PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Jim Logajan on June 23, 2017, 03:12:36 PM
-
The per capita differences of several aviation quantities between privately-run ATC in Canada versus government-run ATC in the United States:
Canada: 984 people per registered aircraft.
USA: 1523 people per registered aircraft.
Result: Canada has significantly more aircraft per capita than the USA.
Canada: 519 people per licensed pilot.
USA: 550 people per licensed pilot.
Result: About the same per-capita rate of licensed pilots. Tiny edge to Canada.
Canada: 24,438 people per listed airport.
USA: 23,785 people per listed airport.
Result: About the same per-capita number of airports. Tiny edge to USA.
My conclusion:
Anyone claiming that aviation in the USA is somehow more robust than anywhere else in the world probably hasn't done any statistical comparisons.
And anyone claiming that privatization is bad for general aviation is probably an unwitting tool of the business jet lobby, which pays for about 1% of ATC costs while using about 15% of its services.[7]
These are the raw stats and the references I used:
Canada
----------
Population: 35,850,000 [1]
Registered Aircraft (2016): 36,448 [2]
Licensed Pilots (2016): 69,012 [2]
Airports (2013): 1467 [3]
USA
-----
Population: 321,400,000 [4]
Registered Aircraft (2014): 211,084 [5]
Licensed Pilots (2016): 584,362 [6]
Airports (2013): 13,513 [3]
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=population+of+canada&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 (https://www.google.com/search?q=population+of+canada&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)
[2] https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/transportation-canada-2016.html#air-transportation-sector (https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/transportation-canada-2016.html#air-transportation-sector)
[3] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2053.html (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2053.html)
[4] https://www.google.com/search?q=population+of+united+states&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 (https://www.google.com/search?q=population+of+united+states&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)
[5] https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html (https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html)
[6] https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/civil_airmen_statistics/ (https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/civil_airmen_statistics/)
[7] http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/23/rural-senators-and-private-jet-operators (http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/23/rural-senators-and-private-jet-operators)
-
Nonsense unless you look to number and type of operations since Privatized ATC is fee-based services per operation - also need to separate out private/personal aircraft vs. corporate and airline aircraft.
Due to the overall pro-GA environment in the US (combination of regulation, services, fuel and insurance costs, variety of airports and airspaces, etc.) we do have a more robust GA system, that's why literally everyone comes here to train and why our system and freedoms are the envy of the world (I regularly fly with pilots from Europe and they constantly comment on how much better we have it).
A legitimate comparison requires substantially more info than you started with IMO - however I recall reading (there are articles I am too lazy to go search for) that the switch to privatized ATC in Canada had a chilling effect on personal aviation such that pilots made choices about whether or not to make flights (or visit certain airports) based on the new costs associated with the services needed to safely complete the flight.
Privatized ATC is a bad idea here, and in fact anywhere else - managing a national airspace system is one of the functions that a government can and should do - the fuel tax is adequate to cover the load on the system and, if the government didn't raid the aviation trust fund, would be adequate for airport and system improvements as well.
This is my first significant policy difference with Trump so far, not totally surprised he proposed it, not surprised the House went for it, I am surprised the Senate has objected and responded with a bill that maintains the status quo.
Our system is the best but it is the result of a delicate balance that won't survive privatization intact, 'someone' will lose and that 'someone' will be those of us not flying buses.
'Gimp
-
Nonsense unless you look to number and type of operations since Privatized ATC is fee-based services per operation - also need to separate out private/personal aircraft vs. corporate and airline aircraft.
Most Canadian general aviation aircraft do not pay for ATC services on a per-operation basis. Aircraft with a MTOW under 617 kg (1357 lbs) are charged nothing. Aircraft with a MTOW of 617 kg to 2000 kg (4400 lbs) pay an annual fee of CAN$67.64. Full fee schedule is here: http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/products-and-services/Pages/customer-guide-to-charges.aspx (http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/products-and-services/Pages/customer-guide-to-charges.aspx)
I used the statistics I could easily get my hands on, yet still measure some relevant aspects. The per capita values seemed a good first cut - expending only a couple hours research. Deeper research taking days would - admit it - likely get tossed aside as inadequate or not proving anything, regardless of objective quality.
A legitimate comparison requires substantially more info than you started with IMO - however I recall reading (there are articles I am too lazy to go search for) that the switch to privatized ATC in Canada had a chilling effect on personal aviation such that pilots made choices about whether or not to make flights (or visit certain airports) based on the new costs associated with the services needed to safely complete the flight.
Better go hunt up that article because the yearly fee wouldn't have forced any such choices. Likely as not some of the busier (or greedier/desperate) airports may have coincidentally started charging landing fees around the same time, but lots of US airports charge landing fees.
Privatized ATC is a bad idea here, and in fact anywhere else - managing a national airspace system is one of the functions that a government can and should do - the fuel tax is adequate to cover the load on the system and, if the government didn't raid the aviation trust fund, would be adequate for airport and system improvements as well.
I see "bad idea" but I fail to see any argument to support that judgement.
