http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN18W215

Looks to be similar to Canada's plan. May involve user fees which is fine with me if it reduces the burden on those who use the system less.

I suspect the left will act like the sky is falling on this one and yet things will carry on mostly as normal.

WTF I HATE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL NOW

At least it wasn't the prisons....................................yet.

Could be monumental screw-up or major positive. I will have to read more.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Canada did it years ago and is very happy with the results. I favor it.

(06-05-2017 01:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Canada did it years ago and is very happy with the results. I favor it.

I agree. It would have to be a non-profit though.

(06-05-2017 01:56 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 01:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Canada did it years ago and is very happy with the results. I favor it.

I agree. It would have to be a non-profit though.

Why?

(06-05-2017 01:56 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 01:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Canada did it years ago and is very happy with the results. I favor it.

I agree. It would have to be a non-profit though.

Will they be unionized. Will this open the door to allow them to strike. Can the President fire them for illegally striking.

What if this non-profit Amtrak of the airways can't manage its books...are we on the hook?

We've been down these roads. Need to make sure we don't revisit them.

(06-05-2017 01:33 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN18W215

Looks to be similar to Canada's plan. May involve user fees which is fine with me if it reduces the burden on those who use the system less.

I suspect the left will act like the sky is falling on this one and yet things will carry on mostly as normal.

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.

(06-05-2017 01:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 01:56 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 01:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Canada did it years ago and is very happy with the results. I favor it.

I agree. It would have to be a non-profit though.

Why?

So they don't relax standards so one of Trump's oligarch buddies gets a 100 million dollar bonus off the taxpayers and the whole ATC system suffers as a result of them deciding to underpay and overwork the employees.

(06-05-2017 02:01 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 01:33 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN18W215

Looks to be similar to Canada's plan. May involve user fees which is fine with me if it reduces the burden on those who use the system less.

I suspect the left will act like the sky is falling on this one and yet things will carry on mostly as normal.

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.

That would be an unusual model, but we will see.

FWIW though, we already pay a "per pax" fee. A few of them, in fact.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/co.../29518427/

(06-05-2017 02:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 01:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 01:56 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 01:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Canada did it years ago and is very happy with the results. I favor it.

I agree. It would have to be a non-profit though.

Why?

So they don't relax standards so one of Trump's oligarch buddies gets a 100 million dollar bonus off the taxpayers and the whole ATC system suffers as a result of them deciding to underpay and overwork the employees.

The essential element in ATC is maintaining up-to-date technology. Profit-seeking enterprises can do that much easier than nonprofits.

There's this false narrative that nonprofit is somehow better than profit-seeking. It's not. As I said, the narrative is false.

(06-05-2017 01:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 01:56 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 01:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Canada did it years ago and is very happy with the results. I favor it.

I agree. It would have to be a non-profit though.

Why?

I don't think that the organization that will eventually be in charge of air traffic should be concerned with making a buck. Safety should be the utmost concern, and I have a feeling the goal of making money might get in the way.

Otherwise, I think you'd need to have very strict rules regarding the hours the air traffic controllers work. And if an accident occurs and it is found that the air traffic control was responsible, there would have to be a SEVERE financial punishment.

--

NavCanada is a non-for-profit company.

(06-05-2017 02:08 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 01:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 01:56 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 01:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Canada did it years ago and is very happy with the results. I favor it.

I agree. It would have to be a non-profit though.

Why?

I don't think that the organization that will eventually be in charge of air traffic should be concerned with making a buck. Safety should be the utmost concern, and I have a feeling the goal of making money might get in the way.

Otherwise, I think you'd need to have very strict rules regarding the hours the air traffic controllers work. And if an accident occurs and it is found that the air traffic control was responsible, there would have to be a SEVERE financial punishment.

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.

Indifferent to this. As long as flight costs don't increase and planes aren't colliding in the sky I couldn't care less.

Reagan just fired all of them. Lol

(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?

(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.

(06-05-2017 02:08 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  NavCanada is a non-for-profit company.

They actually operate like a profit-seeking company in a rate regulated environment, and the profits are run through regulatory reserves and applied against future rate setting. Per their 2016 financial statements, they made profits in both 2015 and 2016. They are financed through sale of debt to the public, with no government funding.

That would be a reasonable model. That's not exactly how non-profits work here. We should probably operate a number of activities (Interstate highway system, postal service, TVA, western water and power authorities, and ATC/airports/airport security) along the lines of that model.