Anyone else a bit scared of ATC becoming fully contracted?

Re: Anyone else a bit scared of ATC becoming fully contracte

Here is something that could keep you up at night.

Multiple supreme court vacancies coming up.....

How long until the Heller decision is overturned?

I give it 2-3 years
 
Re: Anyone else a bit scared of ATC becoming fully contracte

4 years ago. i spent 8 years stationed at Edwards AFB. i lived in Rosamond after getting married and know what your talking about. i still see Kern as being the most "liberal" CCW county in southern cali. i've carried one for most of the last 8 years. kern, phoenix az, and idaho.

everyone should carry a firearm LEGALLY as per the 2nd amendment.

How is Rosamond? I have been there...but is it somewhere I would like to live? I wonder if having a Secret clearance would help get a CCW in Kern.
 
Re: Anyone else a bit scared of ATC becoming fully contracte

How is Rosamond? I have been there...but is it somewhere I would like to live? I wonder if having a Secret clearance would help get a CCW in Kern.
secret clearance helps but it's really about a need to carry. kern will allow it. there is nothing in Rosamond except for an Albertsons, McDonalds, and a high school. i had no reservations about living there. but that was because it was an Edwards off base town. commuting to ZLA would be about 30 minutes. there is not much there. to me that is an awesome situation because the makes it really cheap. other than Lancaster and Palmdale, your options are Rosamond and Mojave. Cal City is too far in my opinion. So is Tehachipi.
 
Re: Anyone else a bit scared of ATC becoming fully contracte

I know, I wish Tehachepi was closer. That area is beautiful. Windy, but beautiful.
 
Re: Anyone else a bit scared of ATC becoming fully contracte

Does anyone foresee the possibility of a large domestic uprising if he starts cracking down like he said he would? A civil defense force as well funded and as powerful as the military? Infringements on the 2d Amendment? I wont lie...the thought has crossed my mind.
 
Re: Anyone else a bit scared of ATC becoming fully contracte

I am going to choose not to take part in an "uprising" conversation. I still need to pass my background, thank you very much:eek:
 
Re: Anyone else a bit scared of ATC becoming fully contracte

Does anyone foresee the possibility of a large domestic uprising if he starts cracking down like he said he would? A civil defense force as well funded and as powerful as the military? Infringements on the 2d Amendment? I wont lie...the thought has crossed my mind.
If you want to talk politics you can't do it here. Try the Lav. Else your posts will be banished! Muahaha! :panic:
 
Re: Anyone else a bit scared of ATC becoming fully contracte

On the topic of privatization...

Privatization is something that has been rumored for as long as I have been a controller. Companies such as Boeing and Lockheed would love to get their hands on the Air Traffic System, for them it'll be a gold mine to sell their faulty equipment to the Gov't. For the airlines things will be great, for everyone else, especially private pilots and those that own an aircraft it'll be a disaster.

With the recent Victory by Obama privatization will not happen... not under his watch. Expect Obama to declare ATC inherently governmental shortly after taking office. Clinton did the same thing after he took office, Bush undid it sometime around 2003.

Anytime privatization has been spoken about it has not had a lot of support with either Democrats or Republicans, more so after the debacle that has been the FSS takeover by Lockheed.

With the Democrats in charge privatization won't be spoken about... if anything the union will be working hard to get legislation that will protect the profession for many years to come.
 
Re: Anyone else a bit scared of ATC becoming fully contracte

On the topic of privatization...

... if anything the union will be working hard to get legislation that will protect the profession for many years to come.


Whats your opinion on some of the plans out there to consolidate tracons?
Is that politically influenced as well?
 
Re: Anyone else a bit scared of ATC becoming fully contracte

Whats your opinion on some of the plans out there to consolidate tracons?
Is that politically influenced as well?

Any moves you see with ATC are always politically influenced, the key is figuring out where the pressure is coming from.

Consolidating ATC facilities is much like base closings in the military. Often the local politicians, Democrat or Republican, don't like anything being closed in their area. They loose jobs, voters, etc... 99 out of 100 times they will fight it. Generally consolidation comes from the top of the administration. One theory of the consolidations is to get cost under control in an effort to package everything nicely to privatize it... it's not a bad theory and one look at what Lockmart has done with FSS supports this theory.