This is my first significant policy difference with Trump so far, not totally surprised he proposed it, not surprised the House went for it, I am surprised the Senate has objected and responded with a bill that maintains the status quo.
Our system is the best but it is the result of a delicate balance that won't survive privatization intact, 'someone' will lose and that 'someone' will be those of us not flying buses.
'Gimp
I had read Shuster's proposal last year and its content were completely different from how it was characterized by its opponents. That appears to be the case with his updated proposal. I haven't had a chance to completely read the version he just re-introduced this session, since I just located it moments ago:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2997 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2997)
But I did locate the language in the bill that says who shall pay user fees (the bolded parts pretty much narrow the fees down to only those flying under CFR 14 Part 121 - Air Carriers - while allowing the rest of us Part 91 flyers to use ATC services for free and not be denied access to that service:
“(d) Standards.—The Secretary shall apply the following standards in reviewing a proposal from the Corporation under subsection (c):
“(1) The amount or type of charges and fees paid by an air traffic services user may not—
“(A) be determinant of the air traffic services provided to the user; or
“(B) adversely impact the ability of the user to use or access any part of the national airspace system.
“(2) Charges and fees shall be consistent with the document titled ‘ICAO’s Policies on Charges for Airports and Air Navigation Services’, Ninth Edition, 2012.
“(3) Charges and fees may not be discriminatory.
“(4) Charges and fees shall be consistent with United States international obligations.
“(5) Certain categories of air traffic services users may be charged on a flat fee basis so long as the charge or fee is otherwise consistent with this subsection.
“(6) Charges and fees may not be imposed for air traffic services provided with respect to operations of aircraft that qualify as public aircraft under sections 40102(a) and 40125.
“(7) Charges and fees may not be imposed for air traffic services provided with respect to aircraft operations conducted pursuant to part 91, 133, 135, 136, or 137 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.
“(8 ) Charges and fees may not be structured such that air traffic services users have incentives to operate in ways that diminish safety to avoid the charges and fees.
“(9) Charges and fees, based on reasonable and financially sound projections, may not generate revenues exceeding the Corporation’s current and anticipated financial requirements in relation to the provision of air traffic services.
-
I am having problems reconciling this. In general, privatizing something is suppose to gain us the benefits of a private market, right? Those benefits are based on profit motive and competition. The motive to make money encourages a good product or service because you compete for the customer. I'm having trouble seeing how this is going to work. This seems more like a heavily regulated hybrid.
For one thing if part 91 pays nothing, it is not going to be a wanted customer. For another thing, just because it pays nothing at first, what's going to stop that from changing in the future? My third thought is that even if a future fee is insignificant ($60 a year?) there is the last straw effect.
Being a libertarian capitalist I believe most things should be in the private sector. But I also agree with acrogimp that some things should be managed by the federal government and those should ONLY be what they are empowered by the Constitution to manage. Commerce between the states is one of those things therefore the Interstate road system for example, and airspace for travel I think falls in that category.
But I admit I haven't yet put that much thought into it and am open to learning more and changing my opinion if I can be shown it would actually be better than what we have now.
One of my questions is: what is wrong with what we have now that we have to change it? If it ain't broke don't fix it. If it is broke don't fix it with something even worse.
-
One of my questions is: what is wrong with what we have now that we have to change it? If it ain't broke don't fix it. If it is broke don't fix it with something even worse.
It is broke. The ATC portion of the FAA (along with the rest of the agency) is a bloated bureaucracy and ineffectively managed.
BTW, more than 50 countries around the world operate privatized ATC, so this is not a new concept.
-
It is broke. The ATC portion of the FAA (along with the rest of the agency) is a bloated bureaucracy and ineffectively managed.
BTW, more than 50 countries around the world operate privatized ATC, so this is not a new concept.
Convince me that it's broke. It seems to work well for me.
I am like Rush and Gimp. I generally believe that most things are better off in private hands. But I am not sure about ATC.
-
Convince me that it's broke. It seems to work well for me.
I am like Rush and Gimp. I generally believe that most things are better off in private hands. But I am not sure about ATC.
Do your own research and draw your own conclusion.
Privatized ATC works in other countries. Taking the bloated beauracracy out of it will only improve it.
How many times here have we read that whatever government touches it screws up? Yet when we mention something that interferes with someone's playground, then they suddenly feel the government is doing just fine.
-
Like some others, I like privatization if it is managed, and done properly. Government can screw up privatization too depending on how, and what they mandate. I am not for fee based ATC. Once they open the doors to fees, they will increase at above market rates, just like toll roads. There is no incentive to keep fees low. It is just another tax. That being said, I don't have the answer either.
-
There is a legitimate argument to be made that the government has the right to run ATC. National defense is one argument, the commerce clause is another. Generally speaking, I'm against the privatization because most of what I've read thus far indicates that there will be user fees which are obviously going to be passed onto the consumer. Whether you're a private pilot (like most of us) or just a regular commercial airline flying passenger, you're going to see an increase in costs to fly. General aviation is already expensive enough and doesn't appear to be getting cheaper anytime soon, so why throw on more fees that may increase the costs to where it's prohibitive to fly?
