ATC to be privatized

[jethro99]

Just being announced by Cho and Trump.

Be prepared to provide a credit card number when filing a flight plan. Or taking off. Or landing. Or taxiing. Or calling anyone on the VHF/UHF.

Yearly subscription costs to be advised. When re-registering the N number they will need the credit card information.

It is going to be huge. America will be great again.

[Frank Giger]

Every President since Bill Clinton has tried to start up this user fee mess.

When the EAA and AOPA sends you a request to call and write your Congressman and Senator about it, be ready.

[Floatsflyer]

Just more BS and SFA from the largest wind turbine in history. As usual, no plan, no details, just another empty pronouncement to deflect from the real revelations to be released to the world beginning this Thursday.

Privatized ATC and modern implemented systems work very well in Canada because by comparison to the US, it's a small sparsley populated country with therefore far less users, therefore far less complexity required. There are reasons why this has not come to fruition in the US despite numerous undertakings by various governments in power to do so over many decades: Too complex and private interests are convinced there is no money to be made here after the billions it would take to establish and maintain the system.

Trumpster BS rhetoric blaming all the airline woes on ATC is fabricated nonsense defying all logic and common sense. The airlines themselves are mostly responsible for their own problems and being out of touch with and neglecting their customers.

This Trumpster pie in the sky has as much chance of happening as the building of THE WALL.

And one more thing. Where do you get the idea or the thinking that flying under a privatized ATC system will mean paying fees for every little thing you do. That never happened in Canada nor was it expected to. We pay a yearly fee which is about $72. Damn reasonable at twice the cost.

[Tom Charpentier]

When the EAA and AOPA sends you a request to call and write your Congressman and Senator about it, be ready.

We'll have a call to action as soon as there is a specific bill to oppose, which will probably be very soon. We have been fighting this latest proposal at every turn ever since it reared its ugly head towards the end of last legislative session and we remain deeply opposed. We will have a statement on today's announcement out this afternoon.

This goes well beyond GA user fees, which may or may not even be included in the initial roll-out of the program. This is about who controls the airspace, who gets access, and who gets funded. Last session's proposal (the basis for the Administration's plan) included a board of directors for this new ATC entity dominated by airline interests. It's not a recipe for maintaining an infrastructure that serves all users.

[Tom Charpentier]

Here is our statement: https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/06-05-2017-eaa-joins-other-ga-groups-opposed-to-white-house-atc-privatization-plan

[Cary]

I don't mean to be a wet blanket, and I sure oppose both privatization and user fees, but this is not the forum I come to for political ranting. There's enough on that on Facebook.

Cary

[saber25]

I agree with RV builder, political advocacy is also my primary reason for being in EAA. Indeed, if this isn’t the forum for discussion on a policy that could have such negative impact on GA I don’t know what forum would be better.

While traveling around northern Europe for five weeks several years ago, we observed just one general aviation aircraft and that was in the vicinity of the Normandy coast. My friend in Freiburg Germany is in a flying club and the constraints and costs associated in that country make flying barely possible, even for someone with a well paying career.
As for improving the system for the airlines… as someone who was employed at a major carrier, it was obvious we created many of our own problems. It boggled my mind that at a major terminal we would receive our pushback at simultaneous times with our competitors. We would then trundle off to the parallel taxiway at KORD behind everyone else, enduring many minutes of delays as the preceding planes took off. Finally the 12:00 o’clock rush was off and the next race was an hour away.
It might also be noted that in 1965 when I first went to work at SFO, that airport had four runways. Decades later while holding somewhere over the Stockton area at a flight level with severe clear, I mentioned to my passengers that although we had clear skies at SFO, you couldn’t get a 10 pound load in a five pound bag. With the same four runways, the arrival rate was limited by blacktop while the airlines all wanted to land at the same time. I was paid to fly, management was paid to plan and manage. I doubt privatization will help them with either.

[Frank Giger]

A little reality check:

It's neither a Democrat thing or a Republican thing when it comes to Presidents and the specter of user fees. Presidents Clinton through Trump all advocated for it. So let's check our partisan outrage at the door; it's a disease of the office, apparently.

Second, the President can't privatize the FAA. That requires Congress. And the happy note is that user fees and privatization has failed to go anywhere when either Democrats or Republicans held sway there. There's a lot of bipartisan opposition to privatizing the FAA.

Third, what works in Canada is great for Canada. Here in the USA, there is never a tax that remains at a reasonable level once established. Right now it's not a political football because it doesn't exist. Once put in place, user fees will most definitely become one - it's easy to score points against aviation, after all.

