ATC Privatization Bill

[Aviationinfo]

Good!  While I prefer not to emulate the Canadian model for air traffic, there is a LOT I wish we were doing down here that would make us more like Canada... but that's for another post and would probably get me into trouble with the Admin among others.   

Is ADS-B following a similar track (mandatory soon) in Canada as in the US?  I haven't noticed anything about that yet.

[Tommy]

And how much do they charge in Canada for ATC?

[Jerry 5TJ]

Setting aside issues of who pays and how for just a moment--does anyone have factual data on the actual cost of air traffic control in the USA? 

The FAA budget is about $15B per year, but that covers more than ATC. There are 14,500 controllers in the FAA ATO (air traffic organization) and they handled about 55,000 flights per day last year.  ATO includes another 7,000 people and also includes safety & modernization departments.  

reference GAO report: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/675079.pdf

Anyone have hard data on the cost, say in $ per hour of IFR ATC handling?   

My Guess/Estimate:  Say half the FAA budget goes to ATO, $7.5B.  (It may be more than half) Multiply  55,000 flights x 365 days.  Guess average flight is 3 hours (probably too high)  Divide through: That's $124 per flight hour.  

That's a rough estimate based on what we're paying now via fees & taxes of various types.   

 

 

 

[markejackson02]

I think the big issue is governance.  If the airlines are over-represented on the board, biz-av and GA operators are legitimately afraid that an economic downturn would result in huge pressure to cut costs and transfer fees to non-airline operators.  On the plus side, it would allow for multi-year budgeting.  A lot of projects suffer from the stop/start pace of budget planning.

Having watched a few government/corporate projects run by large corporations with nebulous/changing operational requirements, not sure that privatization would really make it much more efficient.

[Cyril Gibb]

On 07/07/2017 at 3:26 AM, Aviationinfo said:

The reason we started talking about Canada is because somebody held it up as an example of what we need in the US.   I hold that not to be the case.

I Don't see anywhere on this thread that someone suggested the US needs Canadas atc model.  If the US privatises it may or may not totally suck.  The point to be made is that we pay 60or70 bucks a year for our atc.  Governance and oversight will be the critical items to GA if privatisation occurs.  If this appears inevitable then I'd spend limited resources in determining governance than lying down on the tracks.

Primary radar in Canada is limited to major cities.  Secondary (transponder) radar coverage is essentially complete across Canada.  The Hudson Bay area is now covered by adsb. Nowhere to build towers in the middle of hundreds of miles of water.

There is no plan to require adsb in Canadian airspace for GA.

NAVcanada is partnering in the implementation of worldwide satellite adsb.  There's no way we could afford to build towers in the sparsly settled areas we have.

There's no shortage of international flights in Canada.  Chances are if you're going to Europe, you're flying through Canadian airspace. Seems to be working ok.

 

[Tommy]

7 hours ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

Setting aside issues of who pays and how for just a moment--does anyone have factual data on the actual cost of air traffic control in the USA? 

The FAA budget is about $15B per year, but that covers more than ATC. There are 14,500 controllers in the FAA ATO (air traffic organization) and they handled about 55,000 flights per day last year.  ATO includes another 7,000 people and also includes safety & modernization departments.  

reference GAO report: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/675079.pdf

Anyone have hard data on the cost, say in $ per hour of IFR ATC handling?   

My Guess/Estimate:  Say half the FAA budget goes to ATO, $7.5B.  (It may be more than half) Multiply  55,000 flights x 365 days.  Guess average flight is 3 hours (probably too high)  Divide through: That's $124 per flight hour.  

That's a rough estimate based on what we're paying now via fees & taxes of various types.   

 

 

 

That's just too much speculation and even if the real costs is $1.50 per flight hour, the airlines - now owning the ATC monopoly - can charge whatever they like for this essential service.

[ArtVandelay]

Setting aside issues of who pays and how for just a moment--does anyone have factual data on the actual cost of air traffic control in the USA? 
The FAA budget is about $15B per year, but that covers more than ATC. There are 14,500 controllers in the FAA ATO (air traffic organization) and they handled about 55,000 flights per day last year.

4 flights per controller? I think I can see how to cut costs.

[Jerry 5TJ]

22 minutes ago, Tommy said:

That's just too much speculation and even if the real costs is $1.50 per flight hour, the airlines - now owning the ATC monopoly - can charge whatever they like for this essential service.

It's an estimated cost based on the best figures I could locate quickly.   Feel free to improve the estimate based on better data and improved assumptions.  

 

 

 

[Jerry 5TJ]

Just now, teejayevans said:

4 flights per controller? I think I can see how to cut costs.

You mean just make all IFR flights operate only 8-5 pm Monday through Friday, right?  

[whiskytango]

"My Guess/Estimate:  Say half the FAA budget goes to ATO, $7.5B.  (It may be more than half) Multiply  55,000 flights x 365 days.  Guess average flight is 3 hours (probably too high)  Divide through: That's $124 per flight hour.  

That's a rough estimate based on what we're paying now via fees & taxes of various types."

 

The argument against user fees has always been that General Aviation pays its way through taxes on fuel.  The current tax on avgas is 19.4 cents per gallon.  Even at 20 GPH, that is less than $4.00 per flight hour.  

I would be happy to pay $4 per hour as an ATC user fee if they cut the federal taxes on avgas.  Trouble is that, as Tommy says, ATC Inc. could charge whatever they want.