As with anything else, I need to see the bill and the actual provisions. I'm open to privatization because I tend to think less government involvement is usually a good thing. But I can see a legitimate need for the government to run ATC.
-
I'm not sure how privatization would work? I envision a regulated utility like cable TV or the Post Office. I am not happy with either one. I just don't see what problem it is that we are trying to fix.
"Go research it yourself" is not a way to get others to accept your position, which I was willing to do.
-
I'm not sure how privatization would work? I envision a regulated utility like cable TV or the Post Office. I am not happy with either one. I just don't see what problem it is that we are trying to fix.
"Go research it yourself" is not a way to get others to accept your position, which I was willing to do.
I've actually looked at it in depth, as most issues that interest me.
I am aware that some people are just too lazy and wish to have everything spoon fed to them.
Whatever....
-
But I admit I haven't yet put that much thought into it and am open to learning more and changing my opinion if I can be shown it would actually be better than what we have now.
The following "Air Traffic Control FAQs" from Reason Foundation may be a good place to start, since the FAQ really does seem to cover the frequently asked questions I see posed by people skeptical of ATC privatization (or in the current case, "corporatization"):
http://reason.org/news/show/air-traffic-control-faqs (http://reason.org/news/show/air-traffic-control-faqs)
Reason Foundation is a libertarian think-tank founded by Robert Poole Jr (among others) and the Canadian privatization of their ATC presumably was heavily influenced by his studies and work:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_Foundation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_Foundation)
-
Convince me that it's broke. It seems to work well for me.
I am like Rush and Gimp. I generally believe that most things are better off in private hands. But I am not sure about ATC.
The operational aspect may appear fine from the cockpit, but that doesn't mean things are happening efficiently behind the scene. Again, I'm going to point to one of the periodic ATC reports Robert Poole puts out concerning the current behind-the-scenes state of ATC:
http://reason.org/news/show/air-traffic-control-newsletter-143 (http://reason.org/news/show/air-traffic-control-newsletter-143)
Bio on the author of the above:
http://reason.org/experts/show/robert-poole (http://reason.org/experts/show/robert-poole)
-
I see two different aspects to privatization. One is the controllers themselves and the second is the technology aspect or equipment. Savings can come in the staffing portion by downsizing the crews at current FAA towers to what the contract towers do.
-
As with anything else, I need to see the bill and the actual provisions.
I gave the link to the bill (just introduced Thursday the 22nd) up-thread, but is easily overlooked, so here it is again:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2997 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2997)
-
But I did locate the language in the bill that says who shall pay user fees (the bolded parts pretty much narrow the fees down to only those flying under CFR 14 Part 121 - Air Carriers - while allowing the rest of us Part 91 flyers to use ATC services for free and not be denied access to that service
The only problem is that this puts the camel's nose, face and good part of his neck into the tent. If they start this now, within 5 years someone will be asking why GA isn't paying their "fair" share of the ATC system.
-
The only problem is that this puts the camel's nose, face and good part of his neck into the tent. If they start this now, within 5 years someone will be asking why GA isn't paying their "fair" share of the ATC system.
My concern exactly.
-
Your 'facts' don't match the actual content of the Customer Guide from NavCanada (http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/media/Publications/Customer%20Guide%20to%20Charges%202016%20V07%20-%20EN_FINAL.pdf).
The only aircraft exempt from charges are those weighing less than .617 metric tonnes (1360 lbs), so LSA and a few personal/sport 2-seaters (the mighty SuperCub would be subject to these fees, whether owned by an individual or a tour operation).
Annual fees covering terminal and enroute services for 2-3 tonne planes (up to 4409 lbs) are $225/yr for Canadian registered aircraft.
Airport charges in Canada (specificed airports and waterdromes), $9.95/day, up to 120 charges a year ($1,194) - includes recreational aircraft.
Since individuals may own and operate aircraft like a King Air 350 they could see charges of $331 PER DAY for terminal and enroute services, change to an owner-flown Citation II and fees are still $204/Day.
And of course, in terms of actual operations NavCanada handles roughly 10% the volume of the US national airspace system.
The FAA itself has estimated that the US system sees 60% more traffic than all 40-ish of the nations in EuroControl combined and the fact remains that most of the personal/private GA type flying on the planet takes place in the US.
Facts are a stubborn thing.
The privatized hybrid system that 'works' in Canada is no more likely to function in the US than is Swedish style Euro-socialism.
'Gimp
-
The only problem is that this puts the camel's nose, face and good part of his neck into the tent. If they start this now, within 5 years someone will be asking why GA isn't paying their "fair" share of the ATC system.
GA hasn't paid its fair share for ATC services for decades. If no one was able change that fact in all that time, why would it be possible in five years? Everyone knows there is no money in it. Further, it would literally take an act of congress to change the legislation. Given that the proposed bill has morphed in the last year to the point where GA and even on-demand charter are explicitly excluded from paying user fees, I think the politics are clearly against that fear being realized for the next 20 years, as a wild guess.
