Privatize ATC?

Palmpilot said:
His name is Steven, not Ron.
system would b
A statement of his that you may have missed:

"Nor is it known how much money was saved, if any."
​
Click to expand...

Well you see, I don't know him, so I use his avatar name. Money saved? :dunno:
But we may find out with President Trump.
 
mscard88 said:
See how Ron is using "government personnel" vs FAA personnel? He knows there are numerous facilities that are military approach controls, mostly Air Force and a few Navy (not sure about Marines). The Air Force operated Berlin Center during the Cold War, and I've been told the center over Nevada/Area 51 many years ago, don't know that as a fact though. During the controller strike/firing in '81 military controllers were sent to FAA facilities all over the country (myself Quonset Pt Tower), which included towers, approach controls, and centers. They did the job and kept the system operating on a limited basis until the FAA could hire and train replacement controllers.

Point is, if military controllers can show up and work these facilities (granted they had experience) then a private corporation could provide the same services as the FAA. There would have to be an overlap until the "new" company assumed full control but it could be done.
Click to expand...

But what benefit would a private company have in that regard? It's not like they're going to fire all the FAA controllers. They aren't going to take a pay cut either. NATCA, or what ever other union that might take over in contract, isn't going to let that happen.

The contract tower model has worked because some of the contracts are partly subsidized by local governments, the controllers are mostly retired FAA / military and work for less pay. Also, the towers generally have low activity, thereby requiring lower staffing levels. I just don't think those types of changes could happen to the busier tower, approach and center facilities.

Only thing I can think a private takeover would bring, is a reduction in the wasteful staffing positions above the line ATC leveI. Used to drive my dad crazy in AFSS and my brother complains about the waste in ATC as well. Way too many positions that were literally made up by senior controllers so that they could keep a job in ATC, without actually doing ATC. If a private company comes in, they'll trim that fat in a heart beat.
 
Velocity173 said:
Only thing I can think a private takeover would bring, is a reduction in the wasteful staffing positions above the line ATC leveI. Used to drive my dad crazy in AFSS and my brother complains about the waste in ATC as well. Way too many positions that were literally made up by senior controllers so that they could keep a job in ATC, without actually doing ATC. If a private company comes in, they'll trim that fat in a heart beat.
Click to expand...

Well it could be done but would take a long time to transition to it. I'm not saying it would be beneficial to replace the present system with a private one, but cutting the overhead staffing as above and the high salaries controllers make is their (the ones pushing it) apparent motivation. They may regret doing it if it ever becomes a reality.
 
Cogito said:
In Los Angeles the contract towers are staffed by overworked (and underpaid?) controllers with bad attitudes and the inability to handle more than two planes at a time. I've heard my drome ATC monopolize the freq. for 30 seconds to berate a pilot for some perceived slight while others are desperately trying to call in. Usually, it's ATC that made a bad call. The FAA towers and SoCal Tracon are professional, polite, and far safer in my estimation.
Click to expand...

If they aren't working more than two at a time they're not overworked.
 
MarkZ said:
"Privatization" legislation has already been proposed.

HR 4441 was introduced in the 114th Congress. Remains in committee limbo.
Click to expand...

I didn't see anything that would likely reduce airline delays. Appears to be more there about checked baggage and baggage fees than about ATC.

The various privatization proposals floated over the years all suggest delays can be reduced by employing better technology, primarily through better surveillance systems. That's definitely true in areas that presently have poor radar coverage, but those areas contribute very little to total delays. Delays nationwide are produced at a relatively small number of very busy air carrier airports and these airports have the best surveillance systems available.

From 1983 to 1992 I was a controller at Chicago Center. Working a high altitude sector I had to provide JFK bound traffic, IIRC, 30 miles in-trail spacing regardless of altitude to the next sector. Downline, other controllers would blend other JFK bound traffic streams in order to give approach something they could work with. Minimum radar separation was five miles, some new technology might allow that to be reduced to three miles but that wouldn't reduce delays as thirty miles spacing would still be needed.

