ATC privatization

[Bob_Belville]

Just now, Mooneymite said:

The corporate jets would stay in TEB for sure, but high fees could definitely make them look to CDW-Caldwell, MMU-Morristown and points further from their airspace.  Once that pattern is established, general aviation is going to be pushed further and further into the hinterland and its utility will become less than it is now.

Maybe. But those wall street tycoons and Fortune 50 corner office types whose limos run from Manhattan to the ramp at TEB have friends in high places.

Frankly that whole crowd is the least of my worries. Now if Linden gets closed... 

[Mooneymite]

Just now, Bob_Belville said:

Now if Linden gets closed... 

Or over-run by TEB refugees.....

The tycoons with influence will probably be able to get an exemption for themselves, but they may not have the good of "all" of GA at heart.  When it comes to legislative power and financial muscle, the Cherokee 140's and M-20C's don't have much oomph going up against the airlines.

[gsengle]

I do not understand your logic. If the reliever dromes have LPV and GA does not have to use the Bravo drome that ought to be good for the aluminum tube operators.

The logic is they will not invest in those things. They don't care about relievers for cessna 172s. They're just as happy to see hobby flying die.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bob_Belville]

Just now, gsengle said:

 

The logic is they will not invest in those things. They don't care about relievers for cessna 172s. They're just as happy to see hobby flying die.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Even though I served on our airport commission for years long ago I do not know that funding for our rural airport GPS approaches was dependent upon the ATC. Local matching money, state money, federal money - yes - but ATC system funds? Just asking.

[flyboy0681]

24 minutes ago, Bob_Belville said:

We're talking the ATC system, right?

Yeah, we don't want to be Europe. But they have a lot more issues that ATC.

I think Europe is a different animal because the countries are so close together. Here in the US you can travel 300 miles and find yourself in the same state that you took off from, but over there that same 300 miles can find you passing over 3 countries. I'm wondering if some of those fees are in place to help offset the costs of having to deal with disparate ATC systems.

[gsengle]

Even though I served on our airport commission for years long ago I do not know that funding for our rural airport GPS approaches was dependent upon the ATC. Local matching money, state money, federal money - yes - but ATC system funds? Just asking.

Good point. But it's all FAA... not sure what will fall where. But I would think this could deprioritize what we value and help to kill our already fragile GA ecosystem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gsengle]

I think Europe is a different animal because the countries are so close together. Here in the US you can travel 300 miles and find yourself in the same state that you took off from, but over there that same 300 miles can find you passing over 3 countries. I'm wondering if some of those fees are in place to help offset the costs of having to deal with disparate ATC systems.

Europe isn't that small! And I can cross six states in 30 mins from where I'm based....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mooneymite]

Just now, gsengle said:

Europe isn't that small! And I can cross six states in 30 mins from where I'm based....

 

That's why your region is called, "New England"!  

 

[gsengle]

That's why your region is called, "New England"!  
 

Ha! But ok same is true flying down the East coast, like ten states in 4 hours....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bob_Belville]

Just now, gsengle said:

 

Europe isn't that small! And I can cross six states in 30 mins from where I'm based....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yeah... but living in Northampton, home of my daughter's alma mater Smith, in the People's Republic of Massachusetts might give you a cockeyed point of view.  

[gsengle]

Yeah... but living in Northampton, home of my daughter's alma mater Smith, in the People's Republic of Massachusetts might give you a cockeyed point of view.  

Alas, I don't think socialism is what gave us all the great airports and schools and businesses and technology


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mooneymite]

Just now, gsengle said:

Alas, I don't think socialism is what gave us all the great airports and schools and businesses and technology

 

My grandchildren assure me that it was all accomplished by Obama.

God Bless him......

[khedrei]

Not a lot of input here from Canadian pilots. I'll give my 2 cents. Now... I am still pretty new, so I don't know what Canadian ATC used to be like before privatization. I also have minimal contact with US ATC.

 

With that said, contact I have had wasn't great. I had a US controller tell me altitude was at my discretion on an IFR clearance while in IMC when we requested a decent. He gave us a decent and then we could hear his collision warning going off in the background when we broke out as he was talking to us and another VFR flight. They were also calling me using the normal alphabet instead of phonetics. Quite unprofessional in ways that should be easy to maintain  professionalism. Again... im sure not all controllers in the US are like that. 

