[Archive Home][Date Prev][Date Next][Index]

         

"Privatization Bill Could End Traffic Controllers' Jobs at Atlanta-Area Airport"


 
Tuesday, August 19, 2003

Privatization Bill Could End Traffic Controllers' Jobs at Atlanta-Area
Airport
The Atlanta (GA) Journal-Constitution


Air traffic controllers at DeKalb-Peachtree Airport could lose their federal
jobs if a bill enabling privatization at some airports succeeds in Congress
this fall.

"The first corner cut is going to be staffing," said Maria Broschart, a
DeKalb-Peachtree Airport air traffic controller. "When controllers work
longer hours, they get fatigued. When controllers are fatigued, that's when
mistakes can happen."

Broschart, a local representative of the National Air Traffic Controllers
Association, says 19 controllers now work at PDK. It is among 69 U.S.
general aviation airports that could be privatized under language in the
Federal Aviation Administration's budget bill for the next fiscal year.

DeKalb-Peachtree is the second-busiest in the state behind Hartsfield
International Airport, with about 600 takeoffs or landings a day, and is a
hub for metro Atlanta's business and pleasure aircraft.

Kathleen Bergen, a spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration, said
the spending bill doesn't mandate privatization but rather gives FAA
management the flexibility of choosing that option.

In a December letter to employees, FAA Administrator Marion Blakey wrote
that she does not support "significant expansion" beyond the 219 towers
currently in the Federal Contract Tower Program.

Doug Church, national spokesman for the air traffic controllers union, said
the FAA fought hard for the language on privatization. His union thinks the
agency is serious about it.

"Marion Blakey herself lobbied Congress, both sides of the aisle, to get
this language in the bill," he said.

DeKalb-Peachtree Airport Director Lee Remmel declined to comment, calling
the question "a labor-management issue within the FAA itself."

The inspector general of the U.S. Department of Transportation calculated
the FAA could save about $780,000 per tower per year if it contracted out
the 69 towers.

Most general aviation airports in the country have no tower, the FAA's
Bergen said, citing Tara Field in Jonesboro as an example. If an airport
wants to become part of the Federal Contract Tower Program, in which the
government hires a company to provide such a service, the FAA will analyze
traffic volume and do a cost-benefit analysis.

The number of airports participating in the Federal Contract Tower Program
has increased in the last three years from 163 to 219, she said.

Church said proponents of privatization mis-characterize the 69 airports on
the list as rural.

"They make them sound like they're in the middle of a corn field somewhere
and they're using binoculars to direct the traffic," he said. "Many are very
urban."

Besides PDK, they include Orlando's Sanford airport and New Orleans'
Lakefront airport.

Broschart, the PDK controller, said she fears training would suffer. The
average FAA controller trains for one year, she said, while contract
controllers train an average of 30 days.

"It's not something where you want to rush the training and push people out
on their own because you're dealing with people's lives," Broschart said.

According to the U.S. Contract Tower Association, contract controllers are
certified by the FAA, and contract facilities are monitored by the agency.
Most contract controllers are former FAA and military controllers, according
to the association.


 Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums

http://www.californiaaviation.org/dc/dcboard.php

*****************************************

Current CAA news channel:


Fair Use Notice
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. If you have any queries regarding this issue, please Email us at stepheni@cwnet.com