[Peetwo]

Update on Trumps plan to 'make air traffic control great again'

In a parallel world still far far away, Trump Announces Plan To Privatize Air Traffic Control

In part, the article about the FAA and El Presidento said;

President Trump announced Monday a plan to privatize the nation's air traffic control system — a move that would remove the job of tracking and guiding airplanes from the purview of the Federal Aviation Administration. "Today we're proposing to take American air travel into the future, finally," Trump said.
The nation's air traffic control system was designed when far fewer people flew, Trump said, calling it "stuck, painfully, in the past." He also called the system "ancient, broken, antiquated" and "horrible" and said his reforms would make it safer and more reliable.
The FAA has worked to upgrade its system, but Trump and other critics say it was taking far too long. "Honestly, they didn't know what the hell they were doing," Trump said. "A total waste of money."

Link here;

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/05/531574945/...ic-control

Interesting article as the similarity with Australia's issues are comparable. I guess the difference is that at least Trump seems to understand the issues. That's what happens when a real businessman knows his shit from the ground up, unlike the pole sliding Houston, blue blooded Turdball and the sheltered workshop pedicure loving Harfwit. These Muppets wouldn't to know an ATC controllers screen from a barium enema!

Can you imagine the spineless Malcolm Turdball, the trough addicted Houston or the conceited Electric Blue Harfwit bowing to such a proposal?? I agree, very unlikely...

"Safe, protected, bureaucratic troughs for all"

Good catch Gobbles -

Here is another article courtesy USA Today:

In infrastructure push, Trump seeks to privatize air traffic control system

David Jackson and Bart Jansen , USA TODAY Published 10:25 a.m. ET June 5, 2017 | Updated 10 hours ago

President Donald Trump plans to lay out his vision for overhauling the nation's air traffic control system, outlining his goals to privatize the system. USA TODAY



President Trump(Photo: Alex Brandon, AP)

WASHINGTON – As President Trump braces for potentially explosive congressional testimony this week from ex-FBI Director James Comey, the White House on Monday kicked off a week-long promotion of various infrastructure proposals, starting with a long-shot plan to privatize the nation's air traffic control system.

Hailing "a great new era in American aviation," Trump said his plan would reduce the number of flight delays and wait times that cost consumers millions of dollars. "We live in a modern age," Trump said during a ceremony at White House, "but our air traffic control system is stuck, painfully, in the past."

While specifics on how to upgrade the nation's roads and bridges are still being developed, Trump on Monday said he would urge Congress to pass a plan to put the nation's air traffic control system in private hands. It calls for creating a private, nonprofit corporation, with airlines contributing fees rather than the taxes they now pay the government to cover the approximately $10 billion annual cost for air-traffic control.

“After billions and billions of tax dollars spent, and the many years of delays, we’re still stuck with an ancient, broken, antiquated, horrible system that doesn’t work,” Trump said. “Other than that it’s quite good.”

In the coming days, Trump and other administration officials will call on states, cities, and private companies to pay more for rebuilding roads, bridges, railways, airports, and other types of infrastructure. The schedule includes meetings with members of Congress, a Wednesday speech in Cincinnati, and an "infrastructure summit" Thursday with various governors and mayors at the White House.

Some Democratic lawmakers said Trump really doesn't have an infrastructure plan. Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, said in a tweet that Trump "is NOT proposing money for infrastructure. It's tax cuts for financiers, privatizing public property. Not infrastructure."

And the Senate's top Democrat, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Trump's infrastructure ideas boil down to "privatization," which means "less construction and far fewer jobs, particularly in rural areas. It means Trump tolls from one end of America to the other."

Thursday is also the day Comey is set to testify before Congress, a high-profile event likely to center on the ongoing investigation into links between Trump's presidential campaign last year and Russians who sought to influence the election by hacking Democrats.

In firing Comey last month, Trump cited performance issues, while critics accused him trying to close down the Russia investigation. The Justice Department later appointed ex-FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to lead the investigation.

Associates of Comey said the former director kept notes of his conversations with Trump, including of a February meeting in which the president asked Comey to lay off an ongoing investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn – a topic that is sure to come up at the hearing.

Trump, meanwhile, reportedly told Russian officials in an Oval Office meeting that Comey was a "nut job," and that his dismissal would help get the Russia issue behind him.
With Comey on Capitol Hill, the White House appears to be trying to change the conversation.

Moving air-traffic control out of the Federal Aviation Administration has been debated periodically since the 1990s, but never approved by Congress. Trump’s proposal would be modeled on Canada’s system, which is run a private board of industry stakeholders rather than the government.

