9 ms·

Trump announces plans to privatize US air traffic control system

50 points by petergatsby 9y ago

Simulacra 9y ago
I'm cautious to say this is a good idea, but I'm also optimistic the private sector would be more efficient than the public sector.
- lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
  I too look forward to the grand efficiencies that can only come from upholding share holder value above customer safety. Flying will be so much more exciting.
  - dglass 9y ago
    It would be a non-profit corporation. This doesn't have anything to do with increasing shareholder value.
    - bryondowd 9y ago
      But it would be controlled by a board, which would include representatives of the big airlines, and several other seats that could likely end up controlled by the same. So, effectively, I'd expect them to end up beholden to airline company shareholders moreso than the agency currently is.
    - Dirlewanger 9y ago
      Just because there's no incentive to reward shareholders doesn't mean there isn't incentive to maximize efficiency. Too many people wrongly assume that just because it says nonprofit that they are instantly humanitarians working toward the betterment of society.
    - MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
      > This doesn't have anything to do with increasing shareholder value. > The plan drew immediate support from most airlines > the White House said the 13-member board of directors for the new corporation should be made up of appointees from industry stakeholder groups
      - kwhitefoot 9y ago
        How about having directors nominated by those who actually pay the bills, the passengers?
    - icebraining 9y ago
      So are the RIAA/MPAA and the NFL until recently.
- pudo 9y ago
  When did we decide efficiency was the goal of air traffic control? I want the thing to be effective and reliable, efficiency is way down the list here.
  - lend000 9y ago
    Do you think government performs better in that regard than well regulated private industry? There are plenty of air-traffic control horror stories, and it appears to be systemic: https://www.rt.com/usa/312138-secret-faa-study-chronic-fatigue/ https://www.rt.com/usa/312138-secret-faa-study-chronic-fatig...
    - xmichael99 9y ago
      Don't forget to take everything RT says with a pretty major "grain of salt."
      - travmatt 9y ago
        As in, RT doesn't allow content that doesn't criticize America to be published.
  - d0lph 9y ago
    Right, but part of efficiency improvements would probably include some level of automation, which would be more safe in the end.
    - chillingeffect 9y ago
      lot of hedging there. What you're referring to is a research project, not a deployable one. I agree it's worth researching. Common industrial research grants with a mixture of government and private funding can perform the research and develop it. And those improvements may be deployed to the sector whether it's private or not. There's no need to pre-emptively privatize the industry to perform R & D.
  - Simulacra 9y ago
- sametmax 9y ago
  Yes cause it works so well with health insurance, right ?
- CuriouslyC 9y ago
  Privatizing something does not magically make it more efficient. The market tends to produce more efficient solutions than government because it tries many different approaches simultaneously, and they compete against each other. This probably won't work for air traffic control because it will be so regulated that innovation will be impossible (if innovation was even possible there in the first place). Furthermore, I doubt that the air traffic control market will be highly competitive - regulation will probably drive the market to cartel conditions. In all likelihood this will result in a small price decrease coupled with degraded service.
ericfrederich 9y ago
My guess is that he has some personal vendetta against them for something that happened causing him to be delayed 5 minutes on his private jet.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- kevinburke 9y ago
  not quite; a Republican Congressman has had this plan ready to go for some time, and it fits the theme of "infrastructure" so it was easy to do an announcement about it.
- treebeard901 9y ago
  The personal vendetta, while probably true on some level, seems too easy of an answer. This is one of many privatization initiatives this administration is going to take. The focus initially will be to find government run agencies that can be profitable in the private sector. Think in terms of toll roads/bridges for infrastructure, air traffic control and student loans to name a few. Whether or not if privatization is the right answer is debateable but it is probably going to happen in one form or another. The question is: Who will benefit by owning these companies? Look to the privatization of the USSR as a worst possible outcome. Large former government run industries given to private ownership that instantly created a strong oligarchy class. How well has democracy worked in Russia since that happened?
  - MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
    > How well has democracy worked in Russia since that happened? It's worked great for the oligarchs! I honestly think the Republican party sees that as the ideal outcome: create a strong kleptocratic class that can use their wealth to perpetuate Republican control.
  - ericfrederich 9y ago
    The article said this would be a non-profit company... but then again this is the US and look at all the non-profit multi millionaire preachers. Or the non-profit Goodwill with exorbitant salaries for execs.
mmanfrin 9y ago
Why. I don't get this at all. Why privatize? What is the benefit? All I see this doing is decreasing safety.
- cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
  Simple. This is a union-busting move. This would squash the National Air Trafic Controllers Association[1] as a public union. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Air_Traffic_Controlle...
  - kevinburke 9y ago
    I don't think Republicans would mind busting a union but that is far from the primary motivation.
- d0lph 9y ago
  Private organizations are more efficient than governmental ones. Ideally the way they are managed/regulated will remain the same. It would be really neat to see some innovation here as well, with governmental agencies there really isn't an incentive to break the status quo. edit: If you're downvoting at least comment with why you think this isn't the case
  - reverend_gonzo 9y ago
    There is a reason that air traffic is tightly controlled, primarily there is massive public risk for minimal errors. There is a saying that the FARs are written in blood, as in regulations aren't passed willy-nilly, but passed after there has been a serious incident. Air traffic is one place where "Iterate quickly and break shit" doesn't work. What happens when in the name of "efficiency", one tower reduces current safety limits because "99% of the time these are unnecessary", then the one time it actually was necessary, you've got two jets about to make a head-on collision, or one quickly changes course, loses control, and crash-lands into a town. There are absolutely improvments that can be made with the FAA, but privatizing ATC is definitely not one of them.
cjbenedikt 9y ago
Judging by how the privatization of rail traffic in the UK worked out - terrible idea!
- kevinburke 9y ago
  The situations are not remotely analogous.
- dingaling 9y ago
  The UK's privatised air-traffic system is a model studied Worldwide; the stakeholders include a group of seven airlines, yet it remains non-partisan and is amongst the most efficient globally.
mullen 9y ago
> Donald Trump on Monday unveiled his proposal to hand over control of the U.S. air-traffic control system to a non-profit corporation, calling the current system an antiquated mess that doesn’t work and wastes money. Did someone point out to this idiot that we are having a string of years where there are no deaths in domestic commercial travel. Whatever is happening in the US Traffic System appears to be working really well. I also think that president holds a person vendetta against the FAA because it told him he could not land his plane somewhere or an air traffic controller delayed him by a couple of minutes.
- rtx 9y ago
  These people are not being fired, just being transferred to a new company. I believe they will continue to perform at the same level. And with a non-gov entity we also get the benefit of optimal resource allocation. A win-win for everyone. Only reason of opposing this would be personal vendetta against Trump.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    with a non-gov entity we also get the benefit of optimal resource allocation How do you figure?
    - mmirate 9y ago
      Unless there are to be multiple competing ATC firms, such an efficiency gain is impossible.
    - rtx 9y ago
      Not referencing a whole field dedicated to this. Just sharing an anecdote. My father works for a government mining company. His job is that of a translator. Now no one use the language he was supposed to translate from. So he goes to office does some stuff and come backs home. We get govt housing and energy, medical (children till 25 and employees parent till death, two paid yearly holidays for the whole family.
      - 9y ago
ithinkinstereo 9y ago
There are already ATC towers that are operated by private companies, so in a way, this is just accelerating the existing trend. That said, if it ain't broke, why bother trying to "fix" it? US air is the safest in the world, it's rules are literally written in blood. This is one area, where I'd like to see less, not more, privatization. Safety, and not profit (or cost-reduction), should be the driving incentive for something so critical, and so fault-sensitive.
chrisbennet 9y ago
Doesn't a lot of the expense of government run programs come from the retirement benefits? The government assumes the risk (pension) instead of the employee (401K). As an aside, according to a controller I know, a lot of FAA employees are retiring soon and at about the same time. A large cohort of controllers were hired about the same time to replace the fired striking PATCO [1] controllers in the early 80's. [1] PATCO Professional Air Traffic Controllers
- bryondowd 9y ago
  Yep, lots of the current controllers are retiring right now, and even more have their 20 years and could retire before the mandatory retirement age of 56 if things change in a way that makes it not in their best interest to keep working. I'm currently part of a hiring wave meant to replace those controllers. Around 1400 people are being hired in my bid alone. ATC has been my get-out-of-software plan, but depending how things shake out, if the compensation doesn't stay the same for newcomers, I expect I'll have to run back to software. I'm a little concerned that this new private entity will compensate the old timers to keep them on and keep the union on board, and throw newcomers under the bus for the sake of 'efficiency', which would keep things running short-term, and leave them with a sudden lack of talent in five or ten years. But I'm not an expert on how these things turn out, just highly cynical about a private corp's ability to think long-term.
kem 9y ago
