Mmmm, privatised commercial ATC... 'November one two three x-ray, you are cleared to land the on Skittles Runway 23 left. This transmission is brought to you in association with the great taste of Diet Pepsi.'

Joking aside, I can tell you this; if I was a pilot in the US who flew GA, I'd be fighting that one tooth and nail, because I can guarantee you it will be the thin end of the wedge for GA and its related industries in the US. You'll end up like Europe, where you have to pay a fortune to land, take off, park, use air traffic control etc, etc. Not only that, it will impact safety too. You put the airlines in a position where they can dictate ATC practices and I can guarantee you they'll go for cheaper choices rather than safer ones.

If you don't believe me about what such fees will do to GA, come to Europe, go to any airport other than a small airfield and see how long you have to wait before you observe a small prop GA aeroplane landing or taking off; best not hold your breath whilst you wait, if you do, you will die, because you won't see any GA aeroplanes land or take off at all from that larger airport, GA aeroplanes just don't go there, at all, ever, because the cost (which was already pricey compared to the US). Flying a GA aircraft in Europe is preposterously expensive and that's what all those fees have done to GA in Europe, basically damn near killed it off.

And if you think those fees might be negligible or possibly affordable, they won't: If you are in the US, you might be surprised to learn that it is actually considerably cheaper to get on an airliner and fly from Europe to the US, book an hotel for three weeks, do your PPL in the US, fly back to Europe and then do a JAR conversion of the PPL back in Europe than it is to do that PPL in Europe, so much so that some US flight schools advertise residential PPL courses in aviation magazines in Europe. Not only that, the European PPL syllabus is a joke nowadays anyway, so that's another reason people do that.

Now I know what you US pilots are thinking: 'but I only fly VFR' so I wouldn't get charged, well it is currently true in the US many VFR flights don't get charged fees, but they do in Europe, always, and if they privatise GA in the US, you will be saying hello to those charges too, and once one charge comes in, then there will be another, and another... So you can add another 100 quid to that VFR flight's cost just to get up off a runway and back down onto one, oh, and then you'll get charged even more to park up too once you have landed. Want to refuel as well you say? Well that's going to be three times the cost it currently would be in the US too.

Hopefully, some of that JAR rubbish might change at least for the UK as a result of leaving the EU, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Seriously, if you are even remotely interested in GA in the US, get writing to your representative and express your disapproval of privatising ATC in the US at once, or you really will end up only ever flying on simulators, because it will cost you an arm and a leg to do it for real. Not only that, it will spell the end for all the GA manufacturers and their support industries in the US, so it will impact domestic jobs too, even more so when they start farming out the ATC's operation to some lowest bid company from India.

It is a foolish idea that has been kicked around since Reagan's time in office. It would result in a very expensive system that would increase ticket prices dramatically,  reduce air travel and probably drive several airlines right out of business as a result. Since the system is supposed to be "self-supporting", fees to cover all costs - operations, overhead, research and development, and employee benefits, will be covered only by users and not by the tax base as a whole. In a system the size of the US system, I suspect that would be unsupportable since those costs are very high. You cannot compare the European, Canadian, or Kiwi systems to the US system - size does count. The FAA is not the roadblock to innovation - the Congress, which has annually refused to provide sufficient funding, is the roadblock. Our politicians have an uncanny ability to understand only what they want and a deep ignorance of the implications of their desires.

 

DJ

2 hours ago, Chock said:

Mmmm, privatised commercial ATC... 'November one two three x-ray, you are cleared to land the on Skittles Runway 23 left. This transmission is brought to you in association with the great taste of Diet Pepsi.'

Joking aside, I can tell you this; if I was a pilot in the US who flew GA, I'd be fighting that one tooth and nail, because I can guarantee you it will be the thin end of the wedge for GA and its related industries in the US. You'll end up like Europe, where you have to pay a fortune to land, take off, park, use air traffic control etc, etc. Not only that, it will impact safety too. You put the airlines in a position where they can dictate ATC practices and I can guarantee you they'll go for cheaper choices rather than safer ones.