[martymayes]

<< Political opinions snipped>>

And for those who say it works in Canada...you may wish to check with your European friends and find out how GA is faring there.

So........Europe had a booming GA industry, then they implemented "it" (privatized ATC and/or user fees) and GA collapsed? Am I understanding that correctly?

[rwanttaja]

Like the recent changes to the medical, the prospect of user fees is a subject that really should be discussed here, despite its political nature.

With THAT said, we should not attempt to categorize the flaws of the politicians or parties involved. Two basic reasons:

1. It tends to polarize the pilot community, and make it more difficult to focus our efforts to stop user fees, and;
2. It doesn't provide any path to actually solving the problem.

Categorizing the vulnerabilities of a particular politician or party as far as negotiation to prevent implementation may help, but saying that "User Fees are the product of Senator Joe Schoo, who is an ignorant poopyhead who has to be told to close his mouth after he yawns" does not.

Ron Wanttaja

[Hal Bryan]

...saying that "User Fees are the product of Senator Joe Schoo, who is an ignorant poopyhead who has to be told to close his mouth after he yawns" does not.

This.

[Kyle Boatright]

Can someone point to a synopsis of what this version of "privatization" entails? Without specifics, it is impossible to have a serious discussion or know how to react.

[Floatsflyer]

With THAT said, we should not attempt to categorize the flaws of the politicians or parties involved. Ron Wanttaja

I can no more separate the politician from the politics of an issue than I can seperate the wings from my fuselage and still make it meaningful and functional.

[1600vw]

If we know anything about our government, they will privatize this, then regulate the heck out of it to make it work or run the way they want. Don't follow the regulations and, well we all know where this goes.

Tony

[rwanttaja]

Had a good (though cynical) laugh at this today.

I was driving into Oshkosh today (for my quarterly visit to sneak in and fiddle with the adjustments of Hal's desk chair) and was listening to a local radio station.

The DJ was discussing the news, and said, "President Trump is going to privatize the airlines. I thought they already WERE private!"

And I thought that *I* was dumb as a box of rocks, back when I was a young DJ....

Ron "Did you know Paul McCartney used to be in another band?" Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

I can no more separate the politician from the politics of an issue than I can seperate the wings from my fuselage and still make it meaningful and functional.

Floats, I understand where you're coming from, but will hashing and rehashing the character flaws of President Trump, Senator Shmoo, or Representative Limpwrist help or hurt the effort to defeat this plan?

I don't see any way it can help, but I can see a number of ways it might hurt. There's probably nothing you can say that will affect anyone's opinion of the politicians involved. Yet the politicians themselves and their supporters might take umbrage, and decide that private pilots are a bunch of namby-pamby light-in-the-loafers liberals who can be safely ignored.

We need Republicans on our side, not rejecting us out of hand.

Ron Wanttaja

[robert l]

To much caffeine in here for me ! LOL
Bob

[Hal Bryan]

To much caffeine in here for me ! LOL
Bob

I hear you, Bob.

When I started at EAA eight years, almost to the day, forums moderator was my full time job. Over the years, that role expanded to include the creation and management of all of our social media properties. When Glory came on, I accepted a promotion and moved to my current role as senior editor for digital and print content and publications. When Glory left, nobody else could step in and handle the forums so of course I stepped up. That means I'm doing my full time job from 8 years ago on top of my full time job today. I don't have time to take a gentle and nuanced approach to this, so I'm forced to step in and delete posts that not only flagrantly disregard the forum rules, but actually damage EAA's position in fighting for this particular issue - the latest attempt at ATC privatization.

Ron has said it very well a couple of times in this thread - attack the policy and the politics, not the politician. Doing otherwise destroys our credibility and won't be tolerated, period.

Unlike some on these boards, this thread absolutely *must* stay open. Rather than closing it, I'm forced to police it, which is a whole bunch of no fun, deleting those posts that ignore the rules. Repeat offenders will be banned, permanently. I don't have the time or resources to keep reminding people to behave like rational adults, so make your choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bill Berson]

I fly for fun and don't use ATC. So likely no effect on me either way. (I prefer private enterprise)
Probably the best method to get our recreational input through to the President (private aircraft owner, former airline owner) is through his chief pilot.

[rwanttaja]

I fly for fun and don't use ATC. So likely no effect on me either way. (I prefer private enterprise)
Probably the best method to get our recreational input through to the President (private aircraft owner, former airline owner) is through his chief pilot.

Dunno, Bill. Really depends on how they implement it. Could be an annual flat rate that all aircraft owners have to pay. Remember the board is going to be controlled by the airlines, so the more they can force GA to pay, the less the airlines have to shell out.

