How has it worked for FSS?

Don't know, been 12 years since I needed FSS. But I do remember them being just fine with what I needed

....brought to you by Lockheed Martin

Yeah, nothing like disincentiving a cash strapped pilot to not file IFR when legally they should be. I don't care about the pilot and their potential violation. I care about the bastard smacking into me in the clouds while not being controlled by ATC because of a fee....

Safety second or third, look we have priorities here...

If you use more services, you should pay for them. Fuel taxes disproportionately affect larger aircraft, which use the exact same resources as a Cessna 172, from an ATC perspective. User fees are more fair.

Outsourcing "privatizing" always leads to lower pay for those doing the work. Gotta pay for a whole other level of management to get rich.

For a guy like me in my bug smasher (C-140) how is it not safe? I've owned my plane for 6 years now, put just shy of 500 hours on it and never filed ifr (nor is it legal to fly it ifr).

It exists to rat race friends, find fishing holes along the Delaware River, make lunch runs, inspect local ski slopes, chase deer off the local grass runway and watch the sunset. None of that flying requires ifr or talking to a controller. In fact in the 6 years I've owned it I've never had it over 3000 feet .

Now if you are referring to a guy with a bonanza/cirrus scud running to avoid fees then I may agree. But then again the guys that would do that stuff already do it now anyway - I don't think fees are going to increase it.

Obviously it depends on the amount of the fees, but I know a lot of pilots who are surprisingly price-sensitive. User fees will likely reduce things that benefit us all, like workload dependent ATC flight following. Are you going to be charged for that? I'd rather have that VFR guy on frequency than a bunch of 1200s not talking to anybody. Flying is much more efficient and safe in busy airspaces when it can be coordinated, and this will discourage coordination.

Corporations are designed to make money, and will do so at monopoly rates given the inherent nature of a single monolithic ATC service, not provide essential services at lowest practical price.

I'm not sure where the push to privatize is coming from, other than some crony capitalism from a few that will benefit bigly when given the contract.

I don't think so... when's the last time you ran into a Cessna 172 in Class A airspace?

Cessnas hardly ever use ATC services except for getting in and out of towered fields and doing practice approaches in day VFR conditions, where separation is not provided. The majority of ATC resources are spent on turbine aircraft, there is nothing disproportionate about how cessnas contribute less since they consume much less.

You missed my point. If a Cessna 172 and a 777 are both in the IFR system how are they not using the same resources? As it stands right now (fuel taxes) and which one is subsidizing the other. The same could be said for corporate jets.

They may using the same resources, but they are not consuming them at anything near an equal rate. The 777 uses more of that resource in the same amount of time.

For instance, how many clearance/ground/tower/departure/approach/center controllers are required for a 777 to conduct a 5-6 flight from EWR to LAX? How many times a day/week does it do that?

Now how many controllers does it take for a cessna 172 to do an 5-6 hr IFR flight from an uncontrolled field in Tennessee to an uncontrolled field in Florida with a fuel stop in Alabama? How many times a week does it do that?

the consumption rate is not the same.