A monolithic private institution doesn't inspire confidence in me any more than a monolithic public one. I don't see the purpose in switching one for the other, and would probably rather see it run by the government. If it was replacing the current system with one where you had 12 different companies competing with one another, maybe so but I don't really see the benefit in what I'm reading. But I don't feel strongly about it. What worries me the most about this in some ways is how it seems to be focused on the large airlines and not on passengers and private pilots. This is the current trend that disturbs me the most about Trump and the GOP: they seem pretty blatantly to be representing large corporations and their own party rather than the public at large. The assumption seems to be that what benefits the fat cats is what benefits everyone. I'm not anti-large-corporation per se, but a big part of the reason for democracy is to protect the average person. I don't really see any arguments here other than "it makes the airlines happy." As if they needed more latitude.
- kevinburke 9y ago
  "The New York metropolitan area is the single largest aviation market in the United States. Last year, there were nearly 33 million domestic origin and destination passengers that came to and from the three major New York airports (LaGuardia, Kennedy and Newark). Nearly 60% of the total delays endured by these passengers are a result of today’s inefficient air traffic control, among the highest in the nation." http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/air-traffic-control-tech-overhaul-article-1.3196591 http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/air-traffic-control-tech-...
  - linkregister 9y ago
    I recommend you explain what benefit a transfer to private administration would offer, because the article doesn't actually make any statement about what would improve. According to the article, which does not cite any study or even interview a single official or anyone from the airlines, there are two obstacles posed by the current "inefficient" system: 1) Antiquated technology, and 2) insufficient staffing levels. To remedy these issues, we would need to look at solutions for the existing system and compare them with the new one. I actually don't disagree that a private organization might be better; if the limits on staffing and equipment procurement are imposed by Congress, then it might be better for a private organization to simply raise rates on airlines to account for the increased costs.
bobbington 9y ago
For everybody who seems baffled by this decision, it's about finances. He believes a private organization, which doesn't have the infinite pockets of the government is a better way to reign in cost. Interestingly he's having the private organization take out loans for upgrades, instead of the government. That is a win for taxpayers if you ask me.
goodcanadian 9y ago
While I would have liked to find a source other than the Cato institute for it (https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-pursues-air-traffic-control-reform https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-pursues-air-traffic-control-...): The airlines are for it, the key labor union is for it, aviation experts are for it, and the second-largest nation on earth did it. Canada privatized its system in 1996, and today the nonprofit Nav Canada is on the leading edge of ATC efficiency and innovation.
- Florin_Andrei 9y ago
  Ah, yes, Cato Institute, that paragon of unbiased, reality-based thought. /s
  - goodcanadian 9y ago
    Indeed . . . that is why I would have preferred another source. I have read very similar things from better sources, but I was not able to find them, today. EDIT: Here is one from the Economist from last year describing NAV Canada in favourable terms as compared to the FAA.: http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21703477-americas-antiquated-air-traffic-control-system-hindering-safety-sky-navigating http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/2170347... And the Wall Street Journal (paywalled): https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-canadian-air-traffic-control-compared-1467219369 https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-canadian-air-traffic-contro... And the Financial Post (part of Canada's National Post): http://business.financialpost.com/news/transportation/u-s-looks-to-canadian-model-as-it-debates-air-traffic-control-privatization http://business.financialpost.com/news/transportation/u-s-lo...
bearcobra 9y ago
Outside of NavCanada, does anyone know if there are any other private entities that manage ATC?
- goodcanadian 9y ago
  From the Economist (http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21703477-americas-antiquated-air-traffic-control-system-hindering-safety-sky-navigating http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/2170347...): Over the past couple of decades more than 50 countries, including Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand, have privatised (or at least “commercialised”) their ATC services, . . .
pasbesoin 9y ago
I caught a snippet of his comments, complaining about managing "thousands of flights" using "slips of paper". It's been a few years, but I recall reading at least one article wherein was described how those slips of paper actually made a lot of sense. (It may have been one of the articles that made the rounds, describing the surprising endurance and resilience of paper-based work.) The slips of paper supported both regular and immediate, ad hoc workflows as they were needed. Also, paper is immune to systems failures. Your electronic board goes down -- you still have all your flights at hand. Start spacing them and shoving incoming traffic into wider holding patterns.

