Should our air traffic control system be privatized?

[The Tradition]

WASHINGTON — A controversial proposal that puts the nation's air traffic controls into private hands burst on to the legislative scene Wednesday, pitting pilots against many airlines and the people who manage the skies.

The legislation, opposed by powerful lawmakers in both parties, drew unusual support from the air traffic controllers' union, which says the growing inefficiencies, dated equipment and unstable funding call for a drastic response.

Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., chairman of the Transportation Committee, who proposed the change said it would insulate the air traffic control system from the funding whims of Congress, which, during a 2013 budget fight, shut down the government and furloughed air traffic controllers.

Shuster says the air traffic control system under the FAA is safe, but "incredibly inefficient."

The problems, he said, "will only get worse as passenger levels grow and as the FAA falls further behind in modernizing the system."

Lawmakers and various air traffic controller organization have proposed privatization at least eight times over the past 40 years. Dozens of other countries have privatized their air-traffic systems, but skeptics question whether private systems, such as the one adopted in Canada, would work in the larger, more complex U.S. airspace.

This time, National Air Traffic Controllers Association backed the proposal, andAirlines for America, a trade group for most major carriers, airline say that a private corporation governed by representatives of the aviation industry could move faster than FAA to upgrade equipment and adopt more efficient flight paths.

The opposition, however, lined up even before Schuster introduced the legislation. House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Ky., and the top Democrat, Nita Lowey of New York, said in a letter Monday to House Speaker Paul Ryan that such a move give the public less leverage to influence how the system operations.

Senate Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran, R-Miss., and the top Democrat,Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, in a Jan. 27 letter said privatization would mean "less oversight and less accountability."

The top Democrat on the Transportation Committee, Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, said the proposal gives the airlines too much power.

"The same people who today determine your baggage costs would determine what you would pay to use the air-traffic control system," DeFazio said. "I don't think that gives consumers a lot of confidence."

The Air Line Pilots Association, a union representing 52,000 pilots, fears airlines would shoulder the entire cost of air-traffic control rather than spreading the costs among all aircraft.

Delta Air Lines also parted ways with its industry brethren. Delta’s senior vice president for flight operations, Capt. Steve Dickson, said privatizing air-traffic control won’t reduce heavy traffic in the Northeast and could distract from current efforts to ease congestion. Delta CEO Richard Anderson called the proposal "unnecessary and unwise" in a Tuesday letter to Shuster.

Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and FAA Administrator Michael Huerta have remained neutral on the proposal.

Under Schuster's proposal, the private, non-profit corporation would governed by an 11-member board that includes representatives appointed by government, airlines, general aviation and both the pilots' and controllers' unions.

The group Airlines for America suggests airline taxes and fees, amounting to $13 billion a year, would easily cover the $10 billion of operating the privatized air-traffic control system.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...poses-privatize-air-traffic-control/79745638/

 

[KitingHigh]

Absolutely, and they should also take back over security. The only problem is that the government wouldn't give the money back to citizens, but instead to wast it on something else.

 

[The Tradition]

Absolutely, and they should also take back over security. The only problem is that the government wouldn't give the money back to citizens, but instead to waste it on something else.

This.

 

[RockEyeState]

Absolutely, and they should also take back over security. The only problem is that the government wouldn't give the money back to citizens, but instead to wast it on something else.

Privatization ALWAYS means more efficient, better service. Let the government do the oversight, set up the regulations and then get the h*** out of the way

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Yes
And deregulated
And staffed by illegal immigrants

 

[cigaretteman]

Yes
And deregulated
And staffed by illegal immigrants

Only if they're Muslims.

 

[The Tradition]

Yes
And deregulated
And staffed by illegal immigrants

Canada has privatized air traffic control. Does that change your mind? You lefties seem to think we need to do what the other countries do.

 

[stout1]

Privatization ALWAYS means more efficient, better service.

As someone who has worked on both sides of the privatization equation, it doesn't but I am sure no one wants to have a rational conversation about it.

Please continue.

 

[jscott78]

Sure helped Flint's water supply.

WASHINGTON — A controversial proposal that puts the nation's air traffic controls into private hands burst on to the legislative scene Wednesday, pitting pilots against many airlines and the people who manage the skies.

