ATC Bashing Bush Commercial

BR715-A1-30 · Thu Oct 28, 2004 11:58 pm

Has anyone else seen the commercial of the cartoon 747 with ATC putting them on hold and then saying Bush won't hire new ATC.

That is the most ridiculous commercial I have heard.

(I'm not picking political sides, but I am just saying the commercial is kind of silly.)

[Edited 2004-10-28 17:18:13]

Clipper002 · Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:11 am

My sister-in-law brought that up last night, but I haven't seen it here in the ATL market.

Ed

ltbewr · Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:25 am

I have seen it several times on evening CNN news programs. This is a serious issue for the airline industry. Many ATC personnel are reaching the mandated/recommended retirement age (56?) and time in for benefits, due the bulge of hiring after the firings for an illegal strike of ATC'ers in the Reagan Administration. I think it makes a good point in a clever and familiar way. (Part of the script is of what happens often when make a phone call to a business - being put on hold or the "press button 1 for a service representative" lines. While it in part blames Bush, the Congress and Senate are the real ones to blame for shifting monies away from the ATC agency and not realizing the need to hire new ATC people a while ago. It takes several years to become compentent as a Controller in this critical work. Many supervisors who are over 56 are continuing to work. Many Controllers are working overtime, in a very stressful job in key traffic areas.

USAir734 · Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:35 am

Mandatory Retirement age is 61

mikeyusc · Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:56 am

Actually mandatory age to get off the scopes is 25 years after you start, reguardless of your age, or 61.

baw2198 · Fri Oct 29, 2004 1:18 am

Retirement from the boards is still mandatory age 56. You can work over that age , but not working planes anymore. I haven't heard anything about age 61 at work or in the rumor mill.

gigneil · Fri Oct 29, 2004 1:23 am

I have seen the ad. While I think its overdramatic, I agree with the concept.

Bush has been violently opposed to funding for the FAA and ATC.

N

alphascan · Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:09 am

Bush has been violently opposed to funding...

That statement is a tad dramatic.

NIKV69 · Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:06 am

I saw that Ad, I though toward the end was funny when the automated phone message if you are approaching a mountain stay on the line for assistance. It is a tad dramatic.

N766UA · Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:18 am

saying Bush won't hire new ATC.

Yeah that's why I see 10 newbies every time I'm out at the center....

Bush can fire controllers, but he doesn't hire them. That's up to congress and the FAA. And, so far, hiring is all normal. Also, I don't know where you pulled age 61 from. Operational folks retire at 56.

SPREE34 · Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:19 am

RE; US ATC retirement. Age 56 is mandatory retirement for Air Traffic Controllers. Past that age you may not work active traffic, unless you can get a waiver. Same rule applies to the supervisors.

SPREE34
Current ATC

Boeing7E7 · Fri Oct 29, 2004 1:14 pm

The ad is funded by the fired controllers because the govt refuses to re-hire them. Why should they? Look at what strikers do in France.

dsuairptman · Fri Oct 29, 2004 1:42 pm

Sounds like ex-PATCO workers still pissed about '80 and take vengenance on W cause he appears to them like a new age Regan.

N1120A · Fri Oct 29, 2004 1:43 pm

NATCA, the union that replaced PATCO is also a very anti-republican union. My uncle is a controler and has been a union rep at RDD, JNU and CMA and they are very strong against Bush's stance of privatizing ATC. If you look at privatized ATC in europe, towers are often understaffed and controllers overworked to a dangerous degree (TU-154 and 757 collision in 2002).

zippyjet · Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:07 pm

Both houses of Congress and the Executive branch are all of one party. Money talks and you know what walks. If you like what you see, then by all means, give them 4 more years. Just think, more airlines go under, and they can even reduce the ATC's and TSA even more. But rest assured, their big oil buddies and cronies will have easy in, easy out at our airports. We will be landing in Saudi America momentarily, please hold on for the next out sourced foreign agent to assist you. Smile/happy/getting dizzy

But not to worry, government funds will go to the FCC so they can increase their Mc Carthy era censorship and witchunt of Howard Stern.
Hope this commercial makes it to Baltimore TV!

baw2198 · Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:46 pm

I posted a topic about ATC being privatized I think back in Jan. of this year. Bush has ATC in the USA to be privatized starting this June (05). The reason, so that it wasn't campaign issue. If you want national security for America's skies, vote democrat. If you don't care vote republican.