There is a legitimate argument that with the increase in technology the FAA does not need to maintain these antiquated facilties all over the country. By consolidating numerous tracons they can reduce costs through staffing, facility costs, etc. This argument has a point, ATC is heading in the direction of doing more with less.

Now... 9/11 showed us something important, we shouldn't have all our eggs in one basket. The consolidation effort can easily go to far... if any ARTCC fails in the country the surrounding facilities can absorb the traffic load, while limited, temporarily until the facility comes back up. If we go to 3 or 4 facilties and one fails the system will be in total chaos.

For the most part the Republican's are big on consolidating and contracting ATC. Opinions vary as to why they want this, much of it has to do with who their big financial backers are. Companies such as Lockheed, Boeing, and Raytheon are all big RNC donors and would love nothing more to get their greedy hands on ATC to squeeze every dollar out of it. If they can get the labor costs down, the facilities costs down, charge user fees, then sell the U.S. all their equipment they see quite the financial windfall.

I've rambled on quite a bit here... I hope I stayed topic for you. If not post any other questions.
 
Re: Anyone else a bit scared of ATC becoming fully contracte

On the topic of privatization...

With the recent Victory by Obama privatization will not happen... not under his watch. Expect Obama to declare ATC inherently governmental shortly after taking office. Clinton did the same thing after he took office, Bush undid it sometime around 2003.

With the Democrats in charge privatization won't be spoken about... if anything the union will be working hard to get legislation that will protect the profession for many years to come.

The FCT Program was born in 1982 to open five towers that had been closed as a result of the strike under a republican president and a mixed chamber. In 1984 under the same republican president and mixed chamber 10 more towers were added, bringing the total to 15.

Throughout that republican president's second term, and the next republican presidents term - nothing changed...for almost 10 years.

Bill Clinton did not declare air traffic control inherently governmental until roughly 33 days before leaving office (December 7, 2000). This was after he served two terms with both chambers having a democratic majority who ordered up and then authorized the funds to contract what ended up being 145 towers, bringing the total number to 160. Additionally, he had slated all remaining Level 1 towers to contract as well, but the A-76 lawsuit stopped that in 1998. Lest we forget, with that same signature he created the ATO and declared the the FAA a performance-based agency, laying the OSI/SCI egg.

On June 4th of 2002, George Bush, with both chambers under a republican majority, amended EO 13180, striking "inherently governmental" from the language. This republican president, with both chambers under a republican majority for six of eight years did nothing to continue the Federal Contract Program, despite having the language stricken.

With the democrats, and only the democrats in charge, history has shown that privatization is not only spoken about, but studied and funded. With the republicans, and only the republicans in charge, history has shown nothing changes in regards to privatization.

While I would like nothing more than your words to be true, I'm going to pin my hopes to the future, and not to the past...


The 1998 OIG Audit of the FCT Program. On page 10, the Introduction gives the background of the program:

http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/av1998147.pdf

Executive Order 13180, signed by Bill Clinton on December 7, 2000:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=fr11de00-135.pdf

Executive Order Amendment to 13180, signed by George Bush on June 4, 2002:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020606-5.html

Bill Clinton signed 55 directives to implement NPR. The FAA, and the above Executive Order is on that list:

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/whoweare/historyofnpr.html
 
Re: Anyone else a bit scared of ATC becoming fully contracte

The FCT Program was born in 1982 to open five towers that had been closed as a result of the strike under a republican president and a mixed chamber. In 1984 under the same republican president and mixed chamber 10 more towers were added, bringing the total to 15.

This was done for a legitimate reason... it wasn't due to lobbying or special interest.

Throughout that republican president's second term, and the next republican presidents term - nothing changed...for almost 10 years.

This is true but keep in mind... during that time period aviation and the FAA as a whole were not doing badly and the late 80's early 90's were not a good time for the airlines. Just ask any pilot on this board that was flying back then. No pun intended but the FAA and specifically the FAA were flying under the radar. I will tell you, I was not an officer of NATCA at that time but the rumors of privatization were around inside the agency.

