Big Airline push to Privatize ATC - User Fees

So the airlines want to privatize atc. Of course for their benefit. Even though they pass their costs to the consumer. Who do we that enjoy flying in the system get to pass our cost too. Also the airlines will always recieve priority.
 
roncachamp said:
Why weren't delays reduced upon the introduction of RVSM?
Click to expand...
Because other parts of the system had to catch up. But now that the system has adjusted to RVSM, I'll bet it would be a big problem if it was discontinued.

roncachamp said:
ISTR a reduction in the minimum distance between runways some years ago as a result of new ATC radars. What improved technology do you envision that would allow another reduction?
Click to expand...
So you think technology is at it's peak right now and can't be improved upon?

People are often opposed to new technology, especially if it doesn't benefit them directly. But it may benefit them indirectly if they are an airline passenger or if they are depending on a shipment by airplane.
 
Everskyward said:
Because other parts of the system had to catch up. But now that the system has adjusted to RVSM, I'll bet it would be a big problem if it was discontinued.
Click to expand...

I don't see it. If minimum spacing between aircraft must be provided regardless of their altitudes it does not matter what altitude they are at. Please explain why you believe discontinuing RVSM would reduce capacity.

So you think technology is at it's peak right now and can't be improved upon?
Click to expand...
What improved technology do you envision that would allow another reduction?

People are often opposed to new technology, especially if it doesn't benefit them directly. But it may benefit them indirectly if they are an airline passenger or if they are depending on a shipment by airplane.
Click to expand...
Not me. I'm all for new technology with real benefits. I just don't see how the pseudo-privatization of ATC is needed to create new technology.
 
roncachamp said:
I don't see it. If minimum spacing between aircraft must be provided regardless of their altitudes it does not matter what altitude they are at. Please explain why you believe discontinuing RVSM would reduce capacity.
Click to expand...
You would have twice as many aircraft wanting to use the same altitude, and aircraft crossing paths would need to be separated by 2000' vertically instead of 1000'.

roncachamp said:
Not me. I'm all for new technology with real benefits. I just don't see how the pseudo-privatization of ATC is needed to create new technology.
Click to expand...
In the article from the OP, which I quoted, it is their opinion that the Federal budget process makes it more difficult to get funding for these programs and they are subject to political whims from outside the aviation industry. I can see both sides.
 
Everskyward said:
You would have twice as many aircraft wanting to use the same altitude, and aircraft crossing paths would need to be separated by 2000' vertically instead of 1000'.
Click to expand...

Keeping them separated wasn't a problem before RVSM so I don't see why it would be a problem if RVSM was discontinued. The issue is spacing.

In the article from the OP, which I quoted, it is their opinion that the Federal budget process makes it more difficult to get funding for these programs and they are subject to political whims from outside the aviation industry. I can see both sides.
Click to expand...
They should explain the basis for that opinion.
 
roncachamp said:
Keeping them separated wasn't a problem before RVSM so I don't see why it would be a problem if RVSM was discontinued. The issue is spacing.
Click to expand...
It is +-10 years later. There are more aircraft in the system now than there were then. Luckily they thought ahead.

roncachamp said:
They should explain the basis for that opinion.
Click to expand...
I have seen other articles where they cite the success of privatization in Canada as a reason. Canada has implemented some technical solutions in a more timely manner because they are not constrained as much by the political process. For example, this is a joint venture between NavCanada and Iridium that would be more difficult if it was still a part of the government.

http://business.financialpost.com/n...t-on-global-aircraft-surveillance-blind-spots

You may not be in favor of this particular program, but is is an example of the additional flexibility they have being private.
 
Everskyward said:
I have seen other articles where they cite the success of privatization in Canada as a reason. Canada has implemented some technical solutions in a more timely manner because they are not constrained as much by the political process. For example, this is a joint venture between NavCanada and Iridium that would be more difficult if it was still a part of the government.
Click to expand...

They're saying it. They're not showing it.
 
Everskyward said:
It is +-10 years later. There are more aircraft in the system now than there were then. Luckily they thought ahead.