Here is that discussion. The writing was on the wall then and still is now. Now we have a greater concern. If ATC is privatized, how demanding are the background checks going to be for newly hired individuals? I certainly wouldn't want to find out that the private company the gov't contracted just accidentally hired a terrorist because the background check was inadequate and not DIRECTLY supervised and controlled by the U.S. gov't.

https://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1334562/

11-2-2004 Its your choice. Make it a safe one.

Baw2198

ConcordeBoy · Fri Oct 29, 2004 5:11 pm

"...because President Bush won't hire new ones"

LOL, talk about reach Nuts

SPREE34 · Fri Oct 29, 2004 11:10 pm

"The ad is funded by the fired controllers because the govt refuses to re-hire them. Why should they? Look at what strikers do in France "

"Sounds like ex-PATCO workers still pissed about '80 and take vengenance on W cause he appears to them like a new age Regan."

Both statements are incorrect. The commercial is sponsored by NATCA PAC. The National Air Traffic Controllers Association's political action committee. NATCA is not anti republican. In fact, many republican candidates are receiving PAC money from NATCA. NATCA, like ALPA, did endorse Mr. Kerry for president.

BR715-A1-30 · Fri Oct 29, 2004 11:54 pm

This ad holds as much weight as the one in florida blaming bush for the hurricanes... Who knew? LOL!

B757capt · Sat Oct 30, 2004 12:48 am

Lets Face it Bush, just like Regan, Put the monies on hold for the FAA to hire new controlers so of cource they are going to air commericals.

MaverickM11 · Sat Oct 30, 2004 12:58 am

"If ATC is privatized, how demanding are the background checks going to be for newly hired individuals? I certainly wouldn't want to find out that the private company the gov't contracted just accidentally hired a terrorist because the background check was inadequate and not DIRECTLY supervised and controlled by the U.S. gov't.
"

Do you think the industry will be better regulated when:

The government ONLY regulates ATC?

Or the government runs AND regulates ATC?

" If you look at privatized ATC in europe, towers are often understaffed and controllers overworked to a dangerous degree (TU-154 and 757 collision in 2002)."

One incident does not a pattern make. What about all those near-misses at ORD?

Corpsnerd09 · Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:31 am

This ad holds as much weight as the one in florida blaming bush for the hurricanes... Who knew? LOL!

I'm sorry, I must've missed that one. Can anyone else in FL confirm this?

Or was it a joke?

[Edited 2004-10-29 18:32:46]

SPREE34 · Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:58 am

"Lets Face it Bush, just like Regan, Put the monies on hold for the FAA to hire new controllers so of cource they are going to air commericals"

It goes a lot deeper than that. Many facilities are already below "optimum staffing", with retirement just on the horizon for many of the ATCs. In the En Route Centers it takes 4 to 5 years to train someone to full performance level.
Next year (2005) more than 4000 of the current controllers will become eligible to retire. The FAA is not hiring controllers right now. By 2007 half of the ATC workforce will be eligible to retire. Some will go, some will not, some will be at the mandatory retirement age and have to go. It's a high stress young persons job. Do you want a tired, aging, understaffed workforce separating your air traffic? It's a simple question. Yes or No?

baw2198 · Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:35 am

Maybe this is a question that doesn't have an answer but, why won't they put the money in to hire new people? You can't say the FAA is saving money by any means, look at all the OT thats being given out at the centers because of being shortstaffed. I also heard rumor that the CTI schools are going to be left out by the FAA, in short no more CTI program, just the academy.

baw2198 · Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:52 am

maverickm11, your email doesn't work.

