Washington Post editorial in favor of private ATC

A4A ("Airlines for America") has been flogging the hell out of this. Purely and exclusively about granting control of ATC to the airlines.
 
wsuffa said:
Today's main WaPo editorial urges that ATC be privatized....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...604a3e-d0dc-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html
Click to expand...

Idiots.

There should be a law about who can write newspaper stories about aviation, or maybe just have in 20pt bold text right under the title

"author has no experience in aviation, this article should be considered fiction"

Also nice how it's written by a "board" no, that's not sketchy at all :lol: forget my last comment, it's more a advertisement for the airline industry than a actual article.

Also ask any European or Canadian who has flown both in their home country and here as to which system they prefer, I've said it before, I'll take style tips and cuisine from Europe, but they can keep their screwed up aviation system.
 
Last edited:
The only thing worse than a government agency is a hybrid government corporation. I don't see that working out well for some reason.
 
Last edited:
I still can't believe that a sentient Congress would pass this. First, what kind of legislators cede control of a safety issue? Interstate commerce is clearly a governmental function! Second, why muck about with what is arguable the best air traffic control system on Earth?
 
steingar said:
I still can't believe that a sentient Congress would pass this. First, what kind of legislators cede control of a safety issue? Interstate commerce is clearly a governmental function! Second, why muck about with what is arguable the best air traffic control system on Earth?
Click to expand...

Exactly
 
dell30rb said:
The only thing worse than a government agency is a hybrid government corporation. I don't see that working out well for some reason.
Click to expand...
Yep - the ACA is starting to look like a failed step toward single-payer, government-run.....
No, I'm not trying to start a political discussion.
 
James331 said:
Idiots.

There should be a law about who can write newspaper stories about aviation, or maybe just have in 20pt bold text right under the title

"author has no experience in aviation, this article should be considered fiction"

Also nice how it's written by a "board" no, that's not sketchy at all :lol: forget my last comment, it's more a advertisement for the airline industry than a actual article.

Also ask any European or Canadian who has flown both in their home country and here as to which system they prefer, I've said it before, I'll take style tips and cuisine from Europe, but they can keep their screwed up aviation system.
Click to expand...

Reporters have no experience in anything.
 
This "privatization of ATC" is exactly what, ehem, some people think privatization is or should be. They don't know what private really is or what makes it "work" in the free market sense.

This nominal privatization of ATC is not real privatization in any way that would bring about benefits as a market would - other than maybe a few incremental improvements changes to the user interface (like remote-operated towers). Whether they're improvements is TBD. It would be, essentially, a government-run corporation.

ATC is inseparable from the national airspace system, which is properly the purview the federal government by its nature. Just because a private contractor hires the same federal controllers to work the radios does not mean that contractor either a) has the power to make real changes that require regulations, or b) has any competition.

They imagine that just because they say the word "privatized" that suddenly means efficiency will happen. :no:
 
Putting on my conspiracy theory cap...

Jeff Bezos owns Washington Post. Jeff Bezos runs Amazon.com. Amazon.com wants to fly lots of drones. Amazon.com wants more influence over airspace rules, so it can fly drones.

Ok, conspiracy theory cap off.
 
More or less.

When ever people take something that's not only NOT broken, but #1 in the world, and try to FIX it, you can always rest assured they are fixing it for THEM, not for US.
 
I can forsee mandatory reports of the smallest infractions becoming common place. And user fees being gradually emplimented.

User fees for sure with the airline majority on the board, but if the bill passes intact I'd expect the FSDO to be very, very busy on the GA side. They are the least represented. Frankly the first time a GA messes up and delays a major there will be hell to pay in the board meeting.
 
James331 said:
Also ask any European or Canadian who has flown both in their home country and here as to which system they prefer, I've said it before, I'll take style tips and cuisine from Europe, but they can keep their screwed up aviation system.
Click to expand...

I don't know about Europeans but I wouldn't make that bet with Canadians.
 
Last edited:
Privatized control of interstate travel, AND socialized medicine. Somehow this seems at odds with logical thought!!!!....
 
mwudka said:
This was not the Post's best work. Delta released a nice letter (http://news.delta.com/sites/default/files/Delta%20CEO%20ATO%20Privatization%20Letter.pdf) that explains why they're opposed and cites examples of other ATC privatization efforts and relevant data. It's a bit better reasoned than the Post's article which boils down to "Change is :), planes are :(".

