yes the UK is only one model and for ATC its not been that bad looking from the outside but then compared to most privatisations its still fairly early days compared say to railways.

I wasn't suggesting it doesnt work per se but the UK privatisation model in general is not a good one ; once the gloss wears off the focus on customers disappears in favour of shareholder value.

There are a number of Canadian models for state realted enterprises that you seem to get to work quite well compared to other areas of the world so I am not surprised ATC seems to work well

PB

Is there any information on what is FAA's current Airnav revenue?

I have a feeling it is more to do with losing that revenue stream than having ATC under their umbrella.

ATC with 15,000 employees will do very well on its own with Airnav revenue.

Rest of the 25,000 employees will totally dependent on federal budget.

What happens to NextGen with its $40-$50 Billion? I doubt either can implement without federal support.

NextGen is one of the big drivers for privatization. It is feared that under the existing federal bureaucracy, NextGen costs could balloon to well over $100 billion.

(The FAA is forecasting $29 billion, which doesn't seem realistic considering they've already spent $6 billion with little to show for).

NY Times editorial against privatization of ATC
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/15/op...c-control.html

They claim only the UK and Canada have privatized ATC (among major countries), and that their costs have risen faster than in those the US since privatization.

The Times calls it "a solution in search of a problem" -- if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Such is politics.

Back in 1994, it was Bill Clinton and the Democratic administration which pushed for privatization, as part of Al Gore's "re-inventing the government" plan. The Republicans in Congress vehemently opposed privatization, led by Bob Dole. The fight back then wasn't about safety. Bob Dole -- being from Kansas -- was the champion of GA aircraft manufacturers, and their big concern was user fees.

Now that the Republicans in Congress is proposing privatization, naturally the Democratic admin is in opposition. The fight now isn't about safety either. It's an election year and union support takes precedence.

The ANSP in New Zealand was "commercialised". Airways NZ is totally government owned, but as a SOE (State Owned Enterprise). It does not come under the Ministry of Transport, and receives no public money - rather it is required to return the government a yearly dividend. It seems to work OK.

Every time politicians want to shutdown federal government, ATC furloughs delay/cancel their EAS funded flights. Now they have to compromise and fund again to get flights back in the air to spend quality time with their families.

By privatizing ATC their flights won't get delayed/cancelled even if government is shutdown.

the bill passed!

"The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has approved legislation that establishes an independent, not-for-profit corporation outside of the federal government to modernize America’s air traffic control (ATC) system and provide air traffic services. H.R. 4441, the Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act, introduced by Transportation Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA) and Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), reauthorizes the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), provides a number of reforms to our aviation system, and upholds the FAA’s role as the Nation’s aviation safety regulator. The bill was approved by a vote of 32 to 26."

Well, HR 4441 (FAA Reauthorization Act) passed the House committee stage, with privatization being just one of many items in the bill, all of which are still subject to further negotiations.

There's a long road ahead still from the committee stage to passing the full House and Senate votes intact. And for Obama to actually sign it into law.

My guess is the privatization portion will pass the House intact but will face stiff opposition in the Senate, since even many Senate Republicans are against the bill.

Having spent $6B with little to show for it has quite a bit to do with it...

FAA is seriously broken and change is needed
 

FAA is seriously broken and changes is needed, both to fix a dysfunctional regulatory mess at FAA, as well as to redirect an already obsolete ATS system with a seriously flawed overly expensive and ill-conceived NextGen (it ought to be called PastGen), pointing it in a more useful, capable, and economic direction, with sane regulatory and equipage criteria, and sensible targeted benefits.

FAA's massive failures abound, ...from examples of seriously policy faulty cylinder ADs, to fouled up medical standards, to completely illogical and decades late drone rules, to incomprehensible pilot qual rules, to a hopelessly screwed up NextGen,... that is not only heading toward a $40B failure right now, but now is being projected to cost up to $125B by 2035 and STILL BE A FAILURE.

While repairing FAA internally is still a theoretical possibility, nothing has worked in trying that approach now for decades. That possibility appears to be virtually hopeless. So the only realistic answer now appears to be the approach we took back in the days of the Curtiss Committee (Eisenhower era) and later the Ben Alexander Committee (ATCAC - birth of the "Upgraded 3rd Gen ATC System"),... to now bust up FAA completely, and start over, to fully reorganize the regulatory part, then to get competent aviation and technically experienced executives, ...while splitting out the ATS part as a separate NON-PROFIT ANSP (e.g., the Schuster Bill).