-
Savings can come in the staffing portion by downsizing the crews at current FAA towers to what the contract towers do.
That would be a bad idea.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
That would be a bad idea.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
MarkZ!!!!
'Gimp
-
GA hasn't paid its fair share for ATC services for decades.
Do you have some source for that? Because, the airport and airway trust fund, which was instituted in the late 70s to collect revenue from the small users of the ATC and FAA facilities has always operated in the black. In fact, it has operated in the black so well that money has been diverted from the airport and airway trust for general funding for decades. It would seem to me, that not only are we paying our own way, we are on the debit side of the ledger and are helping to pay for many other non-aviation related bills.
As I recall, back then the AATF was first used to offset losses from the recently setup AMTRAK debacle which has LOST money since the day it was implemented. Makes sense of course, airport-airway is what trains use all the time. Once the rule was in place, of course the congress would simply rape the AATF every year and put the monies into the general fund to offset losses and make the bottom line look not as bad. Of course, airports and airways suffered, but the general public didn't care, that was for 'rich plane owners' problems, and they had welfare and govt cheese to pay for.
Back then AOPA was screaming and ranting in congress about the diversion, all to no avail. Today, some of the money collected from fuel tax is diverted to the fed highway trust fund. Some of it is spent by the FAA for operations(specifically excluded in the orig bill) and some of it is spent on airport and airways. However, as we all know, small airports are closing all over the nation. Where is the fund spending its money? Well, I can tell you. DFW got a new toll collection road improvement 6 years ago, mostly funded by the AATF. Note - this toll collection doesn't benefit the AATF, the tolls go to the city and county of Fort Worth and Tarrant. Hmmm you say? not even an air side of the airport, but the driving side improvement. Sigh. Where else did the money go? Since 2004, some of it has gone to pay for longer hours, and more people in the customs and immigration after changes to the law required people to follow the new exit and entry rules for intl flights. Wait a minute, the AATF is paying for INS/customs salary? Yup, at airports, so we get to pay our own customs and INS fees. Hmmmm, that doesn't happen at the road borders, or sea borders, but only at airports of entry.
Want more? Nevermind. It's a complete boondoggle. We're more than paying our way, and money is being taken from us to fund all kinds of non-av stuff. But, we can't do or say anything about it, cuz we're just 'rich plane owner bastards'.
-
Interesting. I had never even heard of the AATF.
-
Today, some of the money collected from fuel tax is diverted to the fed highway trust fund. Some of it is spent by the FAA for operations(specifically excluded in the orig bill) and some of it is spent on airport and airways.
IIRC, in 2013 congress redirected a substantial portion of AATF funds toward FAA Operations as a Sequestration mitigation plan. It was either that or face furloughs for all controllers and the resulting delays.
I believe GA's participation into the AATF was meant to ensure the longevity of GA in the NAS. Namely, to ensure that GA aircraft could continue using small airports by providing federal funding toward their continuity. It has since been bastardized into whatever budgetary gap or hole congress needs to plug.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
Do you have some source for that?
From: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2013-10-22/fuel-taxes-and-fair-share-what-should-ga-pay-faa-funding (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2013-10-22/fuel-taxes-and-fair-share-what-should-ga-pay-faa-funding)
"Given these numbers, does GA pay its fair share of the ATC burden? The Department of Transportation’s Inspector General’s (IG) office attempted to determine that in a 2008 study. (“Use of the National Air Space System,” CR-2008-028) The IG found that GA used approximately 16 percent of all ATC services but contributed only 3 percent of the costs, findings that were roundly criticized by the NBAA and others."
(“Use of the National Air Space System,” CR-2008-028 is now at this URL: https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/NAS_User_Final_Report_3-3_%28508_Compliant%29.pdf (https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/NAS_User_Final_Report_3-3_%28508_Compliant%29.pdf))
Because, the airport and airway trust fund, which was instituted in the late 70s to collect revenue from the small users of the ATC and FAA facilities has always operated in the black.
You are absolutely correct - that used to be the case. But the bulk of AATF funding comes from FAA fees on airline passengers and freight. That ainonline.com article, written in 2013, at that time said $11.44 billion came from airline passenger, freight, and international departure fees, while GA contributed $0.622 billion via gas taxes.
Back then AOPA was screaming and ranting in congress about the diversion, all to no avail. Today, some of the money collected from fuel tax is diverted to the fed highway trust fund. Some of it is spent by the FAA for operations(specifically excluded in the orig bill) and some of it is spent on airport and airways. However, as we all know, small airports are closing all over the nation. Where is the fund spending its money? Well, I can tell you. DFW got a new toll collection road improvement 6 years ago, mostly funded by the AATF. Note - this toll collection doesn't benefit the AATF, the tolls go to the city and county of Fort Worth and Tarrant. Hmmm you say? not even an air side of the airport, but the driving side improvement. Sigh. Where else did the money go? Since 2004, some of it has gone to pay for longer hours, and more people in the customs and immigration after changes to the law required people to follow the new exit and entry rules for intl flights. Wait a minute, the AATF is paying for INS/customs salary? Yup, at airports, so we get to pay our own customs and INS fees. Hmmmm, that doesn't happen at the road borders, or sea borders, but only at airports of entry.