Similarly, about fifteen years ago, some improved technology provided an effective increase in enroute airspace. Better altimetry allowed vertical separation to be reduced from 2000 to 1000 feet between Flight Levels 290 and 410, providing six new cruise altitudes. But again, that doesn't reduce delays as spacing must be provided regardless of altitude.

Minimum radar separation in terminal areas is three miles. Wake turbulence procedures can increase that to as much as six miles. If we can't use current surveillance technology down to the minima it is capable of there's no reason to expect new technology to reduce delays.
 
mscard88 said:
Point is, if military controllers can show up and work these facilities (granted they had experience) then a private corporation could provide the same services as the FAA. There would have to be an overlap until the "new" company assumed full control but it could be done.
Click to expand...

Sure. You could take the present FAA controller workforce, terminate them as government employees, and a new corporation could hire them to staff the facilities. What problem would be solved by doing that?
 
roncachamp said:
Sure. You could take the present FAA controller workforce, terminate them as government employees, and a new corporation could hire them to staff the facilities. What problem would be solved by doing that?
Click to expand...
The other matter raised is speed to implement changes/technology. It is possible that private companies could raise capital and implement more quickly tha government contracting rules and paygo, but not guaranteed. Nextgen is often held up as an example, but the (lack of) willingness by the carriers and private owners to invest the capital in the aircraft is part of the problem. And as the Navworx situation is pointing out, there are still battles to be fought.
 
@roncachamp That was an excellent description of why delays won't get any better and service won't really change -- the hub and spoke systems being the ultimate underlying system problem there. But that's a marketing thing the proposals always state that nearly everyone already knows is just marketing fluff. It's about dollars and that's about it.

ATC as we know it, is very likely to go the same way the FSS did in my lifetime.

No dog in that fight unless service gets poor. Just sayin' you're arguing a point nobody who's paying attention would not bother to concede immediately.

I'm generally of the mindset that it's a natural monopoly and government running it will cost about what a corporation will, either way.

Judge Greene didn't save anybody any money long term on telecom.

AFSS doesn't appear to be any cheaper than the same lower level of service we now have would have been under government.

ATC privatized doesn't fix anything. You're right there, too. It's just what some powerful folks want so their buddies can bid on the contracts and they can mess with the fuel tax structure to help their airline buddies.

Natural monopolies tend toward being overpriced no matter how they're structured. If run by government it's for overhead and extra bureaucracy. If by the private sector it's to pay the execs and a really deep pool of them. The middle and front line staff rarely see a benefit of either type of business, with the exception of Federal retirement which beats most retirement plans for most folks.
 
As for the post office, it's a money maker were it not for the tremendous burden congress puts on it concerning billions in retirement set asides. Congress needs to take a good look at itself regarding number of days actually worked, corruption is rampant with members in bed with lobbyists, etc. congress heal thyself! Remember how privatization worked for company's like blackwater, ( to name one of several mercenaries ) who soaked the government for billions, were not accountable to the Mcj and caused a lots of bad relations with Iraqi civilians and American officers unable to control them .
 
roncachamp said:
Sure. You could take the present FAA controller workforce, terminate them as government employees, and a new corporation could hire them to staff the facilities. What problem would be solved by doing that?
Click to expand...

The new rates of pay would be a smaller number.
 
ATC is one of the few government operations that functions very well almost all of the time. I'm not against privatization in general, but I don't think it makes sense in this case.

Rich
 
Art VanDelay said:
The new rates of pay would be a smaller number.
Click to expand...

For the front line. The execs over such a system would be paid handsomely. Even scarier, it'd probably be a wash. That's how much more the upper levels would get paid.

And would there be shareholders? Can I "invest" in ATC? That's just weird.

And why corporations running natural monopolies never really work out to be cheaper in the end.
 
denverpilot said:
And would there be shareholders? Can I "invest" in ATC? That's just weird.

And why corporations running natural monopolies never really work out to be cheaper in the end.
Click to expand...


NATS, the company operating the UKs airspace, is owned 49% by government, 46% by airlines, and 5% by employees. I don't believe it will ever be a publicly traded stock.
 
