WSJ editorial in favor of private ATC

wsuffa

wsuffa

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
23,615
Location
DC Suburbs
Display Name
Display name:
Bill S.
(paywall if you're not a subscriber)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/private-jet-setters-against-better-air-travel-1518652486

[quoteAir travel is becoming less pleasant, and according to one analysis the average time from push back to arrival is increasing on many routes—more than 80 minutes from D.C. to New York LaGuardia, up from 67 minutes in 1990. Apparently that hasn’t been an issue for the folks flying in and out of Teterboro.[/quote]

Yes, it's less pleasant, but instead of forcing the airlines to improve things for the passengers, they would rather push to make things worse for GA. Let's bring everyone down to the airline's level.

And what if accidents go up? Well, the solution might be to severely limit GA and get more GA planes out of the air. ;)
 
Ultimately, private ATC will drive up costs and there won't be any accountability. Some functions that are important to the national interests are best left to government. Military ATC services are highly intertwined with FAA ATC services, how will that affect the privatization of ATC. It's a horribly bad idea.
 
It's difficult to comment on the issue without getting into politics, but the fact that ATC privatization is still a possibility thanks to lobbyists for the airlines lining the pockets of congress critters means it is still vitally important for all of us to write our senators and congresspersons urging them to keep the current system and to provide it with adequate, reliable funding, and explaining why privatizing puts aviation safety at risk.

Just MHO.
 
Last edited:
I'm all for the ATC privatization, because it's in the interests of the country. As long as FAA is holding onto a vital function like this, FAA's budget cannot be cut. At any talk of a cut, they keep the ATC hostage and cut it first, while preserving all the bureaucrats in leather chairs. Thus, it is paramount to divorce FAA and ATC.

The current proposal favours airlines? And whose fault is that? The GA community and its alphabet soup organizations dug heels in for decades and spent their efforts to prevent privatization instead of facilitating it on favourable terms. If AOPA helped to privatize ATC in 1980s, back when GA was much stronger than today, we would not be in this mess. Instead, they dragged it on until GA became irrelevant. Good job!
 
If I read it right, GA will be exempt from all user fees. That’s a new one to me.

Cheers
 
X3 Skier said:
If I read it right, GA will be exempt from all user fees. That’s a new one to me.

Cheers
Click to expand...

That's been the stated plan for the last several proposals. But of course, once it's in place, they can change their minds on all that. Once the contractor explains how all the extra traffic is driving up costs and not paying their fair share...
 
If your not paying user fees,over time ,we will be pushed out of the system. The airlines will prevail,they have plenty of our money to grease the skids.
 
First, air safety is an inherently governmental function. Second, this is just an attempt by the Executive branch to grab power (the power of the purse) from the Legislative. Given the separation of powers that has worked for over 200 years in this nation I think it should be resisted at all costs. Third, private enterprise doesn't necessarily save money or run things better. Certainly if there are multiple companies in competition, but not when there is a winner-take-all where one company runs everything with no competition at all. Last, Europe has fee for service aviation. I do not want to see the US turn into that.
 
Also, does anyone think GA only airports will get any grants from the AIP fund if it is controlled by the airlines? Most of the money in the AIP comes from the airlines and I bet they won't want to share.
 
The intended target is turbine 91/91k/135; we're just collateral damage in that proxy war. To be clear, we fall under the flight training umbrella when it comes to the parties.

I'm interested in labor's opinion on this little Mejican standoff. What's ALPA's position on this?
 
hindsight2020 said:
The intended target is turbine 91/91k/135; we're just collateral damage in that proxy war. To be clear, we fall under the flight training umbrella when it comes to the parties.

I'm interested in labor's opinion on this little Mejican standoff. What's ALPA's position on this?
Click to expand...

