(06-05-2017 02:22 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 02:10 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Do you think its wrong that airlines aim to make a profit?

Edit: much like pilots, ATC already has rules governing work hours and I highly doubt that will change.

No, I don't think it's wrong that airlines aim to make a profit, and I understand the point you're making.

But I don't think it's entirely fair to compare ATC with the airlines. From what I understand, privatizing ATC would basically be creating a monopoly. What incentive would the organization in charge have to put safety over profit?

I see what you are saying and do share your concern to a degree (although I believe airlines are much more responsible for safety than ATC at the end of the day).

There are ways, even in this scenario, to ensure that competition doesn't disappear entirely. But the truth is that ATC is going to remain so heavily regulated that it's hard to even consider this a full privitization.

This same issue exists on the operator side (airlines and air taxis) and that's why we have a massive ever growing book of aviation regs. Now I believe its gone too far, but thats a different argument.

(06-05-2017 02:25 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 02:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  There's this false narrative that nonprofit is somehow better than profit-seeking. It's not. As I said, the narrative is false.

It's strange but lots of folks seem to think nonprofit equals not making money. In lots of cases, they could not be more wrong.

As long as they are collecting user fees to cover operations instead of taxes, and selling their own debt to fund capital improvements, they are behaving enough like a profit-seeking enterprise to suit me.

What I would propose doing is privatize anything that can be supported by user fees, let Social Security own the stock in repayment of debt owed to Social Security, set them up to earn a 5% ROI, and use the income to grow the trust fund. If we set up a privatized component of social security, let it own stock in these companies. Let these entities build and operate infrastructure projects.

(06-05-2017 02:22 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 02:10 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Do you think its wrong that airlines aim to make a profit?

Edit: much like pilots, ATC already has rules governing work hours and I highly doubt that will change.

No, I don't think it's wrong that airlines aim to make a profit, and I understand the point you're making.

But I don't think it's entirely fair to compare ATC with the airlines. From what I understand, privatizing ATC would basically be creating a monopoly. What incentive would the organization in charge have to put safety over profit?

Should the FDA try to make a profit? How about the police? The army? USDA?

Obama already compromised FAA ATC's by getting rid of the ATC exam and replacing it with a personality test because duhversity.

(06-05-2017 05:46 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 02:22 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 02:10 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Do you think its wrong that airlines aim to make a profit?
Edit: much like pilots, ATC already has rules governing work hours and I highly doubt that will change.

No, I don't think it's wrong that airlines aim to make a profit, and I understand the point you're making.
But I don't think it's entirely fair to compare ATC with the airlines. From what I understand, privatizing ATC would basically be creating a monopoly. What incentive would the organization in charge have to put safety over profit?

Should the FDA try to make a profit? How about the police? The army? USDA?

Apples and oranges. They don't have users from whom to collect user fees.

In my mind government was always for things that we cannot do individually and that we can only do collectively, or the market cannot do profitably and safely. Like nuclear subs, prisons, Manhattan projects, Armed Forces, Mars Landers, big Telescopes, scientific research on basic knowledge, large highway systems, air traffic control systems, dams, pollution, etc.

But things have changed.

Prisons are privatized. We are hiring contractors to do the Armed Forces support jobs. We are letting Elon Musk do our space stuff. We don't really care about the scientific research. We are having privatized toll roads built.

But somehow government is now supposed to take care of our elderly relatives....not us. Government is now supposed to pay for our birth control...not us. Government is supposed to buy our medicine....not us. Government is supposed to buy our food....not us. Government is supposed to pay for our college...not us.

The crap we CAN pay for by ourselves...government is now supposed to handle. The big collective things...we either do not do...or we privatize it.

I'm not saying its all bad. I'm just saying that we don't seem to have a rational overall philosophy of just what it is government should, or should not, be doing or just what government is for.

I have my doubts about privatizing ATC. I don't see where it brings some efficiency due to competition because...are we really going to have competing ATC systems duking it out on price?