Ron Wanttaja

[Bill Berson]

Could be anything. But if EAA simply opposes it without offering a solution they won't listen to EAA nor will EAA get a seat at the table.
We already have user fees from FAA. The FAA is billing Airventure for ATC.
The FAA now requires pilot check ride fees and Homebuilt airworthiness fees that were formerly free.
The goal should be to reduce all these fees with automation.

[Louis]

Ron has said it very well a couple of times in this thread - attack the policy and the politics, not the politician. Doing otherwise destroys our credibility and won't be tolerated, period.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks so much for helping keep things civil. I really appreciate how the EAA, from the very beginning with Paul P., has been welcoming and respectful to folks regardless of who they are and their political bent. Another organization I belong to seems to do it's best to make you feel like an enemy to them and the country in general if you don't support the politician they're endorsing....will happily accept everyone's dues, however! Like the man said: "we must hang together or hang separately."

[Mike M]

...The FAA now requires pilot check ride fees and Homebuilt airworthiness fees that were formerly free...

The pilot check rides and homebuilt airworthiness fees are not FAA fees, are they? Did I miss something? Aren't they designated examiner fees because the FAA is just oooohhhh so busy they can't do THEIR BASIC JOB of ensuring aviator competence and aircraft safety? And the services weren't free before, they were paid out of FAA budget which includes aviation fuel taxes and passenger ticket fees and etc etc plus the general fund because the purpose after all is to keep stuff from falling on groundlings' heads. But I digress. We agree on the basics, Bill - I think.

[Mike M]

...the more they can force GA to pay, the less the airlines have to shell out.

The airlines don't pay a dime now. Their customers do. Those of us flying Pt91 don't have that luxury of passing on the costs.

[Frank Giger]

Mike has the right of it.

The FAA did the inspection on my homebuilt and the fee was paid with my taxes - no additional financial requirement was asked for.

The DAR's around here, on the other hand, were asking for a full grand when it was all said and done.

[rwanttaja]

The airlines don't pay a dime now. Their customers do. Those of us flying Pt91 don't have that luxury of passing on the costs.

But if our new airspace overlords reduce what the airlines pay, and the airlines keep ticket prices the same...

Ron "Time to buy United stocks...and Delta manacles" Wanttaja

[Mayhemxpc]

Attack the idea, not the person. Attaching the idea to a person you dislike is called "ad hominem" and is a logical fallacy. I understand that logic does not apply in todays politics and governance, but I would like to encourage people to try.

I wrote my representative two days ago. Here is the gist:

1. The control of interstate traffic is an inherently governmental function. They have the authority to give directions to civilian and military personnel that are enforceable under law. If the directions are wrong, people can die. This kind of responsibility should be exclusively held by government officials accountable to the public, just like the police and military.

2. The airspace system is paid for by direct fees paid for through fuel and passenger taxes. An airplane is therefore encouraged to use the system, thereby enhancing safety, because they already paid for it. Privatization will almost certainly lead to user fees, which will discourage participation by private aviation.

3. We have the very best airspace system in the world right now. Why mess with it?

Her office called me to say that they got it and asked if I wanted to add anything. I will, just not right at this moment.

[Bill Berson]

The pilot check rides and homebuilt airworthiness fees are not FAA fees, are they? Did I miss something? Aren't they designated examiner fees because the FAA is just oooohhhh so busy they can't do THEIR BASIC JOB of ensuring aviator competence and aircraft safety? And the services weren't free before, they were paid out of FAA budget which includes aviation fuel taxes and passenger ticket fees and etc etc plus the general fund because the purpose after all is to keep stuff from falling on groundlings' heads. But I digress. We agree on the basics, Bill - I think.

Right.
The FAA doesn't get the money that you pay the DAR. In effect we pay both taxes to run the FAA and additional user fees to the DAR. Not good.
The solution is to reduce both costs. Really, the builder does the initial condition inspection and signs the form now.
That should be good enough. Why do we need a DAR for $1000?
In the old days the FAA did several precover inspections, the initial inspection and the annual condition inspection EVERY FOLLOWING YEAR. All that has changed to eliminate all the precover inspections and to shift the annual condition inspections to the qualified builder (repairman) or A&P.
No need for FAA at all, I say. Other than to prescribe a checklist to fill out and keep with aircraft records and standard operating limitations to follow.
Just one more step away FAA oversight to allow the builder or A&P do the first Airworthiness inspection is not a safety problem.

[martymayes]

The control of interstate traffic is an inherently governmental function. They have the authority to give directions to civilian and military personnel that are enforceable under law. If the directions are wrong, people can die. This kind of responsibility should be exclusively held by government officials accountable to the public, just like the police and military.