"Do you think the industry will be better regulated when:

The government ONLY regulates ATC?

Or the government runs AND regulates ATC?"

Yes I do. With the newly redesignated regions and the cutting of superfluous jobs, the FAA is already a more streamlined business in and of itself. This proves that you don't have to privatize an inherently govenmental operation. I don't have the numbers to put in front of you right now to show how much was saved, but it was huge. The money saved by this change was redistributed to the airports program, in which smaller airports get funding for runways, inst. lighting, etc. If ATC were privatized, then any surplus would go directly to the top of the food chain (ie: BIG EXECS...ENRON style) and any improvements for ATC would not happen. Under direct FAA control (the current system) This cannot occur. I don't think you can convince me that corp fleecing would not occur if ATC were privatized. There has been to many examples of it occuring with the wrong people going to jail and the others going away scot free (enron, haliburtan-->where is all that money going from the oil wells???). This is why I'm not for privatization. Corp greed would kill the national airspace system by outdated technology, underpayed-overworked-understaffed controllers, and eventually the gov't would either bail out the company or completely take control over again. Why not just keep it the same?

dl757md · Sat Oct 30, 2004 3:22 am

If ATC is privatized, how demanding are the background checks going to be for newly hired individuals? I certainly wouldn't want to find out that the private company the gov't contracted just accidentally hired a terrorist because the background check was inadequate and not DIRECTLY supervised and controlled by the U.S. gov't.

Please spare me the dramatics!
I'm really tired of this 'If the government runs it, it will be better' mentality.

Whenever you fly you put your well being in the hands of pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, and many other employees of private companies.
All of these people had background checks that were either completed wholly by or with the help of the U.S. government. They are no different than an ATC employed by a private company would be. I don't hear any arguments that all airlines should be run by the government. The airline has at least as much responsibility for your safety as ATC. IMO they have much more. I have no problem with the privatization of ATC. In fact I think that a private company might be held to a higher standard by the FAA than the FAA holds itself to.

Another aviation related case in point is the TSA. I really haven't seen much difference in the airport screening process since TSA took over. In my observation some individuals in the TSA are outstanding but the majority are no more excited about or have a greater interest in their jobs than the private screeners they replaced that made half as much money.

Bottom line is that a private company with adequate government oversight can do as good of if not a better job of providing ATC service for the U.S.

Dl757Md

BR715-A1-30 · Sat Oct 30, 2004 3:39 am

Corpsnerd09: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200410/CUL20041026a.html

PHLapproach · Sat Oct 30, 2004 5:19 am

Yea, a friend told me about the NATCA commercial. Mandatory Retirement is certaintly 56, I think same holds true for Supervisors, although they are required to control 8 hours a month.

Do you want a tired, aging, understaffed workforce separating your air traffic? It's a simple question. Yes or No?

SPREE34, that has to the best statment I have seen on this site yet, cause you know everyone here wouldn't want to be flying and all of a sudden their Controller has a heart attack or a stroke.

I don't like the idea of privitization for some reason, Who would put you through the week of training of Exams and apptitude test? Who would pay for training for the advanced systems ARTS III, STARS, FAST, etc....? Obviously the various government agencies responsible for securing funds and training people to keep our Air Traffic System safe, have these issues on hiring, training at the bottom of the list. If it were not for the media's misleading information (like alwasy), this stuff wouldn't have even been released until it would be to late.

SPREE34 · Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:41 am

Dl757md,

You mean like it's worked in Canada? How about Austrailia? The UK maybe??

Read up on what's happened in those places that privatized large ATC systems, then tell me that's what you want in the largest ATC system in the world.

