From: Vyper@hotmail.com   
      
   Interesting thread you have going here.  A few points of   
   clarification.  Canadian ATC is private.  It is run by a private   
   "not-for-profit" corporation.  The former government department that   
   used to run the ATC conducts the regulatory oversight now.   
      
   After 911, NAV CANADA did not receive any cash from the Government.   
   What they did was to draw upon their cash reserves held in trust for a   
   time that they would need it to stabilize rates and revenues.   
      
   The system is not trouble-free, but it is SAFE and operates at a   
   fraction of the former government system.   
      
   .... just some food for thought ..........   
      
      
   On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:30:17 +0000 (UTC), "Doug Maclean"   
    wrote:   
      
   >Canadian ATC is not private.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >"Bingo-Bongo"  wrote in message   
   >news:ntmpqvg12qjj1aevcnfk7macet2j6fqpch@4ax.com...   
   >> On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 05:25:48 GMT, mrtravel  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >   
   >> >   
   >> >Michael Cortez wrote:   
   >> >> Miguel Cruz wrote:   
   >> >>   
   >> >>   
   >> >>>None  wrote:   
   >> >>>   
   >> >>>>WASHINGTON - Disappointed by a House vote, air traffic controllers are   
   >> >>>>looking to the Senate to stop an aviation spending bill that could   
   >increase   
   >> >>>>the number of privately run air traffic control towers.   
   >> >>>   
   >> >>>Isn't this the bill whose chief sponsor quietly amended it to remove   
   >his   
   >> >>>home airport from the list of those potentially served by private ATC?   
   >> >>   
   >> >>   
   >> >> The fear campaign against private towers continues.  I have found   
   >private tower   
   >> >> controllers to be polite, helpful, and efficient.   Interestingly they   
   >have a   
   >> >> better safety record than government (non-military) controllers.  If   
   >private   
   >> >> towers are bad, why not push to eliminate the existing private towers?   
   >> >>   
   >> >> Funny how other countries, including neighboring Canada uses private   
   >ATC (not   
   >> >> just towers!) and does just fine.   
   >> >   
   >> Don't forget that after Sept 11th NAVCANADA needed a Government Cash   
   >> infusion to stay solvent!  Also trying to run a system that is   
   >> chronically understaffed causes huge delays, requiring reroutes into   
   >> the US system just to keep things flowing.   
   >>   
   >>     As far as the private towers go....a major reason for the "Safety"   
   >> record is the lack of safeguards to ensure that all incidents   
   >> concerning safety are reported.  It is in the best interest of the   
   >> contractor NOT to report such incidents and unless the newspapers get   
   >> a hold of the info they usually don't.   
   >>   
   >>      There are many controllers working for the contractors that to do   
   >> a good job, this I can not argue, but having been turned away from an   
   >> airport due to traffic volume which really wasn't that bad is   
   >> frustrating.  Afterwards, when I asked why I, was told that the   
   >> controller was the only one on duty and had not had a break in over 5   
   >> hours working moderate traffic! When I asked why no one else was on   
   >> duty I was told that this was NORMAL staffing.  A fatigued Controller   
   >> is NOT a good thing!   
   >>   
   >> CAMI (Civil Aeronautics Medical Institute, located in OKC) did several   
   >> studies about time on position for Air Traffic Controllers.  The   
   >> results indicated a steep increase in fatigue and corresponding   
   >> decrease in awareness after more than 2 hours on position.  CAMI also   
   >> did a study on decrease in performance after age 56 and therefore   
   >> government Controllers must either retire or move on to   
   >> non-operational duties by their 56th birthday.  CAMI is also the   
   >> reason you cannot be considered for employment with the FAA as an Air   
   >> Traffic Controller after the age of 31!  These studies guide the FAA   
   >> but the Contractors do not follow such guidelines, nor are they   
   >> required to!  Several Air Traffic Controllers retire from the FAA   
   >> because of their age and get jobs as Air Traffic Controllers with   
   >> contractors.   
   >>   
   >>      The biggest argument I hear about the contractors way of doing   
   >> business is that the Towers they run are "low volume".  Any one who   
   >> has seen the newest list of towers potentially on the chopping block   
   >> knows this is a false argument.  Towers such as, SFB in FL, a very   
   >> busy airport with ever increasing amounts of Air Carrier Ops, as well   
   >> as VNY in CA, one of the busiest VFR towers if not THE busiest in the   
   >> world!.  I know that if the contractors get those towers the cost will   
   >> be the same if not more that the current FAA cost or they will have to   
   >> severely reduce the amount of traffic in and out of these airports,   
   >> which is NOT good service to the user!   
   >>   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)