Privatizing the air traffic control system

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by blackfox, Jun 5, 2017.

  1. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
  2. cfedu, Jun 5, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2017

    cfedu macrumors 65816

    cfedu

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto
    #2

    It was done in Canada and has worked out well, nothing really changed except that it is founded by user fees on airfare. Since it will no longer be funded by general revenue, taxes should go down, as it will only be funded by people who actual use the air traffic control system.

    http://www.navcanada.ca/en/about-us/pages/who-we-are.aspx

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nav_Canada

    https://www.google.ca/amp/business....debates-air-traffic-control-privatization/amp
     
  3. blackfox thread starter macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #3
  4. Solomani macrumors 68040

    Solomani

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Location:
    Alberto, Canado
    #4
    Somehow the airline industry will find a way to make this more costly for the general public.
     
  5. cfedu macrumors 65816

    cfedu

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto
    #5

    The article you linked says the American proposal will also be non profit.

    I updated my post, read link 3, It will explain the issue better.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 5, 2017 ---

    The general public should get a break, the flying public in the other hand WILL pay more. This will actually hurt the airlines a bit as flying will become slightly more expensive.
     
  6. blackfox, Jun 5, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2017

    blackfox thread starter macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #6
    I'm sorry. It's early. Can you explain the logic behind the quoted sentence? I'm actually a little confused...

    *edit* I read your added third link (thx) - and I think it's a classic bait-and-switch. Yeah, the FAA technology is pretty sucky - they're in the process of updating it. The Classic complaint is that the US Government doesn't move fast enough on this...well, sure. For the past 10 years that's been a point of pride for the Congress - and a convenient reason for Privatization. The track record for the FAA has been pretty good over the last 25+ years
     
  7. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #7
    The UK privatised airports. Not about a third of the price of the tickets is the airport fee and you still have to wait in lines. I think the charge for using Heathrow is ~$200. I would imagine that privatising air traffic control in the US would increase airfares in a similar way. Think about it - current the system is run as a non-profit government service. Private companies need to generate profits, so they must charge more. Not amount of propaganda about private sector efficiency can get around this point.
     
  8. blackfox thread starter macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #8
    This is the point I can't get my head around for all private-vs public arguments. All the latter have to do is break-even. The former our predicated on coming out ahead, even if, occasionally their efficiency is to be lauded - or other times, positively draconian.
     
  9. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #9
    What's funny is the GOP has been pushing for privatization for decades. Any wonder the decision comes right after the billions of dollars of investment for the new navigation systems is nearly ready to go online?

    Tax payers got the system all new and shiny, and the GOP wants to sell it off....almost as if they've been letting the taxpayer cover the cost of what private companies would otherwise have had to invest....
     
  10. cfedu macrumors 65816

    cfedu

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto
    #10

    Think of it as a private bridge, instead of being funded by the government and everyone's taxes going up to pay for it, with a private bridge, only the users pay for it

    Hoapitals in Canada are not government owned, they are non profit institutions, unlike the air traffic privatization, there are no user fees and all funding is from the government and donations.

    Airport privatization is considerably different than air traffic control privatization.

    Don't think of this as the disaster of privatized for profit jails in the USA, this move would be not for profit and could benefit the average person if done properly.
     
  11. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #11
    I listened to the hearing on this last week. Little, if any, talk was regarding a non-profit taking over.
     
  12. cfedu macrumors 65816

    cfedu

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto
    #12
    Are we talking about jails in the USA? I don't know much about how things work there on this subject, I have to admit that I was kinda guessing when I said the USA has for profit jails. Personally for profit jails sound like a horrible system as the number one priory of jail should be rehabilitation of the prisoners so that they can leave fast and never return.
     
  13. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #13
    What are you talking about? The topic was clearly air traffic control, there was a hearing on it in May.
     
  14. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #14
    My experience is when the Federal government turns to contractors, it's to save money and even though they claim tax payers we will get equal or better service, the bid goes to the lowest bidder and typically services deteriorate.

    And saving money, even that is questionable. Look at the no bid blank check contracts that were handed out in the US Iraq war. I'm against the idea for the US, I suspect we don't have the same scruples as Canada. Non-profit for a similiar US system? Now that's a funny thought. I admit I could be suffering from GOP induced fatigue and despondency.
     
  15. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #15
    This.

    Also, regarding Iraq, the bids were "Cost-plus". Meaning the contractor got a cut of any additional spending deemed "necessary" when they went over budget. That's why you had brand new printers being thrown out when a new cartridge was required, they got a cut of the price of the new unit. It's a scam.
     
  16. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #16
    While I don't like the sound of the plan, it's interesting to hear that it's "working" in other countries.

    Perhaps I'm just resisting change.
     
  17. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #17
    The "working" is entirely misleading because those systems are not privatized in the American (culture capitalism) sense of the word.
     
  18. cfedu macrumors 65816

    cfedu

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto
    #18

    You quoted the part of my response talking about jails.

    That's why I asked.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 5, 2017 ---

    If it goes to the lowest bidder, the process is wrong to start with. It has to be set up by the government and still requires complete government oversight.

    This should not even be considered if it is going to be set up in the spirit of American capitalism!!!
    --- Post Merged, Jun 5, 2017 ---
    This is how the company is set up in Canada.

    As a non-share capital corporation, Nav Canada has no shareholders. The company is governed by a 15-member board of directors representing the four stakeholder groups that founded Nav Canada. The four stakeholders elect 10 members as follows:

    Stakeholders Seats

    Air carriers 4
    General and business aviation 1
    Federal government 3
    Bargaining agents (unions) 2


    These 10 directors then elect four independent directors, with no ties to the stakeholder groups. Those 14 directors then appoint the president and chief executive officer who becomes the 15th board member.

    This structure ensures that the interests of individual stakeholders do not predominate and no member group could exert undue influence over the remainder of the board.[9] To further ensure that the interests of Nav Canada are served, these board members cannot be active employees or members of airlines, unions, or government.[10]
     
  19. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #19
    How so? Genuinely asking...
     
  20. gkarris macrumors 604

    gkarris

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    "No escape from Reality..."
    #20
    When the FAA privatized the Aviation WX Briefing system (went to Lockheed-Martin), in my view the service has been better (before privatization and as a Student, I would call and get some old-guy who didn't feel like even giving me the time of day...).

    I would think a privatized, in the hands of the right company, would actually be better.
     
  21. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #21
    taxes go down in the U.S? nope.
     
  22. gkarris macrumors 604

    gkarris

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    "No escape from Reality..."
    #22
    Yes the will - for the corporations and the rich... :eek:
     
  23. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #23
    The America one won't be for profit so it's not really that misleading.
     
  24. cfedu, Jun 5, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2017

    cfedu macrumors 65816

    cfedu

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto
    #24
    One is a property the other is a service.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 5, 2017 ---
    Ok, less debt, lol
     
  25. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #25
    I'm still wondering where this assertion is coming from. In America "nonprofit" has been legally diluted to the point where it just means there isn't a positive balance at the end of the year. Nonprofit doesn't mean the CEO can't just pocket a surplus at the end of the year.

    In the American system, I can't see non-profit critical infrastructure as anything other than a long con. Look at electric utilizes as an example.
     

Share This Page