Want more? Nevermind. It's a complete boondoggle. We're more than paying our way, and money is being taken from us to fund all kinds of non-av stuff. But, we can't do or say anything about it, cuz we're just 'rich plane owner bastards'.
You've just made the case for why the money flow from ATC user to ATC provider must not be first diverted to the Federal government's general fund - thence to be disbursed according to political whim. That is one of the reasons for corporatizing ATC. (Corporatizing is probably a better word than privatization for the current proposal.)
-
Although it shouldn't, something about having the lowest bidder in charge of ATC bothers me some.
-
Although it shouldn't, something about having the lowest bidder in charge of ATC bothers me some.
Lowest bidder should never be the sole, or even primary decision factor.
I'm coming around to the idea of some change. Privatization (or corporatization) may be the right thing, or maybe just moving ATC out from under direct FAA control would be feasible. ATC still needs to be under a single, national authority. I don't want 50 separate, competing ATCs with a profit motive. Cost containment, yes, but not profit. And I don't mean a typical "not for profit" operation where excess revenue is "paid" to the officers rather than showing up as profit.
-
Lowest bidder should never be the sole, or even primary decision factor.
I'm coming around to the idea of some change. Privatization (or corporatization) may be the right thing, or maybe just moving ATC out from under direct FAA control would be feasible. ATC still needs to be under a single, national authority. I don't want 50 separate, competing ATCs with a profit motive. Cost containment, yes, but not profit. And I don't mean a typical "not for profit" operation where excess revenue is "paid" to the officers rather than showing up as profit.
The Feds can sole source the contract. They don't even have to bid it out. I do know their computer system definitely needs to be updated.
-
I have no faith in any govt organization or group that tries to determine the cost/use factors of the NAS. From a GA perspective, is getting FF considered a 'use'? Even though the report posted calls a use an IFR en route service, I'll bet dollars to donuts that includes VFR flight following which is handled with a flight strip just like an IFR controlled flight. Further, the slant on business use aircraft being lumped into GA is disingenuous. There is a bright line in that report that is 'carrier' related, and then - all others. Not cool.
-
Everyone thought the world was going to end when briefings were privatized. For most of us we couldn't tell the difference. What do I care if ATC is privatized? Again, I probably won't be able to tell the difference. So what if a private company makes a profit off a public service. It will still probably be cheaper than the government running it. And it's not like the government doesn't use private contractors in a hundred thousand other areas.
A lot of wind, but no storm.
-
Privatization (outsourcing) doesn't scare me nearly as much a having a user fee based system. I am all for paying my "fair share", but that will incentivize pilots to NOT use ATC. That is a bad thing.
-
What a funny thread. The folks who are constantly accused of being liberals are pro-privatization. Many of the folks who do said accusing are pro-government run.
-
Privatization (outsourcing) doesn't scare me nearly as much a having a user fee based system. I am all for paying my "fair share", but that will incentivize pilots to NOT use ATC. That is a bad thing.
The current bill essentially makes airlines foot 100% of ATC. It explicitly excludes everyone else from having to pay user fees. And it requires the ATC corporation to make its services available to all users of the U.S. air system - even those who aren't required to pay.
The airlines do not seem to object to any of this (except Delta, last I heard) because ultimately they must believe that even under those conditions they would see cost reductions via lower ATC user fees. Even if GA went away, the need for most of the ATC infrastructure and operational costs would still persist.
-
I don't know about anyone else, but I pay a govt fee every time my CC goes in the slot on the fuel pump at an FBO. If we break it down further, the way I operate the FAA/ATC makes good money on my travel in the NAS. I NEVER call anyone. I visited SoCal a few weeks ago, and slipped into Cable for gas, up to Agua Dulce for parking, back out to Big Bear for another sip, and then on my way east. I made six unicom calls, and spent >$200 in gas there. Nice chunk of money for the ATC budget. You're welcome.
-
Convince me that it's broke. It seems to work well for me.
I am like Rush and Gimp. I generally believe that most things are better off in private hands. But I am not sure about ATC.
Agree.
We have two different issues: privatizing ATC, and funding of the system. I'm not sure why we conflate the two. We have 252 contract towers, so there's some benefits to privatizing at least some more of that function, while having it funded the way we fund the contract towers today.
However, user fees are what have killed GA in Europe. I see no reason why we need to emulate that. The US land mass is much larger than most countries, so comparisons to other countries is faulty at best. More land mass = longer distances = more gas = more fuel taxes. It seems to be working just fine from where I sit.
-
What a funny thread. The folks who are constantly accused of being liberals are pro-privatization. Many of the folks who do said accusing are pro-government run.
I was thinking the same thing.
-
The airlines do not seem to object to any of this (except Delta, last I heard) because ultimately they must believe that even under those conditions they would see cost reductions via lower ATC user fees. Even if GA went away, the need for most of the ATC infrastructure and operational costs would still persist.