Bill Clinton did not declare air traffic control inherently governmental until roughly 33 days before leaving office (December 7, 2000). This was after he served two terms with both chambers having a democratic majority who ordered up and then authorized the funds to contract what ended up being 145 towers, bringing the total number to 160. Additionally, he had slated all remaining Level 1 towers to contract as well, but the A-76 lawsuit stopped that in 1998. Lest we forget, with that same signature he created the ATO and declared the the FAA a performance-based agency, laying the OSI/SCI egg.

I had that date wrong... I was actually in DC with NATCA when he signed it. The contract tower program under Clinton actually had the support of the NATCA leadership at the time. There is more to the story (deal making re: 98' contract) that was part of it that I will not air on this board. My personal opinion and the opinion of others in the union at the time differed from the union leadership. Those years under Clinton were very good for federal workers and some people lost sight of the big picture.

On June 4th of 2002, George Bush, with both chambers under a republican majority, amended EO 13180, striking "inherently governmental" from the language. This republican president, with both chambers under a republican majority for six of eight years did nothing to continue the Federal Contract Program, despite having the language stricken.

I could not disagree with that more... privatization of the NAS is not something that can happen until many things are brought in line, most notably the power of NATCA (cost). Breaking the unions hold on ATC was step one towards privatizing ATC. For a company like Lockheed or Boeing to come in the Gov't needs to have all of its ducks in a row. They need to break the union, then consolidate facilities, get as much of their equipment and tech people in the door, then take over the system. Under Bush Lockheed and Raytheon have sold the FAA a large amount of equipment that they also provide on site support with their own people at a cost to the Gov't. AF is no longer as involved in the equipment as they once were. Look at what the Bush FAA did to FSS ... they brought all their costs in line and once done sold it Lockheed.

With the democrats, and only the democrats in charge, history has shown that privatization is not only spoken about, but studied and funded. With the republicans, and only the republicans in charge, history has shown nothing changes in regards to privatization.

See above... during that time period it had the unions blessing on much of it.

While I would like nothing more than your words to be true, I'm going to pin my hopes to the future, and not to the past...

Again, I have no idea what your background is but there is far more going on behind the scenes than you noted in your post. The Republicans are a lot more sneaky about privatization than you think... in a way they are very smart about it. They know they can never win a staright out up down vote to sell of the system, what they have been doping under Bush has been systematically allowing contractors to take over the system fron the inside out. I'm not partisan... I have many issues with the Democrats but what I have seen FIRST HAND under Bush scares me. I also FIRST HAND witnessed the concern of the contractos when Obama got elected... just look at the recent press releases by compnaies such as boeing.


The 1998 OIG Audit of the FCT Program. On page 10, the Introduction gives the background of the program:

http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/av1998147.pdf

Executive Order 13180, signed by Bill Clinton on December 7, 2000:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=fr11de00-135.pdf

Executive Order Amendment to 13180, signed by George Bush on June 4, 2002:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020606-5.html

Bill Clinton signed 55 directives to implement NPR. The FAA, and the above Executive Order is on that list:

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/whoweare/historyofnpr.html
 
Re: Anyone else a bit scared of ATC becoming fully contracte

FX- what are you so bitter about?

for your information, lockheed and boeing are both BIPARTISAN companies. so your wrong there.

if the at system ever did become privatized, you would still not be allowed to strike

as for the fss......not having a union is the best thing that ever happened to it....better pay, more options for promotions inside the company..

the ONLY reason people want unions is so they dont get fired. yes in the FSS you can get fired, whoopie do, we can get fired doing anything on any job, BUT if you do it right, guess what, you WONT get fired.
 
Re: Anyone else a bit scared of ATC becoming fully contracte

and as for consolidation, if you ever look into NextGen or SESAR or any other future ATC system you will realize its bound to happen, and thats for the better!
 
Re: Anyone else a bit scared of ATC becoming fully contracte

FX- what are you so bitter about?

for your information, lockheed and boeing are both BIPARTISAN companies. so your wrong there.

if the at system ever did become privatized, you would still not be allowed to strike

as for the fss......not having a union is the best thing that ever happened to it....better pay, more options for promotions inside the company..

the ONLY reason people want unions is so they dont get fired. yes in the FSS you can get fired, whoopie do, we can get fired doing anything on any job, BUT if you do it right, guess what, you WONT get fired.