The legislation, opposed by powerful lawmakers in both parties, drew unusual support from the air traffic controllers' union, which says the growing inefficiencies, dated equipment and unstable funding call for a drastic response.

Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., chairman of the Transportation Committee, who proposed the change said it would insulate the air traffic control system from the funding whims of Congress, which, during a 2013 budget fight, shut down the government and furloughed air traffic controllers.

Shuster says the air traffic control system under the FAA is safe, but "incredibly inefficient."

The problems, he said, "will only get worse as passenger levels grow and as the FAA falls further behind in modernizing the system."

Lawmakers and various air traffic controller organization have proposed privatization at least eight times over the past 40 years. Dozens of other countries have privatized their air-traffic systems, but skeptics question whether private systems, such as the one adopted in Canada, would work in the larger, more complex U.S. airspace.

This time, National Air Traffic Controllers Association backed the proposal, andAirlines for America, a trade group for most major carriers, airline say that a private corporation governed by representatives of the aviation industry could move faster than FAA to upgrade equipment and adopt more efficient flight paths.

The opposition, however, lined up even before Schuster introduced the legislation. House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Ky., and the top Democrat, Nita Lowey of New York, said in a letter Monday to House Speaker Paul Ryan that such a move give the public less leverage to influence how the system operations.

Senate Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran, R-Miss., and the top Democrat,Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, in a Jan. 27 letter said privatization would mean "less oversight and less accountability."

The top Democrat on the Transportation Committee, Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, said the proposal gives the airlines too much power.

"The same people who today determine your baggage costs would determine what you would pay to use the air-traffic control system," DeFazio said. "I don't think that gives consumers a lot of confidence."

The Air Line Pilots Association, a union representing 52,000 pilots, fears airlines would shoulder the entire cost of air-traffic control rather than spreading the costs among all aircraft.

Delta Air Lines also parted ways with its industry brethren. Delta’s senior vice president for flight operations, Capt. Steve Dickson, said privatizing air-traffic control won’t reduce heavy traffic in the Northeast and could distract from current efforts to ease congestion. Delta CEO Richard Anderson called the proposal "unnecessary and unwise" in a Tuesday letter to Shuster.

Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and FAA Administrator Michael Huerta have remained neutral on the proposal.

Under Schuster's proposal, the private, non-profit corporation would governed by an 11-member board that includes representatives appointed by government, airlines, general aviation and both the pilots' and controllers' unions.

The group Airlines for America suggests airline taxes and fees, amounting to $13 billion a year, would easily cover the $10 billion of operating the privatized air-traffic control system.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...poses-privatize-air-traffic-control/79745638/

 

[KitingHigh]

As someone who has worked on both sides of the privatization equation, it doesn't but I am sure no one wants to have a rational conversation about it.

Please continue.

It has in my experience and I spent 15 years consulting for both. Public sector work was more inefficient by an order of magnitude.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Privatization ALWAYS means more efficient, better service. Let the government do the oversight, set up the regulations and then get the h*** out of the way

Whenever someone puts always in a post, you need to look at it with skepticism. Are there some things that can be privatized, yes. However, some things, particularly involving public safety and health, need to be carefully scrutinized to see if privatization works.

This proposal needs to be evaluated carefully, with a clear eye. Politics shouldn't really be involved. In other words, yeah right, that's going to happen. I do like the idea of this group having more flexibility to upgrade hardware and software more efficiently.

 

[stout1]

It has in my experience and I spent 15 years consulting for both. Public sector work was more inefficient by an order of magnitude.

That's nice, but it also ignores the second part of his statement.

I found times when public sector work was perfectly fine at their efficiency level when balanced with service level. There are functions that public sector provides where efficiency isn't the supreme goal.

In my state the governor forced budget reversions in the name of efficiency on our department of child services. They were much more efficient in all technical measures like $/case, case load/agent, dollars/child in the system. Of course deaths of children under DCS purview went from 4/year to 40/year, but hell they were efficient.