Trump’s principles seek to improve legislation approved in 2016 in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that never got a vote in the full House or Senate. The debate resumed as part of renewing FAA legislation that expires Sept. 30.
Hearings are scheduled Wednesday in the Senate and Thursday in the House.

The corporation’s 13-member board would begin with eight members appointed by the transportation secretary, with two representing airlines, two for unions, one for airports, one for general aviation and two for the government. Those eight would choose a chief executive officer, and then that board would choose another four independent board members. But no seats would be assigned to specific interests after the initial board is seated.

“There will not be designated seats by interest group," said D.J. Gribbin, special assistant to the president for infrastructure.

Airlines and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association supported the 2016 bill as a way to have more predictable funding than provided by annual spending fights in Congress that have led to furloughs and shutdowns in recent years.

“I strongly support the president’s continuing recognition that modernizing our country’s air traffic control service is one of the most important infrastructure investments we can make,” Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., whose 2016 bill laid the groundwork for Trump’s proposal, said May 24 of Trump’s budget.

Besides smoother funding, airlines and supportive lawmakers contend that the corporation would modernize equipment and training faster than FAA. Government watchdogs have criticized FAA for slow progress on shifting controllers from directing planes by ground-based radar to satellite-based GPS.

But the proposal has critics among airlines, general-aviation groups and in Congress.

“There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between President Trump’s plan and Chairman Shuster’s proposal, both of which would hand over America’s skies to a private corporation, free of charge,” said Rep. Donald M. Payne Jr., D-N.J.

The top Democrat on Shuster’s committee, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., worried about how the corporation would set fees on airlines, general aviation and business jets. While FAA had problems a decade ago, the agency is modernizing now in ways that could be hurt by privatization, he said.

“The bottom line is this could be very disruptive,” DeFazio said.  “I fear that actually this could set us back in deploying new technology.”

Delta Air Lines opposed the 2016 bill because of concerns it would disrupt air-traffic control at a time when FAA is making improvements.

General-aviation groups opposed the legislation because of concerns about how they would be charged under the private system and the possibility that airlines would be favored over private pilots at busy airports.

In describing the plan, a statement from the Trump administration said all users of the system would pay their fair share, but it assured access to general aviation and to rural communities.

The leaders of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which decides with House counterparts how much to spend each year on FAA, said the proposal doesn’t appear to make sense. Sens. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said in a Feb. 28 letter that consumers would have no recourse for complaints or mistreatment as they currently enjoy through the Transportation and Congress

Meanwhile in a parallel hemisphere where (much like the "A-word") it is not PC to talk about the "P-word"... - Muppet 6D effectively announces that the government has full faith in the Harfwit administration & Sir A oversight of Airservices, while giving the green light to more wanton, ATP funded, OneSKY trough feeding :

Sir Angus signs to stay with Airservices Australia
Media Release
DC150/2017
02 June 2017

• Sir Angus Houston AK, AFC (Rtd) reappointed to Airservices Australia (Airservices) Board as the Chair.
  
• Mr David Marchant and Mr Tim Rothwell reappointed for two-year terms.
  

The Australian Government has reappointed Sir Angus Houston AK, AFC (Rtd) as the Chair of the Board of Airservices Australia for a further one year term.

Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester said Sir Angus Houston brought extensive aviation experience to this critically important role, ensuring Airservices future delivery of safe and efficient air traffic services.

“In addition, Mr David Marchant and Mr Tim Rothwell have been reappointed for a further two years, to help the Board oversee the acquisition of a new air traffic management system for Australia,” Mr Chester said.

“These reappointments will also ensure valuable finance, safety and governance expertise is retained. - Code for the OneSKY trough fund will be nurtured and greedily protected...

“Airservices is moving to replace its air traffic management system as part of a major capital expenditure and investment program of more than $1 billion over the next five years, to enhance the safety, efficiency and capacity of the national network, and meet anticipated growth in the industry.

“That is why having strong leadership will be essential in meeting the goals of Airservices Australia and why I am delighted to make this announcement,” Mr Chester said. - UDB! Does this Muppet have the first blind clue about what's been going on in the other house...

Here is a reminder: Hansard 2nd Estimates session Australian National Audit Office

Senator GALLACHER: The CEO's contention was that specialist people looking at specialist areas discussing these matters did not resolve that, but they had had the appropriate discussions at their level but did not actually minute it and say why they were going a particular way.

Ms Mellor : That is clearly what we found. The organisation proffered to you that we did not talk to anyone. We are looking for records in procurement that evidence decision making and are contemporaneous to the decision-making process. Interviewing people after the fact—there were many involved—is not quality evidence against our standards.