I have seen other articles where they cite the success of privatization in Canada as a reason. Canada has implemented some technical solutions in a more timely manner because they are not constrained as much by the political process. For example, this is a joint venture between NavCanada and Iridium that would be more difficult if it was still a part of the government.

http://business.financialpost.com/n...t-on-global-aircraft-surveillance-blind-spots

You may not be in favor of this particular program, but is is an example of the additional flexibility they have being private.
Click to expand...
Of course spacing wasn't an issue... Just delay them on the ground.
 
Bob Noel said:
In the past, controllers have participated in user evaluations of ATC systems being developed.

It was noted that there was a strong correlation between controllers complaining about the systems and contract negotiations. Once union contracts were renegotiated, the controllers got less ****y about the systems under development.

I'm sure it nothing to do the contract negotiations between the union and the FAA.

I'm sure.
Click to expand...


Where was it noted?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
frfly172 said:
So the airlines want to privatize atc. Of course for their benefit. Even though they pass their costs to the consumer. Who do we that enjoy flying in the system get to pass our cost too. Also the airlines will always recieve priority.
Click to expand...

The airlines are arguing that they're paying essentially on a per-passenger bases (not quite accurate) and that GA is paying on a per-plane basis. So they argue that the handling is really per-plane (ignoring priority) and therefore the fee should be set per-plane and not per-pax. If that happens, their costs go down and GA goes up.

Further, if they control a corporation (non-profit or not), they could cut facilities and procedures that cost money but don't contribute much back to the system. An ILS into KRMN? Very little traffic, may not justify keeping the approach as it won't contribute much back to the system. And so forth.

The current tax-funded system puts the money into a pool and assumes that any/all IFR traffic contributes to the functioning of the system. The airlines benefit as GA traffic will go to decent reliever facilities. GA benefits.
 
As a current ATC, allow me to chime in a little bit. *DISCLAIMER* I am not simply saying this to protect my job, but the facts are on the side of remaining a public entity.

Privatization will make the system far worse in the long run. Our union recently put out a press release that the nations Air Traffic system is at least 10% understaffed, with a new wave of retirement in the next 5 years (I am aware this is the union saying this, but seeing the stating numbers at various ATC facilities leads me to believe this number isn't too far off). If you turn over the reins to a private company, they will staff it much like they do at current Contract towers, that is, they will have one or two people come in in the morning, one in the afternoon, and one in the evening. That's it. If it gets busy, there will be no second set of eyes in the tower, there will be no one else to accomplish coordination with TRACON or Center. One person doing everything, conceivably with 100+ operations in a single hour. If you think delays are bad now, wait until a private company takes over. Remember what happened during the 2013 sequester with all the delays that came as a result of reduced staffing?

Let's face it. I personally laugh at the idea of a "not-for-profit" corporation taking over ATC duties. Why? Because There is no such thing as a "not-for-profit" in this country. They may market themselves as such, but in the end, it is all about their bottom line.

That said, if we privatize, how long until we see the airlines pay a few extra dollars to the corporation to ensure they receive priority handling over the GA crowd? How long until back room deals occur to allow American to bypass an EDCT or any flow control measure?

ORD, in 2014 the world's busiest airport by aircraft movements, handled 881,933 passengers. Beijing, the busiest airport outside of the U.S., handled 581,773. Eight of the top 10 world's busiest airports are in the U.S., and we do a damn good job as government employees of keeping all those aircraft safe. Do mistakes happen, absolutely, but you will see that in any job.

Fees for use will increase significantly, which would kill GA operations. The US achieved over 9 million departures in 2013 (all civil aircraft), per the NTSB. Admittedly I'm to sure if that is including all IFR/ VFR and all operations from all public airports, as it took a little digging to find these numbers. I'm not sure what the numbers are in Canada, but I do know they are significantly lower than the U.S. I can't help but wonder if that is in part due to the increased fees on GA imposed on our friends to the north.

Privatizing the ATC system in the U.S. is a bad idea. Do costs need to be cut in certain areas, yes. Can we take some of the concepts that work in the private sector and apply them to what we do, of course. But to privatize the whole system is a disaster waiting to happen.
 
ATC_av8er said:
Privatizing the ATC system in the U.S. is a bad idea. Do costs need to be cut in certain areas, yes. Can we take some of the concepts that work in the private sector and apply them to what we do, of course. But to privatize the whole system is a disaster waiting to happen.
Click to expand...