I have to disagree with you there. Big defense firms such as boeing and lockheed have a vested interest in a repubilcan gov. It's as simple as money. Republicans tend to spend more on average on defense..These companies make a large sum of money on defense contracts.

As far as FSS being better off, tell that to people who lost their retirement on that. A private company is never going to be able to match the benafits that government offers.
 
Re: Anyone else a bit scared of ATC becoming fully contracte

As far as FSS being better off, tell that to people who lost their retirement on that. A private company is never going to be able to match the benafits that government offers.

Ok I have to somewhat agree with that. Yes it totally sucks for the people who did lose the retirement, but for the younger generation, and people without much vested interest, it's alot better.

For the future there's no choice it's better, but yes I feel sorry for the people who were close to retirement, BUT the FAA gave them options to go elsewhere. So at least they gave that to them.

Lockheed gave out bonus money, and others to new hirees, and excisting staff.
but nothing can be said for the people who didnt get picked up, and yes i do feel bad for those people.
Blame the FAA for not giving those people more choices.
 
Re: Anyone else a bit scared of ATC becoming fully contracte

Lower pay, loss of goverment benafits, and the fact that you are no longer lay off proof (or as close as it gets) since you are with a public company in exchange for a bonus.....I have a bridge to sell you sir.
 
Re: Anyone else a bit scared of ATC becoming fully contracte

mmm.....higher pay with lockheed compared to the FAA.....yes no govt benefits, but you have company benifits, and company options including promotions through the company.
yes you are no longer layoff proof, BUT as a new hire you already know that, as an existing employee you had the option of stayin in the FAA as something else if you wanted to.

I'm not saying its right or wrong, but if you layout of the pro/cons it has ben better off for both the employee now and the customer.

the AFSS was in the basement with no modernatzation and way underused prior to LM tookover. within 3 years Lockheed has came out with a syste, that took the FAA over 50 years to try to modernize.
now they didnt do everything right, but ill take a privitized AFSS over the old FAA AFSS anyday
 
Re: Anyone else a bit scared of ATC becoming fully contracte

While we can go back and forth with opinions until the cows come home, I posted this information in response to your following comments regarding the privatization of air traffic control:

With the recent Victory by Obama privatization will not happen... not under his watch. Expect Obama to declare ATC inherently governmental shortly after taking office. Clinton did the same thing after he took office, Bush undid it sometime around 2003.

For the most part the Republican's are big on consolidating and contracting ATC

I left consolodation, the green book, and the flight service, the equipment, AF, and everything other than the actual air traffic controllers out of it.



Originally Posted by TripSix
The FCT Program was born in 1982 to open five towers that had been closed as a result of the strike under a republican president and a mixed chamber. In 1984 under the same republican president and mixed chamber 10 more towers were added, bringing the total to 15.

This was done for a legitimate reason... it wasn't due to lobbying or special interest.

I will state now that I agree this was done for a legitimate reason, but made no statement to insinuate that lobbying or special interest had anything to do with it when first posted. My inclusion of the party occupying the white house and in the chambers was only to demonstrate throughout the trip down memory lane who was in control of what when things happened.


Throughout that republican president's second term, and the next republican presidents term - nothing changed...for almost 10 years.

This is true but keep in mind... during that time period aviation and the FAA as a whole were not doing badly and the late 80's early 90's were not a good time for the airlines. Just ask any pilot on this board that was flying back then. No pun intended but the FAA and specifically the FAA were flying under the radar. I will tell you, I was not an officer of NATCA at that time but the rumors of privatization were around inside the agency.

The effect was not my point in posting it. Again, who was in control of the White House, the chambers (and for how long) and the fact that no further towers were contracted during that time was.


Bill Clinton did not declare air traffic control inherently governmental until roughly 33 days before leaving office (December 7, 2000). This was after he served two terms with both chambers having a democratic majority who ordered up and then authorized the funds to contract what ended up being 145 towers, bringing the total number to 160. Additionally, he had slated all remaining Level 1 towers to contract as well, but the A-76 lawsuit stopped that in 1998. Lest we forget, with that same signature he created the ATO and declared the the FAA a performance-based agency, laying the OSI/SCI egg.

