If it was replacing the current system with one where you had 12 different companies competing with one another, maybe so but I don't really see the benefit in what I'm reading. But I don't feel strongly about it.
What worries me the most about this in some ways is how it seems to be focused on the large airlines and not on passengers and private pilots. This is the current trend that disturbs me the most about Trump and the GOP: they seem pretty blatantly to be representing large corporations and their own party rather than the public at large. The assumption seems to be that what benefits the fat cats is what benefits everyone.
I'm not anti-large-corporation per se, but a big part of the reason for democracy is to protect the average person.
I don't really see any arguments here other than "it makes the airlines happy." As if they needed more latitude.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/air-traffic-control-tech-...
According to the article, which does not cite any study or even interview a single official or anyone from the airlines, there are two obstacles posed by the current "inefficient" system:
1) Antiquated technology, and 2) insufficient staffing levels.
To remedy these issues, we would need to look at solutions for the existing system and compare them with the new one.
I actually don't disagree that a private organization might be better; if the limits on staffing and equipment procurement are imposed by Congress, then it might be better for a private organization to simply raise rates on airlines to account for the increased costs.
Indeed; this is why almost all "let's privatize X" initiatives are ultimately pointless (or perhaps even counterproductive). They merely shift the monopoly-holder from public-sector to private-sector, without alleviating the "there is a monopoly" status. Indeed, the private sector's legendary efficiency advantage specifically occurs when there is competition, and is not some magical thing that is endowed to the private sector and forbidden from the public sector.
> the private sector's legendary efficiency advantage
is in fact:
the private sector's _mythical_ efficiency advantage1. an API written by a software engineer
2. code written post 1970s that knew how to write a for loop and allocate memory
Then we would all be better off....I promise...
Its hard for me to...describe how bad it is...
So I work for a state mandated company thats an independent group, we actually set competitive markets and openly monitor but not as a government entity, but we are subject to follow state compliance rules as in, no employees who monitor the markets we set, are allowed to invest and profit in those companies in the stock market or have children or be married to people who do etc.
Anyways, in most cases though, because our security is high, we contract software much like the federal government does, and its horrific.
most of the issues you see with cascading flight cancellations, air traffic control issues, gas control problems etc, not being able to keep track of regulations well enough to streamline and lower barrier for new companies etc...is due to horrible..horrible software.
Privatizing and allowing companies to come in and truly compete and new software to come in takes away the 10million dollar ten year government contract software companies who do as little as possible and charge $200k for a new feature that should have been moldularized in the core functionality in the first place.
Want an API? How about 85 pages of doucmentation that took 150 meetings to put together, none by the actual software engineers...
This crap can't continue in large scale infrastructure where competition needs to come in and rescue the crippling energy and transportation issues that burden the people with horrible services and no other choices.
One you step outside of silicon valley, or Seattle or the tech scene in NY, the world is a scary place, and there is alot of low hanging fruit to be had for software for the betterment of everyone.
Do you know how to write a for loop? ok good, you could probably do better...
I'm not joking.
The focus initially will be to find government run agencies that can be profitable in the private sector. Think in terms of toll roads/bridges for infrastructure, air traffic control and student loans to name a few. Whether or not if privatization is the right answer is debateable but it is probably going to happen in one form or another.
The question is: Who will benefit by owning these companies? Look to the privatization of the USSR as a worst possible outcome. Large former government run industries given to private ownership that instantly created a strong oligarchy class.
How well has democracy worked in Russia since that happened?
It's worked great for the oligarchs! I honestly think the Republican party sees that as the ideal outcome: create a strong kleptocratic class that can use their wealth to perpetuate Republican control.
As an aside, according to a controller I know, a lot of FAA employees are retiring soon and at about the same time. A large cohort of controllers were hired about the same time to replace the fired striking PATCO [1] controllers in the early 80's.
[1] PATCO Professional Air Traffic Controllers
I'm currently part of a hiring wave meant to replace those controllers. Around 1400 people are being hired in my bid alone. ATC has been my get-out-of-software plan, but depending how things shake out, if the compensation doesn't stay the same for newcomers, I expect I'll have to run back to software. I'm a little concerned that this new private entity will compensate the old timers to keep them on and keep the union on board, and throw newcomers under the bus for the sake of 'efficiency', which would keep things running short-term, and leave them with a sudden lack of talent in five or ten years. But I'm not an expert on how these things turn out, just highly cynical about a private corp's ability to think long-term.
Did someone point out to this idiot that we are having a string of years where there are no deaths in domestic commercial travel. Whatever is happening in the US Traffic System appears to be working really well.
I also think that president holds a person vendetta against the FAA because it told him he could not land his plane somewhere or an air traffic controller delayed him by a couple of minutes.
The airlines are for it, the key labor union is for it, aviation experts are for it, and the second-largest nation on earth did it. Canada privatized its system in 1996, and today the nonprofit Nav Canada is on the leading edge of ATC efficiency and innovation.