The airlines don't mind because if all airlines have to pay, then they all raise their rates proportionately. If a ticket on Delta is now $100.00 and $99.95 on Jet Blue, people will often choose Jet Blue. If their costs go up, Delta will go to $110.00 and Jet Blue will go to $109.95 and the same people will still choose Jet Blue rather than not fly.
-
What a funny thread. The folks who are constantly accused of being liberals are pro-privatization. Many of the folks who do said accusing are pro-government run.
Bullshit.
I'm pro privatization, and I can promise you I'm definitely not a liberal.
-
I am all for privatization.
The federal gov't is a damned poor adminstarrator pretty much everything.
-
The airlines don't mind because if all airlines have to pay, then they all raise their rates proportionately. If a ticket on Delta is now $100.00 and $99.95 on Jet Blue, people will often choose Jet Blue. If their costs go up, Delta will go to $110.00 and Jet Blue will go to $109.95 and the same people will still choose Jet Blue rather than not fly.
The airlines have been pushing user fees for decades, because if their costs go down (having been spread more broadly as user fees to non-commercial GA), their fares will stay at $100 and $99.95 per your example, and they would be pocketing the difference. There's no way their fares would go down because their costs of operating in the system go down.
-
Anarchist here - somewhat, to mostly in favor of privatization.
However I want one thing from the deal. Leave me alone, and I leave you alone. If 'privatization' means I get a bill for every non-towered airport I happen to land and take off from, we're gonna have a fight. Imagine primary flight training where each TO/L cycle cost $10 bucks. I don't know about you, but when I learned it took me about 25 cycles in a TW before I became modestly not dangerous. If the $10 is ok, then what about $20? Primary flight training just started to cut corners on landing practice when each touch of the ground is another couple sawbucks. In fact, I can see a lot, a lot, a lot of instruction where the 'landing' ends in a flare with no touchdown or roll out to save $20. Bad mojo, particularly in a TW plane.
Definition of a successful tailwheel landing.
1. Correct pattern entry
2. Stabilized approach and glidepath
3. Smooth roundout and flare
4. Touchdown with no energy left in wings(three point)
5. Perfectly straight directional control
6. Slow modest braking with maintaining directional control
7. Slow taxi to parking
8. Shut down engine
9. Exit aircraft and secure
10. Fill out logbook
11. Get in car drive home
12. Sit in Barcalounger
13. Pop a frosty, take a few sips - ahhhh.
TW Landing now successfully completed.
-
Someone up above said that privatization has nothing to do with funding. He's right. How people are connecting the two is beyond me. It doesn't matter who is running the show, there is a cost. Personally, I really don't care if the gov't keeps ATC or if they outsource it. There's no correlation between who is providing the service and how that service is funded.
Now, if we want to talk about funding it...we've all been spoiled. I like the fact that it's been taxpayer-funded. But only because I'm a benefactor. I also like the fact that I didn't have to pay (directly) for my kids to go to school, or to check out a book at the library. I LIKED sharing that cost, making people who don't have kids or use the library share in the cost of my benefits. When my kids are grown and out of school I won't be so thrilled at paying the exhorbitant taxes to fund public schools. So it's a lot like that for ATC and GA. We're getting a lot of benefit at very little cost to us as individual pilots.
This won't go on forever though. There will be a day someone will take notice and change things.
We will pay fees to take off. Fees to land. Fees to call departure, ground, tower, etc. And piloting will become more dangerous as we search for ways to avoid the costs. Think toll roads, and how many states have taken the most-used roads and suddenly put up toll booths simply because they could. Enjoy our cheap flying while we can.
-
We're getting a lot of benefit at very little cost to us as individual pilots.
This won't go on forever though. There will be a day someone will take notice and change things.
We will pay fees to take off. Fees to land. Fees to call departure, ground, tower, etc. And piloting will become more dangerous as we search for ways to avoid the costs. Think toll roads, and how many states have taken the most-used roads and suddenly put up toll booths simply because they could. Enjoy our cheap flying while we can.
We pay $0.194 per gallon for the Federal Excise Tax on 100LL for Part 91 flight. This does not include state gas taxes, and other aviation fees. However, we fly much less than the airlines, and business jets, so we don't use the system nearly as much. If what you propose actually happens GA will go the way of Europe, and become relatively non-existent.
-
There is little to no equivalency between the toll road and ATC service.
Toll road provides: a suitable graded road surface for the transit of vehicles.
Public road provides: a suitable graded road surface for the transit of vehicles.
One might argue that the toll road provides faster, or more convenient modes, but the affect on safety between toll roads and public roads(of the same variety) is vanishingly small. Add a toll to a road/bridge and there would be almost no difference in transit safety.
Add a toll to an ATC service, like en-route IFR service and the safety results will be ginormous.
In the interest of compromise, I propose this: Add all the service fees to all parts of the ATC encounter you want. Reduce fuel taxes proportionally to compensate for the new income streams which more closely model the use case of the ATC service.
