ATC op-ed WSJ

[jkhirsch]

I guess I'm in a "sharing" mood this morning (either that or I'm just happening across relevant articles)...here is an op-ed from the Journal:

Major Trump to Ground Control

The President’s good idea for improving U.S. air traffic.

March 22, 2017 7:14 p.m. ET

President Trump often sounds off about America’s terrible roads or “third-world airports,” and he’s landed on one excellent idea: Spinning off air-traffic control from the Federal Aviation Administration. A new report explains how this could bring innovation and efficiency to airspace that the federal government is struggling to manage.

Mr. Trump’s budget proposes converting the FAA’s air-traffic outfit into “an independent, non-governmental organization,” as Canada has done, and dozens of other countries have similar models. House Transportation Chairman Bill Shuster last year introduced a bill to turn air-traffic control over to a nonprofit corporation run by a board with seats for airlines, the pilot’s union, hobbyist aviators and more, but it stalled without presidential support.

Pilots currently bounce from one radio point to the next, which can result in roundabout routes and wasted fuel. The Transportation Department’s Inspector General airdrops the occasional damning report on FAA’s NextGen modernization program, whose “total costs and timelines remain unclear,” according to the November installment. FAA may finish the project a decade after the 2025 deadline—or 20 years after its technology is obsolete.

The agency seems impervious to improvement. Laws in the 1990s freed the FAA from personnel and procurement rules and introduced performance-based compensation. According to the IG, the agency’s budget increased 95% between 1996 and 2012. “FAA’s organizational culture, which has been resistant to change, further deters its reform efforts,” the report notes with some understatement.

This record is one reason calls for change are bipartisan. A February report from the Eno Center for Transportation endorsed a government-chartered or nonprofit corporation, and one chairman of the working group is former Sen. Byron Dorgan, who was one of the most pro-union Democrats in Congress.

Speaking of unions, the air-traffic controllers are also on board. The president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association told Congress in 2015 that Canada’s nonprofit air-traffic corporation, Nav Canada, is “developing probably the best equipment out there.” The union no doubt wants the same for its workers.

The Eno report details how Nav Canada and other nations collect user fees, not taxes, which forces management to be more cost-effective. The U.S. air-traffic trust fund rakes in money from the domestic passenger ticket tax (7.5%); the commercial fuel tax ($0.043 per gallon); and other fees. FAA also receives money from Congress, and so funding is a political football in fights like the 2013 government shutdown, which furloughed controllers. Nav Canada operates independently with a 15-member board.

Fears in Canada that fees would increase without government oversight haven’t panned out. Consumer charges have dropped by one-third compared with the previous tax scheme. Canada handles 50% more traffic with 30% fewer employees, according to a 2015 Brookings Institution report. Nav Canada even sells some of its new technology and reinvests the proceeds.

No one credible argues that a corporate air-traffic system would undermine safety; installing GPS in the cockpit and other updates would make flying safer. A private air-traffic outfit would allow FAA to devote its limited resources to overseeing safety and certification.

The idea will still be tough to get through Congress: Democrats who oppose anything corporate or private are flying formation with conservative activists who say the bill is a “union giveaway.” This is a strange objection on the right to a plan that would result in 30,000 fewer federal employees. The Shuster legislation extended current law that prohibits strikes or slowdowns. A union that called a strike would risk its certification.

Another objection is that the bill would hand too much power to the airline industry, which largely supports change and under the Shuster proposal had four seats on the 13-member board. But the airlines will have to wrangle for influence with two representatives from the Transportation Department, one from the airline pilots union, one from the air-traffic controllers union and others.

Perhaps the most significant feat will be convincing appropriators in Congress to relinquish their power. But President Trump has on several occasions noted his intention to make America’s roads and bridges “the best in the world,” and unleashing innovation in airspace is a golden opportunity.

 

Edited March 23, 2017 by jkhirsch

[Joe Zuffoletto]

Canada and the US are apples and oranges when it comes to traffic volumes, but I'd be curious to hear from those who've flown extensively in both systems about which one is "better." I've only flown to Canada once, but it was way back in 2000 and only to one airport (Victoria, BC).