At that time, I worked directly in a business services unit and we were very efficient. We handled large scale purchasing and processed a couple hundred complex transactions per year. We stream-lined every process we could (state purchasing law as some inherent issues that roadblock some efficiency gains) and operated very lean. However, that is a process that ought to run like a business as opposed to my DCS example.

I now work for a local unit of government and we operate the business office for an organization with 800 employees and a budget of ~$42 million/year. We handle payroll, purchasing, AP, AR and state compliance with ~4.5 FTE. I believe we are pretty efficient as well.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Canada has privatized air traffic control. Does that change your mind? You lefties seem to think we need to do what the other countries do.

And that should about end the socialist trolling in this thread.

 

[KitingHigh]

That's nice, but it also ignores the second part of his statement.

I found times when public sector work was perfectly fine at their efficiency level when balanced with service level. There are functions that public sector provides where efficiency isn't the supreme goal.

In my state the governor forced budget reversions in the name of efficiency on our department of child services. They were much more efficient in all technical measures like $/case, case load/agent, dollars/child in the system. Of course deaths of children under DCS purview went from 4/year to 40/year, but hell they were efficient.

At that time, I worked directly in a business services unit and we were very efficient. We handled large scale purchasing and processed a couple hundred complex transactions per year. We stream-lined every process we could (state purchasing law as some inherent issues that roadblock some efficiency gains) and operated very lean. However, that is a process that ought to run like a business as opposed to my DCS example.

I now work for a local unit of government and we operate the business office for an organization with 800 employees and a budget of ~$42 million/year. We handle payroll, purchasing, AP, AR and state compliance with ~4.5 FTE. I believe we are pretty efficient as well.

I can't speak to your DCS experience, but I think it is hardly relevant to air traffic control or even most business processes for that matter.

I spent 15 years in Business Process Managment. Primarily centered around data capture, and management and processing. The only time government agencies approached the efficiency and quality of well run private companies was when they outsourced the work and management to private companies.

 

[Huey Grey]

You bet. Because privatizing public markets, like parking, worked so well for cities like Chicago.

 

[86Hawkeye]

You bet. Because privatizing public markets, like parking, worked so well for cities like Chicago.

I see you missed the part about Canada.

 

[KitingHigh]

You bet. Because privatizing public markets, like parking, worked so well for cities like Chicago.

It actually did end up just fine.

The initial deal was horrible, but that was really the governments fault. They sold the lease to meet a budget shortfall due to their own mismanagement. In a position of need they sold the lease for a lot less than it was worth. There were some transition issues, but the parking meters are just fine now and much better than had the government continue to handle them itself. The only real issue is the deal itself and you can blame the government for that.

 

[Huey Grey]

I see you missed the part about Canada.

No, I caught that. Personally I think it's brilliant to use a private foreign company to oversee our nation's entire air traffic system.

 

[Huey Grey]

It actually did end up just fine.

The initial deal was horrible, but that was really the governments fault. They sold the lease to meet a budget shortfall due to their own mismanagement. In a position of need they sold the lease for a lot less than it was worth. There were some transition issues, but the parking meters are just fine now and much better than had the government continue to handle them itself. The only real issue is the deal itself and you can blame the government for that.

Interesting that you think that exploding rates are A-OK. It's been a disaster for Chicago.

 

[naturalmwa]

Privatization ALWAYS means more efficient, better service. Let the government do the oversight, set up the regulations and then get the h*** out of the way

Sure, just like the healthcare.gov experament.

 

[Joes Place]

Privatization ALWAYS means more efficient, better service. Let the government do the oversight, set up the regulations and then get the h*** out of the way

Privatization w/o any competition?
Not so sure on that. This may be setting up for a privatized monopoly on our air traffic, leading to higher airport fees and airline fees to support it.

 

[naturalmwa]

Canada has privatized air traffic control. Does that change your mind? You lefties seem to think we need to do what the other countries do.

Does it change your mind? You cons are always thinking modeling on empirical results is a bad idea. Does Canada get better results than we do? Can we put you down as a supporter of modeling other programs on what works around the world now? You can't have it both ways.

 

[Joes Place]

As someone who has worked on both sides of the privatization equation, it doesn't but I am sure no one wants to have a rational conversation about it.

Please continue.

