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Folks, ATC privatization has been a topic for many years and many administrations.

Let's not turn this into a political thread bashing our politician of choice. That will result in a shutdown.
Click to expand...
Ok, I'll bash the politician of someone else's choice. J/k

So, "we're" "against" privatization?
 
Salty said:
So, "we're" "against" privatization?
Click to expand...

I think on the whole most pilots are against privatization as the concern is that the system will be redesigned in such a way that heavily favors airline traffic and hurts GA. There's a big concern about user fees, a la Canada. Anyone who's flown in Canada has received these fees, which can easily amount to hundreds of dollars if you're doing any significant amount of flying. With ADS-B, the eventual concern would be charges for anytime you actually took to the sky, whether VFR or IFR. Currently the fee structure works for use of ATC services, but of course they have your tail number and charge you based off of that.
 
I read on AvWeb that in Canada, small single engine piston aircraft pay a once a year user fee of below $100 for unlimited access to ATC services. If AOPA is on the ball, they will protect the little guy. Corporate GA, air taxi GA, etc, should be on a pay as you go basis, just like the airlines, who can pass it on to the customers. Corporate GA can expense the flights against revenues. Airlines pass it on to the flying public. Just some thoughts to stimulate the conversations.
 
Rcmutz said:
I read on AvWeb that in Canada, small single engine piston aircraft pay a once a year user fee of below $100 for unlimited access to ATC services. If AOPA is on the ball, they will protect the little guy. Corporate GA, air taxi GA, etc, should be on a pay as you go basis, just like the airlines, who can pass it on to the customers. Corporate GA can expense the flights against revenues. Airlines pass it on to the flying public. Just some thoughts to stimulate the conversations.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that you're really suggesting divisions in how fees are structured by certain size/weight classes, since you have individuals who own pressurized, cabin class aircraft strictly for personal use and you have corporations that own 172s for business use.

Personally, I don't want to see user fees hit GA at any level. It ends up discouraging behaviors that add to safety, specifically getting Flight Following or filing IFR. If I take a look at the flying I do, I file IFR basically all the time in large part because I have an instrument rating, I know how to use it, and clouds can exist in a lot of places on the long trips I do. If there are user fees, I would probably find myself on many trips going up to 17,500 VFR squawking 1200 instead of FL190.

I can also see an increase in people busting through cloud layers illegally (squawking 1200) to avoid a fee, because they're cheap. Don't think this wouldn't happen at the corporate/135 level - it absolutely would.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I think on the whole most pilots are against privatization as the concern is that the system will be redesigned in such a way that heavily favors airline traffic and hurts GA. There's a big concern about user fees, a la Canada. Anyone who's flown in Canada has received these fees, which can easily amount to hundreds of dollars if you're doing any significant amount of flying. With ADS-B, the eventual concern would be charges for anytime you actually took to the sky, whether VFR or IFR. Currently the fee structure works for use of ATC services, but of course they have your tail number and charge you based off of that.
Click to expand...

We are paying for ATC, currently, out of fuel taxes. However , as it is with most taxes, people that levy the tax forget we are already paying. Privatization can be as simple as Canada, where all GA pilots pay a yearly fee for access to most airports, to onerous like th European Union where you pay every time you land at an airport. These fees can be high and multiple, very expensive. I guess the "Devil" is in the details. (self serving cliche). In general , I tend not to favor privatization because the after mentioned reasons.

Cheers
 
I love how they say it will be "more efficient and innovative" but yet give no explanation on how they will do this. Reminds me of something out of a Modaero advert . :D So you're going to reduce separation from from .65 mins? Nope, that ain't going to happen. Somehow open up new routes that don't exist now? Nope. So you're going to replace older ATC equipment with newer then? Yep, that's already in happening now. The crap I used 20 yrs ago is hard to find today. All my ATC friends have new equipment and in some cases, brand new towers.

