It was a rhetorical quip.


Sure have heard of Fed Ex and UPS. I wonder why US Government hasn't outsourced USPS to one or both of them?

That's rhetorical too.

The government won't outsource USPS because postal delivery is an internal infrastructure issue that has tentacles into interstate commerce and other areas deemed too important to mess with. The over-riding point is this: privatizing ATC would be a bridge too far for two major reasons: The US Government would lose it's control and oversight, and you can't strike against the US government. The PATCO strike taught us that. I certainly don't see ATC privatization as happening.

ATC pensions are a small part of the larger pot of government pensions. I estimate they are insignificant in terms of impact on national debt.

 

Huggy, while your post is interesting, it has multiple errors.

Let's start with Amtrak. Its formal name is the National Railroad Passenger Corporation and it is 100% government owned. AllGov - Departments

ATC user fees. Yes, ATC is funded by user fees. Aviation fuel taxes, landing fees, and multiple fees on airline tickets fund the FAA and ATC. This is not a free service.

Your USA Today link doesn't work and I have no idea what you're referring to with $46B.

Your NBAA link doesn't work and I have no idea who Ed Bolen is.

You have jumped to a conclusion (privatized ATC will likely cost more and be less safe) that you have not and cannot back up with any facts. Instead, how about breaking down how a privatized ATC will cost more money?

Hmm. If that's the case, then we should do away with private companies and have the government do everything.

 

Erm, I hate to break this to you once again, but who do you think handles USPS priority mail? Hint: FedEx Extends Express Air Transportation Contract With United States Postal Service

You guys are very resistant to privatization of ATC, in spite of the probability that a privatized ATC will not only be more efficient but also cost less than the current cost of ATC being run by the government.

Maybe the government should take over all of the airlines? After all, the same arguments that you gentlemen make with respect to ATC would apply to air transportation in spades.

 

Apologies on the link, Andy. I'll try again:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...rol/102026976/

https://www.nbaa.org/advocacy/testim...-Testimony.pdf

If you don't know who Ed Bolen is, then you probably don't have an understanding of business aviation. Though you don't fly that segment... and apparently you don't fly GA either... you should take a look at how that affects the overall scheme.

 

Are business aviation and GA concerned that they'll have to pay for the services they're provided? Perhaps they're currently getting too much of a free ride. If so, I can understand the opposition. That's a big motivation behind AOPA's opposition to privatizing ATC.

 

Whatever you say, Andy.

 

The privatization has been a dismal failure in Canada. Yes, they pay user fees. The problems is, the user fees are set by the ATC system, and has priced GA out of the market. The user fees are not necessarily the problem, but eventually, they will rise and become exorbitant. This has killed GA in Canada, and will do the same in the US.

As stated earlier, the US does have user fees now in the form of gas taxes and other fees. So the system is not free. In fact, if you really account for the current fee system, the airlines get a huge break and percentage wise, pay far less than GA does now, and it would be vastly worse if privatized.

Even if you disagree with the above, some things should not be for sale or run on a cost efficient basis. Airline safety is one of them. So privatized, the bean counters will set a threshold where safety is efficient. This means there will be preventable accidents, and people will die because someone decided that it's not cost effective to fix an already identified problem. It wasn't efficient. You say that won't happen to me? Ask the families about that from the Buffalo accident.

Which, BTW, the current administration is trying to roll back the safety gains made there. It has already started, and no one is holding the reigns.

Safety will be for sale, to the lowest bidder. Do you want to fly in that system? I don't.

 

It's called fuel taxes. I pay them every time I fly my Arrow. It's a perfectly efficient method of funding the system. It requires no massive new bureaucracy to collect the fees.

 

It has nothing to do with being resistant.

It has everything to do with the reality of the situation.

The reality is that the US Government sees more benefits to keeping it US Government controlled than in outsourcing it.

 

If the system's privatized, fuel taxes would either go away and replaced with a different payment method or remain in place (probably at a lower rate) and help pay for the privatized system.

According to the following article, the cost for Air Traffic Control declined by 30% in Canada after privatization. Quote:
Nunes says the Canadian air traffic control system Nav Canada was privatized in 1996, and has since reduced its costs by nearly 30%. While the cost of service per flight hour in Canada is $355, it is currently $453 per flight hour in the United States.
Link: https://chiefexecutive.net/privatiza...ts-businesses/


I'm not wed to the idea of privatization of Air Traffic Control but if it saves money and operates more efficiently, I'm in favor of the change.