Seanaldinho said:
NATS, the company operating the UKs airspace, is owned 49% by government, 46% by airlines, and 5% by employees. I don't believe it will ever be a publicly traded stock.
Click to expand...

Interesting info.

Who would end up (speculative of course) owning a privatized US ATC system?
 
Look at "Lock-Mart"'running the FSS - you can buy a piece of that. That's probably who would end up doing ATC.
 
roncachamp said:
So the problem is payroll is too high? Pay can be cut without forming a corporation.
Click to expand...

I think there's a greater likelihood of me contracting leoprosy from a doorknob than ever wading through the intense bureaucracy of a government union.
 
Art VanDelay said:
I think there's a greater likelihood of me contracting leoprosy from a doorknob than ever wading through the intense bureaucracy of a government union.
Click to expand...
In most cases federal government unions can't apply pressure to improve onditions as strikes are essentially banned. For proof, see "PATCO"
 
Art VanDelay said:
Look at "Lock-Mart"'running the FSS - you can buy a piece of that. That's probably who would end up doing ATC.
Click to expand...

I remember back in the 70s Lockheed was operating and "building" the ATC system for Saudia Arabia. A lot of my friends (I know hard to believe huh), Air Force controllers, retired or prior, went over for the bucks. Big bonus if I remember correctly if one stayed a second year.
 
wsuffa said:
In most cases federal government unions can't apply pressure to improve onditions as strikes are essentially banned. For proof, see "PATCO"
Click to expand...

True yet still they prevail. We have WAY too many federal employees in this country that get pay raises for merely breathing. I certainly don't mean to pick on the FAA first but they're on my list. First for me would be to abolish the IRS. No doubt the auditors could find gainful employment performing colonic lavages - since they're all so good at it already !
 
Hear hear Art! Trump said he'd eliminate the IRS. But he's already retracted a few 'promises'.
 
Art VanDelay said:
I think there's a greater likelihood of me contracting leoprosy from a doorknob than ever wading through the intense bureaucracy of a government union.
Click to expand...

Were you alive in 1981?

If the "intense bureaucracy of a government union" can prevent an ATC pay cut why can't it prevent the formation of an ATC corporation?
 
mscard88 said:
Hear hear Art! Trump said he'd eliminate the IRS. But he's already retracted a few 'promises'.
Click to expand...

You know I don't think a lot of the sheeple realize just about every "promise" he made or pledged has to get by the congress critters. That pretty much means a great deal of his platform will undoubtedly get shot down. And that's unfortunate . But I will guarantee you that every time that happens the TelePrompTer reading bubbleheads of the mainstream media will be quick to make it look like it's all Donnie's fault !
 
roncachamp said:
Were you alive in 1981?

If the "intense bureaucracy of a government union" can prevent an ATC pay cut why can't it prevent the formation of an ATC corporation?
Click to expand...

I was a freshman in college then and I recall it took a PRESIDENTIAL ORDER ! Like those are things just arbitrarily handed left and right .
 
Art VanDelay said:
You know I don't think a lot of the sheeple realize just about every "promise" he made or pledged has to get by the congress critters. That pretty much means a great deal of his platform will undoubtedly get shot down. And that's unfortunate . But I will guarantee you that every time that happens the TelePrompTer reading bubbleheads of the mainstream media will be quick to make it look like it's all Donnie's fault !
Click to expand...

That's what I kept explaining to my wife. Congress controls just about everything. That's why McCain is always blowing a cylinder or two! :D
 
Art VanDelay said:
You know I don't think a lot of the sheeple realize just about every "promise" he made or pledged has to get by the congress critters. That pretty much means a great deal of his platform will undoubtedly get shot down. And that's unfortunate . But I will guarantee you that every time that happens the TelePrompTer reading bubbleheads of the mainstream media will be quick to make it look like it's all Donnie's fault !
Click to expand...

Actually, every "promise" he made or pledged to do that involves only rescinding an Executive Order he can do without involving any Congress critters.
 
denverpilot said:
Interesting info.

Who would end up (speculative of course) owning a privatized US ATC system?
Click to expand...

