NRC rips FAA over Nextgen - proposes sulf-supporting government corporation

A self-supporting government corporation may have worked in Europe, it's been a crashing failure in the US. Partially because Congress can't manage to let them be independent and partially because it really is a lousy model for the US.
 
flyingron said:
A self-supporting government corporation may have worked in Europe, it's been a crashing failure in the US. Partially because Congress can't manage to let them be independent and partially because it really is a lousy model for the US.
Click to expand...

Are you referri g to the post office? If so, the model isn't a complete failure, but changes in technology ( email) and competition ( fedex, ups) are substantial contributions to the failure. That and micromanagement by Congress.

I do not relish an NGO running ATC because it's not merely a slipperly slope but jumping off the cliff to user fees.
 
I don't follow this stuff too closely but it seems like the last progress report from the FAA said they were on schedule and the 2020 mandate was a definite reality.

I'm sure there's a lot to it though, not just the mandate part.
 
Yeah, what makes you think those issues won't apply to the "ATC corporation?"
Privatization makes sense when you have a service that works in a competitive environment. Pretend-privatization just doesn't make sense.
 
I don't see privatizing in the strictest sense being a palatable option due to risk. The lawyers for our contract tower forbid the tower controllers from notifying us when an aircraft doesn't tag up. Said another way, they will switch you to departure knowing full well departure can't see you. If a military or FAA controller does that it's negligence. If it's contact that's saving money on insurance premiums.
 
I think that the argument for privatization goes like this.

Funding reform is needed not just to provide a more reliable basis for the ATO's capital and operating costs. If this is done by switching from aviation taxes to ATC fees paid directly to a self-supporting ATO, that changes the funds from taxpayers' money to the ATO customers' money. And that means the oversight of how those funds are spent can shift from myriad governmental entities to a governing board made up of stakeholders. This kind of funding reform directly enables governance reform.
Click to expand...

http://reason.org/news/show/air-traffic-control-newsletter-122

Yes, there would be user fees since the corporation needs to be funded. Not sure how the tradeoff would be regarding any reduction in taxes, such as the fuel tax. The benefit or loss depends on how much someone flies per year. There is the Canadian model as an example, which works just as well as the US model as far as air traffic is concerned. The fees for small airplanes is about $60/year with no additional fees except at a few busy airline-type airports.
 
The part in post #10 about oversight of fund expenditures is very pollyannaish. If this were to happen (I don't think it will) the compliance with federal regulations for operations by this new entity would still exist, which would drive where funding would have to be spent.

The other way to look at it is that expenditure decisions would become easier to make since compliance comes first or get shut down.

Then, what happens to the current av tax $? Pretty sure I've never seen a tax go away. If those dollars go back to general revenue, then user fees would have to increase. Now, that would really set me off.

I don't mind paying a specific tax that support my specific interest but I do get irritated paying a tax levied on my specific interest that then goes to general revenue so we can keep baby seals from getting clubbed and give people welfare checks so they won't find job.
 
TCABM said:
The part in post #10 about oversight of fund expenditures is very pollyannaish. If this were to happen (I don't think it will) the compliance with federal regulations for operations by this new entity would still exist, which would drive where funding would have to be spent.

The other way to look at it is that expenditure decisions would become easier to make since compliance comes first or get shut down.
Click to expand...
Post #10 was mine so I will reply by saying that airlines are bound by many government regulations but that is much different than having a taxpayer-funded airline where decisions need to go through the government maze. Of course large companies also have their bureaucracies and internal politics but maybe not quite as much as the federal government.

But that's not really what they are talking about anyway. The article I posted refers to the Nav Canada model where the corporation is governed by the various stakeholders.