/s
EDIT: Here is one from the Economist from last year describing NAV Canada in favourable terms as compared to the FAA.: http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/2170347...
And the Wall Street Journal (paywalled): https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-canadian-air-traffic-contro...
And the Financial Post (part of Canada's National Post): http://business.financialpost.com/news/transportation/u-s-lo...
That said, if it ain't broke, why bother trying to "fix" it? US air is the safest in the world, it's rules are literally written in blood. This is one area, where I'd like to see less, not more, privatization.
Safety, and not profit (or cost-reduction), should be the driving incentive for something so critical, and so fault-sensitive.
It's been a few years, but I recall reading at least one article wherein was described how those slips of paper actually made a lot of sense. (It may have been one of the articles that made the rounds, describing the surprising endurance and resilience of paper-based work.)
The slips of paper supported both regular and immediate, ad hoc workflows as they were needed. Also, paper is immune to systems failures. Your electronic board goes down -- you still have all your flights at hand. Start spacing them and shoving incoming traffic into wider holding patterns.
Over the past couple of decades more than 50 countries, including Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand, have privatised (or at least “commercialised”) their ATC services, . . .
In all likelihood this will result in a small price decrease coupled with degraded service.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Air_Traffic_Controlle...
edit: If you're downvoting at least comment with why you think this isn't the case
There is a saying that the FARs are written in blood, as in regulations aren't passed willy-nilly, but passed after there has been a serious incident.
Air traffic is one place where "Iterate quickly and break shit" doesn't work. What happens when in the name of "efficiency", one tower reduces current safety limits because "99% of the time these are unnecessary", then the one time it actually was necessary, you've got two jets about to make a head-on collision, or one quickly changes course, loses control, and crash-lands into a town.
There are absolutely improvments that can be made with the FAA, but privatizing ATC is definitely not one of them.
(I'm not saying that privatization alone has no potential or that it is not necessary; I merely question whether it is sufficient.)
I remember an article where it claimed someone told him to buy a house near airport and sue them for noise. According to Wikipedia he did it twice and lost twice teen sold the property.
Here is another article on same subject:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/13/luxury/trump-palm-beach-laws...
How can you know how well the US ATC is operating if you don't know how much money they spend? If they spent 10x what they currently do(but still had no passenger fatalities), would you say everything is great?
We can take that system and throw it out and see if we can change it with zero guarantee of success to save all of $5 or maybe $10 (Just a guess). I don't know about you, but I am happy with the current system and it's costs.
How do you figure?
Yes, we know this must be the ultimate truth, always, everywhere, because Ayn Rand says so.
/s
I can only assume that you have never worked for a large corporation.
Not to mention that the phrase 'optimal resource allocation' is ambiguous in the extreme; what function are you minimizing?
First government style contracting in high security scenarios lends itself to 10-20year contracts, no lie, anywhere from 10mil to 100mil a piece. The worst part is, the companies building the software companies are not software companies, they are dinosauric companies slowly dying.
Basically its the technological infrastructure.
So I work for a state mandated company thats an independent group, we actually set competitive markets and openly monitor but not as a government entity, but we are subject to follow state compliance rules as in, no employees who monitor the markets we set, are allowed to invest and profit in those companies in the stock market or have children or be married to people who do etc.
Anyways, in most cases though, because our security is high, we contract software much like the federal government does, and its horrific.
most of the issues you see with cascading flight cancellations, air traffic control issues, gas control problems etc, not being able to keep track of regulations well enough to streamline and lower barrier for new companies etc...is due to horrible..horrible software.
Privatizing and allowing companies to come in and truly compete and new software to come in takes away the 10million dollar ten year government contract software companies who do as little as possible and charge $200k for a new feature that should have been moldularized in the core functionality in the first place.
Want an API? How about 85 pages of doucmentation that took 150 meetings to put together, none by the actual software engineers...
This crap can't continue in large scale infrastructure where competition needs to come in and rescue the crippling energy and transportation issues that burden the people with horrible services and no other choices.
Except the Airlines are the ones who would staff the board of the proposed non-profit, so that won't happen.
I don't have a position on what would be the most effective way to get there. I am guessing more funding, either public or private, would lead to an improvement.
What you're referring to is a research project, not a deployable one.
I agree it's worth researching. Common industrial research grants with a mixture of government and private funding can perform the research and develop it.
And those improvements may be deployed to the sector whether it's private or not. There's no need to pre-emptively privatize the industry to perform R & D.
That's both insane and inane. There's a simple incentive to improve aviation safety that has nothing to do with capitalist competition: people don't want to die in plane crashes. Airlines, otoh, would be happy to be able to cut corners and save billions at the slight cost of a few dozen more customer fatalities per year. Putting Airline is control of ATC by proxy will ensure the latter outcome.
I see what you're saying, but couldn't these same regulations be applied to private industry?
You don't necessarily need 0 governmental oversight for it to be private.
> The plan drew immediate support from most airlines
> the White House said the 13-member board of directors for the new corporation should be made up of appointees from industry stakeholder groups