jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (25 posts)

Why are we privatizing air traffic control?

  1. ptosis profile image76
    ptosisposted 3 months ago

    Remember Reagan firing all those ATC's when they were on strike? Please discuss if this is a good thing or a bad thing.

    Should air traffic controllers be privatized? -  Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom have private ATC. Delta Air Lines, says separating air traffic control operations from safety oversight does not make sense.

    American Airlines and United are part of the group pushing to privatize  ATC. Delta report says privatizing ATC leads to much higher fees. After six years of private oversight, ATC-related costs had risen 59 percent in Canada. Current USA ATC is funded by a gas tax.

    USA has largest and safest aviation system in the world.  If the current system of air traffic control governance works well, why privatize it?

    "Australia, Canada, and Great Britain demonstrate the dangers of privatization and the
    inability of private air traffic controller (ATC) monopolies to effectively deliver positive
    results  in  any  of  the  three  criteria  that  prompt  privatization  consideration:  reducing
    cost, increasing the speed of modernization, or stabilizing funding.  Further, the case
    reviews demonstrate that privatized air traffic control systems tend to impose greater
    costs on users, are prone to technological failure as well as disruptive labor disputes,
    and privatizers ultimately rely on government backing, to costly effect. " - http://www.controladoresaereos.org/wp-c … zation.pdf

    Private enterprise only works with competition. If it is a monopoly, expect inefficiencies and higher costs. Why should something I paid for (in taxes) over years be given away to some entity like this? If Congress would be honest, give the Federal Aviation Administration what it needs and stay out of the way. Then the FAA would succeed in some of these projects. — Tom Brusehaver

    MHO: Removing funds from government (FAA) and then paying a private entity with no governmental oversight  appears to be wrong. Remember Blackwater in Katrina because FEMA was underfunded? How is not funding gov't services only to pay the highest no bid price private contractor saving the taxpayers any money?

    For those who don't remember:

    "For example, while FEMA's decision to hire the paramilitary security firm Blackwater to provide law enforcement assistance in the area was questionable, the government found the contract terms "appropriate" and the contract price ($950 per security officer per day) "reasonable."  However, the changing security requirements from the emergency response period meant that the government could have "reduce[d] costs by soliciting competitive proposals using a mix of armed and unarmed security personnel." There were many out-of-work local law enforcement officers who have could been employed, and therefore the government could have saved hundreds of dollars per person each day." - http://www.pogo.org/our-work/reports/20 … 60828.html

    http://occasionalplanet.org/2011/08/08/ … -bad-idea/

    https://ourfuture.org/20140519/the-priv … -to-greedy

    https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Favstop.com%2Fnews_may_2010%2Ffaa_nextgen.jpg&f=1

    1. Credence2 profile image87
      Credence2posted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Privatizing air traffic controllers? It's a dumb idea, just like privatizing airport security personnel was. Should we privatize the military? Conservatives always worship the private sector as the cure for the common cold. I see the direction where they are driving things and I oppose it intensely. Destroy the VA, dismantle Social Security, former participants can now take their chances with the roulette wheel.  The privatizing schtick for Goverment agencies has been going on since Reagan and has been quietly shelved because it has proven more expensive for the Government to contract out over maintaining a cadre of professionals in house.

      Conservatives are not interested in reducing costs, instead they would rather obsess on a concept that time and again shows it weakness in order to promote some sort of ideological bent on principle.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Why shouldn't people that choose to do so play roulette with their retirement?  Because Big Daddy in Washington knows better than they do how they should "invest" (give it to politicians to buy pork barrel with, that is)?

        1. ahorseback profile image47
          ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Wilderness , Ever listen to Breitbart Radio ?      Andrew Wilkow ,.... Dr. David Webb ?  You seem to have a better sense of making sense than I do at times...........:-].

        2. ptosis profile image76
          ptosisposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Found a better handle for you: “wilderness of mirrors” – creating a chaotic information environment that so perfectly blends truth, half-truth and fiction that even the best can no longer tell what’s real and what’s not.

        3. Credence2 profile image87
          Credence2posted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Why shouldn't people that choose to do so play roulette with their retirement?  Because Big Daddy in Washington knows better than they do how they should "invest" (give it to politicians to buy pork barrel with, that is)?
          --------------------------------
          Had to get back with you on this......

          So what was the purpose of Social Security as it was initiated over 80 years ago? If those people living in the 1920's were all blessed with MBA's they could have properly invested their own money and averted poverty? Perhaps then we would not have needed the Social Security Act. The vast majority of us are not interested in undermining the Social Security system which has been the only reliable mode of keeping the vast majority of elderly and infirm out of poverty. The few of you who believe otherwise could be free to take your money but it cannot be allowed to undermine the larger system.

          And what happens when there is another tsunami like the one we had in 2008, what protections are available to deal with that?

          Conservatives continue to remain the model tyrannosaurus rex in the modern world....

