Jamis off the government teat? Air control to be privatized. Maybe.

[MillCreek]

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/05/531574945/trump-announces-plan-to-privatize-air-traffic-control?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=news

I think I recall earlier calls to privatize the FAA air traffic control system, so I will be interested to see if it actually happens this time.

[Fly320s]

As much as I hate the government having a monopoly on anything, I think the FAA/ATC should be kept as a government run entity.  This is one are that the gov actually does a good job with.

ATC should never be run as a business where the bottom line is a concern.  Their job is to support aviation and help keep it safe.

I am pretty much a proponent of free market competition for everything else, so if this makes me a hypocrit, then so be it.

Disclaimer: I'm an airline pilot, so I get preferential treatment from ATC.  Except from Jamis, he hates everyone.

[just Warren]

I'm for it! I live on (under?) an airport approach so all I need to get into this biz is some semaphore flags and a way to secure myself to the roof.

Easy money, here I come!

[RevDisk]

While I concur that government ATC means slow, expensive and corrupt... I'm not sure privatization is necessarily a great idea. ATC does a currently acceptable job of keeping aircraft from ramming into each other. What's the problem, aside from being slow, old and antiquated?

The airlines tend to be bankrupt and need bailing out every other decade. In good times, they pocket the money they make. In bad times, they get the government to pick up the tab. I don't generally consider them or any other "heads we win, tails you lose" business to be free market. 

What advantage are the airlines looking for? Transfer more costs to general aviation folks? I can't imagine there's THAT much money they could squeeze out of people who do aircraft as a hobby. Rich people with private aircraft don't like being squeezed and can buy their way out of such things with relative ease if inclined.

[Ben]

Though I haven't seen the full data on privatization, I would agree that for something like national infrastructure, it's not the best idea.

The best way to "fix" ATC would be the same thing that should happen with other long term infrastructure sections of the government - the budgeting process needs to be reworked. A lot.

I saw it in things like our satellite programs. While you could get a satellite in orbit (often with a one time budget plus up), you then had to fight every year to actually run the program, and the budget could fluctuate more widely than the Iranian stock market. That's basically a waste of a satellite, because you run into times where it's just floating around doing nothing because there is no money to analyze and use its data.

It does no good to say that ATC needs to be modernized, or even do it, if after it's done, the FAA has to fight congress (both sides of the aisle) every single year to keep the modern infrastructure running. There needs to be a budget exception for important infrastructure like this that guarantees a minimum baseline funding that not only gets the equipment installed, but keeps it all running at a "level" level. Something like a 5-10 year budget that doesn't fall under annual congressional squabbles, or for that matter, the foibles of the American voter.

[agricola]

A daft idea.  All you are privatizing is a natural monopoly.

[zahc]

I heard that this is modeled (at least until it makes its way through Americanization, after which it will probably please nobody) after Canadian and Australian programs that have been very successful. Apparently the US is actually an outlier with the way it does things and this actually makes sense. FWIW. IANAATC.

[Fly320s]

I heard that this is modeled (at least until it makes its way through Americanization, after which it will probably please nobody) after Canadian and Australian programs that have been very successful. Apparently the US is actually an outlier with the way it does things and this actually makes sense. FWIW. IANAATC.

Well, if other countries do it that way, then we should definitely do it that way.  Not.

One of the problems with the Canada-style system is that they charge for the services.  That means some people and some companies, such as airlines, might avoid using ATC services to save money.  Or they might avoid flying in Canada's airspace. That is fine for Joe Blow flying around in his personal plane, but it might cause a problem for commercial operators.   Safety-net services, such as ATC, shouldn't be dependent on having to pay a fee.

[Fitz]

I've been told that Australia's system pretty much killed GA, and Canada works less traffic than O'Hare

I'm on the fence. in theory I support privatization. In practice, given the graft and corruption in the government, I expect this will be a way to make connected people rich, will NOT eliminate the fuel tax, and will shift most of the cost to GA, killing it, because the airlines will set the rules.

[Fitz]

Well, if other countries do it that way, then we should definitely do it that way.  Not.

One of the problems with the Canada-style system is that they charge for the services.  That means some people and some companies, such as airlines, might avoid using ATC services to save money.  Or they might avoid flying in Canada's airspace. That is fine for Joe Blow flying around in his personal plane, but it might cause a problem for commercial operators.   Safety-net services, such as ATC, shouldn't be dependent on having to pay a fee.

Or, eliminate the fuel tax, have a yearly fee for ATC based on size of your aircraft, that you can't avoid just by not using services


But it wont happen that way. So i'm against it :d-

[Jamisjockey]

Pros and cons.  The FAA being a standard bureaucracy is horrible at bringing new tech to bear.  Our privatized counterparts in Europe are working with much more modern tech.  At my facility, we just brought 20 year old tech on line, replacing 40 year old tech.
During the late winter, we go into what we call a 30-op.  30+KIA winds from the NW force arrivals onto a single runaway, Runway 30 at IAD.  There being no instrument approach to this runway causes massive delays.
UAL is developing an instrument approach that they'll have all their pilots trained to fly and have it published by next year.  Once it's published, anyone can train to fly it and the other airlines will certainly fall in line.  The FAA turnaround on such an approach? 2-5 years.

Trumps statements on ATC are out of line.  We move considerably more traffic just in the Northeast than all of Europe.  Nationwide we run more traffic than the entire world.
Most delays are related to weather.  Everyone wants to blame this on ATC, but for obvious reasons when there's a line of thunderstorms spanning 5 states, the airlines will not fly through them and we are forced to funnel thousands of aircraft through the same airspace.  This causes the majority of delays.
Privatization will not fix this. The Airlines and the pilots already call the shots on what weather they will accept clearances through.

Other Cons?  You can guarantee they won't cut taxes elsewhere, this will be just another thing for the flying public to pay for.  Ticket costs will likely go up.
Airlines will also look for ways to further monopolize routes and airports, driving costs up. 

The only way it can succeed is if it's a chartered non-profit.  The union and general aviation should have more than one seat at the table, too.  We're going to be outnumbered by a huge margin by the airlines.

[Hawkmoon]

If anyone thinks we should NOT be cancelling or diverting flights due to weather, just spend a few evenings watching episodes of MAYDAY: Air Crash Investigation on Youtube.

You'll never want to board an airplane again.