trump/ATC Privitization/User Fees

[typhoonpilot]

Should we all chip in and buy Seggy an AOPA membership so he can learn the facts?

On second thought, it would be a waste of money. He never listens to reason. :stir:


TP

 

[Baronman]

This has been in the making for some time according to my source who works for the DOT. We don't see each other too often, but the topic has come up the 2 last times I've seen him. He seems positive about the outcome, and he almost by definition is a "big gov't" guy who whole-heartedly believes in the system. But on this one he thinks it's necessary.

 

[ShyFlyer]

I don't see user fees happening during a Trump administration. I do see ATC services transferred to a new agency under, say DOT, and out from under the FAA.

 

[Seggy]

Privatization is the answer?

Did I say that?

What government run operation turned private has been a success story?

Well the Trump supporters wanted to 'drain the swamp' or whatever, so ask them!

What makes you think things will get better with this? Will safety take a backseat? These are some questions that you don't have the answers to but I would like to have them answered before any decision is made.

The irony is, those that voted for trump on here are probably extremely anti-user fee. If privatization comes to fruition and what that entails, which include user fees, a lot of folks on here made a vote against their personal self interest.

On the other hand, I will be happier than a pig in mud as fair user fees are an absolute necessity going forward.

 

[Seggy]

I don't see user fees happening during a Trump administration. I do see ATC services transferred to a new agency under, say DOT, and out from under the FAA.

The FAA is currently under the DOT.

 

[Seggy]

Should we all chip in and buy Seggy an AOPA membership so he can learn the facts?

On second thought, it would be a waste of money. He never listens to reason. :stir:


TP

Listening to reason?

Kind of hypocritical for you to say that considering your fanatical defense of the ME3/NAI. Your personal self gain blurred the 'reason'.

 

[ShyFlyer]

The FAA is currently under the DOT.

Yes, I know. What I'm saying is that I can see ATC as a stand-alone agency, under DOT.

 

[typhoonpilot]

Listening to reason?

Kind of hypocritical for you to say that considering your fanatical defense of the ME3/NAI. Your personal self gain blurred the 'reason'.

Hmmm, "fanatical" as in believing everything that ALPA says at face value fanatical? You mean, like that?

TP

 

[Seggy]

Hmmm, "fanatical" as in believing everything that ALPA says at face value fanatical? You mean, like that?

TP

I don't believe everything they say.

You know what they say about 'assuming'.

 

[MikeD]

What government run operation turned private has been a success story? .

Like anything, there has to be a balance. And truth be told, fire protection is a very good example of where it is needed as a government provided entity in some cases, or as a private entity in other cases. Normally, it should be government provided and taxed appropriately. But there are situations where:

1. The government option doesn't exist, like for people who live in the middle of nowhere where there is no municipal fire department and no fire district, so private contract is really all there is option-wise. And even it should be regulated in some way so as to not be out of control cost-wise, and be reasonable.

2. Where it's cheaper to contract out a portion of formerly government-provided service, in current cases airport ARFF/CFR, that is far less utilized than the rest of the department, freeing up money to be used where it's more needed, while still maintaining contractual standards of service through oversight of the contractor.

This is an area where goverment and private-sector can co-exist, depending on the particular circumstances.

On ARFF services, many municipal departments are looking to save their limited money and apportion it to areas of the department that get far more use. Paying a flat fee and enforcing contractural standards for a segment of their department that is rarely used, is effective. Is it perfect? No. But nothing is.

For those wondering, a number of airports use contract CFR/ARFF services, and its been successful:

Will Rogers World, OK;
Chennault International (Lake Charles) airport, LA;
Cape Canaveral AFS
NASA Ames Research Center
NASA Kennedy Research Center
Roanoke, VA;
Rockford Ill;
Trenton, NJ
Burbank, Ca
Jackson County, OR
Alexandria, LA
Memphis, TN (Fedex ramp)

there's more, but those are just off the top of my head

 

[wheelsup]

So pretty much everyone on this site* (the 99.1%) doesn't pay "their fair share" of taxes to fund our government yet you guys think it's OK to ream the little guy (GA)? I find that very hypocritical.

 

[Cessnaflyer]

Like anything, there has to be a balance. And truth be told, fire protection is a very good example of where it is needed as a government provided entity in some cases, or as a private entity in other cases. Normally, it should be government provided and taxed appropriately. But there are situations where:

1. The government option doesn't exist, like for people who live in the middle of nowhere where there is no municipal fire department and no fire district, so private contract is really all there is option-wise. And even it should be regulated in some way so as to not be out of control cost-wise, and be reasonable.

2. Where it's cheaper to contract out a portion of formerly government-provided service, in current cases airport ARFF/CFR, that is far less utilized than the rest of the department, freeing up money to be used where it's more needed, while still maintaining contractual standards of service through oversight of the contractor.

