I read in the Miami Herald that Donald Trump is in favor of privatization of Air Traffic Control. It that happens I imagine that IFR flight will be subject to the same high charges that folks in Europe have to pay. Let's hope it doesn't happen!!
Would ATC then redirect everyone to airports near his resorts?
I read in the Miami Herald that Donald Trump is in favor of privatization of Air Traffic Control. It that happens I imagine that IFR flight will be subject to the same high charges that folks in Europe have to pay. Let's hope it doesn't happen!!
It would be nice if those calling for privatization of Air Traffic Control would define "privatization" and identify what problems in ATC would be solved by it.
See how well that worked with USIS and security clearances...someone would make money off of it and services would suffer. Duh.
See how well that worked with USIS and security clearances...
alot has been turned over already. many airport towers, and weather brief and ifr and vfr flight plan.L martin does a much better on the weather imo. Government people are usually slugs and get huge benefits and salary.
Do you think that fuel taxes meet the marginal cost of providing the per-trip services to the typical IFR piston-single? Just gut feel, but seems hard to believe.The Canadian model might not be so bad, but I don't see why we can't continue to pay through fuel taxes.

Do you think that fuel taxes meet the marginal cost of providing the per-trip services to the typical IFR piston-single? Just gut feel, but seems hard to believe.
I appreciate that one can answer "no" to that and still argue that fuel tax is the appropriate mechanism, btw.
It worked so well for the post office.
alot has been turned over already. many airport towers, and weather brief and ifr and vfr flight plan.L martin does a much better on the weather imo. Government people are usually slugs and get huge benefits and salary.
Which was what they were talking about for the "ATC Corporation" the last time this came up. "Privatization" means different things to different people pushing political agendas.The Post Office was not privatized. The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 replaced the cabinet-level Post Office Department with the United States Postal Service, an independent agency of the US government.
Which was what they were talking about for the "ATC Corporation" the last time this came up. "Privatization" means different things to different people pushing political agendas.
AFSS does a better job? You must not have had one on the field long ago... those local guys and gals knew our local weather. The kids in Prescott have zero clue. They just read from the script.
Which was what they were talking about for the "ATC Corporation" the last time this came up. "Privatization" means different things to different people pushing political agendas.
Do you think that fuel taxes meet the marginal cost of providing the per-trip services to the typical IFR piston-single? Just gut feel, but seems hard to believe.
I appreciate that one can answer "no" to that and still argue that fuel tax is the appropriate mechanism, btw.
But would it still be worth the money to keep them all open? In this case it looks like whoever made the decision to close them did the right thing since almost everyone gets their briefings electronically now. The only reason I used to visit in person was to look at the satellite picture which I couldn't access anywhere else. They would sometimes ask me what the weather was like outside because they didn't have any windows where they sat.Agree! Used to nice to pop into a FSS on the field and get your brief and file. Used to take my students there for a tour, and as you mentioned Nate, friendly and helpful briefers.
Trump has announced he's cutting the federal workforce.
But would it still be worth the money to keep them all open? In this case it looks like whoever made the decision to close them did the right thing since almost everyone gets their briefings electronically now.
It worked so well for the post office.
Privatization shouldn't mean anything different than turning over operational roles and responsibilities to a profit motivated corporation. Usually I'm all for it being that it's the industry I'm in but in this case I don't know what the FAA would be trying to accomplish. Maybe there's a belief that the private sector can accomplish the same task more efficient or have greater fiscal responsibility. Could be they see this as an extension of all the current FAA tasks that are currently privatized; IACRA, WX, ATC Training ect.
Or Amtrak. Though the Northeast Corridor is profitable and carries a lot of traffic, most of the rest of the system is subsidized.
There are so many ways for this to go through it is difficult to discuss. The last legislation would've created a not for profit government corporation headed by mostly airlines and then a few GA and business aviation chairmen. That doesn't mean the next attempt will be written that way.
That is why there are no contract towers and no well defined boundaries for airspace control amongst the many control centers and approach/departure controls.The government should not be doing any tasks that can be done by the private sector.
Proponents of privatized ATC often claim that competition will keep costs down. But there can be no direct competition in ATC; multiple providers of separation services in the same airspace can only serve their customers, they can't separate their customers from another provider's customers. ATC must be a monopoly. When a monopoly of something in demand is established prices go up; like Mylan and the EpiPen.
That is why there are no contract towers ...
Here is an article which advocates privatization.
That is why there are no contract towers and no well defined boundaries for airspace control amongst the many control centers and approach/departure controls.
So the only problem you have with the argument is use of the word "fully"?"In recent decades, many nations have partly or fully separated their air traffic control (ATC) systems from their governments."
Fully separated? In what nation's airspace would I be free to operate without use of the ATC system there? My aircraft will function just fine without ATC and where ATC has been fully separated from government I am free to do that.
So the only problem you have with the argument is use of the word "fully"?
Of course not. You're mind is already made up, but maybe others will find it interesting.I'd probably have more if I had read beyond that point but given that statement I saw no reason to.