Congress: create a private corporation to govern the air traffic control system

AuntPeggy

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
8,480
Location
Oklahoma
Display Name

Display name:
Namaste
"At a congressional hearing in Washington on Tuesday, advocates cited issues with unstable funding, aging infrastructure and inadequate staffing for critical air traffic control functions, and lobbied for fundamental change in how the FAA is managed and funded. Paul Rinaldi, president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, told the House aviation subcommittee that "the current funding situation is unacceptable, and we would like to explore alternative models that could address these problems." Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., who chairs the committee, agreed that change is needed. "We have spent $6 billion on NextGen, but the airlines have seen few benefits," he said. "We will never get there on the current path."

"The panel heard from experts with insights into alternative models that might work. Matthew Hampton, an assistant inspector general for aviation in the U.S. transportation department, reviewed how air traffic control systems have been set up in various ways in four other countries. Robert Poole, director of transportation policy for the Reason Foundation, said the air traffic organization should be separated from the FAA and organized as a separate nonprofit corporation funded directly by the users of the system. "After three decades of research on ATC reform, my conclusion is that the nonprofit corporation model with stakeholder governance is the best organizational form," said Poole. Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., a member of the aviation subcommittee, said he plans to bring legislation before the House in April that would create a private corporation to govern the air traffic control system."

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Future-Of-ATC-Discussed-In-Congress-223740-1.html
 
Although I am sure it is full of waste...ATC seems to be one of the few government programs that actually works and functions well.

I can think of many other programs that need to be privatized!
 
If they got some people on the lower rungs of management who are close to the problem in and talked to them I bet they'd find the regulatory structure, stress, and pay to be the problem.

I wouldn't worry too much though. They introduce ridiculous bills like this into congress all the time. They never pass.
 
If they got some people on the lower rungs of management who are close to the problem in and talked to them I bet they'd find the regulatory structure, stress, and pay to be the problem.

I wouldn't worry too much though. They introduce ridiculous bills like this into congress all the time. They never pass.

Peck, peck, chip, chip. away at the project.

Lockheed Martine has been working on this project way over 2 years.

They will get it done. way lot of money at stake.
 
what could possibly go wrong?
 
Big government, big company. Maybe I've been at this too long, but I really can't tell the difference....
 
If they got some people on the lower rungs of management who are close to the problem in and talked to them I bet they'd find the regulatory structure, stress, and pay to be the problem.

Every time they open up an application window they fill in days. It's a good gig and people know it.
With all its warts, ATC is the one agency that works. Doesn't mean they can't privatize some units like some class C tracons. Works well enough with smaller towers.
 
I wonder why the union would think a private corporation would be better? Do they really think that a private corp would be as agreeable in wages and benefits as a government agency?
 
ADS-B enables you to be tracked startup to shutdown. Mandated for implementation in 5 years.

Coincidence?

I'd argue that a conspiracy like that is too large to be feasible. I'd argue you can't chalk up to a conspiracy that which is obviously just bureaucracy at work and the left hand not talking to the right.
 
"The panel heard from experts with insights into alternative models that might work. Matthew Hampton, an assistant inspector general for aviation in the U.S. transportation department, reviewed how air traffic control systems have been set up in various ways in four other countries. Robert Poole, director of transportation policy for the Reason Foundation, said the air traffic organization should be separated from the FAA and organized as a separate nonprofit corporation funded directly by the users of the system. "After three decades of research on ATC reform, my conclusion is that the nonprofit corporation model with stakeholder governance is the best organizational form," said Poole. Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., a member of the aviation subcommittee, said he plans to bring legislation before the House in April that would create a private corporation to govern the air traffic control system."

A private corporation is a business company owned either by non-governmental organizations or by a relatively small number of shareholders or company members which does not offer or trade its shares to the general public on the stock market. I don't see how the government can create anything non-governmental.
 
A private corporation is a business company owned either by non-governmental organizations or by a relatively small number of shareholders or company members which does not offer or trade its shares to the general public on the stock market. I don't see how the government can create anything non-governmental.

Ahhh.... there are plenty of FFRDCs, Federally Funded Research and Development Corporations, which are corporations formed to do research, funded by the government.

Look out--- possible opening for user fees if this gets established. :mad:
 
Ahhh.... there are plenty of FFRDCs, Federally Funded Research and Development Corporations, which are corporations formed to do research, funded by the government.

There are many private companies that rely on government funding but there is nothing created by the government that is non-governmental.
 
They'd likely turn ATC into another Amtrak and lose a billion or so a year.

They went the other direction with Amtrak, turned private companies into a government-owned corporation.
 
There are many private companies that rely on government funding but there is nothing created by the government that is non-governmental.

Check out Mitre Corporation. If you're not just playing semantics with "government"-"non-government", that's an example of a corporation which is essentially governmental.

John
 
IMO, if the individual consumer has no choice of vendors and no choice to provide the service for themself or others--it isn't private enterprise. This is nothing more than the government's attempt to avoid accountability.

dtuuri
 
I wonder why the union would think a private corporation would be better? Do they really think that a private corp would be as agreeable in wages and benefits as a government agency?

Right to strike. Services provided by a monopoly, only option would be concessions.
 
Check out Mitre Corporation. If you're not just playing semantics with "government"-"non-government", that's an example of a corporation which is essentially governmental.

Was Mitre formed by the government? Is it owned, even partly, by the government? Has it issued stock that is publicly traded? If all answers are "No" then Mitre is an example of a private company that relies on government funding. That's not semantics, that's logic.
 
No need to look at other countries. We can look here in the United States at the post office, Fannie and Freddie as examples.

My approach to analyzing these kinds of proposals is to imagine whether the proposed structure offers more or less opportunity for lobbying. Nothing raises campaign funds like lobbyists concerned about a structural change in a large government system. Actual operation of that system is a pretty small part of the process.