[exM20K]

Joe: It's indistinguishable when flying,  What's a real pain is getting bills from Nav Canada for landing fees etc months after the fact.  The numbers aren't life-changing, but in my case, since I'm flying dozens of different planes yearly into and out of Canada, it does cause me to go back to my logbook all the time to see if, indeed, I made that flight or it was someone else.  

[kmyfm20s]

For some reason I get the feeling we won't see the reduction of fuel taxes that supports the current system and only a raise in fees to support the new proposed system. Otherwise I currently don't have a problem with the idea but reserve the right to change my mind as I learn more.

[N201MKTurbo]

I have no problem with privatizing the ATC system. I think private enterprise could save a lot of money.

If there is so much saving, why would they need a new funding stream? Why would they need user fees in addition to the current gas tax? The gas tax seems amazingly fare to me, but then I'm not an airline who gets their fuel delivered by a pipeline.

If the airlines get their way and get us to pay by the mile instead of the gallon, then we will most likely go away and they will still end up paying for it all. They just won't have any new pilots to fly their planes.

[peevee]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I have no problem with privatizing the ATC system. I think private enterprise could save a lot of money.

If there is so much saving, why would they need a new funding stream? Why would they need user fees in addition to the current gas tax? The gas tax seems amazingly fare to me, but then I'm not an airline who gets their fuel delivered by a pipeline.

If the airlines get their way and get us to pay by the mile instead of the gallon, then we will most likely go away and they will still end up paying for it all. They just won't have any new pilots to fly their planes.

 The plan is not to go to a for profit model, it's to spin off similar to the post office.

 

As for your comments about cost savings, I would challenge you to find something the government subcontracted to a for profit Enterprise that actually resulted in a net savings. I'll be surprised if you find any.

[N201MKTurbo]

4 minutes ago, peevee said:

You.... Haven't read the proposal at all, have you?

No, I haven't read it. I've just read what the news media says about it. And we all know they are a bunch of liars. Do you know where I can find the text of his actual proposal?

[peevee]

Just now, N201MKTurbo said:

No, I haven't read it. I've just read what the news media says about it. And we all know they are a bunch of liars. Do you know where I can find the text of his actual proposal?

I don't think he has made one. A lot of what I assume is speculation is that they'll dust off Schuster's bill from last summer or so.

 

http://transportation.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=399699

[Mooneymite]

Getting rid of one poorly run entity does not guarantee the next will be any better.  I'm really scared of the airline grab for control.  AOPA vs ATA?

Yeah, right.

The devil you know......

[N201MKTurbo]

2 minutes ago, peevee said:

I don't think he has made one. A lot of what I assume is speculation is that they'll dust off Schuster's bill from last summer or so.

 

http://transportation.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=399699

I'm not going to assume anything. 90% of what is written about the president is made out of whole cloth. I think it might have real value if some of us actually wrote to him and express our concerns in a reasonable manor before he formulates a plan.

[Mooneymite]

1 minute ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I'm not going to assume anything. 90% of what is written about the president is made out of whole cloth. I think it might have real value if some of us actually wrote to him and express our concerns in a reasonable manor before he formulates a plan.

After all, Trump is an airplane owner himself!

[N201MKTurbo]

26 minutes ago, peevee said:

 The plan is not to go to a for profit model, it's to spin off similar to the post office.

 

As for your comments about cost savings, I would challenge you to find something the government subcontracted to a for profit Enterprise that actually resulted in a net savings. I'll be surprised if you find any.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/december/08/privatizing-flight-service-saved-money-faces-new-challenges

 

[peevee]

2 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/december/08/privatizing-flight-service-saved-money-faces-new-challenges

 

Riiiiight 

 

Users have “no significant complaints” about the safety or quality of services they receive

[AndyFromCB]

28 minutes ago, peevee said:

 The plan is not to go to a for profit model, it's to spin off similar to the post office.

 

As for your comments about cost savings, I would challenge you to find something the government subcontracted to a for profit Enterprise that actually resulted in a net savings. I'll be surprised if you find any.

