

Computer Glitch Grounds Air Traffic - phsr
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/faa-glitch/

======
jazzychad
I'm caught in the middle of all this. I'm flying out to San Francisco
connecting, of course, through Atlanta. It's definitely a madhouse, but mostly
people are acting calm.

This is why when travelling cross-country or internationally I always give a
full day for stuff like this.

Interestingly, CNN and Fox News are scanning for annoyed passenger tweets
(they found mine) and have been contacting them for interviews for their
reports.

------
jsyedidia
This video might be relevant: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaPvJlPnc6E>

Its argument is that the U.S. flight control system is obsolete because it is
government-run, as opposed to the Canadian system, which is run by a private
company controlled by the airlines, which have better incentives to keep it
up-to-date.

~~~
eli
The US flight control system is obsolete because it is ridiculously
underfunded. No private company would do much better given the same resources.

Moreover the goal is getting people places _safely_ and efficiently, not
_cheaply_ and efficiently. (I'd also point out that privatizing public
utilities has gone quite poorly in recent US history)

This is not a public vs private issue.

~~~
bwhite
The problem is that the incentives are all wrong.

The air traffic controllers represent a significant problem. The original
union (since busted by Reagan) had an incentive to reduce work and increase
pay, so they established conservative air separation rules, frequently made
them even more conservative, and had regular slow-works. The union had an
obvious incentive to fight against automation, too. (The current union isn't
quite as bad. The incentives are the same, though.)

The USGOV has no obvious incentive to make the skies better. When flights go
bad the people rail against the airlines, not the Feds. They also have the
incentive to poorly fund the ATC system and use the money on other things that
will give them more visible wins.

The airlines would like to upgrade their fleet but that's useless without ATC
systems that can handle the new tech (like GPS). UPS finally bit the bullet
and upgraded its planes and then paid for its main airport (in Kentucky) to be
upgraded. I believe FedEx did the same (but in Tennessee).

A for-profit ATC system that was funded by mandated-minimum contributions from
both general aviation and the airlines (both are already dinged to partially
pay for the current ATC) would align the incentives properly. The airlines
would be able to get more planes in the sky, packed tighter, and in more
lanes. As new technology became available, they would use it. People would
have much better flight experiences with fewer delays. USGOV would get to stop
funding obsolete programs. And above all, the ATC company would have its
incentives aligned with both the airlines and the people, since they'd get
paid more if more flights were on time, etc. And the contract could be re-bid
out every few years to ensure that the ATC firm doesn't let complacency reign.

~~~
eli
I don't buy your argument about the current system. Of course the air traffic
controllers and their union want better equipment! You really think they're
intentionally making their jobs harder so that the government will have to
hire more of them? (And if so, it isn't working)

I also can't help but notice that "safety" is not mentioned in your argument
at all. If your goal is _safe_ flights, then letting a for-profit run them is
a _terrible_ idea.

~~~
bwhite
My argument was about incentives. Better equipment would mean learning a new
skill set (how to operate the new gear), being responsible for more productive
activity per unit time (managing more flights per hour instead of wrestling
with antiquated gear), and being downsized (need fewer people to manage the
new gear). Tell me again what the incentives are for the union to adopt the
new systems?

I don't think the union workers want to make their jobs harder, I think they
have no reason at all to support using additional automation and technology to
help do their jobs.

You haven't explained how government-run ATC is safer than private ATC, either
inherently or de-facto. Did you watch the video? Canada has the second-busiest
ATC system in the world and it's run by a private for-profit company. Do you
think the US's ATC needs are so vastly different than those of Canada that
there is nothing to be learned here?

Is your concern that the airlines would essentially capture the private firm
and have it do their bidding? Require almost no dues from the airlines and
push things too far such that safety is compromised? _Everything_ gets out. If
there were a crash and it came to light that the airlines behaved this way
they would be facing the mother of all lawsuits that would totally ruin their
businesses.