Its like the space program....the minute Elon Musk accidentally blows up 3 astronauts then the REAL discussion about space program privatization can start. It hasn't started yet. The same with ATC. The first time we have a midair then the real discussion takes place and the blame falls where?

Here's where "privatized" is better, and by "privatized" in this context I mean supported by user fees.

If technology advances and improvements come available, a system supported by user fees can borrow the money, upgrade, and raise user fees to pay back the loan. A tax supported system has to fight the appropriations battle, and often lose.

That's the difference between US and Canada right now. Canada stays at the top of technology, we stay with antiquated systems.

(06-05-2017 06:29 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  In my mind government was always for things that we cannot do individually and that we can only do collectively, or the market cannot do profitably and safely. Like nuclear subs, prisons, Manhattan projects, Armed Forces, Mars Landers, big Telescopes, scientific research on basic knowledge, large highway systems, air traffic control systems, dams, pollution, etc.

But things have changed.

Prisons are privatized. We are hiring contractors to do the Armed Forces support jobs. We are letting Elon Musk do our space stuff. We don't really care about the scientific research. We are having privatized toll roads built.

But somehow government is now supposed to take care of our elderly relatives....not us. Government is now supposed to pay for our birth control...not us. Government is supposed to buy our medicine....not us. Government is supposed to buy our food....not us. Government is supposed to pay for our college...not us.

The crap we CAN pay for by ourselves...government is now supposed to handle. The big collective things...we either do not do...or we privatize it.

I'm not saying its all bad. I'm just saying that we don't seem to have a rational overall philosophy of just what it is government should, or should not, be doing or just what government is for.

I have my doubts about privatizing ATC. I don't see where it brings some efficiency due to competition because...are we really going to have competing ATC systems duking it out on price?

Its like the space program....the minute Elon Musk accidentally blows up 3 astronauts then the REAL discussion about space program privatization can start. It hasn't started yet. The same with ATC. The first time we have a midair then the real discussion takes place and the blame falls where?

NASA has blown up plenty of people too. Just saying.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(06-05-2017 06:40 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 06:29 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  In my mind government was always for things that we cannot do individually and that we can only do collectively, or the market cannot do profitably and safely. Like nuclear subs, prisons, Manhattan projects, Armed Forces, Mars Landers, big Telescopes, scientific research on basic knowledge, large highway systems, air traffic control systems, dams, pollution, etc.

But things have changed.

Prisons are privatized. We are hiring contractors to do the Armed Forces support jobs. We are letting Elon Musk do our space stuff. We don't really care about the scientific research. We are having privatized toll roads built.

But somehow government is now supposed to take care of our elderly relatives....not us. Government is now supposed to pay for our birth control...not us. Government is supposed to buy our medicine....not us. Government is supposed to buy our food....not us. Government is supposed to pay for our college...not us.

The crap we CAN pay for by ourselves...government is now supposed to handle. The big collective things...we either do not do...or we privatize it.

I'm not saying its all bad. I'm just saying that we don't seem to have a rational overall philosophy of just what it is government should, or should not, be doing or just what government is for.

I have my doubts about privatizing ATC. I don't see where it brings some efficiency due to competition because...are we really going to have competing ATC systems duking it out on price?

Its like the space program....the minute Elon Musk accidentally blows up 3 astronauts then the REAL discussion about space program privatization can start. It hasn't started yet. The same with ATC. The first time we have a midair then the real discussion takes place and the blame falls where?

NASA has blown up plenty of people too. Just saying.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

No doubt. And ATC has crashed people too.

But I think the firestorm is muted when its government. People accept it easier because its not for profit.

When some for profit entity messes up a privatized government function I bet its gonna be hell to pay.

(06-05-2017 06:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's where "privatized" is better, and by "privatized" in this context I mean supported by user fees.

If technology advances and improvements come available, a system supported by user fees can borrow the money, upgrade, and raise user fees to pay back the loan. A tax supported system has to fight the appropriations battle, and often lose.

That's the difference between US and Canada right now. Canada stays at the top of technology, we stay with antiquated systems.