I think I pay $67 per year for my ATC service. If I use a lot of controlled airports then I can get billed more but even a lot of smaller ones don't have landing fees for small aircraft. NAV Canada is not for profit and provides a great working environment for their employees who in turn seem to provide very professional service to pilots. From what I understand, It's the commercial airlines that pay the big money and as they should... they are taking in millions in profit.

[DonMuncy]

If you enjoy your trips to the post office to mail a package, you would probably like ATC under private control.

[scottnelson903]

Wow. Lots of speculation going on. Most of you are completely off the mark, some others are spot on. Privatization does not mean the government washes their hands and walks away. They regulate it and assess it constantly. If u doubt that, go look at the nuclear weapons industry. It's privatized with government oversight. This type of critical industry (aviation) will be held to tight oversight. The private side is not making millions. Their pay reward is based on good performance. Government employees could not accomplish what the private side is accomplishing with this same budget. Give it a while and see what is actually in the works before you scream gloom and doom.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guillaume]

1 hour ago, Hyett6420 said:

We DONT have a privatized atc system, we have a combined national system of 27 countries called eurocontrol.

@Hyett6420 I'm ATC in France and I can tell you for sure that I don't work for eurocontrol  .
In the UK, the biggest ANSP is NATS which is half public / private (according to wikipedia : the UK government holds 49% and a golden share, with 42% held by the Airline Group, 5% by NATS staff, and 4% by UK airport operator LHR Airports Limited)

But the rest of your post is correct 

 

[Bob_Belville]

23 minutes ago, DonMuncy said:

If you enjoy your trips to the post office to mail a package, you would probably like ATC under private control.

Don, the USPS is a favorite whipping boy but they have at least 535 politicians putting limits on what they can do.

I was shipped a tiny package from CA last week. The merchant uses DHL. The glasses arrived Raleigh last Wed. and DHL tracking advised that I could expect delivery Tuesday. I complained to the seller and suggest USPS would have been better. Well, Thin Optics had DHL turn the package over to USPS in Raleigh Thursday who delivered it to me Saturday. My postman/postwoman comes up on my back deck 6 days a week to deliver and/or pick up mail and packages right at my back door.

FedEx and UPS frequently give their freight to USPS for the "final mile".

We could do worse...

[DonMuncy]

At the risk of totally hijacking the thread, I don't totally disagree with you, Bob. I use them fairly often, as they do a decent job. But every time I go to the PO, I wait in line with 6 other people waiting for 1 or maybe 2 clerks take their sweet time getting to us. I keep thinking that if McDonalds gave that kind of service, they would go out of business. And Mickey D does it with high school kids.

[gsengle]

At the risk of totally hijacking the thread, I don't totally disagree with you, Bob. I use them fairly often, as they do a decent job. But every time I go to the PO, I wait in line with 6 other people waiting for 1 or maybe 2 clerks take their sweet time getting to us. I keep thinking that if McDonalds gave that kind of service, they would go out of business. And Mickey D does it with high school kids.

Micky D does give us that kind of service...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dlthig]

1 hour ago, khedrei said:

Not a lot of input here from Canadian pilots. I'll give my 2 cents. Now... I am still pretty new, so I don't know what Canadian ATC used to be like before privatization. I also have minimal contact with US ATC.

 

With that said, contact I have had wasn't great. I had a US controller tell me altitude was at my discretion on an IFR clearance while in IMC when we requested a decent. He gave us a decent and then we could hear his collision warning going off in the background when we broke out as he was talking to us and another VFR flight. They were also calling me using the normal alphabet instead of phonetics. Quite unprofessional in ways that should be easy to maintain  professionalism. Again... im sure not all controllers in the US are like that. 

I think I pay $67 per year for my ATC service. If I use a lot of controlled airports then I can get billed more but even a lot of smaller ones don't have landing fees for small aircraft. NAV Canada is not for profit and provides a great working environment for their employees who in turn seem to provide very professional service to pilots. From what I understand, It's the commercial airlines that pay the big money and as they should... they are taking in millions in profit.