NAV CANADA represents a unique consensus among the Company’s four founding groups: commercial air carriers, the Government of Canada, business and general aviation, and our employees, represented by their unions.
Click to expand...

http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/about-us/Pages/governance.aspx
 
Last edited:
Canada ain't the US. There hasn't been an attempt to form a quasi-government or privatized non-profit that has survived well in the US. Congress can't keep their everloving fingers out of the pie any more than they can with the FAA trust fund or the affairs of the District of Columbia.
 
flyingron said:
Canada ain't the US. There hasn't been an attempt to form a quasi-government or privatized non-profit that has survived well in the US. Congress can't keep their everloving fingers out of the pie any more than they can with the FAA trust fund or the affairs of the District of Columbia.
Click to expand...
True that the political system is different but that is not a reason to dismiss this model offhand IMHO.
 
flyingron said:
Canada ain't the US. There hasn't been an attempt to form a quasi-government or privatized non-profit that has survived well in the US. Congress can't keep their everloving fingers out of the pie any more than they can with the FAA trust fund or the affairs of the District of Columbia.
Click to expand...

Look at the mess they call Amtrak.
 
Norman said:
Look at the mess they call Amtrak.
Click to expand...
But Amtrak was formed to prop up the passenger rail industry and to keep it from disappearing. That is not the case with ATC.
 
Direct routing is nice, though there is nothing preventing them from doing that as it is. Find me an airliner that doesn't have GPS. Next Gen solves nothing. The problem it is purported to solve, delays, is caused by a combination of too many airplanes sharing too few runways and the chaotic nature of weather. Really its just a case of switching to new technology because its there.
 
steingar said:
Direct routing is nice, though there is nothing preventing them from doing that as it is. Find me an airliner that doesn't have GPS. Next Gen solves nothing. The problem it is purported to solve, delays, is caused by a combination of too many airplanes sharing too few runways and the chaotic nature of weather. Really its just a case of switching to new technology because its there.
Click to expand...


It's not even new technology. It's old technology. New technology is in your smartphone.
 
steingar said:
Direct routing is nice, though there is nothing preventing them from doing that as it is. Find me an airliner that doesn't have GPS. Next Gen solves nothing. The problem it is purported to solve, delays, is caused by a combination of too many airplanes sharing too few runways and the chaotic nature of weather. Really its just a case of switching to new technology because its there.
Click to expand...
It's much more than the ability to punch in Direct-To, which most airplanes obviously have. Not saying that I have much feeling about the whole program one way or another but that way of looking at it is much too simplistic.
 
The problem, of course, from GA's perspective is that the ones who pay the most (scheduled carriers) would demand priority handling and control. They see GA, particularly business GA, as competition that's sapped higher revenue travelers. They are unable to make a compelling business case on financial matters alone, so they could use the system to delay or obstruct GA flights, imposing a barrier to business GA.

That's a bit hypothetical, but it's not like the airlines have been model citizens over the years. More than one was accused of taking actions to run new competitors out of their "fortress hubs". Back when AA controlled SABRE, it was sued for prioritizing its flights over competitors in the display of available flights in the reservation system. Even now, the airlines have been fighting against Norweigan Air's subsidiary which wants to use a flag of convenience to operate Flights from the U.S. At lower cost. While that is exactly what a corporation should do to protect its earnings and shareholders, it is certainly plausible that the same sort of thing would happen with a private ATO. And given the politics, don't count on Congress to ensure protection of GA.

As Ron notes, the U.S. Has a pretty poor track record of privatized services or quasi-government organizations over the years. I can think of several that have not worked well.
 
Everskyward said:
It's much more than the ability to punch in Direct-To, which most airplanes obviously have. Not saying that I have much feeling about the whole program one way or another but that way of looking at it is much too simplistic.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Airline delays are for the most part not caused in cruise, they're caused by having to hold and wait to get into busy airports. Airliners aren't diverted for hours because they're near other airliners, they're held for wx delays and stuff like that. The delays faced in commercial aviation are almost entirely due to how the business is set up where numerous airliners have to land in a limited space.

At least, those are the conclusions I've reached from reading numerous sources (this site included) over the last few years. Hey, I'm all in favor of new technology. But new technology that accomplishes nothing and costs and arm and a leg is another story.
 