Correct. When privatization comes with open competition among private entities, they are forced to improve efficiency, or go out of business. Private companies w/o any oversight or market-based competition invariably will end up as inefficient as the government, but with an associated lapse in service quality as well.

Any idea how a private company in charge of air traffic control will be held liable for errors that lead to midair collisions or airport tarmac accidents? Will they be required to have $1B to $10B in underwritten insurance for at-fault accidents? How many private companies are going to line up for this UNLESS our government indemnifies them against such liability? Would that type of indemnification be a good idea or a bad idea?

 

[KitingHigh]

Interesting that you think that exploding rates are A-OK. It's been a disaster for Chicago.

You really should read past the headlines. The government increased the rates, not the private company running the meters. The rate increase was coming regardless and the city was doing a piss poor job maintaining antiquated meters.

There were transition issues and many tickets were thrown out. Now there are less parking tickets given in Chicago thankost cities. Calling it a disaster is just plain ignorant.

"The City retains control over meter rates. CPM does not – and never has – set meter rates. The concession agreement between the City and CPM states that the City of Chicago retains exclusive authority to determine and establish rates, set hours of operation, and place, add or remove metered spaces. The initial five-year rate schedule was approved by the City Council to align with levels commensurate with other large U.S. cities. (Scheduled rate increases ended in 2013).

Prior to the concession agreement, parking rates in Chicago had become much lower than the national average. Seventy percent of meters had not seen an increase in 20 years, which only led to unforeseen problems and fewer open spaces. Competitive parking rates result in more spaces opening up more often."

http://chicagometers.com/fact-sheet.aspx

http://www.governing.com/columns/mgmt-insights/Chicago-Parking-Meters.html

 

[thewop]

Anything that can be privatized almost always should. National Security/Defense would be one area I would say it should not. Now for the VA...

Here's an idea, which is sort of in the middle between privatizing and not: The VA, which came up in last night's debate, is a disaster as is. Its hospitals by and large are not nearly as good as other hospitals. Most of the best hospitals are associated with a University (often a public university) or a religious entity. What if instead of having the VA hospital in Iowa City, it was the "UIHC dept. of Veterans Services" or something like that, where basically, the UIHC would be serving Veterans just as it does the rest of the population, same care level, same expertise, same state of the art equipment, etc. It's not really privatizing it, but it's not what it is either. I'd be in support of this.

Is anyone concerned we're going to have a huge shortage of trained medical staff in the coming years? I don't know the numbers, but I wonder about that.

 

[The Tradition]

Is anyone concerned we're going to have a huge shortage of trained medical staff in the coming years? I don't know the numbers, but I wonder about that.

No, we'll continue to get doctors from India and Pakistan with accents so thick you can't understand what they're telling you to do.

 

[thewop]

No, we'll continue to get doctors from India and Pakistan with accents so thick you can't understand what they're telling you to do.

Which raises another excellent point. While I believe it will be impossible to deport 12 million illegal immigrants, learning English and passing a verbal exam should be requirement #1 if they're allowed to stay. Only deport the ones who can't pass after 2 years. After the border is secured of course. I would hope this "path to citizenship" candidates speak of would include requirements they must achieve in order to stay, other than just memorizing the pledge of allegiance, getting a social security number, and other 'no effort' requirements.

 

[markfromj]

The only problem is that the government wouldn't give the money back to citizens...

The government is the citizens. You just abdicate the responsibility to govern.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Which raises another excellent point. While I believe it will be impossible to deport 12 million illegal immigrants, learning English and passing a verbal exam should be requirement #1 if they're allowed to stay. Only deport the ones who can't pass after 2 years. After the border is secured of course. I would hope this "path to citizenship" candidates speak of would include requirements they must achieve in order to stay, other than just memorizing the pledge of allegiance, getting a social security number, and other 'no effort' requirements.

As has been discussed many times, the most significant problem with undocumented immigrants lie with them overstaying legal entry visas, not crossing the Rio Grande in the middle of the night. Building a fence does nothing for that. The only answer to that question is to limit student and tourist visas, or implanting a tracking tag on every one who gets one.