50 points by petergatsby 9y ago

I'm cautious to say this is a good idea, but I'm also optimistic the private sector would be more efficient than the public sector.

lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
I too look forward to the grand efficiencies that can only come from upholding share holder value above customer safety. Flying will be so much more exciting.
- dglass 9y ago
  It would be a non-profit corporation. This doesn't have anything to do with increasing shareholder value.
  - bryondowd 9y ago
    But it would be controlled by a board, which would include representatives of the big airlines, and several other seats that could likely end up controlled by the same. So, effectively, I'd expect them to end up beholden to airline company shareholders moreso than the agency currently is.
  - Dirlewanger 9y ago
    Just because there's no incentive to reward shareholders doesn't mean there isn't incentive to maximize efficiency. Too many people wrongly assume that just because it says nonprofit that they are instantly humanitarians working toward the betterment of society.
  - MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
    > This doesn't have anything to do with increasing shareholder value. > The plan drew immediate support from most airlines > the White House said the 13-member board of directors for the new corporation should be made up of appointees from industry stakeholder groups
    - kwhitefoot 9y ago
      How about having directors nominated by those who actually pay the bills, the passengers?
  - icebraining 9y ago
    So are the RIAA/MPAA and the NFL until recently.
pudo 9y ago
When did we decide efficiency was the goal of air traffic control? I want the thing to be effective and reliable, efficiency is way down the list here.
- lend000 9y ago
  Do you think government performs better in that regard than well regulated private industry? There are plenty of air-traffic control horror stories, and it appears to be systemic: https://www.rt.com/usa/312138-secret-faa-study-chronic-fatigue/ https://www.rt.com/usa/312138-secret-faa-study-chronic-fatig...
  - xmichael99 9y ago
    Don't forget to take everything RT says with a pretty major "grain of salt."
    - travmatt 9y ago
      As in, RT doesn't allow content that doesn't criticize America to be published.
- d0lph 9y ago
  Right, but part of efficiency improvements would probably include some level of automation, which would be more safe in the end.
  - chillingeffect 9y ago
    lot of hedging there. What you're referring to is a research project, not a deployable one. I agree it's worth researching. Common industrial research grants with a mixture of government and private funding can perform the research and develop it. And those improvements may be deployed to the sector whether it's private or not. There's no need to pre-emptively privatize the industry to perform R & D.
- Simulacra 9y ago
sametmax 9y ago
Yes cause it works so well with health insurance, right ?
CuriouslyC 9y ago
Privatizing something does not magically make it more efficient. The market tends to produce more efficient solutions than government because it tries many different approaches simultaneously, and they compete against each other. This probably won't work for air traffic control because it will be so regulated that innovation will be impossible (if innovation was even possible there in the first place). Furthermore, I doubt that the air traffic control market will be highly competitive - regulation will probably drive the market to cartel conditions. In all likelihood this will result in a small price decrease coupled with degraded service.

ericfrederich 9y ago

My guess is that he has some personal vendetta against them for something that happened causing him to be delayed 5 minutes on his private jet.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
kevinburke 9y ago
not quite; a Republican Congressman has had this plan ready to go for some time, and it fits the theme of "infrastructure" so it was easy to do an announcement about it.
treebeard901 9y ago
The personal vendetta, while probably true on some level, seems too easy of an answer. This is one of many privatization initiatives this administration is going to take. The focus initially will be to find government run agencies that can be profitable in the private sector. Think in terms of toll roads/bridges for infrastructure, air traffic control and student loans to name a few. Whether or not if privatization is the right answer is debateable but it is probably going to happen in one form or another. The question is: Who will benefit by owning these companies? Look to the privatization of the USSR as a worst possible outcome. Large former government run industries given to private ownership that instantly created a strong oligarchy class. How well has democracy worked in Russia since that happened?
- MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
  > How well has democracy worked in Russia since that happened? It's worked great for the oligarchs! I honestly think the Republican party sees that as the ideal outcome: create a strong kleptocratic class that can use their wealth to perpetuate Republican control.
- ericfrederich 9y ago
  The article said this would be a non-profit company... but then again this is the US and look at all the non-profit multi millionaire preachers. Or the non-profit Goodwill with exorbitant salaries for execs.

mmanfrin 9y ago

Why. I don't get this at all. Why privatize? What is the benefit? All I see this doing is decreasing safety.

cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
Simple. This is a union-busting move. This would squash the National Air Trafic Controllers Association[1] as a public union. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Air_Traffic_Controlle...
- kevinburke 9y ago
  I don't think Republicans would mind busting a union but that is far from the primary motivation.
d0lph 9y ago
Private organizations are more efficient than governmental ones. Ideally the way they are managed/regulated will remain the same. It would be really neat to see some innovation here as well, with governmental agencies there really isn't an incentive to break the status quo. edit: If you're downvoting at least comment with why you think this isn't the case
- reverend_gonzo 9y ago
  There is a reason that air traffic is tightly controlled, primarily there is massive public risk for minimal errors. There is a saying that the FARs are written in blood, as in regulations aren't passed willy-nilly, but passed after there has been a serious incident. Air traffic is one place where "Iterate quickly and break shit" doesn't work. What happens when in the name of "efficiency", one tower reduces current safety limits because "99% of the time these are unnecessary", then the one time it actually was necessary, you've got two jets about to make a head-on collision, or one quickly changes course, loses control, and crash-lands into a town. There are absolutely improvments that can be made with the FAA, but privatizing ATC is definitely not one of them.