If you don't believe me about what such fees will do to GA, come to Europe, go to any airport other than a small airfield and see how long you have to wait before you observe a small prop GA aeroplane landing or taking off; best not hold your breath whilst you wait, if you do, you will die, because you won't see any GA aeroplanes land or take off at all from that larger airport, GA aeroplanes just don't go there, at all, ever, because the cost (which was already pricey compared to the US). Flying a GA aircraft in Europe is preposterously expensive and that's what all those fees have done to GA in Europe, basically damn near killed it off.

And if you think those fees might be negligible or possibly affordable, they won't: If you are in the US, you might be surprised to learn that it is actually considerably cheaper to get on an airliner and fly from Europe to the US, book an hotel for three weeks, do your PPL in the US, fly back to Europe and then do a JAR conversion of the PPL back in Europe than it is to do that PPL in Europe, so much so that some US flight schools advertise residential PPL courses in aviation magazines in Europe. Not only that, the European PPL syllabus is a joke nowadays anyway, so that's another reason people do that.

Now I know what you US pilots are thinking: 'but I only fly VFR' so I wouldn't get charged, well it is currently true in the US many VFR flights don't get charged fees, but they do in Europe, always, and if they privatise GA in the US, you will be saying hello to those charges too, and once one charge comes in, then there will be another, and another... So you can add another 100 quid to that VFR flight's cost just to get up off a runway and back down onto one, oh, and then you'll get charged even more to park up too once you have landed. Want to refuel as well you say? Well that's going to be three times the cost it currently would be in the US too.

Hopefully, some of that JAR rubbish might change at least for the UK as a result of leaving the EU, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Seriously, if you are even remotely interested in GA in the US, get writing to your representative and express your disapproval of privatising ATC in the US at once, or you really will end up only ever flying on simulators, because it will cost you an arm and a leg to do it for real. Not only that, it will spell the end for all the GA manufacturers and their support industries in the US, so it will impact domestic jobs too, even more so when they start farming out the ATC's operation to some lowest bid company from India.

4

Chock is correct. AOPA is very much opposed to privatization and is fighting it tooth and nail.

DJ

If this change to privatization happens, it  probably will be setup as a semi-autonomous corporation like the U.S. Post Office. (Don't chuckle).  It should still be under the purview  of the Federal government, who can exercise control over airport fees, and emergency situations (i.e. 9/11 groundings).  More importantly, ensure the hiring of qualified AT controllers. 

7 minutes ago, overspeed3 said:

If this change to privatization happens, it  probably will be setup as a semi-autonomous corporation like the U.S. Post Office. (Don't chuckle).  It should still be under the purview  of the Federal government, who can exercise control over airport fees, and emergency situations (i.e. 9/11 groundings).  More importantly, ensure the hiring of qualified AT controllers. 

That isn't the current proposal. As proposed by Trump, it would be completely autonomous and self-funded. Airports are not "owned" by the Federal Government and can and will set whatever fees are felt appropriate.

DJ

4 hours ago, Chock said:

Mmmm, privatised commercial ATC... 'November one two three x-ray, you are cleared to land the on Skittles Runway 23 left. This transmission is brought to you in association with the great taste of Diet Pepsi.'

Joking aside, I can tell you this; if I was a pilot in the US who flew GA, I'd be fighting that one tooth and nail, because I can guarantee you it will be the thin end of the wedge for GA and its related industries in the US. You'll end up like Europe, where you have to pay a fortune to land, take off, park, use air traffic control etc, etc. Not only that, it will impact safety too. You put the airlines in a position where they can dictate ATC practices and I can guarantee you they'll go for cheaper choices rather than safer ones.

If you don't believe me about what such fees will do to GA, come to Europe, go to any airport other than a small airfield and see how long you have to wait before you observe a small prop GA aeroplane landing or taking off; best not hold your breath whilst you wait, if you do, you will die, because you won't see any GA aeroplanes land or take off at all from that larger airport, GA aeroplanes just don't go there, at all, ever, because the cost (which was already pricey compared to the US). Flying a GA aircraft in Europe is preposterously expensive and that's what all those fees have done to GA in Europe, basically damn near killed it off.

