Control Tower Controversy brewing in the FAA

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

I don't doubt
that a private ATC would be more efficient, but it wouldn't
matter as
none of us could afford to fly privately any longer.


Why would private ATC be more efficient?

Automation, same as the post office.

Profit motive (over the long term) is a great incentive. What is the
FAA's incentive?

The FAA's incentive for efficiency is the political reality that they
are chronically underfunded and every time they fail to do something
because of lack of funding, some Congressman playing to the cheap
seats rakes them over the coals for failing to fulfill their mandate
to provide the highest level of safety.

Profit is not a factor in most proposals for ATC privatization.
Costs, operational control, personnel, purchasing, and funding
reliability are the main issues.

"John Mazor" wrote in message
...
"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

I don't doubt
that a private ATC would be more efficient, but it wouldn't matter
as
none of us could afford to fly privately any longer.


Why would private ATC be more efficient?

Automation, same as the post office.

Profit motive (over the long term) is a great incentive. What is the
FAA's incentive?

The FAA's incentive for efficiency is the political reality that they
are chronically underfunded and every time they fail to do something
because of lack of funding, some Congressman playing to the cheap
seats rakes them over the coals for failing to fulfill their mandate
to provide the highest level of safety.

Seperation is where ATC has failed lateley.

Profit is not a factor in most proposals for ATC privatization.

Such cognitive dissonance. Perhaps you would find your posts more
apropriate to one of the gag newsgroups, John Mazor. (sock)

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message nk.net...

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

I don't doubt
that a private ATC would be more efficient, but it wouldn't matter as
none of us could afford to fly privately any longer.


Why would private ATC be more efficient?

The controllers wouldn't be eligible for NATCA membership.
;-)

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

I don't doubt
that a private ATC would be more efficient, but it wouldn't matter as
none of us could afford to fly privately any longer.



Why would private ATC be more efficient?

Because most private companies that perform functions similar to
governmental agencies are more efficient. I think new technology would
be adopted faster and with less bureaucracy. I think controller
performance would be rewarded more effectively. Last I knew, most civil
service jobs still had a lot of focus on seniority, more like a union
workforce in the private sector than a professional workforce in the
private sector.

No way to know for sure unless it happens, but I'd bet money on greater
efficiency. I'd also bet money that general aviation, at least anything
other than corporate aviation, would all but cease to exist in 10-20
years.


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Because most private companies that perform functions similar to
governmental agencies are more efficient.


Sure, susccessful private companies are forced by competition to be more
efficient or fail. But you can't have competition in ATC.



I think new technology would
be adopted faster and with less bureaucracy.


Why?



I think controller
performance would be rewarded more effectively.


There used to be rewards for superior controller performance, but no longer.



Last I knew, most civil
service jobs still had a lot of focus on seniority, more like a union
workforce in the private sector than a professional workforce in the
private sector.


About all seniority does today in ATC is select prime time leave.



No way to know for sure unless it happens, but I'd bet money on greater
efficiency.


Why should that be the case in the US? It hasn't happened anywhere else.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Because most private companies that perform functions similar to
governmental agencies are more efficient.



Sure, susccessful private companies are forced by competition to be more
efficient or fail. But you can't have competition in ATC.

Sure you can. Not the head-to-head competition that exists in consumer
goods markets, but certainly competition akin to what exists in the
telecom market and other such markets. Also, the gummint could retain
ownership of ATC, but hold a competition every 4-5 years for who gets to
operate ATC for the next 4-5 years. Not real privatization, but a
hybrid that gets closer.

Don't get me wrong, as I said at the start, I am not advocating
privatization of ATC. I'm not sure that deregulation of the telecom
industry has been a win for the consumer and I'm not sure privatization
of ATC would be any better.


I think new technology would
be adopted faster and with less bureaucracy.



Why?

First a disclaimer, I'm not an expert when it comes to the federal
contracting process, but my employer does do a fair amount of government
contract work and I've had a passing acquaintance with it. It is MUCH
more expensive to work with any government agency that with almost any
private company, and I'm talking here about national research labs,
military labs, and some federal agencies such as NASA, but not, to my
knowledge, the FAA ... never worked with them as far as I know. The
requirements for bidding, accounting, etc. are just insane. The only
private company that even comes close to being as tough to work with is
Big Blue.

We just landed a contract with a large government agency working jointly
with IBM. It took TWO YEARS to get the contract! We've done much more
complicated work for much more money with other private companies and
universities under contracts that took two months to negotiate and get
approved.


I think controller
performance would be rewarded more effectively.



There used to be rewards for superior controller performance, but no longer.

The would exist in spades in most private companies. And not just
rewards for good performance, but termination for poor performance.


Last I knew, most civil
service jobs still had a lot of focus on seniority, more like a union
workforce in the private sector than a professional workforce in the
private sector.



About all seniority does today in ATC is select prime time leave.



No way to know for sure unless it happens, but I'd bet money on greater
efficiency.



Why should that be the case in the US? It hasn't happened anywhere else.

Few other countries have embraced capitalism as thoroughly as the US.
I'm not familiar with private ATC in the rest of the world, so I can't
comment. What countries are you talking about? Canada? England? Are
they really completely private or hybrids?


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Sure you can. Not the head-to-head competition that exists in consumer
goods markets, but certainly competition akin to what exists in the
telecom market and other such markets. Also, the gummint could retain
ownership of ATC, but hold a competition every 4-5 years for who gets to
operate ATC for the next 4-5 years. Not real privatization, but a
hybrid that gets closer.


It's the head-to-head competition that makes private firms more efficient.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Sure you can. Not the head-to-head competition that exists in consumer
goods markets, but certainly competition akin to what exists in the
telecom market and other such markets. Also, the gummint could retain
ownership of ATC, but hold a competition every 4-5 years for who gets to
operate ATC for the next 4-5 years. Not real privatization, but a
hybrid that gets closer.



It's the head-to-head competition that makes private firms more efficient.

And the profit motive. The latter can exist without competition. The
edge is certainly much sharper with competition as now it is that much
harder to make a profit, but making an even larger profit is still
pretty strong motivation.


Matt

Matthew S. Whiting wrote:

And the profit motive. The latter can exist without competition. The
edge is certainly much sharper with competition as now it is that much
harder to make a profit, but making an even larger profit is still
pretty strong motivation.

I question this reasoning only because regulated markets haven't been shown
as all that efficient, and it's tough to imagine that private ATC would be
unregulated.

In theory, the "right" regulation would promote efficiency. But what's
"right" might not even be known. More, were it known, it still might be
politically "expensive", and therefore forgotten.

However, we should all be aware that there is one bit of "low hanging fruit"
for a private ATC venture from an efficiency perspective: kill smaller GA.
If the "benefit" factor in the efficiency ratio is anything like
"people-miles moved", getting smaller GA out of the ATC system would
improve the benefit/cost ratio.

- Andrew

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Because most private companies that perform functions similar to
governmental agencies are more efficient.


Sure, susccessful private companies are forced by competition to be more
efficient or fail. But you can't have competition in ATC.

Automation is the natural competitor of civil service.