[Tommy]

5 hours ago, markejackson02 said:

I think the big issue is governance.  If the airlines are over-represented on the board, biz-av and GA operators are legitimately afraid that an economic downturn would result in huge pressure to cut costs and transfer fees to non-airline operators.  On the plus side, it would allow for multi-year budgeting.  A lot of projects suffer from the stop/start pace of budget planning.

Having watched a few government/corporate projects run by large corporations with nebulous/changing operational requirements, not sure that privatization would really make it much more efficient.

Budgeting issue won't be solved by privatization. Unless the whole of ATC can be wholly funded privately (I seriously doubt it, given the size of its current budget), it will still suffer the highly bipartisan nature of the Congress.

Fundamentally, ATC service is like police and fire department, it's an essential safety service not a privilege and you should not be penalizing people for making it safe for everyone. The same argument can easily be extended to rebate for ADS-B installations. Soon you will have pilots flying without a transponder in order to save money.

Can you imagine paying the police everytime they deal with a traffic incident?

[ArtVandelay]

You mean just make all IFR flights operate only 8-5 pm Monday through Friday, right?  

No, what's your point?

[MyNameIsNobody]

On 7/6/2017 at 6:16 PM, Tommy said:

No one really knows what your President was referring to when he talked about "the swamp." He never really gave any specific target except the Clintons. To be perfectly honest with you, no one really knows much of what he is talking about most of the time anyway...

Everyone's definition of the swamp will be different. And that's how he baited his voters. Emotive but vague so all the hopefuls could define "the swamp" in the way that they wanted and made him a President believing that he will be doing exactly that.

To me, privatising ATC monopoly into the hands of corporates including major airlines flies directly in the face of how I define "draining the swamp."

 

How is that gun buyback working out down under?  Is there any Mooneyspace member that does not think that fuel tax and no user fees should continue to funding mechanism for GA?  Call your reps and tell them often why fuel tax is the answer not privatization. 

[mike_elliott]

Now, 130 GA groups have signed on to the letter opposing HR 2997, the ATC Privatization act.

Captain Sulley has spoke out against the bill as it currently is written

http://atcnotforsale.com

Again, please encourage others to keep calling and/or visit their respective congressional representatives and oppose HR 2997. This bill doesn't do anything to solve the funding issue, just gives the airlines control over an infrastructure monopoly to run as they best see fit, without any congressional oversight to our safety. If passed, this probably wont work out in any small aircraft' owners or pilots interest, and really eliminate any voice we have as to airspace or ops.

GA.united.ATC 3 .pdf

[HRM]

On 7/8/2017 at 5:04 PM, Tommy said:

Fundamentally, ATC service is like police and fire department...

[Tommy]

http://www.atcnotforsale.com/

Even Sully has spoken! 

[mike_elliott]

I just sat in a conference call with the various GA groups headed by EAA and AOPA and while Congress is in recess, it is important to contact you representatives at their LOCAL office. Typically, they will have a public appearance schedule they publish on their websites and it doesn't hurt to have a little face time with them. Let them know that supporting the Shuster bill would be akin to turning our highway systems governance and maintenance  over to the trucking industry. There will be a push to ram this bad bill through again. Any bill that has carve outs for certain groups, areas etc is not a benevolent bill. The airlines have insisted privatization be included in every funding bill this century, and have held the industry hostage at a huge taxpayer expense already with no tangible benefits to the public taxpayer. It is time this behavior is curtailed once and for all.

The ATC union is supporting the bill, as they have been promised they would benefit, but many many other unions are against it. The congresscritters need to know this. 80% of airline delays are weather caused, this bill wont fix that.

[peevee]

But but but smaller government though.

 

It has 0 percent chance of passing, but I have to be honest, part of me hope it does.

[mike_elliott]

8 minutes ago, peevee said:

But but but smaller government though.

 

It has 0 percent chance of passing, but I have to be honest, part of me hope it does.

Its nothing more than a bill to get taxpayer money to be overseen by unions and airlines, instead of elected representatives. Part of you hope it does because you drink the entitlement koolaid the union is serving, after they were bought by the airlines.

[peevee]

1 minute ago, mike_elliott said:

Its nothing more than a bill to get taxpayer money to be overseen by unions and airlines, instead of elected representatives. Part of you hope it does because you drink the entitlement koolaid the union is serving, after they were bought by the airlines.

No, part of me hopes it passes because voters deserve what they voted for.

[Tommy]

On ‎9‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 5:54 AM, peevee said:

No, part of me hopes it passes because voters deserve what they voted for.

That is assuming the voters know what they are voting for in the first place.

And for the majority of these "basket of deplorables," they can't even get their hands off their own cousins let alone knowing the intricacies of ATC system...

[Andy95W]

1 hour ago, Tommy said:

That is assuming the voters know what they are voting for in the first place.

And for majority of these "basket of deplorables," they can't even get their hands off their own cousins let alone knowing the intricacies of ATC system...

Well, I guess this is how the rest of the world sees us now.

[steingar]

5 hours ago, Andy95W said:

Well, I guess this is how the rest of the world sees us now.

After the events of November last, it absolutely is.

[mike_elliott]

There are now 152 GA groups that have signed on in opposition to the Shuster bill. That in itself speaks volumes about the bill's benevolence. I cant recall when that many GA groups agreed on anything else.

Airlines, not so much.....

 

GA.United.9.18.17.pdf

[PMcClure]

From the WSJ today - the other sides opinion. 

An Air-Traffic Winner - WSJ.pdf