Good and bad of ATC Privatization

[Norman]

Another factor not yet mentioned is that the railroads absorb the costs of building and maintaining their infrastructure themselves and pay taxes on every inch of property they own. Except for Amtrak, the rails get no subsidies. Financing improvements is on them and not congress which has recently mandated some very expensive things such as Positive Train Control that the rails have to pay for themselves. That puts them at a distinct disadvantage against airlines when one considers that at present the only costs of ATC are borne by the fuel taxes airlines pay. Airlines have other expenses as well, but the playing field is not level.

Amtrak is supposed to get priority over freight but congestion on the tracks sometimes leaves them sucking the hind one. Some days are diamonds, other days are not.

 

[Everskyward]

I rode long distance passenger rail once. It was OK as a novelty, but I wouldn't make a habit of it. I prefer airlines or driving if you're simply talking about a mode of convenient transportation.

 

[tspear]

It has been documented multiple times, Amtrak does well on either coast. In fact they do such a good job, they run operations for a lot of other entities and turn a small profit (last I read a half decade ago, it was a few million). Where Amtrak loses money is providing rail service to "fly over" country. Everything from Georgia to VA, then west all the way to CA. The infrastructure costs for trains are very high, and you need significant population density to make it economical.
The Amtrak board of directors has a few times tried to spin off the long distance routes, or shut them down. So far, Congress has blocked it; and the blocking is normally done by members in the rural states.

Minor history point, the railroads were granted all the land, and majority of the infrastructure was built/paid for with tax dollars until WW2. Only after WW2 (I forget when) did the railroads start to become responsible for the full costs.

Tim

 

[mryan75]

I guess I don't draw a distinction - gov't is gov't; inherently inefficient, usually; not always, but the FAA has never been an innovative or agile org, even by gov't standards. Compartmented to the degree that groups within unwittingly work at cross purposes. . .they don't have the vision, culture, or in-house leadership to get 'er done.

NextGen has already saved somewhere on the order of $60 billion for airspace users. The FAA is implementing it pretty well. Ask any project manager how easy it is to do their job with 6 month budgets with no certainty what the next one's going to say. Congress can't pass a budget - THAT is the problem. Not the FAA.

 

[Sundancer]

Again, my point was more or less that Congress + FAA = gov't. The $60B might be $70B; Or $1B. Or a negative number. Choose your source.

The FAA culture and management structure is a dinosaur; islands of goodness surrounded by sewage. And plenty of good people trapped in the sewage, too. They can't effectively communicate within their own organization, or efficiently design and take action. I imagine you are right about Congress and funding being a part of the problem. But if Congress is Larry, then the FAA is Moe. Not sure who Curly is - maybe OMB?

 

[Clip4]

Does a not for profit model work in the US? Where is a not for profit organization operating an important govt function in the US today?

 

[denverpilot]

Does a not for profit model work in the US? Where is a not for profit organization operating an important govt function in the US today?

The entire government is not for profit. No matter if they do things themselves or contract them out. By definition it's overhead. Maybe useful overhead but still overhead. And mainly funded by loans, not collected revenues.

Not that you'd know it from the lavish dinner parties.

Hell, even charitable non-profits are all the rage these days. And you wouldn't know their execs were working for a charitable non-profit by looking at what is in most of their driveways either.

It isn't about the profit or lack thereof. It's about the entitlement attitude or lack thereof of those involved in them. They DESERVE all those perks don't you know? Or so they say.

Some charitable non-profits, you can look at their leadership and their lifestyles and know they actually care.

Looking at so-called leaders in government, you'll be hard pressed to find any that aren't working for Numero Uno first and whoever elected them a distant second, third, or even tenth.

This attitude rarely reaches all the way down to the worker bee level in any of these organizations other than perhaps in guaranteed retirement benefits, and with much weeping and gnashing of teeth, the worker bees that had those -- are slowly losing them and coming back down to an even keel with the private sector worker bees in this regard.

Only certain types of "leaders" will continue to have those sorts of perks and will continue to justify it via all their "sacrifices" they've made in doing their "tough" jobs, eventually. Especially at the national level.

Folks still seem quite enamored with their fictitious performances. Season tickets cost about 50% of your lifetime earning potential.

More than that if you want a box seat at a political convention and special access to the candidates.