DOT Reports Contract Towers Are Better than the FAA’s

MARK you really should be writing for Bloomberg, your regurgitation and lack of depth of the subject in the presentation of this information is bordering on the journalist irresponsibility. I truly expected more from FLYING magazine, which i enjoy as a subscriber. I guess that with the majority of your advertising revue coming in from aviation avionics manufacturers, who would be by now heavily invested fin full ADS-B implementation, and the success of nex-gen program implementation, keeping those timelines on track lies in full FAA funding. Which is under a significant threat at the moment, due largely to the so called "fiscal cliff" and even across the board cuts at all the 1200 federal budgets. The FAA Air Traffic Organization ATO is in direct competition with the nex-gen program for limited FAA funding levels, as nex-gen equipage and implementation are coming under review for a ten percent cut.
Budgetary competition of nex-gen program vs busy GA towers dollars, will be a very real issue at many GA airports in CY2013, at places that actually matter in the National Air Space, these FAA towers at busy airports are not the same as FCT facilities and relieve pressure off the top 35. which in turn reduces demand and delays. It should and could not be considered the same as suggested in your gross over simplification of a representation the world of air traffic facilities according to FLYING. Your statements concerning the pay equities of contract facilities vs federal facilities is the most egregious distortion of the facts you could present to your readers. Here you state that 250 low traffic volume contract facilities vs FAA, which could do even better, suggests much in deed. Well sir there are only about 260 total FAA towers in the country which means all the nations busiest and biggest airports in the NAS. Simply put, you suggest a system that would reward a controller at Podunk BFE airport with six to ten IFR operations an hour the same as a controller at say ATL or BOS, this not only unrealistic, but as foolish as the person who approved your story for publication. I suggest the following; stop repeating the trash you see printed elsewhere, try to read into the report and see who is actually behind the story and what they have to gain, lastly try to serve your readers and not your advertisers, we deserve better. Your story is looking slanted, biased and tiredly repeated across the net, were you paid for this piece give the money back you stink.