I had that date wrong... I was actually in DC with NATCA when he signed it. The contract tower program under Clinton actually had the support of the NATCA leadership at the time. There is more to the story (deal making re: 98' contract) that was part of it that I will not air on this board. My personal opinion and the opinion of others in the union at the time differed from the union leadership. Those years under Clinton were very good for federal workers and some people lost sight of the big picture.

I too will not get into the Union's activities at the time, other than the lawsuit the Union filed that ceased further contracting (as it is a matter of public record). Anyone can look at the timeline and see the forest through the trees if they choose to do so.

Bill Clinton (and democrats) are touted as being the saving grace of ATC. The facts are what they are: After the strike, the very first (and presently, the only) time a democratic president took office with democratic controlled chambers privatization went from "something we did a long time ago to fix something once" to the way things were going to be. EO 13180 was signed as a parting shot, not as a preventative measure.


On June 4th of 2002, George Bush, with both chambers under a republican majority, amended EO 13180, striking "inherently governmental" from the language. This republican president, with both chambers under a republican majority for six of eight years did nothing to continue the Federal Contract Program, despite having the language stricken.

I could not disagree with that more... privatization of the NAS is not something that can happen until many things are brought in line, most notably the power of NATCA (cost). Breaking the unions hold on ATC was step one towards privatizing ATC. For a company like Lockheed or Boeing to come in the Gov't needs to have all of its ducks in a row. They need to break the union, then consolidate facilities, get as much of their equipment and tech people in the door, then take over the system. Under Bush Lockheed and Raytheon have sold the FAA a large amount of equipment that they also provide on site support with their own people at a cost to the Gov't. AF is no longer as involved in the equipment as they once were. Look at what the Bush FAA did to FSS ... they brought all their costs in line and once done sold it Lockheed.

There is nothing to disagree with in the statement. EO 13180's amendment is a matter of public record. What was stricken, who signed it, and on what date is also a matter of public record. Additionally, which party had the majority in the chambers during the years 2000-2008 is as well. It is also a matter of public record that no additional towers were contracted during this time.


With the democrats, and only the democrats in charge, history has shown that privatization is not only spoken about, but studied and funded. With the republicans, and only the republicans in charge, history has shown nothing changes in regards to privatization.

See above... during that time period it had the unions blessing on much of it.

It does not matter who blessed it, or who opposed it. There have been two times in history since the strike that the white house and both chambers have been controlled by one party. One of those parties could have done it and did, the other party could have done it and did not.

While I would like nothing more than your words to be true, I'm going to pin my hopes to the future, and not to the past...

Again, I have no idea what your background is but there is far more going on behind the scenes than you noted in your post. The Republicans are a lot more sneaky about privatization than you think... in a way they are very smart about it. They know they can never win a staright out up down vote to sell of the system, what they have been doping under Bush has been systematically allowing contractors to take over the system fron the inside out. I'm not partisan... I have many issues with the Democrats but what I have seen FIRST HAND under Bush scares me. I also FIRST HAND witnessed the concern of the contractos when Obama got elected... just look at the recent press releases by compnaies such as boeing.

I am fully aware there was/is more going on behind the scenes than what was in my post. My post however, was a timeline of information of what the results were in regards to privatization. There was/is also more going on the scenes than what was in your post(s), which is why I posted the information in response.

I am not trying to argue, I'm just trying to educate. There is a lot of information put out there expected to be taken at face value. There is a lot of blame. This is an issue which effects us all. Like it or not, agree with the principle or not - the facts of the how, what, when, and where are out there should one choose to look.

I believe people should look, and look hard. Then arm themselves with the knowledge of the past, learn from the mistakes from the past, and shape the future. We are all in this together, and we have to know how we got here to have a part in where we're going.



The 1998 OIG Audit of the FCT Program. On page 10, the Introduction gives the background of the program:

http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/av1998147.pdf

Executive Order 13180, signed by Bill Clinton on December 7, 2000:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...11de00-135.pdf

Executive Order Amendment to 13180, signed by George Bush on June 4, 2002:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020606-5.html

Bill Clinton signed 55 directives to implement NPR. The FAA, and the above Executive Order is on that list:

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/w...toryofnpr.html
 
Back
Top