Privatize ATC?

denverpilot said:
I assume you're being sarcastic but it's subtle. Isn't your home 'drome a contract tower? ;)
Click to expand...
Just pointing that there is already privatized ATC and that the system is structured such that privatizing more is possible.
 
denverpilot said:
AFSS does a better job? You must not have had one on the field long ago... those local guys and gals knew our local weather. The kids in Prescott have zero clue. They just read from the script.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Most pilots today have no clue that there used to be hundreds of FSSs at almost every towered field. Guys like my Dad had face to face briefs and had intimate knowledge of the local area. LM AFSS is nothing more than parroting a script.

Another thing is, all LM did is move in on existing equipment and kept most of the FAA personnel. They actually got raises and in some cases items like free laptops. They ended up saving tax dollars but only because of downsizing. Downsizing that was already in the works in AFSS by the FAA.

Early FSS performed a invaluable service because of access to aviation products that the common GA pilot didn't have. Early on in AFSS, they also performed an invaluable service because of the computer automation that provided aviation products that most GA pilots didn't have. That service is a dinosaur now and in my opinion, so is the product LM provides. Any pilot with a modicum of aviation knowledge, can understand the online aviation products without LM intervention.
 
paflyer said:
Wow! No wonder it was so expensive!
Click to expand...

Yeah but it was a time (60s, 70s, 80s) when we didn't have aviation products at our finger tips. It was an essential service. It was all in one stop shopping for filing, briefing, FLIPs, weather, etc. It was also a time when we generally had more GA aircraft and more pilots, flying more hours than we have today. 827,000 pilots in 1980 compared to 590,000 today.

I don't recall if the initial transition from FSS to AFSS increased the budget or decreased it. Over time even the FAA AFSS hubs decreased from around 50-60 to just a dozen. That was a decrease in the overall FAA AFSS budget despite the claims LM proponents who say they saved dollars.
 
roncachamp said:
Proponents of privatized ATC often claim that competition will keep costs down. But there can be no direct competition in ATC; multiple providers of separation services in the same airspace can only serve their customers, they can't separate their customers from another provider's customers.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone has argued there should be "direct competition" for services on a per-flight basis, but (obviously) government agencies can put time-limited monopoly contracts to competitive tender.
 
roncachamp said:
Yup, in my mind once an author demonstrates cluelessness there's no reason to continue reading.
Click to expand...
I get that you don't want to consider what was written in the link, but other people might.
 
Velocity173 said:
Any pilot with a modicum of aviation knowledge, can understand the online aviation products without LM intervention.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that with a grain of salt. How many folks pop up here asking if they can make a flight five days from now, and don't realize the tools simply aren't always there to make that determination?

I feel lucky I got to take two college level meteorology courses in my past -- and I try to share a little of that knowledge but I also know I'm not even close to passable as a "forecaster".

I'd much rather walk into a building with a student and talk to a real meteorologist on one of those "iffy" days looking for reasons to go or not go, than try to coach someone through it. Obviously as a CFI I will not have that option. All I can do is explain it as best as possible and try to teach judgement capable of saying "That airport down there looks a lot better than being up here right now."

People with tight modern travel schedules to keep, tend toward forgetting that you might be able to do HALF the flight, land somewhere you didn't plan to land, and then re-assess and continue the flight as a new leg of what's remaining, after the weather problem passes on by.

But there's days I'd much rather talk to someone like @scottd or hope he's taught a computer what he knows, than try to figure it out myself.

That was probably one of the "ah-ha" moments in the Instrument rating for me, too... when @jesse showed me that the decisions on weather get *harder*, not *easier* when real IMC snuck into our training schedule. That experience is literally invaluable. "Can we really go in this? Where's the freezing level? What's our out?" It gets your attention a whole lot more when it's not simulated.
 
tiger said:
I don't think anyone has argued there should be "direct competition" for services on a per-flight basis, but (obviously) government agencies can put time-limited monopoly contracts to competitive tender.
Click to expand...

How would that reduce costs?
 
roncachamp said:
Right. Just me. Everyone else holds the same misconceptions as you.
Click to expand...
No. Many others see the reality of the current system which is a mix of entities providing ATC services.
 
Clark1961 said:
No. Many others see the reality of the current system which is a mix of entities providing ATC services.
Click to expand...