Do you pay property taxes or annual registration on your aircraft? It appears that we pay based on the county in which you live.

[peevee]

1 hour ago, khedrei said:

Not a lot of input here from Canadian pilots. I'll give my 2 cents. Now... I am still pretty new, so I don't know what Canadian ATC used to be like before privatization. I also have minimal contact with US ATC.

 

With that said, contact I have had wasn't great. I had a US controller tell me altitude was at my discretion on an IFR clearance while in IMC when we requested a decent. He gave us a decent and then we could hear his collision warning going off in the background when we broke out as he was talking to us and another VFR flight. They were also calling me using the normal alphabet instead of phonetics. Quite unprofessional in ways that should be easy to maintain  professionalism. Again... im sure not all controllers in the US are like that. 

I think I pay $67 per year for my ATC service. If I use a lot of controlled airports then I can get billed more but even a lot of smaller ones don't have landing fees for small aircraft. NAV Canada is not for profit and provides a great working environment for their employees who in turn seem to provide very professional service to pilots. From what I understand, It's the commercial airlines that pay the big money and as they should... they are taking in millions in profit.

So much ignorance here I can't ignore it.

 

He can issue you a discretion descent. that is considered a service.

conflict alert in the enroute enviroment does not make noise. Approach it does but there are many beeps and buzzes going on often. What you heard was very very unlikely conflict alert. How exactly do you have the slightest idea what was going on from his side?

 

per the 7110.65 he does not have to call alphabet soup foreign callsigns phonetically.

section 2-4-20, maybe you should read it before criticizing someone.

Quote

b. Foreign registry- State one of the following:

1. Civil- State the aircraft type or the manufacturer's name followed by the letters/numbers of the aircraft registration, or state the letters or digits of the aircraft registration or call sign.

EXAMPLE-
"Stationair F-L-R-B."
"C-F-L-R-B."

NOTE-
Letters may be spoken individually or phonetically.

 

[Marauder]

At the risk of totally hijacking the thread, I don't totally disagree with you, Bob. I use them fairly often, as they do a decent job. But every time I go to the PO, I wait in line with 6 other people waiting for 1 or maybe 2 clerks take their sweet time getting to us. I keep thinking that if McDonalds gave that kind of service, they would go out of business. And Mickey D does it with high school kids.

Agree, the USPS has been a model of success.

Granted employee retirement funding has been a factor for their profitability. What will happen if ATC loses money? The USPS has been raising their debt ceiling. Will privatized ATC restrict services, raise fees or accept a debt?

"The U.S. Postal Service lost money in six out of the 10 years from 2001 through 2010, according to its financial reports. By the end of the decade, the semi-independent government agency's losses had reached a record $8.5 billion, forcing the Postal Service to consider seeking an increase in its $15 billion debt ceiling or face insolvency.

Though the Postal Service is bleeding money, it receives no tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products, and services to fund its operations.


See also: Highest Paying Postal Jobs

The agency blamed the losses on the recession that began in December 2007 and significant declines in mail volume as a result of changes in the way Americans communicate in the age of the Internet.

The Postal Service was considering a host of cost-saving measures including the closure of as many as 3,700 facilities, the elimination of wasteful spending on travel, the end of Saturday mail and cutting delivery to just three days a week.

WHEN POSTAL SERVICE LOSSES BEGAN
The Postal Service carried billion-dollar surpluses for many years before the Internet became widely available to Americans.

Although the Postal Service lost money in the early part of the decade, in 2001 and 2003, the most significant losses came after the passage of a 2006 law requiring the agency to refund retiree health benefits.

Under the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, the USPS is required to pay $5.4 billion to $5.8 billion annually, through 2016, to pay for future retiree health benefits.

"We must pay today for benefits that will not be paid out until some future date," the Postal Service said. "Other federal agencies and most private sector companies use a 'pay-as-you-go' system, by which the entity pays premiums as they are billed ...

The funding requirement, as it currently stands, contributes significantly to postal losses."

POSTAL SERVICES SEEKS CHANGES
The Postal Service said it had made "significant cost reductions in areas within its control" by 2011 but claimed it needed Congress to approve several other measures to boost its financial outlook.