 

[thewop]

As has been discussed many times, the most significant problem with undocumented immigrants lie with them overstaying legal entry visas, not crossing the Rio Grande in the middle of the night. Building a fence does nothing for that. The only answer to that question is to limit student and tourist visas, or implanting a tracking tag on every one who gets one.

I don't have the answer for how the border gets closed, I'm just saying it needs to be done before we worry about what to do with all the illegals currently here.

 

[KitingHigh]

The government is the citizens. You just abdicate the responsibility to govern.

Those two sentences are mutually exclusive.

 

[artradley]

I can't speak to your DCS experience, but I think it is hardly relevant to air traffic control or even most business processes for that matter.

I spent 15 years in Business Process Managment. Primarily centered around data capture, and management and processing. The only time government agencies approached the efficiency and quality of well run private companies was when they outsourced the work and management to private companies.

Are all private companies well run? My experience says no. And, in fact, when a private company has a monopoly, my experience has been that they are both inefficient and extraordinarily expensive. By its nature, privatizing air traffic control would mean the chosen company would have a monopoly. Which means they won't have the competition that typically drives private companies to be efficient.

 

[The Tradition]

Are all private companies well run? My experience says no. And, in fact, when a private company has a monopoly, my experience has been that they are both inefficient and extraordinarily expensive. By its nature, privatizing air traffic control would mean the chosen company would have a monopoly. Which means they won't have the competition that typically drives private companies to be efficient.

That's not true. Different companies might have different airports and those performing best would be able to muscle into the others' turf at contract rebidding time.

 

[Hawk and Awe]

Why do we always decide the answer to improving efficiency is going private? Why can't we demand the public service just be more efficient? Have we decided that's not possible?

 

[The Tradition]

Why do we always decide the answer to improving efficiency is going private? Why can't we demand the public service just be more efficient? Have we decided that's not possible?

No one is going to be efficient with someone else's money. The profit motive ensures that money is spent wisely.

 

[KitingHigh]

Are all private companies well run? My experience says no. And, in fact, when a private company has a monopoly, my experience has been that they are both inefficient and extraordinarily expensive. By its nature, privatizing air traffic control would mean the chosen company would have a monopoly. Which means they won't have the competition that typically drives private companies to be efficient.

No, they aren't, and I do agree that competition certainly brings out the best and that a monopoly often creates less efficiency. In the private sector with competition inefficient business practices lead to competitive disadvantages and often cause businesses to adapt or fail. When monopolies exist and particularly when they are subsidized and enforced by government they often offer less quality and efficiency Many utilities are good examples. There are also many examples of them working well.

In my experience however, even in such an environment, when the exact same function is performed or managed (with the management being the key factor) by private company, it tends to work better. My experience in these situations has been primarily with state DOR's and DOT's as well as prison work programs and some federal entities and utilities. Due to non disclosed agreements, I cannot tell you which ones or give great detail.

Traffic control would certainly be a tricky one, and the key would be turning over the entire management of it to the private sector. Ideally, the entire contract wouldn't go to one entity, but instead to multiple entities that would in turn keep each other in check. The transition would be an expensive and time consuming one, but worth it in the end as the new system would be not only more efficient, but more able to easily adopt to new technologies as they become available.

 

[stout1]

The profit motive ensures that money is spent wisely.

No the profit motive ensures that profit is prized above all. While we hope that this means that things are run properly, we have ample examples where it isn't.

 

[markfromj]

Those two sentences are mutually exclusive.

Please explain further.

 

[KitingHigh]

Please explain further.

If citizens abdicate governing to the government then the government cannot be the people. The only time government is the people is in a direct democracy where citizens do not abdicate anything to the government.

Abdicate means to give up ones authority. If you give it up, then you no longer have it.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Sure, just like the healthcare.gov experament.

Have you dealt with healthcare.gov? It's a f***ing nightmare, and when I say, "It's a f***ing nightmare," I really mean that it's a f***ing nightmare of epic proportions. I've called them on multiple occasions to get clarity on some of the rules, and the "experts" at the goddamn call center can't even answer your questions because the whole thing is so convoluted. Is that what you democrats want? A system that is so insanely confusing that even the people who are supposed to know, don't know?