Privatizing ATC (contract VFR towers)

[Flyingtoohigh]

Looks like MSNBC picked up on it...

http://www.msnbc.com/news/970933.asp?0dm=V15JB

What's your opinion on privatizing smaller air traffic control towers?

 

[fLYbUDDY]

Here is what someone (Gregg) over at stuckmic said about the subject. I agree with Gregg and think he did a good job of giving an unbiased opinion. In other words I couldn't have said it better myself.

You have asked for the near impossible--this a heated issue in which both sides have alot to lose--I will try and answer to the best of my ability. Fact: The contract towers save the FAA big money--how by offering lower salaries and less people. This is no different then any other area in which the feds have contracted out, the target group of people to work contract is retired military and FAA who don't need the benies, and don't need quite as much salary because of the retirements they get. The issue of saftey centers around those staffing levels, I have heard some horror stories of guys being left in position for 8 hours with no breaks, and people having to piss in sinks--I do believe this happens at some places, I also believe these are in the minority--no tower that I know of or have spoken to in my company has this been reported. There could be some argument made for an extra pair of eyes to help out in the busy places--and if a few of these new towers come on line the FAA is really going to have to watch those places. The issue of the 30 days training being unsafe is also not relevent--the NATCA folks will tell you they train their folks for over a year--well thats because of the archiac time limits they have, and they hire alot of new folks off the street that have no expereince--in most of our cases 30 days is to long--I was ready to check out in 3 days--the weather test is harder. The Union will have you believe the FCT wages are poverty--they are not, we all make close to $24 an hour if you include the $2.56 health and welfare money (of which that money is hotly contested righ now) The fight is about the contracting out of all federal jobs--this one is the one big labor has decided to fight because they can use the most scare tactics. The latest attack now comes about FCT facilities not reporting saftey violations. In control towers most violations are reported by pilots, controllers will report them also---but in all branches of ATC-FAA, Mil, DoD or FCT, if a problem can be worked out in house it will ALWAYS--NATCA knows this, it's just another scare tactic to scare the public.

The issue here is the fear the privitization movement will spread beyond these 69 towers. In my opinon it should not--at least for a long time. Radar facilities should stay FAA, beyond these 69 towers--the issue should be put to bed. Does the FCT compainies do everything right--of course not, does the FAA In my opinon if you look at the performance of the FAA in budget matters and cost overurns and salaries over the last 15 years--they make NASA look thrifty--they even make the military look spendthrift. Now--my concerns are where are they going to get the people to man these 69 towers, since the military folks retiring now have an option to go into the FAA, that can take most of the targeted people out of the pool--hence they are forced to hire under age 31 folks getting out of the miltary who are biding time waiting to get hired by the FAA---this is bad because the benies are not good, and the turnover rate is higher. In my tower we have 4 of us (faa use to have 9) we are all retired, we want to be here and the newest one is me at almost 5 years---the only way we are going anywhere is if we get sick or the place closes, but not all places are like that. I don't blame the union for fighting for it's people--they should, but the public needs to be made aware of the real issues and not the hype and scare tactics. In my opinon both of these programs can and do coexist quite nicely. I find nothing wrong with PATCO taking up the other side here, they are being accused of being biased--how hypocritical is that---NATCA is just as biased if not more. If it's okay for NATCA to fight for it's people, it is okay for PATCO to fight for the people they represent. NATCA has always been out for the entire program to be eliminated--so the FCT folks need a voice also. In conclusion: does the program save money--yes. Is it safe: yes. Does it deserve to expand: not beyond the towers that have been selected. Can improvements be made: Hell yes. If I was an FAA controller would I want my place to go contract: Hell no (unless there was something in it for me) Sorry this was long and rambling, I could really care less if it expands or not--as a taxpayer I would like to see our governmnet downsize quite a bit, and the FAA is no expetion--but they can start at the headquarters level and work their way down--that is where alot of the graft and mismanagement lies, the controllers do a great job, and I personaly don't want to see any of them lose a cent or a benie because of this issue.

Gregg

Who knows what is going to happen. Only time will tell, I guess.
-Gary-

 

[Vector4fun]

Well, I'm NATCA, and I'm biased. Take that for what that's worth.

Now I'm going to contradict what I think are some inaccuracies in the previous and mostly objective opinion by Greg.

1. NATCA is in no shape or form trying to eliminate the contract tower program. We know it's here to stay, and we know there are contract towers that wouldn't exist if FAA had to staff them. There IS a lawsuit currently winding it's way glacier-like through the courts, but it's about the way FAA does it's cost-benefits analysis and determines which towers to contract. It's NOT going to get a hundred low-level towers back in the FAA (and NATCA) fold. The current battle in Congress is over 71 additional facilities the FAA would like authority to contract now, and more later.

2. I currently work with a fellow controller who was a manager at a contract tower in Texas. Some of the "horror" stories are indeed true. And I don't care what kind of "ace of the base" controller you think you are, unless it's one runway in the middle of no-where, two-three days training is not enough to be working a new facility by yourself. Two weeks is more realistic, and two months is probably too long, unless it's with a new-hire. My friend was ordered to either check them out in two weeks or fire them. He fired about 75% of those who came in. None were retired military or FAA, most were barely familiar with the 7110.65.
I'm also quite sure that there are facilities that REEK of quality military and FAA experience, but not all do.

3. There were times after the '81 strike when I had to work a tower alone for periods of up to four hours. Doing it regularly with busy traffic is NOT AS SAFE as it should be. I would say the same thing about single-pilot IFR without an auto-pilot. If you guys think it is, try convincing ALPA.

4. What this is REALLY all about is, the FAA and some in DOT would like to use the THREAT of contracting out some more facilities as a way to win concessions at the bargaining table. In other words, "We need concessions, or we're gonna have to contract out another dozen facilites this year". Then they will blame NATCA for having to contract those facilites.

5 The published cost savings are bogus because they fail to address the added oversight and support provided the contract towers by FAA. Who do you think paid for most of the equipment and maintenance thereof?

6. If you think this is strictly about greed, be advised that I'm eligible to retire in two years, and if it were strictly about MY quality of life and income, I'd personally be ahead by retiring ASAP and then going right back to work for a contractor in a low cost-of-living area.

 

[sky37d]

Prefacing my comments with the fact that I haven't flown in 3 mos, here's my thoughts.
I saw a piece on NBC where the one and only controller in the tower stepped out, and got locked out. he (presumably) was locked out for XX minutes, until security came and let him back in.

So, you are a pilot, and approach at another airport clears you in, maintain until established, contact the tower, and there's no one there to contact Do you, A, call approach back and tell them no one in the tower, or B, keep on going, and hope the controller gets back from break? B. which means that most of the time the missing controller will never be reported.

Also, there was the instance in Australia, privatized, where the controllers shift ended and he went home. Unfortunately, there was no replacement, for a couple of hours.

If you have a flight plan filed, IFR, and there is no one in the tower, do you proceed, or sit there until someone answers? Keep going, call FSS when you get in the air??

If it saves money, who's money does it save? The FAA's? Who pays for the contract controllers? The local airport authority? Who pays them?

Lots of questions, no answers from me. It seems, fundamentally, that the governance of air traffic is a federal responsibility, and should never be contracted to a private company. Kind of like the police department, the FBI, the Army.