Its tough to say. There are so many potential ways of going about "privatization". I believe the term itself adds to the confusion. Last years rendition a government-owned not-for-profit corporation would have had stakeholders as the board members (airlines, corporate, GA, NATCA). I don't think we will see a true private company in charge of ATC. I think we will just see a separation of ATC from the FAA and government. Doing this would stabilize funding and potentially streamline hiring (a problem right now). They would still be operating under FAA rules and everything but would allow for more autonomy on a day to day basis.

Its a complex issue and every attempt at privatization is different.
 
Seanaldinho said:
I don't think we will see a true private company in charge of ATC. I think we will just see a separation of ATC from the FAA and government.
Click to expand...

Seems like those two things are mutually exclusive. Someone will own it. Or it'll just be another new government agency called "Private ATC, Inc." And if that's the goal, what's the point?
 
Everskyward said:
NavCanada is a non-share capital corporation.

https://www.navcanada.ca/EN/about-us/Pages/investor-relations.aspx
Click to expand...

Whatever the hell that is... LOL.

Basically just a company to transfer money to the execs which still has to meet all the requirements that it did as a government agency? So you still have government people to pay to create rules for them and then the staff of the company to execute those rules? And the company can't really say, "No, we don't feel like bidding on that part..."?

Doesn't sound any more efficient than just letting government run the natural monopoly.
 
denverpilot said:
Whatever the hell that is... LOL.

Basically just a company to transfer money to the execs which still has to meet all the requirements that it did as a government agency? So you still have government people to pay to create rules for them and then the staff of the company to execute those rules? And the company can't really say, "No, we don't feel like bidding on that part..."?

Doesn't sound any more efficient than just letting government run the natural monopoly.
Click to expand...
What is a not-for-profit corporation?
Not-for-profit corporations (also called "non-share capital corporations") are different from for-profit corporations (also called "business corporations") in three fundamental ways:

  • The not-for-profit corporation is composed of members, whereas the for-profit corporation is owned by shareholders. Footnote 1
  • The members of a not-for-profit corporation cannot receive any financial (or pecuniary) gainFootnote 2 during the life of the corporation,Footnote 3 whereas a for-profit corporation may distribute profits to its shareholders in the form of dividends.
  • The powers of a not-for-profit corporation are limited to what is written into its objects (purposes), whereas, typically, the for-profit corporation has no such limits.Footnote 4
Click to expand...
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cilp-pdci.nsf/eng/cl00691.html

In other words it's a non-profit.

Board of Directors
This consensus is reflected in our governance structure. All key stakeholders are Members of the Company, and elect the Directors.

The Board of Directors is comprised of 15 Directors, all of whom must be Canadian citizens:

  • four Directors elected by commercial carriers through the National Airlines Council of Canada (NACC);

  • one Director elected by business and general aviation through the Canadian Business Aviation Association (CBAA);

  • three Directors elected by the Government of Canada;

  • two Directors elected by employee unions;

  • four independent Directors elected by the Board through the Director member; and

  • the Chief Executive Officer.
Click to expand...
http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/about-us/Pages/governance.aspx

Of course, this is only one model, but I believe the most recent attempt at privatization was built on this model.
 
Everskyward said:
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cilp-pdci.nsf/eng/cl00691.html

In other words it's a non-profit.

http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/about-us/Pages/governance.aspx

Of course, this is only one model, but I believe the most recent attempt at privatization was built on this model.
Click to expand...

I've never seen a modern big non-profit not make someone a profit. :) I've always thought that name was a just a cute way around taxes. And a quasi-government agency or real one isn't paying taxes anyway.

So again I ask, what's the point? You take one bureaucracy and replace it with two. One to oversee the non-profit and one to run it.

Can just fix the inefficiencies inside the original one if someone actually grew a spine. Either way, all entities strive to grow, not get smaller and more efficient / leaner and meaner. Growing multiple entities isn't going to be cheaper than growing one.

Unless you tie the execs pay to cutting waste and making the new entities smaller... which I doubt is going to happen... the motivation is to grow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top