Do any controllers know why the union is on board?
Click to expand...

Remember that the Post has a particular political point of view.
 
mwudka said:
This was not the Post's best work. Delta released a nice letter (http://news.delta.com/sites/default/files/Delta%20CEO%20ATO%20Privatization%20Letter.pdf) that explains why they're opposed and cites examples of other ATC privatization efforts and relevant data. It's a bit better reasoned than the Post's article which boils down to "Change is :), planes are :(".

Do any controllers know why the union is on board?
Click to expand...

More leverage for more money. Monopoly system with a right to strike.
 
Everskyward said:
I don't know about Europeans but I wouldn't make that bet with Canadians.
Click to expand...

I basically live in Canada and have lived up there, go get flight following or half the services we have down here up there. Talk to the folks on avcanada
 
James331 said:
I basically live in Canada and have lived up there, go get flight following or half the services we have down here up there. Talk to the folks on avcanada
Click to expand...

I've always had good service from NavCanada. Made numerous trips to and from AK. In fact, when flying the coast to/from SE Alaska, Nav Canada has much better radar coverage than ANC Center does in the AK panhandle. and they've been nothing but helpful. Just gotta get used to some slightly different phraseology, but never a problem with FF or quality service. They've even called my dispatch dept when I was unable to.

Just my experience, but Nav Canada is not a big bad wolf.
 
James331 said:
I basically live in Canada and have lived up there, go get flight following or half the services we have down here up there. Talk to the folks on avcanada
Click to expand...
I fly to Canada often and know many Canadian pilots. I have never tried to get flight following because we are always IFR, but ATC services seem just as good as they are in the US. I have never heard the Canadian pilots long for the US system even though they fly down here quite a bit.
 
Talk to Canadian pilots, Canada isn't bad at all, but it's sure not the US.
 
James331 said:
Talk to Canadian pilots, Canada isn't bad at all, but it's sure not the US.
Click to expand...


Is that a positive, a negative, or neither? It's not an issue for the Canadian pilots I know, and not an issue for the US pilots who fly in Canada either.
 
The US system is better, especially for VFR aircraft, also less BS to jump through.
 
Everskyward said:
Is that a positive, a negative, or neither? It's not an issue for the Canadian pilots I know, and not an issue for the US pilots who fly in Canada either.
Click to expand...


Its not the US, because that Canadian flavor wouldn't work here. Too many fingers in the pie.
 
wilkersk said:
Its not the US, because that Canadian flavor wouldn't work here. Too many fingers in the pie.
Click to expand...

Maybe not. I also think fuel taxes are a more efficient way to collect the necessary funds. However, in Canada, it isn't the disaster for GA that people make it out to be. There are plenty of large and smaller airplanes flying in Canada.
 
This scares me:

"Major players in the industry would share governance of the new entity, working out their differences within its boardroom rather than through the costlier and more conflictual method of lobbying Congress, as they do now."

In other words, fat cat airlines rule the roost. Joe Sixpack pays fees without representation.
 
NoHeat said:
This scares me:

"Major players in the industry would share governance of the new entity, working out their differences within its boardroom rather than through the costlier and more conflictual method of lobbying Congress, as they do now."

In other words, fat cat airlines rule the roost. Joe Sixpack pays fees without representation.
Click to expand...

Bingo
 
NoHeat said:
This scares me:

"Major players in the industry would share governance of the new entity, working out their differences within its boardroom rather than through the costlier and more conflictual method of lobbying Congress, as they do now."

In other words, fat cat airlines rule the roost. Joe Sixpack pays fees without representation.
Click to expand...


It would all depend on how the governance it set up. In Canada, GA has a seat at the table.
 
what is actually being privatized?
ATC doesn't set ANY rules, they follow them just like we do.

What am I missing?
 
Cruiser said:
what is actually being privatized?
ATC doesn't set ANY rules, they follow them just like we do.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Controllers work for the FAA, the FAA is responsible for training, facilities, etc etc. Privatization would create a separate non-government (arguable), not for profit corporation with a board of directors (11 members no less than 4 of which will be airlines, 2 secretary of transportation appointees, 1 NATCA rep, and I can't recall the other seats), the BOD would pick a CEO and thats it.

