If by "this" you mean privatization, I think that depends on just how much the airlines pay Congress. Enough $ and most congressmen and senators would bbq their own mother.Originally Posted by RFSchaller
Follow the money...
If by "this" you mean privatization, I think that depends on just how much the airlines pay Congress. Enough $ and most congressmen and senators would bbq their own mother.
Follow the money...
What is J Mac McClellen thinking. From his article, it sounds like the EAA has given up the fight. "...help change everything here", "Maybe even likely". It is like the EAA is softening us up to prepare us for the greased pole.
Nav Canada has low fees for GA, plus Fuel Taxes.
Nav Canada went broke in 2009. Nav Canada issued notes to cover the shortcomings in 2009, so instead of getting a better system they are paying interest.
Nav Canada sells services to make ends meet.
---
Which part of the US ATC Corp will we enjoy? Fees, that will grow, Fuel taxes that will increase, an ever growing FAA to cover all the interfacing to US ATC corp.
This is a bad place to be.
I'm going with first principles.
Airspace in the USA is in The Commons.
If ATC's instructions are directive and obedience is required that sounds inherently governmental. Why should I, as a private entity, have to obey a non-government entity, in the Commons?
I can see separating the operations of ATC from the Regulatory agency, but the operations still seem governmental in their core in that they govern and demand action of private citizens.
ted
Mac is an editorially-independent columnist for the magazine. As for our position as an organization, look no further than Jack's editorial in the magazine this month (http://sportaviation.epubxp.com/t/14...ort-aviation/2) as well as our statement to the Congressional Record posted a few hours ago (http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/about-eaa/...atization-plan). There should be no mistaking that we categorically oppose the privatization of air traffic control. As our statement for the Record points out, user fees are only the tip of the iceberg as to why this proposal is bad news for general aviation. We have been among the most vocal opponents to this effort on Capitol Hill.
Tom Charpentier
Government Relations Director
EAA Lifetime #1082006 | Vintage #722921
This makes precisely zero sense. You have a position as an organization, and in your signature publication, one of your contributors flat-out contradicts that position? I believe in the past publications had what is called an Editor-in-Chief who decided which submissions would run, particularly those that are essentially opinion pieces. Does EAA Sport Aviation not have such a person any more? Or is Mac the power behind the throne still?
If you're opposed to ATC privatization and/or user fees, then you should ensure that your organization presents a unified front, in all forums and all media, not some mishmash of opinions both opposing and supporting it.
Or perhaps it has to do with certain advertisers whose ads magically always appear on the page next to Mac's articles?
Just sayin'...
well said.
Go look at the congress call to action page on the eaa
http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-a...viation-issues
It doesn't even show up on the top issues page.
There are words, and there are actions.
It is a top issue on nbaa.org, go there if you want to do something.
Too much HQ focus on items that could potentially endanger EAA Inc (such as YE and the minuscule chance of sex offenders) vice attention and effort on items of member interest.
So we have medical reform that isn't really any reform at all, and some sort of confused opposition to or support of privatization (hard to say which). Yep, doing a bang-up job there, EAA.
But I'm sure Sen. Inhofe will get a nice campaign contribution (perhaps he can use it to defend himself the next time he violates an FAR).
Gentlemen,
We appreciate your input, but it is extremely important to ensure the facts are properly stated.
Our history on the issue of ATC privatization is clear. When this was first proposed last summer, we stated our concerns and promised we would be actively following it. We have published articles in Sport Aviation for the past two months clearly stating our position on privatization; we have included headlines in eHotline for two weeks back-to-back explaining our position; we have submitted a written statement to be included in the Congressional record that states our strong opposition to ATC privatization and proposes a comprehensive alternative that would keep ATC within the FAA structure. EAA advocacy staff was on Capitol Hill yesterday to attend the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee markup session of the FAA Reauthorization bill, and Wednesday to attend the committee hearing on ATC privatization. EAA opposes ATC privatization. We are actively working to ensure the proposal does not pass. Any belief to the contrary is simply not true. Please refer to eHotline and the eaa.org homepage for the latest news on ATC Privatization.
Thank you,
Mack Dickson
Last edited by Mack Dickson; 02-12-2016 at 02:22 PM.
Mack Dickson
EAA #1096940
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote