----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----
Private ATC is just bad idea. It's an outgrowth of the 1990's 'outsourcing' panacea which has already screwed up corporate America. Some things need to be federalized, because they are, by nature, seamless and borderless. The founding fathers first recognized this with the monetary system (c.f. the debates between Al Hamilton and Tom Jefferson). It was our first constitutional crisis. The airwaves are another example. Radio signals don't recognize state borders, so we have the FCC. To some extent, it's true of railroads. They're inherently 'interstate commerce' for which there are special Constitutional provisions. The same is true of airspace. Early on, Congress recognized that aircraft weren't subject to the same sorts of 'border crossings' that land vehicles were. Even from a practical, logistical point of view, privatization of ATC is a problem. When you have two agencies, you immediately have finger-pointing. You'll have problems such as aircraft coming from privately controlled fields getting different treatment than those with a Federal tower. Or rather, true or not, you will have the allegations of same. And following that up will consume as much resource and cost as so-called 'big government' handling the towers. For the pilot, it will just become a mess. There will be a patchwork of fees and degrees of authority. There will be endless revisions, test cases, and arbitrary changes by corporations who may or may not know squat or care squat about the transportation system, but the did win the bid. Control of the national airspace, every scrap of it, is a FEDERAL issue, it always has been, and it should remain so. Greg At 09:57 AM 6/17/02 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any >advice in this forum.]---- > > >Perhaps I should elaborate a bit on my views. I don't >have any problem with local government owning airports. > It's a community thing and more power to 'em. I >certainly don't want to see communities forced to give >away their airports, especially to corporations that >have politicians in their pockets. That's just dumb. > >I want to see less government bureaucracy, especially >in the federal government. I want to see federal >programs that are outside of constitutional mandate >shifted to private or local control. To me it only >makes sense. > >The FAA as a whole is the quintessential example of a >federal agency ripe for privatization. They have a >proven market and valuable services. Private companies >in fact have already adopted some of the roles of the >FAA and are making money at it. I also believe that >the market for their services makes complete >privatization of the FAA feasible. > >I don't want to give anything away. I don't want to >see corporate welfare of any kind. I just want to see >the opportunity presented for the private sector to >legitimately compete for this closed market of services >that the government has a monopoly on. > >Chris > >On Fri, 14 June 2002, Hartmut wrote > > > > > Greg. > > You found the words for my concerns. > > > > Hartmut > > > > > > Greg Bullough wrote: > > > > > Privatization? Feh! > > > > > > It amounts to nothing more than GIVING facilities >built by taxpayers to > > > private companies to exploit for THEIR profit, >while removing taxpayers' > > > control of their own property. Frankly, I remain >opposed to corporate welfare. > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > >================================================================== > > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm >TO UNSUBSCRIBE go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm > > ================================================================== TO UNSUBSCRIBE go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
