Control Tower Controversy brewing in the FAA

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

You could have regional ATC companies the same way AT&T was broken up
into the RBOCs.



Yes, but you still wouldn't have competition.



Yes, you would have some competition if each region was periodically bid
out, but certainly not perfect competition in the economics sense of the
word.


Matt

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

Yes, you would have some competition if each region was periodically bid
out, but certainly not perfect competition in the economics sense of the
word.


But that's the competition that forces private companies to achieve the
efficiencies touted by those that advocate privatization.

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

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

Yes, you would have some competition if each region was periodically bid
out, but certainly not perfect competition in the economics sense of the
word.


But that's the competition that forces private companies to achieve the
efficiencies touted by those that advocate privatization.

Automation increases productivity thereby reducing labor.

Tarver Engineering wrote:

Automation increases productivity thereby reducing labor.

This is far from guaranteed, and there are many factors involved that are
relevant to this discussion.

Most notable is the idea of putting an airspace out to contract every few
years. Given the speed at which technological gear improves and cheapens,
any newcomer has an advantage in such a competition if the incumbent is
still depreciating the investment originally made.

Aware of this, any incumbent must depreciate any new automation over only
the contract period. This increases the annual cost of the automation,
possibly to the point where simply not investing in the automation becomes
the proper choice.

So, in fact, "more" competition in a regulated environment can work against
long term efficiency. This is just one of those oddities of regulated
markets. It is apparently an entire economic subdiscipline.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Tarver Engineering wrote:

Automation increases productivity thereby reducing labor.

This is far from guaranteed, and there are many factors involved that are
relevant to this discussion.

In this spectific case however, Andrew's "factors" are specious.

It is that flight cancelled that costs the most; especially with the
operator having real time weather, but no way to engage ATC in real time
alteration of a flight track. (CONUS)

Tarver Engineering wrote:


"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Tarver Engineering wrote:

Automation increases productivity thereby reducing labor.

This is far from guaranteed, and there are many factors involved that are
relevant to this discussion.

In this spectific case however, Andrew's "factors" are specious.

Unfounded statement with no justification? I see how you've acquired your
reputation.

It is that flight cancelled that costs the most; especially with the
operator having real time weather, but no way to engage ATC in real time
alteration of a flight track. (CONUS)

How do you measure cost? In my mind, a flight lost costs more than a flight
cancelled.

Further, the cost of a cancelled flight is not incurred by ATC, be it
governmental or private. That's yet another problem with attempting to
measure "efficiency": where the benefits and costs are accrued by different
parties.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Tarver Engineering wrote:


"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Tarver Engineering wrote:

Automation increases productivity thereby reducing labor.

This is far from guaranteed, and there are many factors involved that
are
relevant to this discussion.

In this spectific case however, Andrew's "factors" are specious.

Unfounded statement with no justification? I see how you've acquired your
reputation.

Yep, I don't waste much time on trolls.

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

Yes, you would have some competition if each region was periodically bid
out, but certainly not perfect competition in the economics sense of the
word.



But that's the competition that forces private companies to achieve the
efficiencies touted by those that advocate privatization.



I agree that you need "perfect" competition to yield perfectly low
prices, but perfect competition rarely exists in the real world as it
requires consumers to have perfect knowledge of all alternate products
and their prices. A regional system is far from perfect, but it would
provide much more competition than exists now, but certainly far from
perfect competition.

It is also fairly well established now that a free market isn't the best
way to handle every good and service. I think there are services that
are better handled via a regulated monopoly, a government or other form
of distribution.


Matt

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

I agree that you need "perfect" competition to yield perfectly low
prices, but perfect competition rarely exists in the real world as it
requires consumers to have perfect knowledge of all alternate products
and their prices. A regional system is far from perfect, but it would
provide much more competition than exists now, but certainly far from
perfect competition.


It wouldn't provide any real competition. The users wouldn't have a choice
in providers.