I'd like to see how they anticipate this being cheaper than the current system as well. This ain't LM AFSS. They shutdown facilities that were already in the process of being shutdown by the FAA. They also terminated experienced FAA employees and hired new inexperienced ones to save money. That first 6 month transfer of responsibility was horrible. What LM really did was piggy back on a service that was already modernizing and slimming down manning due to reduced pilot participation and then took credit for it.

Now there's plenty of fat that can be trimmed in the FAA. I have friends that complain about the lazy, non controlling controllers that take up admin positions. You'll never get rid of those positions even if you contract out.

What we're going to get is a system with very little savings over the current system. It'll come out of the wallets of GA. It'll fire experienced controllers and hire cheaper ones. It won't have any effect on the controller shortage issue. If the FAA would get off their a$$ and hire the CTI / DOD vets that want to get in, we wouldn't have that issue. Later on a few years from now, they'll tout how they brought about NexGen, after the FAA did 90 % of the leg work.
 
Last edited:
ralarcon said:
We are paying for ATC, currently, out of fuel taxes. However , as it is with most taxes, people that levy the tax forget we are already paying. Privatization can be as simple as Canada, where all GA pilots pay a yearly fee for access to most airports, to onerous like th European Union where you pay every time you land at an airport. These fees can be high and multiple, very expensive. I guess the "Devil" is in the details. (self serving cliche). In general , I tend not to favor privatization because the after mentioned reasons.
Click to expand...

Yes, we are paying for it, but as you pointed it's in the form of the fuel taxes which you can't avoid unless you don't buy 100LL.

If a pilot can suddenly save $25 by punching through a 1,000 ft thick layer while squawking 1200 ("Oh, there was a hole...") then I can bet you that there are a good number who will. Now granted, this is not a new problem - we already have that happen, mostly with pilots who lack an instrument rating, but I've known people with an instrument rating who do it, too. It's a pet peeve of mine since I fly IFR quite a bit.

You can't get away from landing fees without landing elsewhere, so that's also separate. I do avoid certain airports because of their landing fees, though.
 
denverpilot said:
Unless he has the balls to use the line item veto in October, and no President has in my lifetime, there's little chance...
Click to expand...
Name two presidents in your lifetime who have had the *authority* to use line-item veto. For extra credit, name one who had it and *didn't* use it.

Nauga,
and his blank page
 
ralarcon said:
We are paying for ATC, currently, out of fuel taxes. However , as it is with most taxes, people that levy the tax forget we are already paying. Privatization can be as simple as Canada, where all GA pilots pay a yearly fee for access to most airports, to onerous like th European Union where you pay every time you land at an airport. These fees can be high and multiple, very expensive. I guess the "Devil" is in the details. (self serving cliche). In general , I tend not to favor privatization because the after mentioned reasons.

Cheers
Click to expand...

And if they have user fees, we should see our fuel prices drop because they'll not need those taxes anymore right??
....because if not that's ....uh...well...a SCAM!
 
James331 said:
Currently we have a awsome system, leave it alone.
Click to expand...
Contact your CongressCritter, express your opinion - it's the cheapest & best way to fight the battle. Unless, of course, your CongressCritter is Schuster or McConnell. Then you have a problem.
 
James331 said:
Currently we have a awsome system, leave it alone.
Click to expand...

That is what I think too. We don't need to mimic Europe or Canada. I agree that user fees will result in people being less safe because "If I call FF, it is going to cost me $50" or "If I file IFR it will cost me $100." Some in Washington understand this, but I suspect most of those we have elected do not. Privatization is not the answer. I am counting on AOPA and EAA to keep this from happening. I hope I am not disappointed.
 
nauga said:
Name two presidents in your lifetime who have had the *authority* to use line-item veto. For extra credit, name one who had it and *didn't* use it.

Nauga,
and his blank page
Click to expand...

It was only in effect for two years, during the Clinton Administration. He did use it. The Supreme Court has found it unconstitutional.

Carter, Reagan and W had it, but as governors, not Presidents.
 