You also have FAA literally begging for staff to fill roles in tech ops. The people I know doing those jobs are just hammered. They're traveling and working as hard as I did when I thought that I was going to earn big bucks from stock options in telecom. For less money per paycheck. But arguably maybe better retirement bennies overall.

Tech ops is as much a part of "the system" as anything. If you can't keep the radar antennas spinning, and the ground based approaches working, and you keep having to rip out pieces of them piecemeal and say, "It's okay... we can do it all with GPS..." that's probably got a light at the end of the tunnel that will be an incoming freight train for at least a few unlucky pilots and their passengers.

And an awful lot of the real tech ops on the ground time is being sucked by ADS-B installs and troubleshooting from what they can tell me.

Most of their jobs are being filled by ex-military folks when they can get them. Civilian techs aren't flocking to work on 60's vintage radar gear.

The one guy I know real well who works Tech Ops is a controller who lost a medical and had to retrain to have a career that'd last the rest of his life. He loved controlling but he had to leave it, and tech ops matched his academic background (engineering) and let him keep building time on his old style government pension/retirement. He's about three years from retiring.

Think the pilot shortage is bad... look to the ground support side of the system. It's not going to be pretty.

Modernization by a private company that's both going to get paid significant dollars to develop and do it, and also is held with their feet to the fire to make it work, is probably going to happen whether the controller jobs are privatized or not. Otherwise there isn't any path from "here" to "there" for the ground based systems.
 
tiger said:
I didn't say it would; simply pointing out that your argument was against a position no one here had taken.
Click to expand...

You said, here, that government agencies can put time-limited monopoly contracts to competitive tender. What would be the purpose in that if not reduced costs?
 
roncachamp said:
The only entity doing that in the US is the US government.
Click to expand...
The only entity, hmmm...

RESTON, VIRGINIA – April 16, 2015 – Serco Inc., a provider of professional, technology and managed services, announced today the award of two contracts to continue its 20-plus years of supporting the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Contract Tower (FCT) Program. Serco will provide air traffic control specialists, safety managers, and program management services in support of 58 Air Traffic Control Towers (ATCTs) in 11 western states, including Alaska, California and Colorado. The two five-year contracts each have one base year and four one-year option periods, with a combined value of $187 million, if all options are exercised.

Under these contracts, Serco’s Air Traffic Controllers will be responsible for the safe and efficient movement of commercial, general aviation and military aircraft on the airport and in the airspace surrounding the airport. The Company will also provide risk management, quality assurance and program management to meet FAA service standards and quality metrics. Serco will utilize its Aviation Safety Management System to improve safety and mitigate risks in the National Airspace System.

http://www.serco-na.com/news/press-...d-187-million-federal-aviation-administration
 
Airborne separation.
 
Honestly I don't see what the big deal is - do you notice any reduction in safety or services when you fly into an NFCT airport vs. one with an FAA control tower ?

Everyone seems to be head over heels in favor when it comes to privatizing the TSA like they've done in SFO but for some reason they fear the same process when applied to ATC.

If the same levels of safety and service can be had by saving money via privatization I am all for it.
 
roncachamp said:
Yes, the only entity in the US that operates ARTCCs and approach control facilities is the US government.
Click to expand...
If you're going to use the quote feature, you need to make sure it doesn't look like I wrote this, you did. And I also notice that you didn't include towers in your statement...
 
Art VanDelay said:
Honestly I don't see what the big deal is - do you notice any reduction in safety or services when you fly into an NFCT airport vs. one with an FAA control tower ?

Everyone seems to be head over heels in favor when it comes to privatizing the TSA like they've done in SFO but for some reason they fear the same process when applied to ATC.

If the same levels of safety and service can be had by saving money via privatization I am all for it.
Click to expand...
I don't see any difference when flying into a NFCT; in fact, most of the time I don't know it's a NFCT. I also don't notice any difference in the level of service in Canada.
 
Art VanDelay said:
Honestly I don't see what the big deal is - do you notice any reduction in safety or services when you fly into an NFCT airport vs. one with an FAA control tower ?

Everyone seems to be head over heels in favor when it comes to privatizing the TSA like they've done in SFO but for some reason they fear the same process when applied to ATC.

If the same levels of safety and service can be had by saving money via privatization I am all for it.
Click to expand...

