Should The U.S. Privatize Air Traffic Control (ATC)?

1. 85

   GA Andersonposted 2 months ago

   Does privatized Air Traffic Control work
   A lot of countries say yes.
   
   
   The concepts adopted are a mix of for-profit, non-profit, and private/public partnerships.
   
   A brief look-about found post-privatization air safety numbers that were as good or better than pre-privatization.
   
   Should DOGE recommend it?
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 76

      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I don't really have much of an idea how the control system works, but off the top of my head I would say No, it should not be privatized.  It is simply too large and too complex to think that a group of independent companies would work together to make it all happen.
      
      Are there any countries with anything like our size and number of flights that have made it work?  I don't think so.
      
      As much as I dislike government ownership, this is one that belongs with government, not independent companies.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

         I like the concept. The 'paper slip' vs the computer 'slip' is a stark example of the contrast between privatization vs. government operation.
         
         Relative to scale (ie. US stats), I don't think it would be a problem. A couple of the video's examples (particularly the 'remote' control tower setup) indicated land distance wasn't an obstacle and optimism in the capabilities of the computer-based systems says the U.S. congestion densities are manageable.
         
         It's working for a lot of other nations. Your concern that the job was too big for independent companies prompted a thought about NASA vs. SpaceX. I don't think the government would do it cheaper or better.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 76

            wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            I don't think the comparison of NASA and SpaceX has any relevance.  The two are not cooperative in any major sense, although they do share some equipment and tasks.
            
            Air traffic, on the other hand, must cooperate every second of the day as planes are guided and handed off between areas.  Let Las Vegas set a plane at 30,000 feet going to Detroit and Kansas City set one at the same height going to LA and there is trouble.  It's that kind of thing that would give me the wobbles trying to figure out how to force independent companies to cooperate.

            replyreport
            1. 85

               GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

               At the risk of being dense, I'm not sure I understand your "cooperative" point. My reference was to the performance of similar efforts; the government's NASA vs, the private market's SpaceX.
               
               Relative to your example, a modernized system using satellites (the FAA's proposed NextGen program) will handle 'hand-offs' (planes leaving and entering an airspace) in milliseconds. As a centralized data port, the system would easily handle those Detroit and LA flights.
               
               The "independent companies" point isn't as easily digested. First, as currently in place in other countries, and as proposed for the U.S.'s NextGen plan, it's 'company', as in a monopolistic position. That one is going to take some thought.
               
               GA

               replyreport
      2. 82

         Miebakagh57posted 2 months agoin reply to this

         I agree completely with you, wilderness. Privatizing air control will bring more disaster than the imaginary profit.                              Frankly, it should be left to the Federal government.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

            This is the one time I completely agree with you I don't trust the private sector in an area such as this. I see this as a Governmental function, outsourcing has consistently failed where ever it was tried. There was a reason that the Government took over the airport passenger screening function from the private sector.

            replyreport
            1. 85

               GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

               The generally accepted reason for creating the TSA was security protocol standardization (an immediately post-9/11 decision), not inefficiency or private company shenanigans.
               
               The three big names in privatization are Germany (30 years), the UK (20 years), and Sweden (10 years). All have maintained or improved their pre-privatization safety records. That's decades of proof the concept can be safe.
               
               There is a lot of information available to argue against your reasoning. Safety isn't a negative. And greed for 'profit' isn't 'really' a worry because the systems use government/private partnerships and non-profit structures.
               
               Those are just opinions. I think they are well-supported but they aren't irrefutable 'facts.'
               
               GA

               replyreport
            2. 82

               Miebakagh57posted 2 months agoin reply to this

               You're welcomed. But I think politics is like a religious issue between.

               replyreport
   2. 79

      Kyler J Falkposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I know nothing about air traffic control nor how it is ran, but I've spent years following hobbyists who like following/monitoring the public radars and radio waves. It seems to me like these hobbyists are mostly knowledgeable veterans from the aviation sector.
      
      If good ole boy can sit in his undies and track the movements of every celebrity/military flight and radio communication from the comfort of his crumb-covered armchair at home, then I'd imagine privatizing it all would provide for a much cheaper and efficient system. I've seen hobbyists perform and conclude investigations faster than and just as accurate as any public agency when it comes to aviation incidents.
      
      My only worry with privatizing everything is that the private sector tends to always find a way to optimize the soul out of everything. Not sure how it'd play into ATC, but I bet they'll find a way to make it more soul sucking.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

         I wouldn't take your bet, but . . . the 'privatized' ATCs that I looked at were all structured as non-profits. The UK's non-profit is a private /public partnership.
         
         I think the non-profit part is a safeguard against cutting corners.
         
         With the current rate of AI development, I can see a semi-autonomous AI controller doing a better job than a human could.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Kyler J Falkposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Taking the time to think about it, I'm not even sure I truly understand the difference between privatizing an industry and having it be public.
            
            Any chance you can summarize it for me within the context of ATC?
            
            As I understand it now, ATC is mainly controlled by a conglomerate of corpos that work hand in hand with the government to fill roles. My further understanding is that the government regulates that conglomerate in the form of the FAA. The only thing privatizing aviation would do, by my understanding, is remove the ownership of the airports from the government and hand it over to these conglomerates, essentially put them up for sale on the open market.
            
            I also understand that the scope of my knowledge on this is elementary at best. Help me. I'd like to be able to discuss this hot topic from a more well-read perspective, but I don't even know where to begin.

            replyreport
            1. 85

               GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

               My understanding is as elementary as yours. It does seem to boil down to a 'new owner' taking over. The difference I see is in motivation. The government has no motivation to do better—beyond pacifying squeals of discontent, but private entities have market motivation—succeed or fail.
               
               There are certainly other factors and complexities, but I think that is the bottom line.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  Kyler J Falkposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  Ah, that hadn't even dawned upon me as a possibility until you said it. I was thinking within the small box of ownership of operations.
                  
                  Privatization= Innovation
                  
                  I'll keep playing with the idea, but as of now I support the privatization of ATC. Like you said, AI-assisted ATC would probably be a very productive venture for everyone, and I'd rather the expenses of that fall on corporations than taxpayers funding it through government development contracts.

                  replyreport