The law regarding air traffic control was changed in 2002 from "Air traffic control is inherently a government function" to "Air traffic control is NOT inherently a gov function." I understand that was to make contract towers fully "legal" (I suppose prior to that they were not legal?)

This is an excerpt from Dorothy Robyn's testimony to the House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure:

"NAV CANADA’s 20-year track record is practical proof that its approach works. User charges
are a third less in real terms than the ticket tax they replaced. The system is handling 50 percent
more traffic with 30 percent fewer people."

I read the whole transcript and she has impressive credentials and convincing data with real numbers. Be hard to convince lawmakers this is not a good idea with emotions only.


I also found this to be interesting (again from Roby's testimony):

These problems are most evident in the FAA’s long-running struggle to deploy new technology
that would improve efficiency and make air travel safer. When it undertook to modernize the air
traffic control system in 1981, the FAA estimated that the work would cost $12 billion and take a
decade to complete. Thirty-six years and more than $56 billion later, many controllers still keep
track of aircraft using paper strips. Outdated technology limits the capacity of the system, contributing
to flight delays and increased flight times. It also helps to explain why the FAA’s
cost per unit of service has gone up by more than 66 percent since 1997.

Basically the current system is unsustainable. Somethings gonna give.

[Mike M]

....These problems are most evident in the FAA’s long-running struggle to deploy new technology
that would improve efficiency and make air travel safer. When it undertook to modernize the air
traffic control system in 1981, the FAA estimated that the work would cost $12 billion and take a
decade to complete. Thirty-six years and more than $56 billion later, many controllers still keep
track of aircraft using paper strips. Outdated technology limits the capacity of the system, contributing
to flight delays and increased flight times. It also helps to explain why the FAA’s
cost per unit of service has gone up by more than 66 percent since 1997....

I'm just opinionated here (read "experienced") but it seems to me the biggest problem with the current government agency trying to change is congresspersons protecting their constituents (read "lobbyists for users vs lobbyists for current employee groups vs lobbyists for contractors vs lobbyists for contractors who didn't get the contract") and the resultant changes to direction every two years. :(

[robert l]

I totally understand Hal, I'm just thankful this site is here. I write, call and e-mail my state Representatives regularly about specific topics an legislature. I'm almost sure that when my intended victim is handed the phone or sent the e-mail they hear, Sir, it's that Bob fellow again !
Bob

[Cary]

I appreciate Hal stepping in. My point was exactly as has been stated--attack the idea of privatization without the ad hominem attacks on individual politicians. We may have our views on individuals (and I sure do), but antagonizing individuals isn't a productive way of handling it.

The biggest argument against adopting Canada's methodology is that Canada doesn't have nearly the air traffic that the continental US has. It's a bit like comparing onions and oranges--both are spherical, but the comparison fails thereafter. With the possible exception of the area around Toronto, even the busiest of Canada's airspace is pretty quiet by comparison to US airspace. They don't have the multiple Class B type of traffic that the US has in many different areas, especially in the northeast and west coast, but also in the middle of the country with places like Chicago and Cleveland and in the south with places like Atlanta and Dallas. So while Dorothy Robyn's testimony may make sense in the abstract, it really is inapplicable.

To say that one doesn't use ATC isn't quite true for most pilots. ATC isn't just IFR. Most pilots like the comfort of going on their cross country trips with flight following backing them; that's ATC. Most pilots can't avoid Class C and D airports entirely; that's ATC. All pilots are required to be fully informed about all of the elements applicable to their flights; much of that information comes from ATC. If a pilot needs to know whether a MOA or other special use airspace is hot, that information comes from ATC. Unfortunately, many of us or our friends or family will need the services of air evacuation/ambulances in our lives; those depend on ATC for their necessary priority handling. Most of us buy many things online these days; UPS, FedEx, Walmart, and all of the other purveyors of online goods require ATC services to serve their customers.

Of the roughly 6500 public use airports in the country, a little more than half are part of the National Airspace System. Roughly 20% of those have towers; the rest are non-controlled. But all that are in the NAS have some sort of instrument approach, and many that aren't in the NAS have instrument approaches; that's all handled by ATC.

So although an individual pilot may conceivably avoid any contact with ATC, the vast majority of pilots do not and cannot. Paraphrasing Ben Franklin's quote again, we must all hang together, or we will hang separately. None of us can afford to say, "it won't apply to me, so do whatever you want".

