Quote of the Week: "Private companies are in the business to make money, they cut staff, they cut resources and they cut security guards."  comment by Air Traffic Controller Spokesman on the effort to reduce safety by privatizing more control towers in the FAA Reauthorization Bill

Aviation Conspiracy Newsletter #236.........................................September 7, 2003 Past newsletters can be accessed at: http://pages.prodigy.net/rockaway/ACNewsmenu.htm  Bill Mulcahy rockaway@prodigy.net 

Airport Expansion Bill Vote This Week? 

As Bill Sees It: (Editorial): FAA Bill Would Unsafely "Privatize" More Of Air Traffic Control!!! This bill reduces the safety of the flying public (not to mention the people on the ground) by increasing the number of "contract towers" in the air traffic control system. As much as I dislike FAA air traffic controllers I agree with them when they say "Private companies are in the business to make money," he said. "They cut staff, they cut resources and they cut security guards. We shouldn't mix the bottom line with safety." Teterboro Gets Special Protection In FAA Reauthorization Bill!!! The political nature of airport expansion was once again demonstrated by the exempting of Teterboro Airport from the FAA Reauthorization Bill. It's somewhat surprising as this bill was crafted to give congressional blessing to overriding local community opposition to runway and airport expansion. Obviously New Jersey Senators' Corzine and Lautenburg inserted the Teterboro Airport expansion exemption in the bill because they saw that caving in to the Aviation Cabal, in this case in a project pushed by Boeing lobbyists,  would cost them a lot of votes. Boeing lobbied for the expansion so it could sell more of its business jets.  The bill is supposed to go to the House for a vote on Tuesday where the Teterboro  exemption may be eliminated. Perhaps that is all part of the plan.  Of course, no mention is made of studying the environmental impacts of the bills effect on increasing the number of planes using airports. The "noise study" that was in the last FAA Reauthorization Bill was never even done!!! The aviation industry, and their bought and paid-for congresscreeps, may look at any exemption as a watering down of aviation pollution increase bill (which should be its real name). Either way, the congresscreeps are going to find out that passing this law "promoting new runways" and "enhancing airport capacity" (increasing plane traffic) will be easier to do than implementing it against their constituents opposition. I will post both the Senate and House votes on this issue so that in the next few years Americans won't forget who is responsible for that late-night plane that disturbs their sleep. Two New York City Pro Aviation Expansion Political Slimeballs: While New Jersey voters are getting their politicians to respond to their demands for protection against aviation expansion, New York has two lowlifes representing them who have PROMOTED increasing planes over their constituents (carefully selected poor and minority communities of course)!!!  Senator "Chuck" Schumer (AKA Schemer) and the man who replaced him in his congressional district, Rep. Anthony Weiner (he the one on the right), voted for the last FAA reauthorization bill which removed capacity safety limits on JFK and LaGuardia Airports. I guess they felt that if their constituents were so brain dead they have never demanded some of the BILLIONS in noise-proofing money that the rest of America gets, they wouldn't mind more planes and noise. The New Jersey politicians obviously didn't think their constituents were as easily fooled. If Teterboro can get some control over "their" airport, maybe their is hope for other communities victimized by the FAA and the aviation industry.  Birdstrikes Give FAA An Excuse For Wiping Out Wildlife To Make Way For Polluting Planes: The bird strike which brought down a LaGuardia jet liner this week will no doubt bring another round of wildlife destruction by the FAA. The FAA would much rather just destroy every bird in the sky rather than do other things which would improve air safety. In the early 1990's I fought against them wiping out the only colony of Laughing Gulls which was located on Wildlife Preserve at the end JFK Runway 22 Right (see picture above). I went to great lengths to show the FAA the need to stop flying over a large bird nesting area. I tried to get them to restore the original JFK runway (Runway 25 which can be barely seen in picture above). This runway directed planes to the left of the JoCo Marsh and out over the middle of Jamaica Bay and over no residential communities. Instead they chose to continue to fly over the bird preserve and endanger the lives of not only air passengers but the residential communities of Rockaway which are directly in the Runway 22 Right flight path. On November 1st, 2002 a jumbo jet (Fight 587) crashed on takeoff into Rockaway killing over 260 people. While the Flight 587 crash (probably) had nothing to do with bird strikes, it did show the danger that airports pose to nearby communities and the FAA's lack of concern for safety issues. There still has been no final report on what caused the Fight 587 crash.

