Control Tower Controversy brewing in the FAA

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

I worked in ATC for National Air Traffic Services (UK) for 10 years and when
I left, there were plans afoot from the Mr Blair's "About Face" party to
privatise NATS. It was cynically announced on the last day of parliament for
the year so to play down the media furore and union backlash.
I can assure you that controllers are not obsessed with whether we have
minorities or women increasing in the roles, we dont care as long as they
can do the job. But ultimately, privatisation comes hand in hand with demand
for profits, and that means corner cutting and increased workloads on
controllers.

Incidentally, the UK Govt then, after I left, 49% privatised NATS to airline
ownership, and from what I hear, morale has never been lower.

Profit might encourage competition and then enhance efficiencies in other
industries but it doesnt in air traffic control. In telecom industries,
smaller operators can set up easily, but in ATC, its a huge infrastructure
requiring expensive hardware setup costs, and so, there's usually no shift
from the status quo in competition: once the ATC system is privatised, you
still get a large (now privately owned company) running the show - the only
difference is that there isa huge power shift to that company's management
structure who will squeeze every ounce out of their workforce.

As an added, noted the posting about training other people to do your job.
One year, our general manager at London Heathrow advised us that in order to
secure the contract for ATC for the next 5 years, a clause would be added
that if BAA were to offer the next ATC contract to a private company, we
would be willing to train up their controllers for the 9 or so months it
takes until they were ok on their own.
You could hear the laughter in the terminals.


"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
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

Kristen Skinner wrote:

In telecom industries,
smaller operators can set up easily,

Unfortunately, this hasn't proven to be often the case. Just look at what's
occurred with the broadband market, for example. RBOCs did everything that
could to make life tough for the competition using the RBOC's physical
plant, and it typically worked.

There are individual exceptions, and wireless may prove to be our savior.
But that type of external influence isn't too likely in the ATC
business...and it may not break us away from the RBOCs anyway. Verizon's
been using its physical plant of payphones in NYC as wireless bases. A
newcomer would be hardpressed to compete given that the Verizon locations
are already wired and uniformly spread throughout the city.

the
only difference is that there isa huge power shift to that company's
management structure who will squeeze every ounce out of their workforce.

Actually, this could work in reverse. No longer government employees, the
ATC staff would regain the right to strike.

Still...even that hasn't really helped the telecom unions.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Kristen Skinner wrote:

In telecom industries,
smaller operators can set up easily,

Unfortunately, this hasn't proven to be often the case. Just look at
what's
occurred with the broadband market, for example. RBOCs did everything
that
could to make life tough for the competition using the RBOC's physical
plant, and it typically worked.

There are individual exceptions, and wireless may prove to be our savior.
But that type of external influence isn't too likely in the ATC
business...and it may not break us away from the RBOCs anyway. Verizon's
been using its physical plant of payphones in NYC as wireless bases. A
newcomer would be hardpressed to compete given that the Verizon locations
are already wired and uniformly spread throughout the city.

the
only difference is that there isa huge power shift to that company's
management structure who will squeeze every ounce out of their
workforce.

Actually, this could work in reverse. No longer government employees, the
ATC staff would regain the right to strike.

Still...even that hasn't really helped the telecom unions.

- Andrew


Well, I dont know about the US...in the UK, we always had the right to
strike. I guess after Reagan's little action, you might have been stifled
somewhat.