Strident controllers, under the aegis of powerful unions, insist on extravagant in-trail separation, low-volume traffic flows, and circuitous routings at Class D nonradar towers.
What are you looking for Jet-A? Powerful unions. blah blah blah. How is Civil Air more powerful than NATCA?
What exactly is an extravagant in-trail space; 10 mins, well what else can you use with aircraft without the gear and without surveilance; where exactly are these low-volume traffic flows and where can I get one?
I see the biggest problem is that we don't have enough education on both sides of the mic; come and see what we do please, don't just throw sh!t at it; generally there is a very valid reason and we are working often at maximum capacity or worse; picture the "one armed paper hangar".
Look at staffing levels/traffic levels as well as facility levels, the averages are about the same. 15 times the traffic volumes, 30 times the radars, 20 times the runways, 20 times the towers, 20 times the controllers etc.
The most significant difference is the charging regime and who do we have to thank for that little baby; can you say sold a pup?
Will it be too different if the FAA gets it's way by the end of 2008?
Same crusty old buggers make the same old noises, I flew to Heathrow and never held why can't Sydney be like that? etc. Yet all the UK-NATS controllers we talk to say we do sh!t loads of holding for Heathrow?
Most of what we do in terms of holding/Noise sensitive tracking/curfews etc is political interference and nothing to do with ATC; other than 'deliberate non-compliance' ends with tea and bickies if your lucky and the door if you're not.
When I was a pax on QF recently that diverted to CB instead of busting the SY curfew the pilot announced it was the "fault" of Air Traffic Control (Air Traffic Control have advised us...), I was just a little p!ssed off, especially when we departed I was thinking, we aren't going to make it; so why did we go and then why go to CB, for farks sake.