Senator GALLACHER: That is exactly what I was trying to capture when I had that line of questioning. If you ask me for my recollections of a meeting six months ago, without contemporaneous notes they are unlikely to be accurate. That is just human nature. That is why we have minutes of notes.

Dr Ioannou : The key is the contemporaneous record of course. While the procurement rules do not apply in this case they set some good guidance, even for entities of this sort, around how to maintain transparency and accountability. In these sorts of processes, good record keeping is the basis for that and contemporaneous record keeping is, of course, the basis for an evidence based process such as an audit.

Mr Simpson : If I could just elaborate on that specific issue of monetising the risk assessment. The relevant section is on page 38 of the report. What we were looking for were clearly defined processes and communicated processes about how that would be undertaken and then the documentation of the delivery of that process—so the two elements that you would expect in a procurement process. Tender evaluation plans generally set out quite detailed arrangements and requirements to be complied with and then normally they are assessed against that.

In relation to the exercise undertaken by the tender evaluation committee, we found that there was no planned methodology for how this analysis would be undertaken. We could not identify that it had been clearly flagged to tenderers or set out in the tender evaluation plan that such an analysis would be undertaken. Further, the risk adjustment activity undertaken by the committee was not subject to probity scrutiny—so another key control in a procurement process that if you are undertaking an activity, then it is part of the probity considerations. As we mentioned earlier in the report, that element was not considered. When we raised this matter with Airservices, they advised us that there was limited evidence that the tender evaluation committee members agreed to the method of the cost risk adjustment activities. Again, not just going on paperwork; we went back to the organisation to confirm the understanding that we had and the confirmation we got that there was limited evidence to indicate that that had been the agreed methodology.

We also go on to highlight some of the inadequacies in the records in paragraph 3.57, where we lead-in by saying:

Further, the TEC's adjustment of tenderer prices to reflect its assessment of risk and contingency was not undertaken through a transparent and accountable process.

While there were minutes taken of those meetings, they were generally setting out 'the duration of each meeting, the people involved and the decisions reached'.

Importantly, 'The meeting minutes provided little insight into the analysis that was undertaken, or the factors taken into account.' So we can see a decision that has been taken from the records, but what informed that decision was not available from those records.

I think the other point that I would make is that later on, when a board member questioned the process, that board member was advised that the relevant information that he needed to refer to was in the attached spreadsheets. As part of this audit, we analysed those spreadsheets, and there is quite a detailed table, table 3.1 on page 40, which highlights what the financial evaluation working group's findings were and then the changes made by the tender evaluation committee. We can see, in a number of cases, no evidence to indicate why amounts were changed or why risks were changed between those two assessments. As Ms Mellor and Dr Ioannou indicated, our understanding is that, for a procurement process of this complexity, there are a number of requirements around contemporaneous record keeping, and we were not able to see those to form our judgement. On that basis, we cannot confirm the appropriateness of those processes, because we do not know the underlying decision-making process.

Senator GALLACHER: Was the board member satisfied at the direction to go to the spreadsheet?

Mr Simpson : We say in paragraphs 3.61 and 3.62:

In response, the TEB was advised by a member of the TEC that: 'the complete analysis was presented in annexes to the Phase 3 TEC Report' … The TEB relied on the TEC member's assurance for the criterion 4 evaluation method and subsequently approved the TEC's recommendation.

That highlights that they relied on that advice.

Senator GALLACHER: All board members are different, but they might have seen that as validation of a correct protocol which you found not to be substantially visible. It might be visible and it might be appropriate, but you cannot see it in hindsight. There are no notes or decision-making records.

Mr Simpson : Again, the end decision is not enough in itself unless you can understand what factors contributed to that decision.

CHAIR: The only people, it would seem, who could mount the case for the process despite the lack of transparency and the failure to communicate properly would be those individuals who are defending their own decision. There is no way to independently evaluate. We know that, because you have given evidence to that effect. So, even if we go back now to interrogate individuals on this issue to try to dig down, we can only work with individuals who made the decisions.

Ms Mellor : I think that is part of the difficulty when you do not have clean records with reasons for decisions in them. People's recollections are framed against the passage of time.

CHAIR: Confession is good for the soul, but it is not often practised. I think we have to ask some serious questions here. Let me ask these question, first of all, before I put something to you. Knowing what you know about the evaluation process, can this process be backed up—before I ask you whether it should be backed up—without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, if they have to go back to a point where, up until then, everyone is reasonably satisfied that due process has delivered a fair and equitable assessment? I have a thing that I do with my son in business. We get a blank sheet of paper and one of those big black felt pens and, for everything bad about something we are about to make a decision on, we put a dot on the page. It soon becomes evident that maybe this is not something you should pursue. This here has so many features, going all the way back to the governance issues in the first tranche of your work. I am just at a point where I am concerned. With a billion-dollar tender, we are now negotiating with the only one left standing. We do not even have competitive tension left in the place. Is there a way that this process could be rewound back a notch, or two or three notches, back to phase 2, and for us then to move forward again with better processes?

