Air Traffic Controllers, Bush Administration at Odds Over Jobs

[Judi Lynn]

Air Traffic Controllers, Bush Administration at Odds Over Jobs
By Leslie Miller Associated Press Writer
Published: Aug 22, 2003

WASHINGTON (AP) - Air traffic controllers once again are fighting a bitter battle with a Republican administration, this time over a proposal to privatize some of their jobs.

The union representing 15,600 controllers says the plan to expand a program that contracts with private companies to run control towers at smaller airports is a step toward privatizing air traffic control everywhere.

The Federal Aviation Administration says it has no such plans and only is looking to save money.

The dispute is the most heated since 1981, when President Reagan fired more than 11,000 controllers on grounds they violated a national security provision in their contract by striking. (snip/...)

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAXQG3LOJD.html

[lebkuchen]

1. Who isn't Bush at odds with?

And what is it with republican politicians and air traffic controllers? You'd think the GOP hated unions or something.

[Drifter]

2. Fire the bastards ...

Oh wait ... that didn't go so well for Reagan.

Cheers
Drifter

[MaineDem]

3. But he has an airport named for him

The irony of that still amazes me.

[rusk2003]

4. After 9/11

After 9/11 that sounds like a bad idea if we turn that over to the private sector what will be next the FBI CIA or Armed Serivices. Then Corporate America would run America with a iron fist and prices would go sky high Anyhow that will drive up the cost of airplane tickets even more private jobs pay way more than government jobs.

I saw on the news President Bush also wanted to turn over the national park jobs to corporations.

[eyesroll]

5. And a lot of controllers won't call it anything but National...n/t

[Kat45]

6. Yeah, that's a punch in the guts to worker's everywhere.

That pissed me off to no end when they had the balls to do that. (And I'm not even sure who "they" is.)

[MercutioATC]

7. As an ATC, I can attest to the unfortunate breakdown of what was a great

labor/managment relationship (between NATCA and the FAA under Jane Garvey's guidance). A few months ago, the FAA agreed to a 2-year contract extention with NATCA, which led us to believe that there would be some stability. Now they are trying to reneg on their agreement.

As far as privatization goes, let me assure you that NONE of us want to see that happen. Globally, EVERY SINGLE ATC system that has been privatized is now in financial difficulty and is providing a lesser degree of service than they did as government agencies.

Every program I've seen involving privatization in the U.S. involves a Board of Directors comprised almost solely of airline groups. We've been assured that these board members will keep safety, not their balance sheets, as their foremost priority. By that logic, we should privatize the FDA and replace it with a private corporation headed by a Board of drug company officers. They'd certainly make public safety their first concern, right?

Some things SHOULD remain inherently governmental. Air Traffic Control is one of them.

(on edit)

I've never heard a controller call it "Reagan". It's ALWAYS "National".

[VolcanoJen]

8. Kick!

:dem:

[MercutioATC]

9. The true reason we have the world's safest ATC system:

Experience base. Period.

We pay our ATCs enough that they stay. ATCs die and ATCs retire, but they DON'T move to other jobs. Where else will you find a service industry with that kind of an experience base? It stands to reason that committed people who have spent 10 or 20 years doing the same job will become pretty good at it.

...and THAT'S the real danger of privatizing the system. The second we start to get "turnover", safety suffers. This job will never make me wealthy, but it allows for a relatively comfortable life. I don't feel any need to leave a job that I really enjoy to look for a better salary. Privatization changes that. People will take an ATC job like they take most other jobs...as a stepping stone to something else. And the safety of the flying public will pay the price.

Oddly, we have examples of private ATC systems in Canada and Europe and the government is STILL considering it. France has had to take part of its ATC system back because of financial and safety problems and NavCanada (Canada's system) is plagued financial issues, poor staffing, and low workforce morale.

I'd encourage anybody who favors ATC privatization to really look at the issue and decide how much safety they're willing to give to save a few bucks (dollars that won't really be saved anyway, if existing examples show us anything).

[TahitiNut]

10. When will we see ATC ...

... 'outsourced' to boiler rooms located in China or India? High-speed telecommunications links could be thought to make it possible.

It seems the FAA has become more delusionary. I believe their objective should be to "save lives" not (mythically) "save money". There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that privatization of any such public service function has ever saved money. (In fact, the reverse is what's most often demonstrated.) When the infrastructure in which the public has invested is transferred to private for-profit control, the public's equity ownership is abdicated without remuneration and proceeds to deteriorate (through lack of significant investment) until the public foots the next huge bill -- never those who've profited.