I wonder what will happen when they go to user pays, then no one uses ? these skys aren't a bridge over a river we all must use. I can shut up and look out the window and go, and let them search for me.
 
Well, I was considering an up grade from my Tiger. But, with all the uncertainty over private ATC, 100LL, and ADS-B, I think I am going to take a wait and see attitude on purchasing a different plane. Mine is paid for and if ALL of the above comes about at a large financial costs, our small GA planes will be about worthless, as nobody will buy them as GA slowly dies a death by a thousand cuts, i.e. Small increase.
 
denverpilot said:
The Presidential "budget" is a work of fiction mostly used to freak people out, prior to the other four major steps in creating actual budget bills in Congress. The release of said fiction is always followed with numerous reports that the sky is falling.

Unless he has the balls to use the line item veto in October, and no President has in my lifetime, there's little chance the Congressional budget bills will look anything like the Presidential one. Also hasn't ever happened in my lifetime.
Click to expand...
Ain't no line item veto. It was there for a little while and Clinton did it a few times until the Supreme Court stopped it. Of course it's always been there in a left handed way. Veto the bill. Tell them why you vetoed it. In other words which parts (lines) caused you to veto it. Now it's their move.
 
MAKG1 said:
It was only in effect for two years, during the Clinton Administration. He did use it. The Supreme Court has found it unconstitutional.

Carter, Reagan and W had it, but as governors, not Presidents.
Click to expand...
Hence the questions I posed to denverpilot. The answers are (a) there hasn't been two, and (b) there are none.

Nauga,
and 19 years of public schooling :rolleyes:
 
Rcmutz said:
Well, I was considering an up grade from my Tiger. But, with all the uncertainty over private ATC, 100LL, and ADS-B, I think I am going to take a wait and see attitude on purchasing a different plane. Mine is paid for and if ALL of the above comes about at a large financial costs, our small GA planes will be about worthless, as nobody will buy them as GA slowly dies a death by a thousand cuts, i.e. Small increase.
Click to expand...
Just curious; what is the worst case expected case for user fees? $50/year? $1,000/year?

Personally, I don't see a problem with reasonable user fees. But I think they should be levied on much more than ATC though.
 
In principal, I don't mind a reasonable fee to pay for ATC services. To me a reasonable fee would be something like $100/year... maybe someone else thinks more... how much? That's an important detail I have not seen an answer to. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with something like a $100 yearly registration for "active" aircraft as long as it wasn't burdensome(no stickers or more documentation to carry PLEASE). I just mail the check, they mark it in the database, that's all. If I have to deal with more documentation, stickers, a bunch of other BS I'm opposed.

Same deal with per use fees... landing fees are just obnoxious. Who wants to have to have to pay it.... never mind what the fee is, it could be $1. I have enough to remember and make sure I get right as a pilot when I'm flying. I don't want to deal with that, the FBOs don't want to deal with that, just no.

Oh and I don't think... I hope... I pray nobody is actually stupid enough to entertaining the idea of fees assessed when you call up ATC. Flight following isn't just to the benefit of the pilot requesting it, it's to the benefit of EVERYONE in the air and the more people who use the system the safer we ALL are. Charging a fee for using it will discourage people from using the system, eventually someone will get killed because a pilot didn't want to pay the $5 or whatever it is to call up for traffic/weather advisories. Eventually there will be three airplanes all flying around with the same tail number at the same time... bad bad idea.

I don't like paying money I don't have to, nobody does and I know we don't want fees but really we do get off light. I pay more to register my car, my snowmobiles, my ATV, a boat, etc than it costs to register an airplane. Maybe kicking a few more bucks into the system to keep things going is in order. I just don't want to see it done in a way that will price people out of flying or hurt safety.
 
I don't mind kicking a few bucks into the system if that's what's needed. I'd just rather they do it by raising the existing AvGas tax rather than coming up with some new fee system. But no one wants to be the guy that voted for a tax increase, so that option isn't on the table.
 