Which of the concepts that work in the private sector can be applied to ATC? Competitive markets make private sector companies efficient but there can be no competition in ATC.
 
I think the reduction in management is a good first step. My facility has 13 controllers and 2 supervisors. We honestly don't need that second supe, but the FAA has become very top heavy in 1st and 2nd level management despite what the staffing looks like. One supe is plenty for a facility our size, and we did better in terms of efficiency with one than we do with two.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
 
wsuffa said:
The airlines are arguing that they're paying essentially on a per-passenger bases (not quite accurate) and that GA is paying on a per-plane basis. So they argue that the handling is really per-plane (ignoring priority) and therefore the fee should be set per-plane and not per-pax. If that happens, their costs go down and GA goes up.

Further, if they control a corporation (non-profit or not), they could cut facilities and procedures that cost money but don't contribute much back to the system. An ILS into KRMN? Very little traffic, may not justify keeping the approach as it won't contribute much back to the system. And so forth.

The current tax-funded system puts the money into a pool and assumes that any/all IFR traffic contributes to the functioning of the system. The airlines benefit as GA traffic will go to decent reliever facilities. GA benefits.
Click to expand...

The airlines aren't paying a God damned thing, their customers are, and the playing field is equal across the airlines.
 
Henning said:
The airlines aren't paying a God damned thing, their customers are, and the playing field is equal across the airlines.
Click to expand...
Maybe. I completely understand passing ALL costs along, but... If one airline decides to temporarily eat the cost, than the airline that doesn't eat it is losing much more than the few dollar fee. They may lose the entire fare. I'm not an economist, but I'm sure the airlines will figure out the best way to do it. Pass it along, or eat it and steal customers.
 
Henning said:
The airlines aren't paying a God damned thing, their customers are, and the playing field is equal across the airlines.
Click to expand...
Well, since they'll pocket the difference if the fees go away, there is a very good economic argument that they are paying it now.

From the other standpoint, the passengers are paying for everything, so technically they would pay for fuel, crew, etc.
 
I just wish they would quit turning Class E airports into Class D's. No need for those towers unless there is substantial scheduled service. They do it for "jobs".
 
coloradobluesky said:
I just wish they would quit turning Class E airports into Class D's. No need for those towers unless there is substantial scheduled service. They do it for "jobs".
Click to expand...

Respectfully, that isn't exactly the case as I read your argument. The FAA hasn't added a tower to their roster in I don't quite know how long. They've shed dozens over the years and will be in the position to shed several more in the next few years.

They do I'll grant you shed towers on a contractual basis with private companies and RARELY provide funds for other new towers like FDK. Several new towers pop up funded by local governments in the search for scheduled EAS service though.

I read you post as the FAA is staffing brand new towers, or has a strong history of turning uncontrolled fields into FCT's which is patently false over the fast few decades. Local government's however are free to do what they will and I won't argue that those towers may be growing, but that isn't a federal level arguement.
 
I have heard they are adding one at KFNL. And they added one at KFTG a few years ago. Both in the Denver area. I wasnt aware that they have a net decrease. If so, that is probably a move in the right direction. If you think these projects arent about JOBS you are very naive.

Let me tell you a few. The purposely built a hangar at Cheyenne WY so the tower couldnt see the end of the runway. They put that in the ATIS. Why?
So they could get money to build a new tower.

Up at Fairbanks, they didnt have a Class C. Why? Because with a TRSA they could have more head count. And thats what counted, hang whatever real need there were (and there was a need for a tower there, as they had International Flights). Thats been changed, its a C now. ETC
 
Last edited:
Are any of those airports paying for their own tower? If it's not on the FAA list or the contract tower list, the feds aren't paying a dime. From what I've heard, the new tower at TME (g tower, likely soon be a d) is funded exclusively by the airport itself.
 
coloradobluesky said:
I have heard they are adding one at KFNL. And they added one at KFTG a few years ago. Both in the Denver area. I wasnt aware that they have a net decrease. If so, that is probably a move in the right direction. If you think these projects arent about JOBS you are very naive.

Let me tell you a few. The purposely built a hangar at Cheyenne WY so the tower couldnt see the end of the runway. They put that in the ATIS. Why?
So they could get money to build a new tower.