To my way of thinking, ATC is and should remain a governmental function, whether some parts of it are privatized (such as contract towers) or not. The FAA is not the most efficient organization in the world, not by a long shot. But pulling ATC out of the FAA isn't going to be the panacea that some think, and I fully believe that it will set back the progress that is being made toward improving ATC functions.

Cary

[Bill Berson]

Less than 10% of public use airports have towers. More than half of them are already contract towers.
See here: http://aireform.com/airports-atc/faas-airports/the-air-list-of-airports-626-airports-512-towers/

Why does Walla Walla Washington with 68 operations a day need a tower at all?

[Frank Giger]

Oooh, something is really wonky with that database.

Tuscaloosa - my home airfield - is a ghost town except for race weekends, which is why they only have a tower during that time. According to that list, my tumbleweed airport is just less than half as busy as Oshkosh.

If there are three "daily ops" in any given day outside of race weekends we're just covered over with traffic by our estimation.

[1600vw]

Frank I must agree. They list Springfield Capitol airport here in Illinois as having 105 opps a day. I spoke with the head controller at this airfield. He told me some days he is lucky to have 4 airplanes fly in. These numbers are skewed for a reason. IMHO.

Tony

[Mayhemxpc]

The law regarding air traffic control was changed in 2002 from "Air traffic control is inherently a government function" to "Air traffic control is NOT inherently a gov function." I understand that was to make contract towers fully "legal" (I suppose prior to that they were not legal?)

This is an excerpt from Dorothy Robyn's testimony to the House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure:

"


To the best of my research, there was no change in the law, just a determination by the executive branch that ATC was not inherently governmental, and was then considered "Category A." The definition of Category A are activities which may be commercial but are exempt from private sector performance. Further, former Secretary Pinetta (who signed the attachment to Ms Robyn's testimony) said at that time (2002) that there was no intent to privatize ATC. Subsequent to the 2002 executive declaration, the Office of Management and Budget published OMB PL 11-01, which specifically addresses what is inherently governmental.
Inherently governmental function, as defined in section 5 of the FederalActivities Inventory Reform Act, PublicLaw 105–270, means a function that isso intimately related to the publicinterest as to require performance byFederal Government employees.
(a) The term includes functions thatrequire either the exercise of discretionin applying Federal Governmentauthority or the making of valuejudgments in making decisions for theFederal Government...Aninherently governmental functioninvolves, among other things, theinterpretation and execution of the lawsof the United States so as —
...;
(3) to significantly affect the life, liberty, or property of private persons;

Further, the same document describes "Critical functions": "Critical function means a functionthat is necessary to the agency beingable to effectively perform and maintaincontrol of its mission and operations." As described later, critical functions, "should be reserved for Federalemployees to ensure the department oragency maintains control of its missionand operations "

Now, despite Ms Robyn's attempt to say that the United States should follow the administrative model of foreign governments, it seems clear -- to me anyway -- that ATC certainly involves exercise of discretion in applying Federal Government authority, interpretation and execution of the laws of the United States, and that the decisions made by these controllers significantly affect the life, liberty, and property of private persons. Not to mention direction and control of military forces (another inherently governmental function.)

Even if the decision to make ATC "Category A" in 2002 was justified, it still falls under the definition of "critical function" and should be reserved to Federal employees...unless you think that ATC is NOT a core mission of the FAA.

I may not be a former political appointee with one or more Ph.D's, but the whole issue of contractor support to the U.S. government (and particularly DoD) is something I am intimately involved with on a day to day basis. Apart from the problems noted elsewhere in this string, I get very uncomfortable whenever an agency decides to fudge on the definition to make life easier for them or to avoid direct accountability for that operation.

Does the U.S. government need acquisition reform? Absolutely!!! Somehow, it seems to me, anyway, that just farming it out is not genuine reform.

[martymayes]

To the best of my research, there was no change in the law, just a determination by the executive branch that ATC was not inherently governmental, and was then considered "Category A." The definition of Category A are activities which may be commercial but are exempt from private sector performance. Further, former Secretary Pinetta (who signed the attachment to Ms Robyn's testimony) said at that time (2002) that there was no intent to privatize ATC.


While the FAA had no intent to privatize ATC (they told congress that in a letter), once GW Bush issued Executive Order 13264, the FAA was fully prepared to outsource FSS and they went forward with that plan.

[LooneyBird]

OK so with 15 days left to fund the FAA and this bill is still active, I thought I would revive the thread to see if anyone has any update on where this stands. When is it scheduled for a vote? Is there a count of expected votes, and what is it? Is it party-line, or is there some opposition within the parties? My rep is a sponsor and I don't think I will get him to pull off the bill. Has anyone else had success talking to their rep.'s and getting them to vote no?