Savings for whom? And of what? Generally when that happens, the only savings experience are of time and by members of the house/senate during their fund raising calls because they can make less of them counting on guaranteed checks from the subcontractors. 

I've worked over the years with large organizations and once an enterprise reaches a certain size, it does not matter, private/public/non-profit and/or government, they all become equally inefficient. Such is the price for pay for maintaining large organizational overhead. Privatizing just shifts around opportunities for graft, but that's about it.

So if we can accept that no money will be saved, at least the current system guarantees equal access and is a known devil.

[AndyFromCB]

20 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/december/08/privatizing-flight-service-saved-money-faces-new-challenges

 

I would not call that a good example. I'm sure the privatizing of horse and buggy inspectors office to per incident subcontractor type of an arrangement would have saved a bunch between 1930 and 1955.

I've never called flight service in my entire flying life other than once in 1999 as demonstration by my flight instructor. Who calls flight service? What do they do? I really don't remember. I don't know anyone who uses them but then I am a proud child of the magenta line.

But now at least it might be easier to completely shut them down. So that is a plus I can see. I've used ATC on every flight and never seemed that it can be much improved from what it is today.

 

Edited March 23, 2017 by AndyFromCB

[1964-M20E]

I have called flight service on occasion to get a release when IMC conditions existed and there was no radio contact to be had.  Other than that it is a rear occasion.

 

 

 

 

[N201MKTurbo]

I used to get weather briefings by phone, but after DUATS came along I used that almost exclusively. Now a days its Foreflight all the way. With ADS-B there is no reason to call Flight Watch any more although I do miss the weather awareness you used to get listening to it. Nowadays it is mostly silent. 

[mooniac15u]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I used to get weather briefings by phone, but after DUATS came along I used that almost exclusively. Now a days its Foreflight all the way. With ADS-B there is no reason to call Flight Watch any more although I do miss the weather awareness you used to get listening to it. Nowadays it is mostly silent. 

Flight Watch is mostly silent because they shut it down in 2015. 

[N201MKTurbo]

1 hour ago, mooniac15u said:

Flight Watch is mostly silent because they shut it down in 2015. 

Yea, that'll do it.

So what is flight service doing these days? giving the odd phone weather briefing or passing out a few clearances' a day?

[mooniac15u]

31 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Yea, that'll do it.

So what is flight service doing these days? giving the odd phone weather briefing or passing out a few clearances' a day?

They will still give weather updates and help you with filing IFR in the air. They just don't use the Flight Watch frequency anymore. Apparently there wasn't much demand with all the in-cockpit weather options.  I'm guessing they aren't all that busy. 

[AndyFromCB]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Yea, that'll do it.

So what is flight service doing these days? giving the odd phone weather briefing or passing out a few clearances' a day?

collecting your "saved" tax dollars ;-)

[Aviationinfo]

From the article:

"According to the report, “Increased use of Web-based and other digital applications has significantly reduced the demand for services that flight service specialists provide. Consequently, for the next contract, FAA is considering phasing out most specialists and relying more on Web-based and other means to deliver services... However, the Agency has not yet made a final decision regarding these changes or developed corresponding oversight of the contractor and services to reflect the potential changes.  As a result, FAA may not have appropriate mechanisms in place to ensure the safety and efficiency of this important program for pilots.”

Seems like the explosion of self-briefing and self-filing options may be responsible in large part for all these cost savings.  Not sure how that translates over to ATC.

[carusoam]

Privatizing is half of the solution...

A whole solution requires competition between suppliers.

No competition, no money being saved... Ask Big G for a reference...for years they had no competition.

Who came up with the idea that privatizing something would result in saving money?

It is like the government has found a way to show they don't really understand how private business works.  They hope you won't recognize this small detail...  Duat vs. Duats...two suppliers given equal pieces of the pie...no competition between them...

+1 for capitalism.

Best regards,

-a-

[ChrisH]

I love ATC, however, if we can program cars to drive and avoid pedestrians, other cars,etc. ATC seems to be a much simpler task to automate 99% of the function.

[jkhirsch]

I'm curious how many of you have looked at the balance of a government organization trust fund.

Edited March 24, 2017 by jkhirsch