Any "private" corporation arising out of this proposal will need a supervising board or committee appointed by politicians and that board will then hire the most "competent" former politicians for senior management. What could go wrong?
 
IMO, if the individual consumer has no choice of vendors and no choice to provide the service for themself or others--it isn't private enterprise. This is nothing more than the government's attempt to avoid accountability.

dtuuri

Or perhaps an attempt by a labor union to preserve an occupation that is ripe for automation.
 
Was Mitre formed by the government? Is it owned, even partly, by the government? Has it issued stock that is publicly traded? If all answers are "No" then Mitre is an example of a private company that relies on government funding. That's not semantics, that's logic.

But Mitre is limited in size by government decree and can only undertake certain types of work (only government, only R&D) again by government decree. Their relationship with the government is vastly different than other government contractors. Sometimes for good and sometimes for ill, but emphatically different. They are a quasi government entity, that is a company. I work with these folks (Miter) and as a government contractor (not publicly traded). Mitre is a very different beast and they are not free to do other things companies like mine can do (pursue commercial work, bid competitive production work or even team on some of it).

That's reality.

John
 
I wonder why the union would think a private corporation would be better? Do they really think that a private corp would be as agreeable in wages and benefits as a government agency?

As a non-profit, there is likely thinking that substantial additional revenues can be raised, resulting in better pay & easier working conditions. There would also be control of the board by the stakeholders.

Look at the way other large non-profits are organized and run.

A private corporation is a business company owned either by non-governmental organizations or by a relatively small number of shareholders or company members which does not offer or trade its shares to the general public on the stock market. I don't see how the government can create anything non-governmental.

Post Office, for one. USIS was also spun out from the government, IIRC. There are a few other NGOs that were created by the government for various purposes (often in military and similar areas).
 
But Mitre is limited in size by government decree and can only undertake certain types of work (only government, only R&D) again by government decree. Their relationship with the government is vastly different than other government contractors. Sometimes for good and sometimes for ill, but emphatically different. They are a quasi government entity, that is a company. I work with these folks (Miter) and as a government contractor (not publicly traded). Mitre is a very different beast and they are not free to do other things companies like mine can do (pursue commercial work, bid competitive production work or even team on some of it).

That's reality.

Private companies are not limited in size or in the types of work they can undertake by government decree.

That's reality.
 
Post Office, for one. USIS was also spun out from the government, IIRC. There are a few other NGOs that were created by the government for various purposes (often in military and similar areas).

The United States Postal Service is not a private corporation. Nor is it a government-owned corporation, it is defined in 39 US Code 201 as an "independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States".
 
You emphasized the wrong phrase. Try this one instead....

"funded directly by the users of the system."

As noted by another poster....user fees.

And what were the other 4 countries that were used as comparison? Canada's model is ok with me, but I can't think of any other country that works as well for GA as the US. Why else do so many non-US citizens come here for training? Why do non-US carriers send their students here for training.
 
Last edited:
You emphasized the wrong phrase. Try this one instead....

"funded directly by the users of the system."

As noted by another poster....user fees.

And what were the other 4 countries that were used as comparison? Canada's model is ok with me, but I can't think of any other country that works as well for GA as the US. Why else do so many non-US citizens come here for training? Why do non-US carriers send their students here for training.

I suspect Lockheed Martin wants the rest of ATC.
 
I suspect Lockheed Martin wants the rest of ATC.

Once the system is automated, then it may make sense to contract out the operation. It will never make sense ( for the general public ) to privatize the system.
 
Private companies are not limited in size or in the types of work they can undertake by government decree.

That's reality.

True. Mitre is limited in the way I described. That's also reality. So they are not, by your definition a private company. Nor are they a branch of government. So what are they?
 
Personally, I wouldn't trust a private company to operate all of ATC.

The benefit of the government running it (and admittedly the downside) is that they're not concerned with making money. They treat every situation the same, regardless if it's one person in an LSA or 100+ people in an airliner. The cost to individuals and corporations don't factor into decisions (at least that's what I've been led to believe), keeping people in the air alive and getting them on the ground safely is their first and only priority.

I don't trust a company that operates in a for-profit manner (that is large enough to cover all of ATC's responsibilities) to have the integrity in this day and age to do the right thing over making a profit.

My 2 cents
 
A private corporation is a business company owned either by non-governmental organizations or by a relatively small number of shareholders or company members which does not offer or trade its shares to the general public on the stock market. I don't see how the government can create anything non-governmental.

FDIC is a government-created and owned corporation. There are several other examples of this.
 
True. Mitre is limited in the way I described. That's also reality. So they are not, by your definition a private company. Nor are they a branch of government. So what are they?

A 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation.
 
Private companies are not limited in size or in the types of work they can undertake by government decree.

That's reality.

You should learn about FFRDCs.
 
Once the system is automated, then it may make sense to contract out the operation. It will never make sense ( for the general public ) to privatize the system.

If the system is automated what operation remains to be contracted out?
 
True. Mitre is limited in the way I described. That's also reality. So they are not, by your definition a private company. Nor are they a branch of government. So what are they?

It's not my definition.
 
roncachamp said:
Private companies are not limited in size or in the types of work they can undertake by government decree.

That's reality.

What are what?

What are companies (or should I say "entities"?) like Mitre Corp? They don't fit the above (apparently not yours, though cited by you) definition of private company, nor are they government agencies?

John
 
What are companies (or should I say "entities"?) like Mitre Corp? They don't fit the above (apparently not yours, though cited by you) definition of private company, nor are they government agencies?

I don't know. I have no knowledge of any entity that fits your description of The MITRE Corporation. I suspect your description is incorrect.
 
Back
Top