Privatization as it was done with nonapproach control towers is not possible with Centers and TRACONs. Nor is it known how much money was saved, if any.

When the towers were contracted out the FAA controllers staffing them were replaced with smaller staffs earning smaller paychecks. Lower cost to operate each contract tower but the old staff wasn't terminated, they were moved to other FAA facilities at higher pay without regard to any overstaffing condition that may result. The net result was higher cost. In time, attrition would bring those FAA facilities down to their authorized staffing levels but that took decades.

New hires for contract towers come from ex-military controllers and FAA retirees, that won't work for Centers and TRACONs.
 
One could argue that ground separation is just as important as airborne separation since the accident with the most fatalities took place on the ground.
 
Everskyward said:
One could argue that ground separation is just as important as airborne separation since the accident with the most fatalities took place on the ground.
Click to expand...

Control towers should be operated by the same entity that operates the airport, as they were before the feds assumed authority for them during WWII. Their runways, their responsibility; exceptions for those facilities where controllers work tower and approach.
 
Art VanDelay said:
Honestly I don't see what the big deal is - do you notice any reduction in safety or services when you fly into an NFCT airport vs. one with an FAA control tower ?
Click to expand...

In Los Angeles the contract towers are staffed by overworked (and underpaid?) controllers with bad attitudes and the inability to handle more than two planes at a time. I've heard my drome ATC monopolize the freq. for 30 seconds to berate a pilot for some perceived slight while others are desperately trying to call in. Usually, it's ATC that made a bad call. The FAA towers and SoCal Tracon are professional, polite, and far safer in my estimation.
 
roncachamp said:
Privatization as it was done with nonapproach control towers is not possible with Centers and TRACONs.
Click to expand...

Unsupported and unsupportable claim. Just because you can't see a way to do it doesn't mean it can't be done. Not all ATC facilities which provide traffic separation are staffed by FAA personnel. That fact alone shows a mixture of facility operators is feasible.
 
Clark1961 said:
Unsupported and unsupportable claim. Just because you can't see a way to do it doesn't mean it can't be done. Not all ATC facilities which provide traffic separation are staffed by FAA personnel. That fact alone shows a mixture of facility operators is feasible.
Click to expand...

I supported the claim. If it could be done I could see a way to do it. All US ATC facilities which provide airborne traffic separation are staffed by government personnel.
 
roncachamp said:
I supported the claim. If it could be done I could see a way to do it. All US ATC facilities which provide airborne traffic separation are staffed by government personnel.
Click to expand...

There you have it folks. No need for any further discussion in this thread because the great Steve has spoken.
 
roncachamp said:
I supported the claim. If it could be done I could see a way to do it. All US ATC facilities which provide airborne traffic separation are staffed by government personnel.
Click to expand...

See how Ron is using "government personnel" vs FAA personnel? He knows there are numerous facilities that are military approach controls, mostly Air Force and a few Navy (not sure about Marines). The Air Force operated Berlin Center during the Cold War, and I've been told the center over Nevada/Area 51 many years ago, don't know that as a fact though. During the controller strike/firing in '81 military controllers were sent to FAA facilities all over the country (myself Quonset Pt Tower), which included towers, approach controls, and centers. They did the job and kept the system operating on a limited basis until the FAA could hire and train replacement controllers.

Point is, if military controllers can show up and work these facilities (granted they had experience) then a private corporation could provide the same services as the FAA. There would have to be an overlap until the "new" company assumed full control but it could be done.
 
mscard88 said:
See how Ron is using "government personnel" vs FAA personnel? He knows there are numerous facilities that are military approach controls, mostly Air Force and a few Navy (not sure about Marines). The Air Force operated Berlin Center during the Cold War, and I've been told the center over Nevada/Area 51 many years ago, don't know that as a fact though. During the controller strike/firing in '81 military controllers were sent to FAA facilities all over the country (myself Quonset Pt Tower), which included towers, approach controls, and centers. They did the job and kept the system operating on a limited basis until the FAA could hire and train replacement controllers.

Point is, if military controllers can show up and work these facilities (granted they had experience) then a private corporation could provide the same services as the FAA. There would have to be an overlap until the "new" company assumed full control but it could be done.
Click to expand...
His name is Steven, not Ron.

A statement of his that you may have missed:

"Nor is it known how much money was saved, if any."
​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top