
Trump announces plans to privatize US air traffic control system - petergatsby
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-06-05/trump-endorses-controversial-u-s-air-traffic-spinoff-proposal
======
kem
A monolithic private institution doesn't inspire confidence in me any more
than a monolithic public one. I don't see the purpose in switching one for the
other, and would probably rather see it run by the government.

If it was replacing the current system with one where you had 12 different
companies competing with one another, maybe so but I don't really see the
benefit in what I'm reading. But I don't feel strongly about it.

What worries me the most about this in some ways is how it seems to be focused
on the large airlines and not on passengers and private pilots. This is the
current trend that disturbs me the most about Trump and the GOP: they seem
pretty blatantly to be representing large corporations and their own party
rather than the public at large. The assumption seems to be that what benefits
the fat cats is what benefits everyone.

I'm not anti-large-corporation per se, but a big part of the reason for
democracy is to protect the average person.

I don't really see any arguments here other than "it makes the airlines
happy." As if they needed more latitude.

~~~
mmirate
> A monolithic private institution doesn't inspire confidence in me any more
> than a monolithic public one. I don't see the purpose in switching one for
> the other, and would probably rather see it run by the government.

Indeed; this is why almost all "let's privatize _X_ " initiatives are
ultimately pointless (or perhaps even counterproductive). They merely shift
the monopoly-holder from public-sector to private-sector, without alleviating
the "there is a monopoly" status. Indeed, the private sector's legendary
efficiency advantage specifically occurs when there is _competition_ , and is
not some magical thing that is endowed to the private sector and forbidden
from the public sector.

~~~
kwhitefoot
In some circumstances

> the private sector's legendary efficiency advantage

is in fact:

    
    
      the private sector's _mythical_ efficiency advantage

~~~
mmirate
Right; my point is that your "some" circumstances are _precisely_ those under
which there is no competitive pressure.

~~~
mmirate
(Which is to say, the private sector very much _does_ have an efficiency
advantage when there is a competitive market. Because only then is everyone in
that market personally motivated, by the "vice" of greed, to be virtuously
efficient. The only exception is what some people call a "monopoly par
excellence"; a firm without competitors which nevertheless acts as though it
has them.)

------
ericfrederich
My guess is that he has some personal vendetta against them for something that
happened causing him to be delayed 5 minutes on his private jet.

~~~
treebeard901
The personal vendetta, while probably true on some level, seems too easy of an
answer. This is one of many privatization initiatives this administration is
going to take.

The focus initially will be to find government run agencies that can be
profitable in the private sector. Think in terms of toll roads/bridges for
infrastructure, air traffic control and student loans to name a few. Whether
or not if privatization is the right answer is debateable but it is probably
going to happen in one form or another.

The question is: Who will benefit by owning these companies? Look to the
privatization of the USSR as a worst possible outcome. Large former government
run industries given to private ownership that instantly created a strong
oligarchy class.

How well has democracy worked in Russia since that happened?

~~~
MaxfordAndSons
> How well has democracy worked in Russia since that happened?

It's worked great for the oligarchs! I honestly think the Republican party
sees that as the ideal outcome: create a strong kleptocratic class that can
use their wealth to perpetuate Republican control.

------
chrisbennet
Doesn't a lot of the expense of government run programs come from the
retirement benefits? The government assumes the risk (pension) instead of the
employee (401K).

As an aside, according to a controller I know, a lot of FAA employees are
retiring soon and at about the same time. A large cohort of controllers were
hired about the same time to replace the fired striking PATCO [1] controllers
in the early 80's.

[1] PATCO Professional Air Traffic Controllers

~~~
bryondowd
Yep, lots of the current controllers are retiring right now, and even more
have their 20 years and could retire before the mandatory retirement age of 56
if things change in a way that makes it not in their best interest to keep
working.

I'm currently part of a hiring wave meant to replace those controllers. Around
1400 people are being hired in my bid alone. ATC has been my get-out-of-
software plan, but depending how things shake out, if the compensation doesn't
stay the same for newcomers, I expect I'll have to run back to software. I'm a
little concerned that this new private entity will compensate the old timers
to keep them on and keep the union on board, and throw newcomers under the bus
for the sake of 'efficiency', which would keep things running short-term, and
leave them with a sudden lack of talent in five or ten years. But I'm not an
expert on how these things turn out, just highly cynical about a private
corp's ability to think long-term.

------
mmanfrin
_Why_. I don't get this at all. Why privatize? What is the benefit? All I see
this doing is decreasing safety.

~~~
d0lph
Private organizations are more efficient than governmental ones. Ideally the
way they are managed/regulated will remain the same. It would be really neat
to see some innovation here as well, with governmental agencies there really
isn't an incentive to break the status quo.

edit: If you're downvoting at least comment with why you think this isn't the
case

~~~
reverend_gonzo
There is a reason that air traffic is tightly controlled, primarily there is
massive public risk for minimal errors.

There is a saying that the FARs are written in blood, as in regulations aren't
passed willy-nilly, but passed after there has been a serious incident.

Air traffic is one place where "Iterate quickly and break shit" doesn't work.
What happens when in the name of "efficiency", one tower reduces current
safety limits because "99% of the time these are unnecessary", then the one
time it actually was necessary, you've got two jets about to make a head-on
collision, or one quickly changes course, loses control, and crash-lands into
a town.

There are absolutely improvments that can be made with the FAA, but
privatizing ATC is definitely not one of them.