FAA Reauthorization Bill Would Increase "Privatizaion" Of U.S. Air Traffic Control: The bill would maintain the FAA's authority to expand privatization from the current 219 contract towers to another 69 around the country. The airline industry and airport executives support such contracting, which they say keeps costs down with no sacrifice to safety. The National Air Traffic Controllers Association, the largest union, disputes those assertions and wants the bill rewritten.  http://www.pioneerlocal.com/cgi-bin/ppo-story/localnews/current/wh/09-04-03-98890.html  http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001560111_airtraffic20n.html 

Geese Shred Jet Engine At LaGuardia Airport!!! (New York-WABC, September 4, 2003) — An American Airlines jet lost one of its two engines shortly after takeoff when a bird flew into an engine. American Airlines Flight 549 had just taken off from LaGuardia Airport at 6:30 a.m. when the luxury jet was struck by geese. http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/wabc_090403_plane.html  

Teterboro Gets Exemption In FAA Reauthorization Bill...They Hope!!! "We have made great progress in protecting the people in our area from the behemoth [jets] destroying the character of our area," Rep. Rothman said. "However, this war to stop the overturning of the weight limit at Teterboro is not yet finally won. That will only occur after both houses approve their respective bills and the president signs the House-Senate version." The House is expected to vote on its version Tuesday. New Jersey's two senators succeeded Thursday in inserting a provision into a spending bill that would ban bigger jets from Teterboro Airport. The provision was inserted at the urging of Sens. Jon Corzine and Frank R. Lautenberg and, if passed, would be a blow to a Federal Aviation Administration plan to allow the bigger jets. The bill that contains the provision cleared the Appropriations Committee on Thursday and will now go before the full Senate. http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2NDIyMzU1JnlyaXJ5N2Y3MTdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5Mw==  http://www.teterboro-online.com/news/news03/tebfaa/teb1.shtml 

British Airways Looking Into Installing A Anti-Missile System On Their Planes: British Airways has begun exploring the idea of fitting its aircraft with anti-missile devices, an airline spokeswoman said Friday. The airline -- the biggest in Europe -- is in preliminary talks with plane manufacturers Airbus and Boeing about installing the systems. Airlines have taken a long look at protecting their planes from shoulder-fired missile attacks since last November's attempt to shoot down an Israeli charter jet in Kenya. Editor's Note: I'm waiting to see if Senator Schumer will rush to England to shill for the Israeli anti-missile system as he (and other "American" politicians) did a few months ago. 


      @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Important Aviation News Stories This Week

Airport controllers oppose measure privatizing jobs

BY CASEY MOFFITT
STAFF WRITER

http://www.pioneerlocal.com/cgi-bin/ppo-story/localnews/current/wh/09-04-03-98890.html

A controversial provision in a Federal Aviation Administration policy bill coming before Congress could alter the way the control tower at Palwaukee Municipal Airport is staffed.

The provision in the FAA reauthorization bill would allow the agency to replace current air traffic controllers hired by the FAA with controllers hired by private companies. Palwaukee is one of 69 airports that could have private controllers if the FAA chooses, according to the bill.

Proponents of the new policy argue private companies can run control towers cheaper than the FAA without compromising the safety of the flying public.

"In fact, the safety record of the 219 privately run towers is better than FAA towers," said Spencer Dickerson, senior vice president of the American Association of Airport Executives, an organization of public officials who manage airports.

Private companies save taxpayer money because they run the towers with fewer controllers than the FAA, Dickerson said.

"FAA towers are overstaffed," he said. "Private companies can run efficient, safe towers at a reduced price without any reduction in service or safety."

Six airports in Illinois use private air traffic controllers, including Waukegan Regional Airport. Dickerson said all private controllers are FAA trained and monitored, and users of the system have given them "high remarks."

However, not all are convinced that safety of pilots will not be compromised if more towers are manned by private controllers. Doug Church, spokesman of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, said proponents are trying to compare apples to oranges.

"They run the smallest airports in the system," Church said. "None of them are comparable to FAA towers."

Palwaukee has about 170,000 aircraft takeoffs and landings annually, while Waukegan has about 100,000.

Church also said the association has concerns about private companies cutting staff in the towers and making controllers work longer hours. Church said the association represents some controllers hired by private companies.

However, Church said his biggest fear is safety.

"Private companies are in the business to make money," he said. "They cut staff, they cut resources and they cut security guards. We shouldn't mix the bottom line with safety."

The provision was put into the FAA reauthorization bill after President Bush threatened to veto legislation without it. Both houses of Congress had passed a reauthorization bill in June that explicitly barred the privatization of any more airports. But under the threat of a veto, the bill went back to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and re-emerged with the privatization language.

The new bill is expected to be on the floor of both the House and Senate sometime in the coming month.

U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk, R-10th, said there is little support among his colleagues for privatization.

"There is a feeling that air traffic control is a critical safety function, and it should be performed by the government," he said.

Kirk said the feeling among his fellow congressmen is that the government should have responsibility of air traffic controllers, just as they have oversight of nuclear reactors and the military.

Kirk said the measure could be so contentious that it might kill the bill on the floor.

"I think a number of us are going to get together and ask the (transportation and infrastructure) chairman not to bring it up," he said. "This is one issue I stand independently from my president. I support the (current) controllers at Palwaukee, and I'm fighting for them to remain with the federal government."

Palwaukee Airport spokesman Rob Mark said airport officials have not taken a stance on the issue, but they do have concerns about privatization.

"It's a quality issue, and it's more difficult to measure," he said. "There's no statistics to say contracted towers are more safe, or less safe. The trouble is, tower companies have good safety records, but they have never seen towers this busy before. The only way to know is if there's an accident."