Those measures include eliminating mandated retiree health benefit pre-payments; forcing the federal government to return Civil Service Retirement System and Federal Employee Retirement System overpayments to the Postal Service and allowing the Postal Service to determine the frequency of mail delivery."

POSTAL SERVICE NET INCOME/LOSS BY YEAR
2015 - $5.1 billion loss
2014 - $5.5 billion loss
2013 - $5 billion loss
2012 - $15.9 billion loss
2011 - $5.1 billion loss
2010 - $8.5 billion loss
2009 - $3.8 billion loss
2008 - $2.8 billion loss
2007 - $5.1 billion loss
2006 - $900 million surplus
2005 - $1.4 billion surplus
2004 - $3.1 billion surplus
2003 - $3.9 billion surplus
2002 - $676 million loss
2001 - $1.7 billion loss


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[bonal]

5 hours ago, DonMuncy said:

If you enjoy your trips to the post office to mail a package, you would probably like ATC under private control.

Let's keep in mind not Everyone lives in a big city and sadly it's the big population centers that get to make most of the rules we all have to live by. As for the post office I can't remember when was the last time I had more than a couple people ahead of me in line so going to the post office is just fine.  And I can't remember what year it was and who controlled congress at the time but They imposed some kind of funding to themselves that the postal service had to pay and I believe it was to the tune of 5 billion dollars per year. Prior to that they operated at a slight profit 

[bonal]

4 hours ago, Marauder said:

 

Agree, the USPS has been a model of success.

Granted employee retirement funding has been a factor for their profitability. What will happen if ATC loses money? The USPS has been raising their debt ceiling. Will privatized ATC restrict services, raise fees or accept a debt?

"The U.S. Postal Service lost money in six out of the 10 years from 2001 through 2010, according to its financial reports. By the end of the decade, the semi-independent government agency's losses had reached a record $8.5 billion, forcing the Postal Service to consider seeking an increase in its $15 billion debt ceiling or face insolvency.

Though the Postal Service is bleeding money, it receives no tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products, and services to fund its operations.


See also: Highest Paying Postal Jobs

The agency blamed the losses on the recession that began in December 2007 and significant declines in mail volume as a result of changes in the way Americans communicate in the age of the Internet.

The Postal Service was considering a host of cost-saving measures including the closure of as many as 3,700 facilities, the elimination of wasteful spending on travel, the end of Saturday mail and cutting delivery to just three days a week.

WHEN POSTAL SERVICE LOSSES BEGAN
The Postal Service carried billion-dollar surpluses for many years before the Internet became widely available to Americans.

Although the Postal Service lost money in the early part of the decade, in 2001 and 2003, the most significant losses came after the passage of a 2006 law requiring the agency to refund retiree health benefits.

Under the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, the USPS is required to pay $5.4 billion to $5.8 billion annually, through 2016, to pay for future retiree health benefits.

"We must pay today for benefits that will not be paid out until some future date," the Postal Service said. "Other federal agencies and most private sector companies use a 'pay-as-you-go' system, by which the entity pays premiums as they are billed ...

The funding requirement, as it currently stands, contributes significantly to postal losses."

POSTAL SERVICES SEEKS CHANGES
The Postal Service said it had made "significant cost reductions in areas within its control" by 2011 but claimed it needed Congress to approve several other measures to boost its financial outlook.

Those measures include eliminating mandated retiree health benefit pre-payments; forcing the federal government to return Civil Service Retirement System and Federal Employee Retirement System overpayments to the Postal Service and allowing the Postal Service to determine the frequency of mail delivery."

POSTAL SERVICE NET INCOME/LOSS BY YEAR
2015 - $5.1 billion loss
2014 - $5.5 billion loss
2013 - $5 billion loss
2012 - $15.9 billion loss
2011 - $5.1 billion loss
2010 - $8.5 billion loss
2009 - $3.8 billion loss
2008 - $2.8 billion loss
2007 - $5.1 billion loss
2006 - $900 million surplus
2005 - $1.4 billion surplus
2004 - $3.1 billion surplus
2003 - $3.9 billion surplus
2002 - $676 million loss
2001 - $1.7 billion loss


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

 

[bonal]

Tried to quote this but it did not work and I was able to see the breakdown of how that all transpired thanks 26