The key aspect to make it all work, will be not letting FAA drive the solution, while picking the right aviation and technically experienced oversight board for the endeavor, and accomplishing a competent redesign of flailing and failing NextGen, before it further fouls up the entire global aviation system.

It's official, Trump administration announces privatization of US ATC:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...4cb_story.html

(Video) https://www.whitehouse.gov/live/pres...orm-initiative

*grinds teeth*


ATC is IMO an inherently public good (like sewage, roads, traffic lights) and this is, as the NYT noted, a solution in search of a problem.

Whats the word on user fees for GA under trumps privatization?

Question for pilots (including General & Business Aviation pilots) flying in the US and abroad: where do you find the best ATC services?

Food for thought...

Nail. Hit. Head.

You and me both, brother!

It's very common to jump to conclusions at the outset of a major policy statement. I fly in the US, and the Caribbean some times, and the US ATC is very good as it is.

Here's a few takeaways that I can offer. I'm not sure there are enough electrons to cover all the issues by all the stakeholders involved. Literally thousands of direct stakeholders, and of course multi-millions of minor stakeholders.

First, the big picture that is trying to be accomplished is to have a safe system at lower cost. That's the major goal of the announcement. There are of course, many challenges involved. It's a major step in the quest for a balanced budget in the US, and I have to say - everyone who uses some service thinks that service should be immune from cuts(or fees). The nation can't continue to borrow, print and spend money from the treasury.

All I know at this point is the basis for the original funding proposal contained language that GA planes would be excepted from user fees. The was to bow to the desires of AOPA and gain their endorsement. Whether it will pass the legislative edits and make it through to a vote, and then make it through the senate is very questionable.

Since it has been endorsed by the major airlines(to greater or lesser degree), there's a sense that it will support the majors to the detriment of business/cargo/GA. I am going to take a wait and see attitude, understanding that the major goal is to provide safe traffic control for less money.

One of the concerns is that GA planes which in some cases have the option to avoid ATC involvement will choose to compromise safety over cost. Flying actual IMC without a clearance, scud running, even using a different call sign(without ADS-B of course) while flying. I can see an incentive to cut safety corners if each time one calls for an IFR flight plan, the meter starts running on costs. Of course, that will be just one of the concerns from the GA side. The other part of the equation is if a privatization will actually save money over what is being done now. I have to opine that it would be hard, very hard, to be as inefficient as the FAA has been for the past 30 years. Since the strike of 1980, pretty much the entire ATC budget has gone to hell and not kept up with the times. I can find hundreds of places to save money without losing any safety right away. For dozens if not more than a hundred controlled towers, they could easily go back to uncontrolled, with no loss of safety. Big swaths of the midwest from Nov to March are virtually dead, but manned towers still operate from 0600-2000 each day, and they may handle 3 ops or 5. From a cost per op basis, there's no reason to have a controller sitting there watching Angry Birds on his phone, just waiting for a Piper or Cessna to show up.

AOPA discouraged over Trump's air traffic control proposal

Mark Baker, AOPA president and CEO, spoke out against President Donald Trump's comment Monday that the US air traffic control system is "an ancient, broken, horrible system that doesn't work." Baker argued that while privatization may be an option, other solutions should be evaluated, adding, "As the air traffic debate continues, we are also concerned about the impact of these proposed reforms on general aviation based on what we have seen in other countries."

NBAA Strongly Challenges Latest White House ATC Privatization Plan

NBAA President and CEO Ed Bolen said upgrading the nation’s ATC system, not privatization, should be the goal, in response to the Trump administration’s continuing call for privatizing the ATC system, which was included today in a set of transportation-infrastructure spending “principles” advanced by the president. “Unfortunately, the recent discussion about privatization is really about the airlines’ push to gain more control over our air traffic control system, so that they can run it for their own benefit, and is a sideshow to a serious and constructive discussion about building on the progress currently underway on NextGen,” Bolen said.

I really wanted to give Trump the benefit of doubt regarding his promises of improving government functions. However, just the same as with Obama, their rhetoric is miles apart from their action.

The ATC proposal is a great example of this. For all this talk about improving the quality of ATC, what this proposal is really about is giving the large airline operators what they have been lobbying heavily for. It's the same old user fee system in a new wrapper, that gives the airlines greater control at the inevitable expense of general aviation. Those that will benefit from this change will be airline stakeholders and those in a position to profit from this business opportunity. Unfortunately, this will also be at the expense of many more GA operators, privateers, and part 91 fliers. No doubt rural areas will be the first to see major reductions in service since "the business case" won't support the service.