Fat. Chance.
-
What a funny thread. The folks who are constantly accused of being liberals are pro-privatization. Many of the folks who do said accusing are pro-government run.
I made the suggestion that ATC could be viewed as a part of national security. Don't confuse that with suggesting that I'm pro-government running things. I also said that I need to see the bill (which was posted, but I still haven't had a chance to read it) before I could make a more informed opinion.
-
Bullshit.
I'm pro privatization, and I can promise you I'm definitely not a liberal.
Your bullshit is bullshit. Note I said "many", not all.
-
There is little to no equivalency between the toll road and ATC service.
Toll road provides: a suitable graded road surface for the transit of vehicles.
Public road provides: a suitable graded road surface for the transit of vehicles.
That's the point I'm trying to make. Same service/benefit to the taxpayer, only now we're paying more for it. Just because they can force the cost on us. It's happened before, it'll happen again. Think you can buy a house or car and it remain yours without CONTINUALLY paying taxes on it? It's coming to ATC at some point. All we can hope is that it's later rather than sooner.
I don't think I'm being overly pessimistic here. Just realistic. AOPA spends a fortune lobbying for us, but that goes so far.
-
That's the point I'm trying to make. Same service/benefit to the taxpayer, only now we're paying more for it. Just because they can force the cost on us. It's happened before, it'll happen again. Think you can buy a house or car and it remain yours without CONTINUALLY paying taxes on it? It's coming to ATC at some point. All we can hope is that it's later rather than sooner.
I don't think I'm being overly pessimistic here. Just realistic. AOPA spends a fortune lobbying for us, but that goes so far.
That is rather defeatist.
-
That is rather defeatist.
We don't need to destroy general aviation to fund, and operate an efficient ATC. Look at Europe. Who the hell flies there?
-
Why does anyone assume the government can run the ATC better than a corporation devoted to making a profit, instead of wasting money?
-
I had made the point that the benefits of private market come from the profit motive but I see ATC privatization would be "non-profit" and so far I can't see a clear description of how this would work in the long run.
Here is an example. Ocracoke Island has a wonderful long beach that used to be the private domain of the few fishermen that lived on the island. Sometime back before the rise of fanatical environmental whackoism, the Feds wanted to buy it out and make it a national park. You know, for the enjoyment of the public. As part of the deal, they promised that forevermore, the fishermen would be allowed to drive their vehicles on the sand. For a long time that worked.
A few years back the NPS announced they would stop allowing vehicles on the sand. We owned property there and I and many others protested this and they backed off a bit. The Feds lied: they tried to break their promise. We sold the property a few years ago and I haven't been keeping up but I understand now you must purchase a permit to be allowed to drive on the beach. They have carved out exceptions such as designating certain areas off limits at certain times and these restrictions only grow over time. So now you must pay money for the privilege of driving on the beach and I have no doubt the outright ban will be attempted again, probably the environmentalists are constantly pressuring the NPS and will never stop until they get a total vehicle ban.
This is occurring what? 40,50 years later and having witnessed this, I am convinced something similar will happen with any privatization of ATC that promises GA will "never" have to pay a fee.
It's not that privately run or government run is the issue (my example is the reverse: private---> government) but that federal government promises are involved. They are simply not to be trusted.
On the other hand I suppose fees could happen regardless. But if privatization makes any explicit promise that just feels to me like it will more easily be broken than if we just leave things the way they are. But I remain open to changing my opinions as I learn more about it.
-
Want to see a fantastic story of govt lies, and deceit?
Read this;
https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Summer-Moon-Comanches-Powerful/dp/1416591060
Incredible story of how the US govt killed millions of 'citizens', drove the rest into penury, and got away with the whole thing. Makes Hitler look like an angel in comparison.
-
Want to see a fantastic story of govt lies, and deceit?
Read this;
https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Summer-Moon-Comanches-Powerful/dp/1416591060
Incredible story of how the US govt killed millions of 'citizens', drove the rest into penury, and got away with the whole thing. Makes Hitler look like an angel in comparison.
I read that book. Absolutely amazing.
-
Looks like it won't happen....
http://www.federaltimes.com/articles/senate-committee-backs-aviation-bill-ditches-trump-plan-to-privatize-air-traffic-control
-
Looks like it won't happen....
http://www.federaltimes.com/articles/senate-committee-backs-aviation-bill-ditches-trump-plan-to-privatize-air-traffic-control
The union representing air traffic controllers supports a split from the FAA. In opposition are various aviation groups that often rely on smaller airports for business travel, recreation, pilot training and crop spraying. They fear the board operating the nonprofit company could be controlled by the major airlines and that the smaller airports would become a lesser priority.
In general, if a union wants something, I'm suspicious of it. And the small airport concern is a major issue to me. This inclines me to be against the split. Still open to arguments.
-
In general, if a union wants something, I'm suspicious of it. And the small airport concern is a major issue to me. This inclines me to be against the split. Still open to arguments.
If unions, and/or Democrats are for it, typically I am against it.
