Trump Announces Plan To Privatize US Air Traffic Control

When I read that this will be handled by a Non-Profit Corporations I laugh a lot, looks like a lot of people here don't have a clue about the new business era. USA can't compare with Europe, when they decided to privatize something, they do it right with a lot of rules (laws) to follow, but in America where they are a lot of lobbyists everywhere you got is not possible, all the rules are flexible and always in favor of big corporations...

Also a link on an issue some bring up that isn't quite accurate. https://www.forbes.com/sites/currentaccounts/2017/03/23/air-traffic-control-is-not-the-real-cause-of-airline-delays/#7bcdebb42c37

Such a bad idea...here is some text from some ATC friends (and I have a lot of knowledge and study in aviation as well.). It seems like a better idea on paper than reality. A very good look at the Air Traffic Control debate. Like with most things with this administration he believes the private sector can wave it's magic wand and make everything great again. Thank you Kyle Szary for posting this. Hope you don't mind the copy and paste. Currently in congress there is a debate on whether privatizing Air Traffic Control would be detrimental to aviation safety. Advocates of privatization argue that privately run control towers cost less to operate, are equally as safe as FAA-run facilities, and will increase the speed of modernization of equipment. Opponents of privatization point to examples of other countries that have privately run ATC facilities (like Great Britain, Australia and Canada) and the massive problems they have encountered. In theory and on paper the arguments for privatization may be valid but when put into real world use, they fail miserably. ATC privatization is significantly different than typical privatizations. Typical proposals to privatize public services involve specifying the service to be privatized and putting out a competitive request for bids for the contract. The service is then turned over to the lowest bidder. The theory that there are alternative suppliers is sufficient motivation for the contractor to perform to the agency’s specifications. But many Americans are uncomfortable with the idea of their flight safety being managed by a company that won the job by submitting the lowest bid. ATC privatization differs from typical privatization proposals in two essential ways. First, it cannot be completely handed over to a private company since the FAA has to retain a powerful supervisory role to maintain public safety and security. Secondly, it cannot be competitively bid on. ATC is not a service subject to the discipline of a competitive, capitalist market place. There are no available private sector providers listed in a phone book ready, willing and able to sell a national ATC system at a moment’s notice. Furthermore, the government could not create a competitive market for ATC service even if it wanted to. ATC is what economists characterize as a “natural monopoly.” Natural monopolies are situations in which, because of the large scale of operation and the high fixed costs in infrastructure, it is less expensive to have a single regulated provider. It would be inefficient to duplicate the costly advanced technology that modern ATC demands among many providers who would then compete to sell it to the government. Still ATC privatization is a highly debated topic in congress, split between party lines. The Bush administration and the rest of the republicans in congress are in favor of privatization, while democrats are adamantly opposed to it. Of the three main arguments for privatized ATC services, one needs to only look at the examples from other countries to see how these arguments are inaccurate . Probably some of the biggest arguments for privatization are that contracted facilities will be cheaper to run than FAA facilities and they are equally, if not more, as safe as government-run facilities. While it may be true that privately run facilities have been successful at reducing totals costs, it is the “at what price?” question that is rarely asked. The price is safety and employee satisfaction. It is risky in terms of public safety to have private operators each responding to their own internal profit margins, acting by their own operational protocols moving air traffic through the national air space. Also, it is likely that the current 24-hour service at many facilities would be reduced to cut costs, limiting the flexibility of commercial users. NAV Canada, Canada’s private ATC provider, has been successful at keeping costs low by negotiating with controllers to keep flexible schedules. As a result, fewer controllers need to be hired and labor costs are kept low, but controllers in Canada are stretched to the point of being unable to perform their jobs. Since NAV Canada took over operations in 1998, they have an aircraft incident rate twice that as America with a system 7% the size of America. NAV Canada suffers from inefficiencies, inadequate staffing and huge financial losses. In August, the fees that airlines and ultimately passengers pay for air traffic control services in Canada went up 7 percent to cover NAV Canada’s $22 million debt. The Edmonton Journal described NAV Canada as “financially ravaged.” In Great Britain, near-misses have increased by 50 percent, and delays have grown enormously since their ATC system was privatized. In addition, the privatized system has been a financial disaster, requiring a bailout in March 2003 of more than $200 million from their government and airlines. And in Australia, cost saving work rules have so infuriated controllers that a series of strikes have crippled air traffic movement for hours at a time at a high cost to Australians as a whole. Another claim of privatization advocates is that private ATC companies would provide modern technology and would be innovative and speedy adapters of new technology. The Canadian, Australian and British cases all demonstrate that this is not the truth. In Canada, technological innovation has consisted of waiting for the U.S. to develop new technology and then importing it. The Australian Advanced Air Traffic System (TAAATS) has led to several technological failures, including a twelve-minute radar blackout. In the United Kingdom, introduction of new software has caused severe disruptions and system shutdowns. Controllers in a new London area facility have been unable to make out the call numbers of planes on their new screens, which is a major safety hazard. Major inefficiency and safety hazards associated with private implementation of new technology are demonstrated through international cases. They clearly dispute the argument that privatization brings better technology quicker and it demonstrates a substantial risk of technological failure. America’s air traffic control system is the best in the world. It is staffed by highly trained professionals employed by the FAA. Their #1 priority is always safety. There is no private contractor trying to pinch pennies by cutting staffing. Government controllers are answerable to the public, not to investors or accountants. The United States now has the safest, most efficient air traffic control system in the world. Controllers guide more than one million passengers safely every day. It is beyond comprehension why the White House would want to risk this high standard of safety, especially considering the dismal record of air traffic control privatization in other countries. Now more than ever, the American public expects the federal government to protect our safety, not to put it up for sale.

The Government running ATC is not the cause of flight delays. Flight delays are due to: a) Lack of pavement/runways. You cannot cram any more planes into LGA than are already scheduled, and making enroute separation more efficient will not change this. b) Airline scheduling. DFW Airport has an ideal arrival capacity of 159 flights per hour and an ideal departure capacity of 105 flights per hour. When American schedules their tight "banks" to make for shorter connection times, they will schedule say 70-75 departures in a 30 minute period. They know their planes are going to sit at the runway for a while, but they design their schedule for this and then can blame the delays on ATC. c) Weather. For both of the above scenarios, things work as designed from an ATC perspective 80-90% of the time. When there are thunderstorms, snow, ice, and wind shear there is nothing anyone can do to convince a pilot to fly into something they deem unsafe. Even removing the government's hands from the system will do nothing to improve efficiency. The United States invented air traffic control, and it is the framework upon which the entire aviation system in this country is built. The purpose of the system is the Safe, Orderly, and Expeditious flow of aircraft on a first-come, first-serve basis. Giving the airlines control of the system would not in any way be better for the flying public.

President Trump tweets on Monday outlining the principles of his plan to privatize the nation’s air traffic control system. a tweet… Movin’ right along in search of good times and good news,