I know I am gonna get some flack here for this subject, But as regards to privatization, wasn t the same "doom and gloom" prediction made about the Flight Service Stations getting privatized ? I read the bill and it's sub bills and don t really see a problem. But then I am not the brightest mechanic in the hanger.
Thanks for straightening me out.
Bill
The problem with ATC privatization is largely two fold.Originally Posted by skyfixer8
1. Control. It effectively transfers control of ATC to the airlines.
2. It does not address the fundamental issue of incentives.
Why would a private company do better? In what way is the FAA hamstrung?
When you look at the history of privatization in the USA; a few things to note.
1. Our public servants usually get a bad deal, often underestimating the value of the assets because of conflict they are not allowed to hire the experts to help on the pricing.
2. Where privatization saves money or increases performance, it is normally via the removal of regulatory or legal constraints. For example, I was involved in the data analysis where there was a private company was going to save DoD almost $2B. How did they get the savings? They were excused from the legal requirement to meter every building on the base, instead they would use estimates. Many examples of this....
When you can explain why a private company does better, and how that same incentive can be applied to the ATC situation, and further explain how they are going to remove the same hurdles which have hamstrung the FAA. I may consider it.
Tim
Yes Bill, it's deja vu all over again. There's 2 sides, the for and the against, each side is throwing out ridiculous prophecies - what will happen, what won't happen, yadda yadda. The truth is somewhere between those extremes.
1. Control must remain with a rulemaking body responsive to the voters, not the deep pocket users.
2. "User fees" in addition to current tax and fees funding methods. If the proposed system is actually more efficient and less expensive, there would be no need for additional funding and there would be a plan for reduced funding.
Consider the fact that current fuel taxes, passenger fees, facility charges, airport rents, ramp fees, landing charges, etc etc etc are all "user fees." Granted, at some time in the future (airliners powered by solar cells or unicorn pharts, runways paved in recycled fast food wrappers?) fuel taxes will no longer be a viable gauge of system usage and allocator of costs. Heck by then the savings will be so great we'll all be getting rebates.
Bottom line, don't promise something that will be more responsive if you reduce our oversight and cheaper if you're going to charge more. We're not that stupid. Oh, wait, we are voters who consistently return elected officials who have amassed ever-sinking employer-satisfaction ratings.
Never mind.
I spoke to someone at AOPA yesterday and they said privitaztion was sort static for now, Congress was busy with so many other things. Im not that informed on it, but he didnt seem worried at least for the near term.
Last edited by Bill Greenwood; 09-28-2017 at 01:13 PM.
That's good to hear, Bill. Thank you!
The problem with privatization, IMHO, is that aviation is a financial loser in the budget. No matter how many fees or taxes they put onto aviation itself there will never be enough to pay for our current infrastructure.
It's not supposed to be self supporting, though. Much like the Interstate system is actually part of the nation's defense structure (they didn't call the original bill as the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways Act for nothing), the airport infrastructure serves the same purpose. Without the overabundance of airports we have, Civil Defense is much, much harder to do if it comes down to it.
There isn't much one can do to mitigate the expense of small, rural airports in order to turn a profit, short of eliminating them.
And this is my fear of privatization. The airline and other business executives that will invariably make up the board to oversee aviation will come to the obvious fiscal solution to their woes and begin to starve local airports without a meaningful commercial presence of funding. Maintenance will suffer, and then comes the reviews of fitness. The small airport fails the fitness report (because they weren't given any subsidies to do so), and is recommended for closure, citing "redundancy" of other airports around it that can now justify saying "no meaningful impact or capacity for aviation activities will be made or lost due to surrounding fields."
And once an airport is closed, that's it. It's gone forever.
The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.
ATC has nothing to do with rural airports which are private, county, or state owned and managed.
Bill, it's the whole system, though. The FAA's budget is still singular - think that if the companies in charge of running the ATC side of things need more money the FAA will petition Congress for more funds on their behalf? Or will they shift funds from maintenance for it, knowing that most people only care about commercial air?
The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.
On the other hand, services for GA aircraft could improve. Imagine asking for advisories in C90 airspace and not getting "unable" from ATC.....wouldn't that be a hoot!
Frank, I think about 100 Control Towers are not needed and kept open for political reasons. If closed, the money would be saved.
And Light Sport planes would move to the non-towered airports.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote