Privatizing ATC

[ifly4food]

Well, let's see...

Airport security used to be private. It was contracted out by the airlines to the lowest bidder. Along came Argenbright. We all know what a great job they and the other security companies did. Do we really want Argenbrights as air traffic controllers?

Think about the joke security is and what a mess it's going to be to federalize it.

As long as anything is privatized, it will be run like a business. It will be contracted out to the lowest bidder and the quality of service will reflect this. Have we learned nothing from the airport security mess?

USA Today did an article last week detailing industries since they have been deregulated. They included airlines, utilities, etc. Not a single industry improved service or lowered costs since they were deregulated. This would be the industry equivalent of privatized ATC. Though ATC would still be regulated, by taking its day to day operations out of the government's hands, costs (to the user) would go up and quality of service would decline.

Privitization of ATC is a huge mistake.

 

[FlyinBrian]

I don't think complete privatization is a good idea... But I don't buy a lot of the arguments here against it. You really think government will do a better job than private industry? I think Some folks over in Eastern Europe tried that approach to economics awhile back. It didn't go well. Out here in Arizona, many towers are publicly funded, Non-government towers. In other words, taxes pay for them, but they have to compete for governement contracts. The NFCT's around here provide better service for a lower cost than the Fed towers around here do. For those who are local to the phoenix area just fly from CHD to FFZ and back a few times and compare the controllers. The CHD controllers do a MUCH better job, and they don't even have radar like FFZ does. This is because the tower manager insists on perfection because his contract could go to another company if they don't do it right. Competing for dollars encourages excellence. I would not be opposed to partial privatization of ATC, although it must remain publicly funded. (user fees are definitely a bad idea) The political scientist in me considers ATC a service that it is impossible to limit the beneficiaries of. Such services require public funding. But opening up ATC service to competition will only improve it.

As for airport security, granted that Argenbright sucks, but it remains to be seen whether or not the government can do it any better. So far, the only changes are that pilots are 15 minutes later to every flight and the security paychecks come from the U.S. Treasury.

I guess I'm a middle-of-the-roader on this issue. I really can't think of much that the federal government does well. And being a fiscal conservative, I like to see competition introduced wherever possible because it ultimately benefits the consumer.

 

[vja217]

Don't let AOPA's jumping to conclusions affect you. No pilot will support pay-for-service ATC, and the politicians know this. We must remember though that we are indeed a minority, and most people outside of aviation would not want their tax money going for our current "free" ATC system because they either don't use it, don't know that they use it, don't know that it exists, or just don't care. These people would just assume we have the European system, where user fees pay for the system.

We cant deny it - from a business or political perspective, this makes the most sense. However, I am a pilot, and I know this will make the hobby that I enjoy so much, so much more expensive, and therefore I do not support it at all. This is the response AOPA is trying to illicit from its members, like me, and its working.

However, I'm not sure this "pay-for-use" system that AOPA is implicating is exactly what the Bush administration has in mind. Instead of being a totally privatized organization, financed by user fees, as AOPA guesses, what I take out of the legislation is something like a private company getting awarded an ATC contract, which would be wholly subsidized by the government.

An ATC once told me that the current FAA ATC program was the "most wasteful, inefficient, unorganized program in the entire government".

A privatized ATC program like many of the contract towers out there would allow a private company come in, and create a less expensive, less beurocratic, and more efficient ATC program, which would cost the tax payers less that the current one does. This is what I would support - it is a win-win for everyone except employees of the current system which is oversized and inefficient as it is. The taxpayers would pay less, and pilots wouldnt pay more, and yet they would enjoy a more effective and efficient system.

I don't consider myself a republican or believe that the government is always the problem, but in this case I think we in the pilot community have a lot to gain from a privatized ATC system, that is actually held somewhat accountable in terms of performance, so long as we don't have to pay anything more than we already do.

Max

 

[HvyjetFO]

BAD Idea

Privitization is an awful idea.

1) Lowest bidder concerns.

2) Labor / management in contract negotiation that could lead to a controller walkout. Empty radar rooms, cancelled flights, loss of Billions to the airline industry...nuff said.

3) Canada is privatized and it has created numerous problems.

4) Possibility of user fees.

I could go on and on about how bad an idea this is. A better solution is to upgrade ATC equipment so that the controllers have better tools to utilize the ATC system properly.

Hvy

 

[skydiverdriver]

I agree that this is a really bad idea. I think they should get rid of the red tape that is hampering ATC's modernization, but not to run it as a profit corporation. ATC still has many secret operations, so it would have to remain a government function. I would hate to have our ATC system start to look like the post office. Scary.

 

[FlyinBrian]

2) Labor / management in contract negotiation that could lead to a controller walkout. Empty radar rooms, cancelled flights, loss of Billions to the airline industry...nuff said.

Isn't that the point of a strike? Nobody around here seems to mind when it's a pilot strike.

 

[skydiverdriver]

You think that a pilot strike and a strike by controllers are the same thing? What if our Air Force decided to go on strike? Strikes by federal workers are illegal, and a threat to national security. Pilot strikes are not illegal. I don't see how you can relate the two.

 

[Timebuilder]

True, Brian. An airline stike affects the struck airline and it's customers. An ATC strike would affect ALL flying, including people who are not direct parties to the negotiation. In addition, national security would be compromised.

Those issues would be problems for me.

 

[Ned]

What is wrong with ATC?

Why do we need to change it? What is going to be better about a system that is private? In the last 5+ years and 700 hours I've flown I have had no problems with the system. I always get a weather briefer, I get accurate weather 99% of the time. My flight plans are always waiting at the tower if I'm IFR. Maybe once in 5 years I have been denied flight following by ATC when VFR. Sure I've encountered a few bone head controllers but thats not going away with a private system. So what is it that we gain by going private?

 

[Timebuilder]

What's to be gained? Nothing.