Saturday, July 23, 2005
Another Wolf at the Door
Before I continue to answer Garf’s questions, I need to add a name to the ‘dramatis personae’…
If the FAA weren’t enough for Air Traffic Controllers to fight against, a surprising and strong voice has undercut Flight Service as well, and continues to do so; the president of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Mr. Phil Boyer. FSS exists to serve pilots, of course, and with over 400,000 members, AOPA is the largest pilot group in existence. When it comes to influence on issues in their sphere, they are right up there with the NRA and AARP. That the AOPA chose to press its own interests here is not at all surprising.
According to their official position on the A-76 process, what the AOPA cares most about is that the government provide free ATC services to pilots (no user fees). A secondary, but highly ranked, concern is that the FSS system be brought up-to-date in terms of technology.
Of course, any of the five bidders who might have won the contest would accomplish both these objectives. Yet Mr. Boyer is fighting tooth and nail against any move that might jeopardize Lockheed Martin’s position as the chosen provider. Why? Let’s assume that the FSS controller’s union, NAATS, is successful in getting the contract delayed or transferred to another bidder, presumably the MEO. How does this conflict with AOPA’s stated objectives? It doesn’t.
The first natural inclination is to assume that Mr. Boyer has some connection with LM; perhaps he or a relative is a shareholder. But Mr. Boyer attempted to rebuff that assertion here (although not very convincingly and with enough wiggle room to fit a 747; see the second to last paragraph). Maybe LM is, or has promised to be, a generous contributor to AOPA. Perhaps he has been expertly ‘stroked’ by the FAA, and the attention serves his ego. This would suit both sides. The FAA needs him; it is quite probable that should Mr. Boyer's have objected anywhere along the way, the politicians would have put a very fast stop to this process. And, as a side benefit to Mr. Boyer for his support of whatever the FAA does, they’ll include him in the ‘inner circle’ of decision-making (or so they would make it appear), giving him the opportunity to regale the AOPA membership with tales of his far-reaching influence.
Of course we can’t honestly say what is driving Mr. Boyer. We can only know that the basic question still exists…when it comes to the controllers trying to keep Flight Service in-house, what is the basis for Mr. Boyer’s exorcised objections? Why must Lockheed Martin get this contract and get it going on October 4th without fail? This is something only he can tell us, but I’m not holding my breath waiting for an honest answer.
Note: This blog’s first week may leave the impression that it’s meant to be little more than a ‘worker’s rant.’ That is not my intent and I apologize, but such has been the nature of events, and I’d like to examine things as they happen when possible. I’ll try to get back to the original purpose by continuing my answer to Garf with my next post.
If the FAA weren’t enough for Air Traffic Controllers to fight against, a surprising and strong voice has undercut Flight Service as well, and continues to do so; the president of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Mr. Phil Boyer. FSS exists to serve pilots, of course, and with over 400,000 members, AOPA is the largest pilot group in existence. When it comes to influence on issues in their sphere, they are right up there with the NRA and AARP. That the AOPA chose to press its own interests here is not at all surprising.
According to their official position on the A-76 process, what the AOPA cares most about is that the government provide free ATC services to pilots (no user fees). A secondary, but highly ranked, concern is that the FSS system be brought up-to-date in terms of technology.
Of course, any of the five bidders who might have won the contest would accomplish both these objectives. Yet Mr. Boyer is fighting tooth and nail against any move that might jeopardize Lockheed Martin’s position as the chosen provider. Why? Let’s assume that the FSS controller’s union, NAATS, is successful in getting the contract delayed or transferred to another bidder, presumably the MEO. How does this conflict with AOPA’s stated objectives? It doesn’t.
The first natural inclination is to assume that Mr. Boyer has some connection with LM; perhaps he or a relative is a shareholder. But Mr. Boyer attempted to rebuff that assertion here (although not very convincingly and with enough wiggle room to fit a 747; see the second to last paragraph). Maybe LM is, or has promised to be, a generous contributor to AOPA. Perhaps he has been expertly ‘stroked’ by the FAA, and the attention serves his ego. This would suit both sides. The FAA needs him; it is quite probable that should Mr. Boyer's have objected anywhere along the way, the politicians would have put a very fast stop to this process. And, as a side benefit to Mr. Boyer for his support of whatever the FAA does, they’ll include him in the ‘inner circle’ of decision-making (or so they would make it appear), giving him the opportunity to regale the AOPA membership with tales of his far-reaching influence.
Of course we can’t honestly say what is driving Mr. Boyer. We can only know that the basic question still exists…when it comes to the controllers trying to keep Flight Service in-house, what is the basis for Mr. Boyer’s exorcised objections? Why must Lockheed Martin get this contract and get it going on October 4th without fail? This is something only he can tell us, but I’m not holding my breath waiting for an honest answer.
Note: This blog’s first week may leave the impression that it’s meant to be little more than a ‘worker’s rant.’ That is not my intent and I apologize, but such has been the nature of events, and I’d like to examine things as they happen when possible. I’ll try to get back to the original purpose by continuing my answer to Garf with my next post.
# posted by Skywise @ 9:58 AM 