When next-gen increases runway capacity, we can do all the tech improvements anyone can dream of and it won't matter a tinker's damn.
 
steingar said:
I don't think so. Airline delays are for the most part not caused in cruise, they're caused by having to hold and wait to get into busy airports. Airliners aren't diverted for hours because they're near other airliners, they're held for wx delays and stuff like that. The delays faced in commercial aviation are almost entirely due to how the business is set up where numerous airliners have to land in a limited space.

At least, those are the conclusions I've reached from reading numerous sources (this site included) over the last few years. Hey, I'm all in favor of new technology. But new technology that accomplishes nothing and costs and arm and a leg is another story.
Click to expand...

Largely true, but when there are major storms on/along congested corridors (the Northeast, for example, or Pennsylvania for traffic from Chicago to NY/Boston), there can be major delays due to enroute. Under the current scheme, there are only but so many alternate routes they can use. It's more than you might think but I agree: airport capacity is usually a larger issue (including limited runways and all the carriers trying for the same time slot). Hub-and-spoke made that situation much, much worse.
 
Everskyward said:
Post #10 was mine so...snip... The article I posted refers to the Nav Canada model where the corporation is governed by the various stakeholders.


http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/about-us/Pages/governance.aspx
Click to expand...


E-;

I'm familiar wit how NavCanada is structured. I spent about six years working directly with Canadian military controllers and we discussed ours vs theirs quite a bit.

The model works for them. So does a tax rate that is well north of what I pay at the same income level, and other things that lend themselves to how Canada developed as a nation and what their citizens want/expect from their government.

ETA: it's not a model I want here. I could think of better, more capitalist ways we could use to implement NG.

TC
 
Last edited:
TCABM said:
E-;

I'm familiar wit how NavCanada is structured. I spent about six years working directly with Canadian military controllers and we discussed ours vs theirs quite a bit.

The model works for them. So does a tax rate that is well north of what I pay at the same income level, and other things that lend themselves to how Canada developed as a nation and what their citizens want/expect from their government.

TC
Click to expand...
Dunno, I've spent 7 years flying the for US half of a Canadian fleet so I've spent a lot of time there talking to their pilots and others. I wouldn't say their system of ATC (or anything else) is better or worse, just a little different. But I'm not going to dismiss privatized ATC offhand. The success or failure would depend on the details of the execution.
 
Much of the FAA's problems is Congressional pressure. Does anyone really think the Congress Critters are going to relinquish the power to affect what the ATC system does in their district or states?
 
kkoran said:
Much of the FAA's problems is Congressional pressure. Does anyone really think the Congress Critters are going to relinquish the power to affect what the ATC system does in their district or states?
Click to expand...


No. And they shouldn't. That's one portion of the normal operation of representative government in a Republic.

The part that's broken and where it gets murky, is that they don't have to pay much attention to what constituents as a whole want, only those with campaign dollars and nice luncheons in their "honor".

And there's no real controls on spending when the loans are "free".

But beyond that, will the country as a whole see a benefit equal to the expenditure for things like NexGen? Or is it just $2B worth of busywork and back-scratching and patting oneself on the back? I don't see it as an expenditure worth doing on debt.

All a Congressperson sees is whether it'll pay the pay checks of someone in their district, and whether the employer is on their donor list. That's not good governance. That's pandering.

And that's where it falls off the rails.

Congress is supposed to have oversight. But they're not supposed to have a blank checkbook to spend on campaign donors. Until the system is changed so they have to say, "I don't have it to spend on your pet project" and they have to cut something else to get something done, nothing will change.

It's not so much that you're concerned that they have oversight of the money. It's that you know you've completely lost control of the money they have available to them to do with pretty much as they please.

They make up really cool schemes to make it look like they're fighting each other but in the end, spending goes up under all the false flags of war. Ever see a Congresscritter worried about where their next meal or paycheck was coming from because they spent it all? LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top