Ms Mellor : I might get Dr Ioannou to speak to that. I think the difficulty is that we cannot call it either way because of the lack of evidence. Whether a procurement can be unwound is a difficult sort of technical question for procurement specialists that work in the law and the guidelines more deeply. Dr Ioannou might have a view about that. The difficulty is that it is hard to see without the evidence about the pricing adjustments what actually went on other than that there were prices or amounts put against different risk factors as per table 3.1.

CHAIR: Do you know whether Mr Bradfield is still involved in this part of the process?

Ms Mellor : I think we can cross-reference between the timings on the two reports—

CHAIR: I think there is evidence that he was and that it was only—

Ms Mellor : I think Mr Harfield said in his earlier evidence that the contract with that person ended in October 2015. Some of this was happening in that time frame.

CHAIR: I think he said he was there past phase 4. There is some talk that he—as a consultant.

Ms Mellor : I have to say against the background that the governance structure—by having multiple committees, multiple people, evaluation criteria et cetera—puts in place some risk mitigation for some of the issues that were raised before.

CHAIR: It does Ms Mellor, but wouldn't you agree that if you were designing a system—and they have been alerted to the potential conflict; I do not want to reflect upon Mr Bradfield; he may be a wonderful man—to leave someone in the process all the way to the end, you can influence processes without apparently having a conflict or demonstrating a conflict of interest? You can build relationships and subtly do things and make a suggestion, plant seeds and do all sorts of things.

It is of real concern to me that we are now about to spend a billion dollars that this process is here to oversight and we have got all these features left in it. I used the term earlier that it was 'untidy'. You cannot give us an assurance that we got value for money. You cannot give us an assurance whether there was subjective behaviour on the part of decision makers because you do not have sufficient records to do it. There are important issues in your evidence that is contradicted by Airservices. They are not in total agreement with your findings. We are not going to ask you to express an opinion but—

Ms Mellor : I certainly would not give you one.

CHAIR: No, I appreciate that, otherwise I would have asked you by now. The fact of the matter is, I suppose, technically can it be rewound to a point where we think we are back onto safe sand?

---

Remember that particular ANAO session ended with this:

CHAIR: All right, thank you ladies and gentlemen. We appreciate your attendance, and safe travel back to wherever you are going. Just before you call Airservices back, Mr Mrdak, we have had some private discussions about this. We do not want to just go round and round in circles, and so I think we might elevate this and invite the board of Airservices to come along and discuss this national audit report. I do not see any benefit in going round with the Airservices personnel at the moment.

 

More information about Airservices Australia is available at www.airservicesaustralia.com.

   
Hmm...I would suggest that Muppet 6D's scriptwriters should be given the bureaucratic 'long drop' because they have now effectively got the miniscule to sign a confession of complicity on the government's ownership of the OneSKY tender duck-up...

MTF...P2  

Ps

Senator XENOPHON: ...I just want to go to the question of the publication of documents on your website. If you had documents that have been released under FOI, there is a protocol that you are required by law to publish them on your website; is that right?

Mr Harfield : I am unfamiliar with that, but it is supposed to be that, once you have published them, they should be available to everyone.

Senator XENOPHON: Isn't there a legal requirement? Maybe, when Senator Rice is asking some questions, I will do a quick bit of research to find the relevant section if there is.

Mr Harfield : If there is, we need to comply.

Senator XENOPHON: The stories that were published by the ABC on the accelerate program, back in February of this year—they do not appear to be online, as I understand they are required to be.

Mr Harfield : I will check that, because there should be no reason that they are not.

Senator XENOPHON: Let us go back a step, though. Is there a protocol to ensure that documents that have been released under FOI are on your website?

Mr Harfield : There should be a protocol that we should be publishing them as per the FOI legislation.

Senator XENOPHON: And who can tell me what that protocol is? Is anyone here—

Mr Harfield : I do not have the FOI protocol in front of me.

Senator XENOPHON: Could you provide an explanation as to why the documents that were released under FOI that the ABC obtained for their stories earlier this year do not appear to be on the website? If they are on the website and I have not been able to find them, I apologise, but they do not appear to be on the website.

Mr Harfield : We will find them, and we will give you an explanation of that.

 How any Crown miniscule in their right mind would blindly state that they have full faith in the governance procedures and executive administration of ASA when the CEO can't even demonstrate compliance and/or transparency with his obligations to the FOI Act is beyond me...