The Canadian system gets help up as a success model here often. I've worked with Canadian controllers and visited their facilities. The working controllers and management say government service was better, for themselves, and the customer. Seen the price hikes Nav Canada set for 2005? Have you seen the airlines reaction?
Run the numbers on that, then remember, the FAA runs more traffic by 9am in the State of California, than Nav Canada runs in a 24 hour period.

CMHSRQ · Sat Oct 30, 2004 8:34 am

Today I slipped and fell, kinda hurt my bottom. Well it's G. Bush's fault. I blame him. All I know is I have never heard of efficient government. I'm for private ATC, if that was the case I'm sure the standards would be just as high if not higher and the work environment much better (as in better facilities and equipment.)

SPREE34 · Sat Oct 30, 2004 9:24 am

Cmhsrq,

"I'm sure the standards would be just as high if not higher and the work environment much better (as in better facilities and equipment.)"

You believe that all would be held in the highest priority right? Yeah, right behind the stockholders, and CEOs compesation packages.

"Today I slipped and fell, kinda hurt my bottom."

Have that checked by competent medical authority. It may be affecting your thinking.

"Well it's G. Bush's fault. I blame him."

So I guess your a Nader man huh?

CMHSRQ · Sun Oct 31, 2004 10:27 am

Spree34:

I believe that safety would be held in the highest priority. Private doesn't mean stockholders, and CEO's compensation packages that's a public corporation. Huge difference!!! Who does the government have to answer to??? A private ATC would have to answer to the government, the standards would be just as high and most likely a much more efficient operation. Decisions would be made quicker, equipment and facilities would be upgraded sooner. The government is the most inefficient at doing everything. State of the art is 20 years old for ATC.

I made the Bush remark because I live in Ohio, and I have noticed that if anything goes wrong anywhere it's the President's fault, just check the NY times to find out what Kerry will be blaming Bush for today. It was said in sarcasm which is hard to pass on a message board. Maybe all sarcasm should be in blue type.

Last time I checked the FAA website they where hiring controllers.

Also why do all those controllers in Canada, UK, and down under think govt control was better? What do they say?

SPREE34 · Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:36 pm

Cmhsrq,

I think blue would work well for sarcasm.

"Who does the government have to answer to??? " --In the last couple of years we (FAA) have had to answer to the Congress, and the user groups. For years FAA didn't have to account for equipment or money. That has changed, and for the better. Right down to paper for the copy machine, we has to justify any money spent.

"A private ATC would have to answer to the government, the standards would be just as high and most likely a much more efficient operation." - This has not been the case in the privatized towers. It's up to them to "rat" themselves out for errors. FAA facilities have a Quality Asuurance office, the contracted ones do not, they have a single controller work 8 hours or more with no break,that is how they are more efficient . Efficient, or cutting corners? They run for profit, FAA runs for safety. A service run for safety should not waste money, nor should money be a driving factor in a safety related service.

"Decisions would be made quicker, equipment and facilities would be upgraded sooner. The government is the most inefficient at doing everything. ---A lot of truth in this, and I too felt this way a few years ago. Changes have been made, and continue to be made through the new ATO. This an area where our friends in Canada suprised me. They said decisions were not made any quicker, it just added more layers of BS, and made spending money on needed things amore difficult process.

"State of the art is 20 years old for ATC."---This is not the case anymore. More "off the shelf" technology is being used now than ever. The En Route systems (20 Centers) have been completely replaced (not including remote radar sites)over the last 10 years, and are already being upgraded. It has become a contiunuous upgrade process. The terminal systems are going through a similar process now with STARS and ASR 11 digital radar.

"Last time I checked the FAA website they where hiring controllers"---Could be false advertising. The money was legislated. We did see some new bodies in my facility this year, been told more next year.

Thank you for your replies and interest.

cannikin · Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:47 pm

Hmm...ATC being controlled by a company who was the lowest bidder.....makes me feel safe.

SPREE34 · Mon Nov 01, 2004 3:11 am

Cannikin......."Hmm...ATC being controlled by a company who was the lowest bidder.....makes me feel safe."

