Issue Privatization

[GulfCharlie]

The council functions as an oversight resource for management, policy, spending and regulatory matters. Juan J. Alonso, Stanford University David J. Bronczek, FedEx Express Lynn Brubaker, Consultant Russell A. (Chip) Childs, Skywest Airlines Gina Marie Lindsey, LAX James C. Little, TWU Jack J. Pelton, Cessna Steven Pennington, USDOD* John D. Porcari, USDOT* Steven Predmore, jetblue (to 2012) Ramon Ricondo, Ricondo Assoc. (Chair) Paul Rinaldi, NATCA Stephen D. Van Beek, LeighFisher * Note that public members do not advocate

 

[GulfCharlie]

 

[AB19]

I know it doesn't matter yet, since I'm still at the academy, but what are the common views of the current NATCA president, is he for or against privatizing? It's hard to read what their actual stances are

 

[GulfCharlie]

Four Reform Principles for Aviation Policy Industry Members of the FAA MAC Unanimously Agree on this Future Path

1. Create a sustainable financial future for the FAA: The most important goal is to establish a funding system that provides dedicated and sufficient user based revenues to pay for FAA obligations. MAC members believe that general fund support for the aviation industry should be phased out as soon as possible in order to insulate the agency and the provision of user services from day to day politics.

2. Separate a new commercialized Air Traffic Organization (ATO) from the FAA: Modeled after other Air Navigation Service Providers (such as NAV CANADA), separate the service oriented ATO from the FAA and appoint a board consisting of users and aviation stakeholders to oversee its work. MAC members strongly believe that ATO reform must be accompanied by overall aviation policy reform due to the links between policy and funding decisions.

3. Assess and codify FAA Authorities and programs: Simplify statutes, regulations and policy by reviewing existing rules and procedures and eliminating redundant regulatory oversight. MAC members believe that this process will result in significant savings to the FAA and will obviate the need for a near term increase in user revenues after the phase out of general fund support.

4. Reform the tax structure: Eliminate the current mix of AATF taxes and fees and replace it with transparent schedules of cost based fees that provide sufficient funding for services such as air traffic control and aircraft certification. MAC members believe that new schedules should be (1) revenue neutral and (2) flexible in their administration in order to gain the confidence of stakeholders and facilitate the transition to a new system.

 

[GulfCharlie]

I know it doesn't matter yet, since I'm still at the academy, but what are the common views of the current NATCA president, is he for or against privatizing? It's hard to read what their actual stances are

As any politician, he is for a "Stable Funding Stream," "Having a seat at the table," and in essence... Yes.

 

[GulfCharlie]

I think this was posted earlier, but it was like 3 am for me...

In an article by Alan Levin dated Sep 23, 2013, it is mentioned that

“Discussions about removing government management of the U.S. air-traffic control system are the most serious in two decades, prompted by budget cuts and uncertain funding for converting to satellite navigation.

Leaders of the U.S. air-traffic controllers’ union and a private-pilot lobbying group, once fierce opponents of taking control of the system away from the Federal Aviation Administration, have endorsed talks on other ways to manage and pay for aviation safety.

“There are conversations taking place among the stakeholders,” Gerald Dillingham, civil aviation director of the U.S. Government Accountability Office, said in an interview. “All things are on the table, including privatization or corporatization.”

 

[lavabucket]

The letter passed at convention was to the ENO group, not the FAA MAC and the unanimous recommendations made by them in January of 2014.

 

[GulfCharlie]

The letter passed at convention was to the ENO group, not the FAA MAC and the unanimous recommendations made by them in January of 2014.

Well... This definitely continues to raise interesting questions. If anyone has a copy of the letter, any chance of uploading a copy for time and prosperity? ENO Group is definitely not the FAA MAC, but again they would still be in violation of the constitution of the time because the FAA MAC had already (Correctly me on the timeline here, I haven't had coffee yet) "unanimously agreed on January 29, 2014 to the Reform Principles prior to the NATCA Biennial Convention 2014.

 

[SpaceTraffic]

Well... This definitely continues to raise interesting questions. If anyone has a copy of the letter, any chance of uploading a copy for time and prosperity? ENO Group is definitely not the FAA MAC, but again they would still be in violation of the constitution of the time because the FAA MAC had already (Correctly me on the timeline here, I haven't had coffee yet) "unanimously agreed on January 29, 2014 to the Reform Principles prior to the NATCA Biennial Convention 2014.