And if you think those fees might be negligible or possibly affordable, they won't: If you are in the US, you might be surprised to learn that it is actually considerably cheaper to get on an airliner and fly from Europe to the US, book an hotel for three weeks, do your PPL in the US, fly back to Europe and then do a JAR conversion of the PPL back in Europe than it is to do that PPL in Europe, so much so that some US flight schools advertise residential PPL courses in aviation magazines in Europe. Not only that, the European PPL syllabus is a joke nowadays anyway, so that's another reason people do that.

Now I know what you US pilots are thinking: 'but I only fly VFR' so I wouldn't get charged, well it is currently true in the US many VFR flights don't get charged fees, but they do in Europe, always, and if they privatise GA in the US, you will be saying hello to those charges too, and once one charge comes in, then there will be another, and another... So you can add another 100 quid to that VFR flight's cost just to get up off a runway and back down onto one, oh, and then you'll get charged even more to park up too once you have landed. Want to refuel as well you say? Well that's going to be three times the cost it currently would be in the US too.

Hopefully, some of that JAR rubbish might change at least for the UK as a result of leaving the EU, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Seriously, if you are even remotely interested in GA in the US, get writing to your representative and express your disapproval of privatising ATC in the US at once, or you really will end up only ever flying on simulators, because it will cost you an arm and a leg to do it for real. Not only that, it will spell the end for all the GA manufacturers and their support industries in the US, so it will impact domestic jobs too, even more so when they start farming out the ATC's operation to some lowest bid company from

 

Cut it out with the money over safety idea from airlines. You are talking out of thin air. Give credit where credit is due.

 

Alaska airlines pioneered RNP approaches for their operation. Did that effect safety?

There are many airline specific approaches in the usa. Do those effect safety?

 

Both of these examples are super simple ones but prove tht airlines already dictate the NAS to a certsin extent and safety has never been compromised because of it.

6 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

 

Cut it out with the money over safety idea from airlines. You are talking out of thin air. Give credit where credit is due.

I will always give credit where it is due, but that doesn't mean I will avoid talking about things where credit is not due. Even if one is not involved with this subject on a professional level (which I am incidentally), one would have to be very ill-informed about aviation to have never heard of any incidents where the desire to save money has led to safety issues with airlines. A quick search on Google will certainly confirm that. I'll give you one quote on the matter to get you started, and this is from a Civil Aviation Authority report from earlier this year on this very subject: 'Paring pilot training to the minimum because of cost pressures is not an adequate approach'

You might be interested to know that I am personally involved in the aircraft accident investigation process for amongst others, the airline pilot's association, so if you think I'm 'talking out of thin air' on this matter, you could not be more wrong, because I am pasionately concerned about the matter.

To be honest - I would have my concerns regarding this move... 

Pushed to the extreme; if a decision comes down to choosing between the safest option and the cheapest option, what do you think a cooperation will choose? Some instances of government is best to be kept that way, IMO...

Image if the NTSB would be privatized? Now THAT would be hilarious...  

6 minutes ago, Chock said:

I will always give credit where it is due, but that doesn't mean I will avoid talking about things where credit is not due. Even if one is not involved with this subject on a professional level (which I am incidentally), one would have to be very ill-informed about aviation to have never heard of any incidents where the desire to save money has led to safety issues with airlines. A quick search on Google will certainly confirm that. I'll give you one quote on the matter to get you started, and this is from a Civil Aviation Authority report from earlier this year on this very subject: 'Paring pilot training to the minimum because of cost pressures is not an adequate approach'

You might be interested to know that I am personally involved in the aircraft accident investigation process for amongst others, the airline pilot's association, so if you think I'm 'talking out of thin air' on this matter, you could not be more wrong, because I am pasionately concerned about the matter.

You are now talking about saving money in general causing problems which i do agree with you. However, that doesnt really trsnslate into the atc system.

All im saying is that i think your generalization of safety cultures at airlines is just that...a generalization. As i have stated in the last post, airlines have been dictating the atc system as much as they possibly can and it hasnt resulted in casulties.

GOing back to saving money by cutting corners on certain thingswithin an airline, yes ite caused problems and its sad how many lives have been lost.

Im sure you have a great resume. It would be good to not make generalizations though.

Topic is too politically sensitive to moderate as the left does not like the fact the government is no longer in control of something and the right wants less and less government control.