----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----
I don't see any problem with privatization of most FAA functions. In fact, I like the idea. The setup is simple, here's how it could work. Let's take the ATC system for example.... Each airport would be responsible to arrange for air traffic control, either locally or through a larger field in the area. The mechanics of the system would not be entirely different than what's in place now just the decisions would be local. It could be federally funded for those "Big Government" types out there or privately financed through some small per flight fee, say 5 bucks or so maybe more for larger commercial airports. (Hmm, I seem to recall there are already passenger segment fees in place) Preferably there would be several private companies competing for that market to ensure better service, lower cost and avoid monopolies. Companies that were good at providing this service would thrive and service would get even better. The companies that don't provide good service won't last. That's not too tough to figure out, but here's where it gets radical. Consider privatizing FAA inspections, standards and regulations. Tough, isn't it. Well, why not just make it optional. I know it sounds insane but hear me out. Change inspections and standards from a federal requirement into a civil certification program. I wouldn't want to fly on a plane without a current inspection, would you? What about insurance, OUCH. Yes, voluntary inspections would work. I also suspect that several companies would spring up to fill the role of inspector quite adequately. As far as those who choose to forgo inspections... It's their choice, but I'm glad I'm not flying with them. Of course the federal government will, and should, dictate air traffic law. After all, it is law. Chris PS on a tangent political note "Only support government programs you are willing to pay for, because in the end, you do." On Tue, 11 June 2002, Hartmut wrote > > ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]---- > > > Folks. > Below is an Article from the San Francisco Chronicle today. > > It is a report on how the Bush - Goverment tries to get out of the > financial responsibility to the ATC-system. At times when all the tax > money left flows into the defense budget , this is a step into a > dangerous direction. > > The article cites that many other countries did privatize the ATC systems. > > Friends . Let me tell you how that ended 2 years ago in Germany. Since a > privat system works only well when there is to make a profit, they > thought of how to make every aircraft owner pay for the existence of > ATC. Basically they came up with a yearly DM6000 Tax per personal > Aircraft. This was due whether you plane flies or not - just for the > fact that it is registerd in Germany and you might want to fly. (The > laws requiere everyone flying above 2000ft in Germany to stay in contact > with ATC.) > > In case the ATC will be privatized I can see them already reaching out > for our money. > > Hartmut > > Below Article: > > Bush hints at private controllers > New order changes Clinton air traffic plan > > George Raine, Chronicle Staff Writer > > Tuesday, June 11, 2002 > > President Bush has taken the first step toward possibly privatizing > air traffic control services, a move that delivers on a campaign > theme of injecting a business sense into government work but an > initiative that infuriates labor leaders. > > He made the overture in a little-noticed executive order in which > he stripped air traffic control of its "inherently governmental" > designation, opening the door to privatization. > > The order, signed last Tuesday, was not made public until late > Thursday and was largely overlooked under the weight of other > news. By Monday, however, labor had mounted a public > relations defense and began to lobby members of Congress to ask > that they defeat any Bush proposal that may be forthcoming. > > "We find this dangerous and ominous," if safety is ever > compromised in a privatized system, said Ed Wytkind, executive > director of the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO. > > Bush's executive order amended an executive order signed by > President Bill Clinton on Dec. 7, 2000, in which he redesigned > the air traffic control system to make it performance-based and > otherwise infuse it with efficiencies. Bush deleted Clinton's > four-word description of the controllers' work: "an inherently > governmental function." > > ........... > > Twenty-seven nations have privatized their air traffic control > systems, he said, among them Germany, Switzerland, Australia, > Canada and New Zealand, as well as Great Britain. > > John Carr, president of the controllers union, said the timing of > the Bush order is particularly surprising, coming so soon after the > tragedies of Sept. 11, when air traffic controllers played vital roles > for maintaining public safety. > > "This action is a slap in the face to the men and women who > worked President Bush's aircraft as he flew from Florida to > Louisiana to Nebraska on Sept. 11," Carr said. "If this nation's > air traffic controllers didn't prove their mettle on that fateful > morning, when they landed 700 aircraft in five minutes and > almost 5,000 in two hours, then I suppose there's nothing we can > do to prove ourselves critical to this nation's safety and security." > > The FAA some years ago did privatize small airport tower > operations, then called "level one." These included airports at > Chico, Redding, Santa Maria and San Carlos. The process, > however, was held up by a legal challenge from the union. Now, > the executive order reignites an old debate, said Rich Burton, the > union representative at San Jose airport. > > "We know now that contracting out may be a reality to all of us, > and it's obvious to a lot of people that the privatization issue is > with us again. But I don't think the public will stand for it. Not > after Sept. 11," Burton said. > > Phil Boyer, the president of another aviation union, the Aircraft > Owners and Pilots Association, said, "We're absolutely > flabbergasted that the administration thinks that aviation security > and safety aren't a government function. This administration's > position is particularly incomprehensible at a time when the > government is taking airport security functions away from private > industry and consolidating homeland security into a huge new > department." > > E-mail George Raine at [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ================================================================== > TO UNSUBSCRIBE go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm ====================== TO UNSUBSCRIBE go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