-
If unions, and/or Democrats are for it, typically I am against it.
It's a pretty good litmus test that's for sure, although there are rare times I'll agree with them.
-
In general, if a union wants something, I'm suspicious of it. And the small airport concern is a major issue to me. This inclines me to be against the split. Still open to arguments.
I should have put won't happen right now. I'm sure the issue itself isn't dead, but the current effort is.
-
Looks like it won't happen....
http://www.federaltimes.com/articles/senate-committee-backs-aviation-bill-ditches-trump-plan-to-privatize-air-traffic-control
Good. I still hadn't seen a compelling argument as to why this would've been good.
-
Good. I still hadn't seen a compelling argument as to why this would've been good.
Getting the operation of the National Airspace System out of partisan gridlock and petty games.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
-
Getting the operation of the National Airspace System out of partisan gridlock and petty games.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
I wasn't aware that the operation was in partisan gridlock.
Or if it is, how about solving that gridlock by getting rid of the radical partisans?
-
I wasn't aware that the operation was in partisan gridlock.
Or if it is, how about solving that gridlock by getting rid of the radical partisans?
I meant the funding of the operation.
The funding of the operation of the NAS is subject to general schedule appropriations. In other words, ATC operates only when congress appropriates funding by passing an Authorization. The FAA is then obliged to follow the budgetary regulation congress sets forth.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
-
I meant the funding of the operation.
The funding of the operation of the NAS is subject to general schedule appropriations. In other words, ATC operates only when congress appropriates funding by passing an Authorization. The FAA is then obliged to follow the budgetary regulation congress sets forth.
I'm pretty sure we've had government shutdowns, but ATC kept running. I could be wrong, please correct me if I am.
Otherwise, I'm not sure what part of the funding you're upset with. What problem are you trying to solve?
-
I'm pretty sure we've had government shutdowns, but ATC kept running. I could be wrong, please correct me if I am.
Otherwise, I'm not sure what part of the funding you're upset with. What problem are you trying to solve?
Who said I was upset?
Levelwing posed a question. I gave an answer. It's that simple.
The core ATC (controllers, supervisors, and equipment technicians) systems keep running during a shutdown. All other services and systems do in fact shut down.
It's like operating a complex system using a skeleton crew and hoping nothing goes wrong.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
I meant the funding of the operation.
The funding of the operation of the NAS is subject to general schedule appropriations. In other words, ATC operates only when congress appropriates funding by passing an Authorization. The FAA is then obliged to follow the budgetary regulation congress sets forth.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
Everything is subject to Congressional budget allocations/appropriations, even the military. What happens if it goes private and that organization doesn't have the funds to continue operating? It will become the next industry that is too big to fail.
-
I think before it goes privatized the contract needs to stipulate that unionized employees are forbidden from a strike or self help action.
-
Everything is subject to Congressional budget allocations/appropriations, even the military. What happens if it goes private and that organization doesn't have the funds to continue operating? It will become the next industry that is too big to fail.
There is a possibility of that happening. I don't think so, but sure...anything can happen.
-
I think before it goes privatized the contract needs to stipulate that unionized employees are forbidden from a strike or self help action.
What is a "self help action"?
-
What is a "self help action"?
Work slow down, random sick out, random parts of the workforce walking out.
-
Work slow down, random sick out, random parts of the workforce walking out.
Those are examples of job actions.
There is a stipulation in Shuster's bill that states no EMPLOYEE of the corporation may engage in a strike or job action. The stipulation isn't limited to unionized employees.
-
I think before it goes privatized the contract needs to stipulate that unionized employees are forbidden from a strike or self help action.
We already have such laws, but without a "Ronald Reagan" to enforce them, they are useless. But just perhaps, Trump will enforce it. And if so, we better all stand back when the MSM explodes and causes more riots (which they will blame on Trump).
-
Those are examples of job actions.
There is a stipulation in Shuster's bill that states no EMPLOYEE of the corporation may engage in a strike or job action. The stipulation isn't limited to unionized employees.
You are aware there are several unions around the country, not just the one you are a member of, right?
And you are aware other unions use slightly different terminology that means essentially the same thing?
-
We already have such laws, but without a "Ronald Reagan" to enforce them, they are useless. But just perhaps, Trump will enforce it. And if so, we better all stand back when the MSM explodes and causes more riots (which they will blame on Trump).
Those laws pertain to government employees. Once separated to a private company those employees become private sector, hence the laws won't apply.
Thankfully that was already thought out (Thanks Mark) so that avenue is covered.
-
You are aware there are several unions around the country, not just the one you are a member of, right?
And you are aware other unions use slightly different terminology that means essentially the same thing?
Self help actions (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-help) and job actions (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/job%20action) are not the same thing.
I'm not aware of any union that calls a job action a "self help action." Do you know of one?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
Self help actions (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-help) and job actions (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/job%20action) are not the same thing.
I'm not aware of any union that calls a job action a "self help action." Do you know of one?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
.
You try to argue the weirdest shit.
And yes, those terms can be interchangeable.