      2. ahorseback profile image47
        ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Actually conservatives demand more of government jobs , that we pay immensely for ,than sitting on their keysters  , drawing  federal wages , bennies and  doodling retirement pictures of Hawaii  vacation beaches  while watching porn on government computers and doing lines of coke.

        That Private sector is  always more efficient $.

        1. Credence2 profile image87
          Credence2posted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Shows how little you know. I just told you that this privatization scheme, otherwise known as "contracting out" was a dismal failure that the conservatives in their cowardly fashion would never admit. I know about this first hand as a former contracting officer for a federal agency. It failed because when private sector firms were invited to bid for jobs that were previous done "in house" they came in as consistently more expensive, with all factors considered. Don' t you think that if this idea had any merit you conservatives types would have gutted the federal government long ago?

          The rest is just standard stupid statements revealing the pat rightwing bias of public service employees. Your opinion is just like that of most rightwing people, without basis of fact or evidence. It doesn't matter what conservatives demand, we fight you tooth and nail before we allow the dismantling of Government, sold to the highest bidder.

          1. ahorseback profile image47
            ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            AND I worked in private firm  bidding my entire career including federal , state and county bidding  jobs for  contracted and sub-contracted construction services  , There is no greater  a distorted ,and disconnected reality than these bureaucracy  of the US  ,  federal government , state or county bureaucracies . Fact .        We , in the real world , all joke about your $400 dollar toilet seats and $ 600 dollar specialized monkey wrenches but perhaps you can explain them ? How many ware houses did YOU fill ?

            With  ears peeled we await your explanations or even excuses ?.

            Wal-Mart toilet paper , .39 cents per roll -   GSA services  $9.00

            1. Credence2 profile image87
              Credence2posted 3 months ago in reply to this

              For all the experience that you say that you have, you don't seem to know much.

              That stuff about $400.00 toilet seats and $600.00 wrenches is standard superlative exaggeration that is well know within the contracting community and outside. I see that you have been watching a bit too much TeeVee lately?  What you are talking about mostly occur in DOD contracting for major defense procurements. It has something to do with the amortization of costs over the entire procurement when one aspect is focused upon. There has been problems with "sole source" contracting when it is questionable if there truly is only one source that can provide the service or supply. Too much of that has had political causes as it source. The sole source contractor that was working with the Government during the Iraq War, Haliberton, for example. Show me where the GSA paid $9.00 for a roll of toilet paper?

              Contracting Officers have always been an inherently Governmental function, as they are both responsible and liable to the public for ethical behavior and service. I would never trust the private sector who is into the profit motive to operate outside of their consideration for profit. Anymore, than I would want the Armed Forces of the United States to be reverted into a mercenary force.

              1. ahorseback profile image47
                ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                Go on the defense all you must ,The difference is that You played with OUR taxes either way . And get paid  extremely well to do it . And then retire on our  dime , ALL" Tax Dollars  at work!"

                1. Credence2 profile image87
                  Credence2posted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  Ahorseback, I just got through calling you out on another crock of your bullshyte. Is this your best answer?

                  1. ahorseback profile image47
                    ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    The best answer; IS that the Government is and has been very good  at  telling us  that it is taking our money  and giving to others who  spend it in OUR best interests , however inefficiently !   You know credence , Just like Obama Care , And how has that worked out ?
                    You justify that because  you were comfortable as a middle man for  your entire  career ?

                    Reagan  knew about and handled air traffic controllers  way better than you or I can !

        2. psycheskinner profile image80
          psycheskinnerposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          I am not sure efficiency is the most important trait in air traffic control, versus not crashing planes into fiery oblivion.

    2. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Rule of thumb in government thinking; 'If it ain't broke it needs fixing."

  2. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 3 months ago

    Air traffic controllers  using thirty -forty- fiftty  year old antiquated radar equipment AND NOTE PADS WITH PENCILS  to keep up with and air traffic , Is not  efficient , high tech or "......ain'r broke don't fix it ......."     But what IT IS , is your government program at work
    How's that Obama Care ,   VA hospital care system , nass   transportation infrastructure working out for you ?

    Its time !  Next on the list ......The IRS ?

  3. Will Apse profile image87
    Will Apseposted 3 months ago

    Privatization is supposed to be about reducing costs by innovation but usually just means de-skilling, lower wages for those who are still employed and a poorer service for consumers.

    The privatization of key government provisions has certainly made people hate government more.  Being forced to use call centers that can only answer three or four simple questions, instead of the ability to speak to genuinely helpful and knowledgeable individuals drives me crazy. I dread renewing my passport. I hate anything to do with tax.

    While some privatization has worked, a lot of it is ideologically driven and has made life more difficult.

    1. ahorseback profile image47
      ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      And yet , You truly have never tried to resolve an issue of systematic government ?  I'd rather deal with  a company that you can actually control , if nothing more , by going to their  competition than a employee of the tax dollar who cares about nothing ,is accountable to nothing , and is unavailable at 3; 34 PM .  There is more skill  and motivation in a motivated new hire  , for the most part , than a tenured desk dweller  of government .

 
working