(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.

The FAA has a "tolerable" number of aircraft incidents. They even have a number specifically for the state of Alaska. Is this different?

(06-06-2017 12:40 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(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.

The FAA has a "tolerable" number of aircraft incidents. They even have a number specifically for the state of Alaska. Is this different?

Yes. The private corp. will have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to sacrifice a "tolerable" number of lives in order to maximize their monetary returns. Do you fly or know someone that does? Feeling lucky? Don't worry, these things always happen to the "other guy".

I fly for a living and don't share those concerns because I know how the industry works and what you're suggesting is ridiculous.

There are and always will be accidents, but that's a different story.

(06-06-2017 03:35 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Yes. The private corp. will have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to sacrifice a "tolerable" number of lives in order to maximize their monetary returns. Do you fly or know someone that does? Feeling lucky? Don't worry, these things always happen to the "other guy".

No. What an absurd concept.

It will probably have to work like airports do now. All the money an airport generates has to be spent on maintenance and operation with the FAA making sure that it does. For instance, the EP Fire Department for years wanted to be the sole firefighting entity but the airport manager would fight it every time the subject came up. He, the airport manager, wanted to be the sole leader of what went on at the airport. Until the city council fired the manager and hired a lackey who was willing to listen to the councils will did the EPFD take over firefighting duties there. The main reason they wanted in was that the airport generated(s) millions of dollars that have to be spent ONLY on the airport and it's duties thus paying for some firefighters and buying of new equipment that is also used outside the airport through under the table dealings.

With privatization ATC will be paid out of the airports funds and it can do that really easily. Right now, the ATC duties at the army's Biggs Field is done on a contractual basis and it does a good job. The difference is that the contractor is paid through the government and not through any generation of funds.

My concept would be a privatized enterprise that would run airports, ATC, and airport security including what TSA does now. It works in Europe, so why not here?

(06-05-2017 02:01 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I think it should be on a per flight basis...and private jets should pay as much as a commercial jet. My guess is that they will charge a per pax fee, in order to make commercial travelers subsidize the wealthy.

The question would be, in my mind: does it "cost" (in whatever sense that's valid, for this context) an ATC "more", "the same", or "less" to track/control/whatever a private jet vs a commercial jet?

That IMO should be what determines the per plane cost. In other words, if it "costs" (time, effort, technology, etc.) the ATC more to track/control/whatever a commercial jet than a private jet, then each commercial jet should have a higher user fee.

Without knowing anything else, my (naive?) instinct says that it doesn't "cost" ATC any more to track/control/whatever even the largest commercial airliner than it does a private jet, and if that is true then the fee should be the same.

(06-05-2017 02:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The essential element in ATC is maintaining up-to-date technology. Profit-seeking enterprises can do that much easier than nonprofits.

I don't see why that would be true.

(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.

Why is it a true narrative that profit-seeking is better than nonprofit?

Why can't they just be the same, all other things equal?

(06-05-2017 02:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  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.

OK. I think this is a fair concept.

(06-06-2017 04:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My concept would be a privatized enterprise that would run airports, ATC, and airport security including what TSA does now. It works in Europe, so why not here?

Again, I think this is fair.

The keys would be: 1) the collection of user fees would not really (if at all) alter the operations/logistics of how airports, ATC, and/or security lines run now, and 2) there's a large enough mass of people who use these services that the user fee per passenger should be reasonably low enough to not boost prices up too painfully.