I've got no problem taking a look at a successful system elsewhere.

Even though I'm sure we're capable of messing them up.

(06-05-2017 06:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's where "privatized" is better, and by "privatized" in this context I mean supported by user fees.

If technology advances and improvements come available, a system supported by user fees can borrow the money, upgrade, and raise user fees to pay back the loan. A tax supported system has to fight the appropriations battle, and often lose.

That's the difference between US and Canada right now. Canada stays at the top of technology, we stay with antiquated systems.

How much does Canada pay its executives in their NON-PROFIT system?

How much will the US flying public be required to pay executives in the FOR PROFIT system that Trump wants?

(06-05-2017 06:48 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 06:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's where "privatized" is better, and by "privatized" in this context I mean supported by user fees.

If technology advances and improvements come available, a system supported by user fees can borrow the money, upgrade, and raise user fees to pay back the loan. A tax supported system has to fight the appropriations battle, and often lose.

That's the difference between US and Canada right now. Canada stays at the top of technology, we stay with antiquated systems.

How much does Canada pay its executives in their NON-PROFIT system?

How much will the US flying public be required to pay executives in the FOR PROFIT system that Trump wants?

In neither case would it be enough to be material.

Everytime we borrowed some other country's ideas? We made it worst. Look at Obama Care? It was modeled actually after Israel's health care system, and it is mandatory to join the military and all that.

(06-05-2017 07:33 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Everytime we borrowed some other country's ideas? We made it worst. Look at Obama Care? It was modeled actually after Israel's health care system, and it is mandatory to join the military and all that.

Things don't always scale up. Things that work for a homogenous population don't always work for a diverse population. Things that work for a nation with a small range of economic disparity doesn't always work for one with a large range.

I would think Air Traffic Control wouldn't be affected by those that much though.

(06-05-2017 07:33 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Everytime we borrowed some other country's ideas? We made it worst. Look at Obama Care? It was modeled actually after Israel's health care system,

No, but nice try.

(06-05-2017 06:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 06:48 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 06:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's where "privatized" is better, and by "privatized" in this context I mean supported by user fees.

If technology advances and improvements come available, a system supported by user fees can borrow the money, upgrade, and raise user fees to pay back the loan. A tax supported system has to fight the appropriations battle, and often lose.

That's the difference between US and Canada right now. Canada stays at the top of technology, we stay with antiquated systems.

How much does Canada pay its executives in their NON-PROFIT system?

How much will the US flying public be required to pay executives in the FOR PROFIT system that Trump wants?

In neither case would it be enough to be material.

Yea, yea, yea....DJT is going to turn it into another system like our busted health care system, where people have to pay billions to health care execs or die.

If it isn't material, why are US health care prices quadruple those of other developed countries? Remember I can't sue anyone for med mal in Texas for any significant amount (its limited to 250,000 even for death - which is what the CEO makes in a week).

(06-05-2017 10:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 06:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 06:48 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 06:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's where "privatized" is better, and by "privatized" in this context I mean supported by user fees.

If technology advances and improvements come available, a system supported by user fees can borrow the money, upgrade, and raise user fees to pay back the loan. A tax supported system has to fight the appropriations battle, and often lose.

That's the difference between US and Canada right now. Canada stays at the top of technology, we stay with antiquated systems.

How much does Canada pay its executives in their NON-PROFIT system?

How much will the US flying public be required to pay executives in the FOR PROFIT system that Trump wants?

In neither case would it be enough to be material.

Yea, yea, yea....

You should stop here and realize he's right... You can't see the forest from the trees.

It's comforting to know the private corp. will cut costs enough to maintain a "tolerable" air traffic control error rate so that the CEO can make some extra millions.

(06-06-2017 07:22 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  It's comforting to know the private corp. will cut costs enough to maintain a "tolerable" air traffic control error rate so that the CEO can make some extra millions.

Thank goodness the government never makes such calculations. I guess thats why we never have any air traffic incidents.

The government's efforts to update their software and systems have been one failure after another for the last quarter century. The government hasn't been able to do it.