ALPA is for privatization. They state the desire to find a more stable funding solution to ATC modernization.
 
jonnyjetprop said:
ALPA is for privatization. They state the desire to find a more stable funding solution to ATC modernization.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of ways to do that using current funding streams like the tax on aviation fuel. You say it isn't enough to fund what they need? Raise it a penny. Still not enough? Raise it until the aviation fuel tax pays for the system. The process is already in place to collect the $$, there will just be more $$ involved in the future. No need for additional bureaucracy. Step 2 is to direct all of those funds to FAA and other aviation related expenses.
 
steingar said:
First, air safety is an inherently governmental function. Second, this is just an attempt by the Executive branch to grab power (the power of the purse) from the Legislative. Given the separation of powers that has worked for over 200 years in this nation I think it should be resisted at all costs. Third, private enterprise doesn't necessarily save money or run things better. Certainly if there are multiple companies in competition, but not when there is a winner-take-all where one company runs everything with no competition at all. Last, Europe has fee for service aviation. I do not want to see the US turn into that.
Click to expand...

I agree with Steingar here. While I'm all for competition in the private sector and am generally in favor of shrinking the government and it's enormous budget wherever it's practical to do so, this is a situation where, if privatized, demands a single outfit run the whole thing. Are we willing to hand somebody a monopoly? I think our history shows that monopolies are rarely, if ever, a good idea.
 
The US has the largest and most complex, yet safest aviation system in the world. Anyone who doesn’t believe this is due in large part to the FAA is being disingenuous to say the least. Yet, people want to dismantle the agency. We really have some less than brilliant folks spouting off about the subject.
 
ColoPilot said:
Also, does anyone think GA only airports will get any grants from the AIP fund if it is controlled by the airlines? Most of the money in the AIP comes from the airlines and I bet they won't want to share.
Click to expand...
What does AIP have to do with this?
 
jonnyjetprop said:
ALPA is for privatization. They state the desire to find a more stable funding solution to ATC modernization.
Click to expand...
kyleb said:
There are plenty of ways to do that using current funding streams like the tax on aviation fuel. You say it isn't enough to fund what they need? Raise it a penny. Still not enough? Raise it until the aviation fuel tax pays for the system. The process is already in place to collect the $$, there will just be more $$ involved in the future. No need for additional bureaucracy. Step 2 is to direct all of those funds to FAA and other aviation related expenses.
Click to expand...

The issue isn't money, it's funding. I know, sounds like the same thing, but it's not. Since Congress does annual budgets and can vacillate yearly on the level it's challenging to get solid funding for a multi-year effort. Do something in one budget year? No problem. Something that takes 3-10 years? Hard to tell what the funding will be in 6 years with changes in Congress and the Executive office.

Now, will a corporate entity fix that? Maybe. Maybe not. Could depend on how that entity receives revenues. For the cynic, it could depend on how much the executives of that entity need bonuses.
 
Brad Z said:
What does AIP have to do with this?
Click to expand...
I'm assuming the AIP grant program will transferred to the new private entity since it is funded by fuel taxes and fees. Hopefully I'm wrong because it will not be good for GA.
 
ColoPilot said:
I'm assuming the AIP grant program will transferred to the new private entity since it is funded by fuel taxes and fees. Hopefully I'm wrong because it will not be good for GA.
Click to expand...
The Airport Improvement Program is completely separate from air traffic control, which is what was proposed for privatization. It's even funded by a separate appropriation, and source of funding (Airport & Airway Trust Fund). It's not going anywhere. Besides, members of Congress love it too much, as it provides an opportunity for ribbon cuttings and federal money into their districts.
 
I’m a big fan of reducing government. Anything government can do, private industry can do better.
 
Funny I was just reading on a Canadian board about flight following in the US vs Canada, great example on why privatizing ATC is a stuuuupid idea.

I'm all for smaller government as well, however I'm not a teenager with a big A with a circle on his jansport backpack who thinks no government is the answer, it's not a black and white thing, somethings are better without government interference (like insurance) some things are best with government, like ATC and the mail, some things are best done with the government but just need to downsize, like the PD, military, and the level of mid level management in many other parts of the government.
 
I support privatization, but not the way it's always pitched. I fail to see how air traffic control is a government responsibility. Things will be better with competition in the marketplace, and instead of awarding a contract to a single company to provide it nationwide, each airport should be free to pick a company to so it for them at whatever rate they but upon.

