FAA Overhaul Bill to be Released July 1

[old cfi]

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=42a2bce0-45ab-4f4b-9034-08e4f7e2537b

Establish a stable, self-sustaining, fair user fee structure, insulated from the federal budget process and threats of related sequesters, furloughs, agency closures, and shutdowns. (emphasis ours)

This line sounds a little scary!

 

[Jim Logajan]

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=42a2bce0-45ab-4f4b-9034-08e4f7e2537b

Establish a stable, self-sustaining, fair user fee structure, insulated from the federal budget process and threats of related sequesters, furloughs, agency closures, and shutdowns. (emphasis ours)

This line sounds a little scary!

You scare easily. (Not a fan of that site; the original document exists here: http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/faa_bill_principles.pdf)

Keep in mind that terminal and en-route air traffic control began operation under the control of private entities such as airports and airlines [1][2][3]. Government control came years later.

With the exception of a report commissioned by NATCA [4], most others have found that privatization/commercialization of ATC did lead to control of cost increases and safety improved [5][6]. In terms of IFR movements per controller or GA aircraft per controller, when compared to the "commercialized" ATCs of France, the UK, Canada, and Germany, the US comes out as being more inefficient than all but France.[6]

Some slightly in-depth pro commercialization/privatization articles are in [7], [8], and [9]. A more ambivalent to slightly negative article is in [10].

As an aside, my personal observation of some PoA members is that many who I would have thought (based on their posts on other subjects) were principled libertarians, turn out instead to be opportunistic "libertarians" when they are the unfair benefactors of a social government redistribution of wealth. Then they tend to object to a change in the status quo that propose to makes things more fair. (By contrast, principled libertarians have consistently championed ATC privatization for a couple decades. [7])

[1] http://avstop.com/history/atc/air_traffic_control_begins.htm
[2] http://www.faa.gov/news/communicati...s of Federal Air Traffic Control 06-21-11.pdf
[3] http://catsr.ite.gmu.edu/SYST460/Chap1HistoryofAirTrafficControl.pdf
[4] http://mycourses.flyuvu.com/external_media/class_files/4700/pitfalls_of_atc_privatization.pdf
[5] http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1521&context=jaaer
[6] https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/FAA Reform March 2015 Long Statement_final_rev_508.pdf
[7] http://reason.org/files/apr-2014-air-transportation.pdf
[8] http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...ystem-offers-alternative-cost-cutting-nations
[9] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-l-schank-phd/a-few-clarifications-abou_b_7461168.html
[10] https://www.americanprogress.org/is...ions-about-air-traffic-control-privatization/

 

[Jim Logajan]

Except what is being proposed is not "privatization ".

Details wont be released till July 1 or later, so all we have right now to judge is this claimed goal:

"Establish a federally chartered, fully independent, not-for-profit corporation to operate and modernize the ATC system, free from the volatile funding uncertainty, political meddling, and bureaucratic inertia that have plagued FAA and our ATC system in years past."

To get an idea of the kind of entity proposed, the following are examples of some existing federally chartered, fully independent, not-for-profit corporations:

Boy Scouts of America
Girl Scouts of America
American Legion
American Red Cross
Little League Baseball
4H Club

These are examples that are federally chartered but don't make the cut because they get some or all their funding from the federal government:

National Academy of Sciences
Federal Reserve Bank
FDIC

 

[Jim Logajan]

Does a not for profit system somehow ensure a safer system? Airlines are for profit and their safety record is excellent.

I believe the usual claim is that profit oriented entities wont make expenditures on anything that improves safety until they are forced to - by law or by loss of customers. Thus maximizing profits at the expense of safety. Presumably non-profits wouldn't have the same motivation, though it isn't clear what stops management of a non-profit from fattening their personal compensation with the same end result isn't clear to me.

The technology is already here to automate the system, which should be the goal of any modernization effort. A for profit, non chartered corporation will have a reason to reach that goal, a non profit run by committee will not.

Actually I think a user-run cooperative may be a better model that would permit such modernization, as suggested by this article:

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixg...user-cooperative-government-corporation-robynUser cooperative. The user cooperative approach has shown itself to be superior, in theory and practice. In theory, it achieves an elegant alignment of incentives: because the stakeholder board is dominated by users, it governs the air traffic control system so as to keep costs low and invest in capital at the optimal level. This simple design solution creates an incentive for efficient performance in the absence of competition and it eliminates the incentive for monopoly abuse. Although the government participates as a member of the board (and serves as an independent safety regulator) its involvement in the private system can otherwise be minimal.
...
Of the 60 air traffic control systems around the world that have been spun off as autonomous, business-like entities, one is measurably outperforming the others. The reason is incentives: Nav Canada’s basic organizational design—management by a stakeholder board that is dominated by the users themselves—creates an incentive for efficiency in the absence of competition and eliminates the incentive for monopoly abuse.