~~~
icebraining
I find the proposal suspect, but this seems like fear-mongering. Planes are
already built and operated by private companies, yet I don't see them
"iterating quickly and breaking shit". Of course the FARs have much to do with
that, but it's not like they'll stop existing.

------
mullen
> Donald Trump on Monday unveiled his proposal to hand over control of the
> U.S. air-traffic control system to a non-profit corporation, calling the
> current system an antiquated mess that doesn’t work and wastes money.

Did someone point out to this idiot that we are having a string of years where
there are no deaths in domestic commercial travel. Whatever is happening in
the US Traffic System appears to be working really well.

I also think that president holds a person vendetta against the FAA because it
told him he could not land his plane somewhere or an air traffic controller
delayed him by a couple of minutes.

~~~
rtx
These people are not being fired, just being transferred to a new company. I
believe they will continue to perform at the same level. And with a non-gov
entity we also get the benefit of optimal resource allocation. A win-win for
everyone. Only reason of opposing this would be personal vendetta against
Trump.

~~~
icebraining
_with a non-gov entity we also get the benefit of optimal resource allocation_

How do you figure?

~~~
rtx
Not referencing a whole field dedicated to this. Just sharing an anecdote. My
father works for a government mining company. His job is that of a translator.
Now no one use the language he was supposed to translate from. So he goes to
office does some stuff and come backs home. We get govt housing and energy,
medical (children till 25 and employees parent till death, two paid yearly
holidays for the whole family.

~~~
icebraining
And it pains you that the mine isn't privatized so that the new CEO can fire
your father and buy himself an extra yacht?

------
goodcanadian
While I would have liked to find a source other than the Cato institute for it
([https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-pursues-air-traffic-
control-...](https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-pursues-air-traffic-control-
reform)):

 _The airlines are for it, the key labor union is for it, aviation experts are
for it, and the second-largest nation on earth did it. Canada privatized its
system in 1996, and today the nonprofit Nav Canada is on the leading edge of
ATC efficiency and innovation._

~~~
Florin_Andrei
Ah, yes, Cato Institute, that paragon of unbiased, reality-based thought.

/s

~~~
goodcanadian
Indeed . . . that is why I would have preferred another source. I have read
very similar things from better sources, but I was not able to find them,
today.

EDIT: Here is one from the Economist from last year describing NAV Canada in
favourable terms as compared to the FAA.:
[http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-
technology/2170347...](http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-
technology/21703477-americas-antiquated-air-traffic-control-system-hindering-
safety-sky-navigating)

And the Wall Street Journal (paywalled): [https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-
canadian-air-traffic-contro...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-canadian-air-
traffic-control-compared-1467219369)

And the Financial Post (part of Canada's National Post):
[http://business.financialpost.com/news/transportation/u-s-
lo...](http://business.financialpost.com/news/transportation/u-s-looks-to-
canadian-model-as-it-debates-air-traffic-control-privatization)

------
ithinkinstereo
There are already ATC towers that are operated by private companies, so in a
way, this is just accelerating the existing trend.

That said, if it ain't broke, why bother trying to "fix" it? US air is the
safest in the world, it's rules are literally written in blood. This is one
area, where I'd like to see less, not more, privatization.

Safety, and not profit (or cost-reduction), should be the driving incentive
for something so critical, and so fault-sensitive.

------
pasbesoin
I caught a snippet of his comments, complaining about managing "thousands of
flights" using "slips of paper".

It's been a few years, but I recall reading at least one article wherein was
described how those slips of paper actually made a lot of sense. (It may have
been one of the articles that made the rounds, describing the surprising
endurance and resilience of paper-based work.)

The slips of paper supported both regular and immediate, ad hoc workflows as
they were needed. Also, paper is immune to systems failures. Your electronic
board goes down -- you still have all your flights at hand. Start spacing them
and shoving incoming traffic into wider holding patterns.

------
cjbenedikt
Judging by how the privatization of rail traffic in the UK worked out -
terrible idea!

~~~
dingaling
The UK's privatised air-traffic system is a model studied Worldwide; the
stakeholders include a group of seven airlines, yet it remains non-partisan
and is amongst the most efficient globally.

------
bearcobra
Outside of NavCanada, does anyone know if there are any other private entities
that manage ATC?

~~~
goodcanadian
From the Economist ([http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-
technology/2170347...](http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-
technology/21703477-americas-antiquated-air-traffic-control-system-hindering-
safety-sky-navigating)):

 _Over the past couple of decades more than 50 countries, including Australia,
Britain, Canada and New Zealand, have privatised (or at least
“commercialised”) their ATC services, . . ._

------
Simulacra
I'm cautious to say this is a good idea, but I'm also optimistic the private
sector would be more efficient than the public sector.

~~~
pudo
When did we decide efficiency was the goal of air traffic control? I want the
thing to be effective and reliable, efficiency is way down the list here.

~~~
d0lph
Right, but part of efficiency improvements would probably include some level
of automation, which would be more safe in the end.

~~~
chillingeffect
lot of hedging there.

What you're referring to is a _research_ project, not a deployable one.

I agree it's worth researching. Common industrial research grants with a
mixture of government and private funding can perform the research and develop
it.

And those improvements may be deployed to the sector whether it's private or
not. There's no need to pre-emptively privatize the industry to perform R & D.