Sure, tie some guidelines in (like, for example, no user fees), but the only way to improve what we have now is to let private industry take over.
 
kyleb said:
You missed step 2 in my plan. ;-)
Click to expand...

Oops. :oops:

The FAA still gets additional funding from Congress. More than just the fuel and ticket tax is needed. You are right though, if those taxes covered the costs and the FAA got them automagically (i.e. not filtered by Congress), then the multi-year funding would be in a far better shape. Unfortunately Congress doesn't like to give up control, especially of money.
 
Brad Z said:
The Airport Improvement Program is completely separate from air traffic control, which is what was proposed for privatization. It's even funded by a separate appropriation, and source of funding (Airport & Airway Trust Fund). It's not going anywhere. Besides, members of Congress love it too much, as it provides an opportunity for ribbon cuttings and federal money into their districts.
Click to expand...
Good info, thanks. I can't get to the WSJ article. So the new user fees would pay for ATC services (ie people in the towers/centers) and atc modernization, but at least some of the existing fuel taxes and ticket fees would still go to the trust fund for the faa to hand out?
 
SkyHog said:
I support privatization, but not the way it's always pitched. I fail to see how air traffic control is a government responsibility. Things will be better with competition in the marketplace, and instead of awarding a contract to a single company to provide it nationwide, each airport should be free to pick a company to so it for them at whatever rate they but upon.

Sure, tie some guidelines in (like, for example, no user fees), but the only way to improve what we have now is to let private industry take over.
Click to expand...
User fees and PPPs are the big thing right now. DoT has bought in, lock, stock and barrel. They are using tolls around here as a traffic management mechanism - tolls on I-66 reached $45 this week for a roughly 8 mile stretch.

Some of the privately-built toll lanes were built with government-guaranteed bonds but the private contractor keeps the toll money.
 
The system isn't really broken. Aircraft safety (especially airlines) are the safest ever. I think monthly bills for ATC services would be an anathema and really discourage general aviation (which IS kind of broken, well, in decline). Same with airport landing fees, temporary tiedown fees and even TOLL ROADS. Collect the money needed with tax on fuel (and run into the OIL lobby). But do it anyway.
 
murphey said:
How's the Post Office and Amtrak working out for you?
Click to expand...
The illusion of intelligence. Attempting to sound smart while not offering any information.

I favor reduced government. Always. If aviation is dependent on the government? Then the government should seize all commercial operations and make it a government department. That ought to work out well for you big government types!
 
Stewartb said:
The illusion of intelligence. Attempting to sound smart while not offering any information.

I favor reduced government. Always. If aviation is dependent on the government? Then the government should seize all commercial operations and make it a government department. That ought to work out well for you big government types!
Click to expand...

KA1-FRONTCOVER.jpg



I for one don't want the crap aviation seen in places like Canada, euro land, etc

Our system works very well, leave it be
 
James331 said:
I'm all for smaller government as well, however I'm not a teenager with a big A with a circle on his jansport backpack who thinks no government is the answer, it's not a black and white thing, somethings are better without government interference (like insurance) some things are best with government, like ATC and the mail, some things are best done with the government but just need to downsize, like the PD, military, and the level of mid level management in many other parts of the government.
Click to expand...

I think you're wrong about the mail.
 
SkyHog said:
I support privatization, but not the way it's always pitched. I fail to see how air traffic control is a government responsibility. Things will be better with competition in the marketplace, and instead of awarding a contract to a single company to provide it nationwide, each airport should be free to pick a company to so it for them at whatever rate they but upon.
Click to expand...

That's fine for airports. The entity that owns the airport should have control over surface operations. Airspace is another matter, there can be no competition in the control of airborne traffic.
 
luvflyin said:
Agree with that. Define 'government.' The lines are getting a little blurry.
Click to expand...

A government is the system or group of people governing an organized community, often a state. In the case of its broad associative definition, government normally consists of legislature, executive, and judiciary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top