The stuff from the MAC is in my opinion the most damning. So far the videos and things being put out can be spun, and "interpreted" to fit whatever narrative one wants to believe. This is the single biggest piece of evidence brought forth to enforce Bryan, and now Ham's claim that we were misled.

 

[GulfCharlie]

The stuff from the MAC is in my opinion the most damning. So far the videos and things being put out can be spun, and "interpreted" to fit whatever narrative one wants to believe. This is the single biggest piece of evidence brought forth to enforce Bryan, and now Ham's claim that we were misled.

You can do a million and a half good things, but violate that trust just once... In my mind we were misled and there should be consequences with the membership bringing them to book. If you misled us in one thing, this may not even be the first time, what else have you misled us on? This is a very slippery slope especially with the ostracizing of Bryan and Hamid.

Regardless of the future, this would be a drastic change in both working conditions and job security. I cannot with good conscience vote for the incumbents who say "Trust us we know whats best for you" and "It would be impossible to put the whole vote before the entire membership." To me, this is a power grab pure and simple. By no means am I stupid, but I will not cast a vote for dishonesty and blatant disregard for every single member in the union. Every facility member has a different opinion and I think that opinion should be voiced through an membership wide vote among us, For or Against.

 

[Maintainvfr]

Sorry guys this is the best I can do, I had taken a few pictures of it with my phone at the convention.

 

[GulfCharlie]

Sorry guys this is the best I can do, I had taken a few pictures of it with my phone at the convention.

Appreciate it brother! Again though, the FAA MAC meeting took place in January 2014, well before this letter and even a separate group from the ENO in which Paul agreed to the reform principles.

 

[Maintainvfr]

Appreciate it brother! Again though, the FAA MAC meeting took place in January 2014, well before this letter and even a separate group from the ENO in which Paul agreed to the reform principles.

I might be misunderstanding what you're saying but wouldn't a response letter always come after the meetings?

 

[GulfCharlie]

I might be misunderstanding what you're saying but wouldn't a response letter always come after the meetings?

I apologise, I think what I meant to say was this letter was strictly referencing the ENO meeting, not the FAA MAC one where they agreed on the Reform Principles prior to the 2014 convention.

 

[Maintainvfr]

I apologise, I think what I meant to say was this letter was strictly referencing the ENO meeting, not the FAA MAC one where they agreed on the Reform Principles prior to the 2014 convention.

I see, yeah I would like to hear Paul and Trish respond to that.

 

[GulfCharlie]

I see, yeah I would like to hear Paul and Trish respond to that.

Not to drive the point home, minus the ENO, everything I see with the FAA MAC meeting (January 29th, 2014) they are agreeing with everything said reference the Reform Principles. Please correct me if I am wrong

 

[Maintainvfr]

Not to drive the point home, minus the ENO, everything I see with the FAA MAC meeting (January 29th, 2014) they are agreeing with everything said reference the Reform Principles. Please correct me if I am wrong

Well to be honest I didn't spend a ton of time in it, but I read through it briefly and it seemed like the only part where they implied Paul supported privatization was at the summary when they said that the findings were unanimous.

I'm skeptical of any claim of "unanimous" concent or agreement. Everyone has a bias and an agenda, and if the people drafting the report want support we all know it's not above politics to be less than truthful.

 

[GulfCharlie]

Well to be honest I didn't spend a ton of time in it, but I read through it briefly and it seemed like the only part where they implied Paul supported privatization was at the summary when they said that the findings were unanimous.

I'm skeptical of any claim of "unanimous" concent or agreement. Everyone has a bias and an agenda, and if the people drafting the report want support we all know it's not above politics to be less than truthful.

The lack of response to it, even going as far as to mention just the ENO report has me doubting any political gain from the MAC by mentioning the unanimous mentions.

 

[Cubinican]

Anyone who is in favor of privatization is a fool. All it took was for the last remaining PATCO guys to die out and the idea rears it’s ugly head again. This time with naive children at the ready. And what do we do? Follow the piper down the dark street.
We regurgitate senseless terms and stupid ideas.
Forgive me if you take offense to this. It just makes me sick.

 

[vectorwagon]

Oh but you know it’s just because we’re afraid of “change”. Have heard many of them throw that one out. Also heard the rationale that no one was happy and a similar uprising when the G-scale was being changed to the ATC pay scale it is now...”everyone was so worried and upset and fought it and they ended up making WAY more money with the ATC scale, so see change is good.” Yeah. Ok. Because that’s totally the same intent here :::eyeroll:::