I've heard that one from a lot of cockpit members.

j.mo · Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:55 am

So why does GWB think that airport screeners must be a Government organization, but not air traffic controllers?

Hmm, somethings wrong here.

I am glad there are some informed members on these boards that did correct some of this crap...

Genius!!
The ad is funded by the fired controllers because the govt refuses to re-hire them. Why should they? Look at what strikers do in France.

Hilarious!!
Yeah that's why I see 10 newbies every time I'm out at the center....

Mandatory Retirement age is 61

I wish. I'd be in a tower if this were true.

J-

SPREE34 · Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:28 pm

J.mo

Ya think they have any concept of whats about to happen over on the FSS side of it? I wonder what a general aviation VFR briefing is going to cost? Will they be able to pay for the briefings with Mastercard or Visa?

Good luck in January!!!

HlywdCatft · Mon Nov 01, 2004 10:47 pm

If ATC should blame him for anything it should be tying up the air space with Air Force One since Bush was going mad on the campaign train the last few weeks shutting down air space to land and take off.

Maybe ATC needs to put Air Force One in a 45 minute holding pattern.

j.mo · Mon Nov 01, 2004 11:58 pm

SPREE34, we talk to alot of pilots who really have no idea this is even going on.
I do beleive FSS needs some changes, but I don't think contractors are the answer.
We do alot of things for pilots that I don't think a contactor would allow. When it's all about the bottom line, I don't see me making alot of long distance phone calls to a pilots' dispatchers, to pass along flight info. Who knows, when it's Microsoft Flight Service you may be reimbursing for search and rescue.

Another nice point about the Presidental TFR's. Whoever thought of this should be shot. Last week these idiots had a 30NM TFR around Denver and Greeley, Colorado. That took pretty much all of the Colorado the airspace east of the rockies. Then they fly to Omaha and set up two more 30nm TFR's. And who do you think the TFR's effect? The big boys? Nope. General aviation folks.

Same as after 9-11. It sort of goes hand in hand with FSS. We don't do alot of business with the airlines and that makes us expendable. The FAA has not, and never will, give a shit about GA.

But hey at least the folks screening your bags will be Fedearl Employees.

J-

BR715-A1-30 · Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:15 am

I agree with the "State of the art is 20 years old" quote. Our Current ATC tower in GPT is running on 1970s technology. There is rust forming on the outside of the tower... while the interior is kept up, the outside still looks horrible, and to tell you the truth, even the interior kind of gets drabby.

SPREE34 · Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:51 am

BR715-a1-30.......
"I agree with the "State of the art is 20 years old" quote. Our Current ATC tower in GPT is running on 1970s technology. There is rust forming on the outside of the tower... while the interior is kept up, the outside still looks horrible, and to tell you the truth, even the interior kind of gets drabby."

I assure there are things much younger than GPT tower with rust on them. Your on the Gulf coast, salt spray you know.

Do you work in the tower?
What 70s technology are you speaking of?

ARTS 2? ARTS has been upgraded numeous times, so that would be like saying a new 737 was 60s technology.
How about the BRITE display? I'll bet it's D-BRITE, that's an upgrade to late 90s technololgy.

Look forward to your reply.

atcboy73 · Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:55 am

Like it or not a bunch of my co-workers are up for retirement in 4 years and I think the Bush administrations plan is to let the air traffic system fall apart. They have given me no reason to think other wise.

Its a constant topic at work.

SPREE34 · Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:28 am

Atcboy73.........."Like it or not a bunch of my co-workers are up for retirement in 4 years and I think the Bush administrations plan is to let the air traffic system fall apart. They have given me no reason to think other wise."

Oh they have a grand plan. (cough..cough) Contract out the other 69 towers, and send the controllers from them, along with some FSS types, to all of those understaffed places. See? Problem solved ala Blakey.

I wonder if they will contract out TMU? It's just a big video game anyway. Right? Doesn't matter whether TMU gets it right or not.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net