As far as why NATCA is supporting the bill, my understanding is that the bill protects pay, benefits, and legal protection for controllers and will provide a more steady stream of income than the FAA can (kinda like trying not to live paycheck to paycheck).

If I recall correctly, there is an exemption for GA aircraft from user fees but Im not sure on that.

The bill made it through committee without any amendments, however I don't believe it will make it through the house.

There is a very good thread on stuckmic.com, "reauthorization bill", which is very informative if you can read past the union and political bickering.
 
As a controller myself, I can tell you this is a bad idea all around. It establishes an 11-member Board of Directors in which the airlines hold 4 seats, GA holds 2, the pilots union holds 1, and ATC holds 1 (The other 3 is the CEO and 2 Sec. of Trans appointees). This means the airlines will stack the board and only vote in their best interest and what protects their bottom line. The pilots union will vote whichever way protects their jobs, GA will probably vote with ATC, and depending on what sector the Sec. of Trans. came from, we could be looking at an additional 2 seats for the airlines. The best ATC can hope to accomplish is 6-5 minority. The bill establishes a quorum of a simple majority of BOD (6 members).

This bill gives the Corporation the authority to "…dispose of facilities to meet the needs of the Corporation". We are not 100% sure what this means for the controllers at these low-level facilities. Are we suddenly out of a job? What protections do we have? Are we left out in the cold. Personally, this is the one part of the bill that disturbs me the most and we cannot figure out why NATCA supported this bill. Did I mention that Bill Shuster's #2 campaign donor is American Airlines and his #5 industrial contributor is the Air Transport industry? This bill is bad news for controllers and an airline's wet dream.I urge everyone on this board to call your Congresscritter and ask them to vote AGAINST this bill.
 
Seanaldinho said:
Controllers work for the FAA, the FAA is responsible for training, facilities, etc etc. Privatization would create a separate non-government (arguable), not for profit corporation with a board of directors (11 members no less than 4 of which will be airlines, 2 secretary of transportation appointees, 1 NATCA rep, and I can't recall the other seats), the BOD would pick a CEO and thats it.

As far as why NATCA is supporting the bill, my understanding is that the bill protects pay, benefits, and legal protection for controllers and will provide a more steady stream of income than the FAA can (kinda like trying not to live paycheck to paycheck).

If I recall correctly, there is an exemption for GA aircraft from user fees but Im not sure on that.

The bill made it through committee without any amendments, however I don't believe it will make it through the house.

There is a very good thread on stuckmic.com, "reauthorization bill", which is very informative if you can read past the union and political bickering.
Click to expand...

Beat me to it. I think NATCA took a very myopic view on this bill. While it does a good job of protecting our collective bargaining rights, they failed to see the impact the bill's passage would actually have on the workforce. They saw what they wanted to see and supported it accordingly. I normally support NATCA on 99.9% of what they do, but this one I cannot get behind one bit.
 
There's only one guarantee when DC gets involved: The price of the service will go up, and the quality and overall value of the service will go down.
 
denverpilot said:
There's only one guarantee when DC gets involved: The price of the service will go up, and the quality and overall value of the service will go down.
Click to expand...
Not sure from this which side you're arguing for...
 
ATC_av8er said:
Beat me to it. I think NATCA took a very myopic view on this bill. While it does a good job of protecting our collective bargaining rights, they failed to see the impact the bill's passage would actually have on the workforce. They saw what they wanted to see and supported it accordingly. I normally support NATCA on 99.9% of what they do, but this one I cannot get behind one bit.
Click to expand...

Myopic view? In some ways yes, in other ways no, I'm sure it was just standard issue politics, a few people got a nice fat check to sign their name to what ever their contributors told them to. I'd be surprised of half of them even bothered to read the bill, as long as there are enough digits on the check, they really don't care what they sign.
 
For this to pass would mean Congress is willing to give up some power over something. That's not going to happen, regardless of party.:no:
 
Priorities of gooberment types (in order)

1 Money
2 Power
3 Respect

In this case, they'll sell their own mother for a half decent payout.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top