Personally I think things like free roads, free sidewalks, free public schools and free flying are a sign of a free society. Now I know, they aren't really free, they get paid for by taxes. But we tried all this toll road stuff years ago and have gradually, for good reason, moved to free (alright tax paid for) services. Not everything, but jeez. Who wants to go back to the old feudal system of private roads, private schools, even private armies. What is this 11th century Italy? Hey, lets charge our kids to play hopscotch on the sidewalk. I mean those sidewalks have to be paid for, ya know!

Right now in Colorado we need more money for roads. And I lot rather pay at the pump than stupid mickey mouse annoying tolls everywhere run by the mafia.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Personally I think things like free roads, free sidewalks, free public schools and free flying are a sign of a free society. Now I know, they aren't really free, they get paid for by taxes. But we tried all this toll road stuff years ago and have gradually, for good reason, moved to free (alright tax paid for) services. Not everything, but jeez. Who wants to go back to the old feudal system of private roads, private schools, even private armies. What is this 11th century Italy? Hey, lets charge our kids to play hopscotch on the sidewalk. I mean those sidewalks have to be paid for, ya know!

Right now in Colorado we need more money for roads. And I lot rather pay at the pump than stupid mickey mouse annoying tolls everywhere run by the mafia.
Click to expand...

Don't you also have private tolls on what used to be public roads? That **** ****es me right off, the gov't selling off the roads/bridges/whatever to private corps so they can collect tolls. The public paid for that road to be put in, not to be tolled to death.

Kicking in a few bucks to support the system? You know that money will be put right into a "general fund", right? It'll never go towards paying for the system... you know that, right?
 
ATC: "No ATC payment number on file for that N number. You are TERMINATED!"
 
This is as much about the airlines pushing more costs on GA, espcially turbine, and reducing access by GA in order to "encourage" corporate folks that fly GA now to fly airlines. The thinking is that they will be higher revenue passengers. Increased revenue, lower costs for the airlines.

From the ATC standpoint, the question the airlines ask is why each airplane is not charged the same amount for access to the ATC services when each takes about the same resources. An argument has also been made that slow GA takes more resources as they are in each sector for a longer period of time and should be charged more.
 
wsuffa said:
This is as much about the airlines pushing more costs on GA, espcially turbine, and reducing access by GA in order to "encourage" corporate folks that fly GA now to fly airlines. The thinking is that they will be higher revenue passengers. Increased revenue, lower costs for the airlines.

From the ATC standpoint, the question the airlines ask is why each airplane is not charged the same amount for access to the ATC services when each takes about the same resources. An argument has also been made that slow GA takes more resources as they are in each sector for a longer period of time and should be charged more.
Click to expand...

The counter-argument is that ATC as we know it was created specifically to prevent accidents like the Grand Canyon midair from 1956. It is a service created (and mandated) by the government to protect passengers on commercial carriers. They need to foot the bill...
 
wsuffa said:
This is as much about the airlines pushing more costs on GA, espcially turbine, and reducing access by GA in order to "encourage" corporate folks that fly GA now to fly airlines. The thinking is that they will be higher revenue passengers. Increased revenue, lower costs for the airlines.

From the ATC standpoint, the question the airlines ask is why each airplane is not charged the same amount for access to the ATC services when each takes about the same resources. An argument has also been made that slow GA takes more resources as they are in each sector for a longer period of time and should be charged more.
Click to expand...

The airlines are forgetting that ATC llc. would only provide the absolute minimum service required, and would likely be staffed by close to minimum wage employees who can pass the required tests.
There aren't many ways to increase profit with higher productivity by experienced/skilled controllers, so there's no incentive to pay them much by the ATC llc. Certainly not as much as the FAA people make now. They earn every cent they make, but a privatized business would need to see return for investment from those people, and in ATC environment that's kinda hard.

ATC ain't broke, don't fix it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top