This is an area where goverment and private-sector can co-exist, depending on the particular circumstances.

On ARFF services, many municipal departments are looking to save their limited money and apportion it to areas of the department that get far more use. Paying a flat fee and enforcing contractural standards for a segment of their department that is rarely used, is effective. Is it perfect? No. But nothing is.

For those wondering, a number of airports use contract CFR/ARFF services, and its been successful:

Will Rogers World, OK;
Chennault International (Lake Charles) airport, LA;
Cape Canaveral AFS
NASA Ames Research Center
NASA Kennedy Research Center
Roanoke, VA;
Rockford Ill;
Trenton, NJ
Burbank, Ca
Jackson County, OR
Alexandria, LA
Memphis, TN (Fedex ramp)

there's more, but those are just off the top of my head

Boeing has their own at KPAE they occasionally get called to larger events off airport as well.

 

[CFI A&P]

So pretty much everyone on this site* (the 99.1%) doesn't pay "their fair share" of taxes to fund our government yet you guys think it's OK to ream the little guy (GA)? I find that very hypocritical.

Someone else can probably find it faster than I can, but taxes on fuel is a current revenue stream for funding the FAA.

Also AOPA has all the stats and recently published an article about user fees and how well it is working in Europe.


Sent from my Startac using Tapatalk.

 

[mshunter]

Well the Trump supporters wanted to 'drain the swamp' or whatever, so ask them!



The irony is, those that voted for trump on here are probably extremely anti-user fee. If privatization comes to fruition and what that entails, which include user fees, a lot of folks on here made a vote against their personal self interest.

On the other hand, I will be happier than a pig in mud as fair user fees are an absolute necessity going forward.

Sometimes, you have to take the good with the bad.

And if user fees are implemented, airlines will still share the brunt of the cost, since they operate immensely more than private operations do, especially in the flight levels.

You fail at life, hard. You always look for an opportunity to poke the beehive. You fail at adulthood too. And maturity. You just don't get it.

 

[hook_dupin]

Like anything, there has to be a balance. And truth be told, fire protection is a very good example of where it is needed as a government provided entity in some cases, or as a private entity in other cases.

I was going to use garbage trucks as an example, but your example is cleaner.

 

[Goonie]

Looks like user fees are FINALLY coming under the new administration...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/house-chairman-trump-favors-privatizing-air-traffic-control/

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/...p-favors-privatizing-air-traffic-control.html

Can't wait to have everyone paying their fair share to use the system.

Not that I care if there are some user fees, especially in 135 charter or high gross 91, but my question to you is why do you care? You think its going to trickle down into your pocket? highly unlikely.

 

[MikeD]

Boeing has their own at KPAE they occasionally get called to larger events off airport as well.

Slightly different situation there, in that Boeing's ARFF exists to protect the Boeing ramp and their ops primarily; they aren't the primary ARFF responder for the airport. However they do respond to all ARFF emergencies as mutual aid/backup to Snohomish County airport ARFF units. Same kind of setup at KFFZ, where Boeing backs up the City of Mesa airport ARFF, or at Boeing field with the King County airport ARFF units.

The airports I was listing are ones where the primary airport firefighting is done by private contractors, having either replaced a formerly government-run operation, or started up as a private contract operation even though a local municipal fire department exists. Also depends how the airport is owned/managed.

But yes, Boeing does have a large ARFF and structural department in their own right.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

You fail at life, hard. You always look for an opportunity to poke the beehive. You fail at adulthood too. And maturity. You just don't get it.

Let's try and keep it to the matter at hand here. It is a legitimate discussion, but digs at anyone personally do not do anything to argue your position.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

On the other hand, I will be happier than a pig in mud as fair user fees are an absolute necessity going forward.

The devil is in the details, though. Where are the user fees collected from, and what are the proceeds spent on? Are these for airport improvement, or for ATC directly? What will the military and government users pay into this system, as they are also substantial users of it.

The majority of the aircraft in the US are GA, which is (fortunately for us) something that is unique in the world. Personally, I can mostly avoid using ATC services, at the expense of more fuel and less safety in my case. That isn't a good solution. Improvements need to start with ideas that will benefit everyone.

 

[mshunter]

Let's try and keep it to the matter at hand here. It is a legitimate discussion, but digs at anyone personally do not do anything to argue your position.

•. This is why I've been so quiet for so long. People get to come in here and have their free pass, like I said "poking the beehive", someone calls them out on it, and they get a "Now now, settle down Francis." I'm tired of it, and I really don't give a F if you're offended. I'm tired of being in the presence of "men" who act like children, and the others who don't call it for what it's for. We've lost a lot of good people around here since I've been here for that exact reason.