Up at Fairbanks, they didnt have a Class C. Why? Because with a TRSA they could have more head count. And thats what counted, hang whatever real need there were (and there was a need for a tower there, as they had International Flights). Thats been changed, its a C now. ETC
Click to expand...

How did the Fairbanks AOA change in regard to the traffic index formula work in their benefit? Hint it didn't. I don't even know if they were a TRSA, but in the facility level formula that makes no sense. That's taking two steps backwards That makes each operation count less, like half as much nearly. And you're asserting the smallest AOA type period moving to the second largest somehow shrank their AOA? And moving to a C changing staffing? That's out of left field. Staffing is a factor of positions used on a regular basis. Are you telling me being a TRSA, a less complex form of airspace, somehow made FAI use more radar positions routinely?

What would the FAA need a hangar at Cheyenne? Are you sure it's the FAA? CYS tower looks like it was built in the 50' or 60's. Did it ever occur to you the thing is just past it's useable life with 55 to 65 years of new technology demands straining it's 1950's design? You probably think LGA's new tower was a waste too since the old one was similar vintage, but I doubt you have any insight into it's structural and technological failings as it aged.

You're on the outside looking in making up whatever facts please you. You say it's about adding jobs. Really? The agency can't staff what we have as it is. That's a known fact. I'm actually in the FAA, I see it in a daily basis and I'm the naive one.
 
Last edited:
coloradobluesky said:
Up at Fairbanks, they didnt have a Class C. Why? Because with a TRSA they could have more head count. And thats what counted, hang whatever real need there were (and there was a need for a tower there, as they had International Flights). Thats been changed, its a C now. ETC
Click to expand...

How did a TRSA give them more head count?
 
coloradobluesky said:
I have heard they are adding one at KFNL. And they added one at KFTG a few years ago. Both in the Denver area. I wasnt aware that they have a net decrease. If so, that is probably a move in the right direction. If you think these projects arent about JOBS you are very naive.

Let me tell you a few. The purposely built a hangar at Cheyenne WY so the tower couldnt see the end of the runway. They put that in the ATIS. Why?
So they could get money to build a new tower.

Up at Fairbanks, they didnt have a Class C. Why? Because with a TRSA they could have more head count. And thats what counted, hang whatever real need there were (and there was a need for a tower there, as they had International Flights). Thats been changed, its a C now. ETC
Click to expand...

The FAA can't staff the facilities it has, yet you think the agency is trying to "spawn" jobs? I've heard some misinformed crap before, but your jobs theory is hilarious.

If your "conclusions" came as a result of someone's report and not your imagination, I suggest you reevaluate your sources of "information."
 
coloradobluesky said:
I have heard they are adding one at KFNL. And they added one at KFTG a few years ago. Both in the Denver area. I wasnt aware that they have a net decrease. If so, that is probably a move in the right direction. If you think these projects arent about JOBS you are very naive.

Let me tell you a few. The purposely built a hangar at Cheyenne WY so the tower couldnt see the end of the runway. They put that in the ATIS. Why?
So they could get money to build a new tower.

Up at Fairbanks, they didnt have a Class C. Why? Because with a TRSA they could have more head count. And thats what counted, hang whatever real need there were (and there was a need for a tower there, as they had International Flights). Thats been changed, its a C now. ETC
Click to expand...


Just clarify, I am in the Denver area and FNL isn't getting a tower per se. They are a pilot airport for a remote tower operation, and it is only a temporary arrangement (for now). Another bad idea but that is a different topic for a different day. FTG needed to put in a tower because of their proximity to DEN. They were having too many issues with Class B violators and needed a way to have more control over that. CYS is a military operated tower, so the FAA would have no input to funding a new one. Take that up with the Department of the Air Force. As for Fairbanks, the latest terminal chart shows them as a TRSA, with Class D surrounding the airport itself.
 
I think ATC is doing a pretty good job. The air traffic is moving well. Few delays really. And airlines are making money. Thats good. The FAA has a good director it seems. If its not broken, dont "fix" it.

I just dont want to see everyone get nickled and dimed with little toll charges for using ATC, thats all. And I do think the fuel taxes are the easiest and fairest way of collecting revenue. I dont have all the answers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top