cjbenedikt 9y ago

Judging by how the privatization of rail traffic in the UK worked out - terrible idea!

kevinburke 9y ago
The situations are not remotely analogous.
dingaling 9y ago
The UK's privatised air-traffic system is a model studied Worldwide; the stakeholders include a group of seven airlines, yet it remains non-partisan and is amongst the most efficient globally.

mullen 9y ago

> Donald Trump on Monday unveiled his proposal to hand over control of the U.S. air-traffic control system to a non-profit corporation, calling the current system an antiquated mess that doesn’t work and wastes money. Did someone point out to this idiot that we are having a string of years where there are no deaths in domestic commercial travel. Whatever is happening in the US Traffic System appears to be working really well. I also think that president holds a person vendetta against the FAA because it told him he could not land his plane somewhere or an air traffic controller delayed him by a couple of minutes.

rtx 9y ago
These people are not being fired, just being transferred to a new company. I believe they will continue to perform at the same level. And with a non-gov entity we also get the benefit of optimal resource allocation. A win-win for everyone. Only reason of opposing this would be personal vendetta against Trump.
- icebraining 9y ago
  with a non-gov entity we also get the benefit of optimal resource allocation How do you figure?
  - mmirate 9y ago
    Unless there are to be multiple competing ATC firms, such an efficiency gain is impossible.
  - rtx 9y ago
    Not referencing a whole field dedicated to this. Just sharing an anecdote. My father works for a government mining company. His job is that of a translator. Now no one use the language he was supposed to translate from. So he goes to office does some stuff and come backs home. We get govt housing and energy, medical (children till 25 and employees parent till death, two paid yearly holidays for the whole family.
    - 9y ago

ithinkinstereo 9y ago

There are already ATC towers that are operated by private companies, so in a way, this is just accelerating the existing trend. That said, if it ain't broke, why bother trying to "fix" it? US air is the safest in the world, it's rules are literally written in blood. This is one area, where I'd like to see less, not more, privatization. Safety, and not profit (or cost-reduction), should be the driving incentive for something so critical, and so fault-sensitive.

chrisbennet 9y ago

Doesn't a lot of the expense of government run programs come from the retirement benefits? The government assumes the risk (pension) instead of the employee (401K). As an aside, according to a controller I know, a lot of FAA employees are retiring soon and at about the same time. A large cohort of controllers were hired about the same time to replace the fired striking PATCO [1] controllers in the early 80's. [1] PATCO Professional Air Traffic Controllers

bryondowd 9y ago
Yep, lots of the current controllers are retiring right now, and even more have their 20 years and could retire before the mandatory retirement age of 56 if things change in a way that makes it not in their best interest to keep working. I'm currently part of a hiring wave meant to replace those controllers. Around 1400 people are being hired in my bid alone. ATC has been my get-out-of-software plan, but depending how things shake out, if the compensation doesn't stay the same for newcomers, I expect I'll have to run back to software. I'm a little concerned that this new private entity will compensate the old timers to keep them on and keep the union on board, and throw newcomers under the bus for the sake of 'efficiency', which would keep things running short-term, and leave them with a sudden lack of talent in five or ten years. But I'm not an expert on how these things turn out, just highly cynical about a private corp's ability to think long-term.

kem 9y ago

A monolithic private institution doesn't inspire confidence in me any more than a monolithic public one. I don't see the purpose in switching one for the other, and would probably rather see it run by the government. If it was replacing the current system with one where you had 12 different companies competing with one another, maybe so but I don't really see the benefit in what I'm reading. But I don't feel strongly about it. What worries me the most about this in some ways is how it seems to be focused on the large airlines and not on passengers and private pilots. This is the current trend that disturbs me the most about Trump and the GOP: they seem pretty blatantly to be representing large corporations and their own party rather than the public at large. The assumption seems to be that what benefits the fat cats is what benefits everyone. I'm not anti-large-corporation per se, but a big part of the reason for democracy is to protect the average person. I don't really see any arguments here other than "it makes the airlines happy." As if they needed more latitude.

kevinburke 9y ago
"The New York metropolitan area is the single largest aviation market in the United States. Last year, there were nearly 33 million domestic origin and destination passengers that came to and from the three major New York airports (LaGuardia, Kennedy and Newark). Nearly 60% of the total delays endured by these passengers are a result of today’s inefficient air traffic control, among the highest in the nation." http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/air-traffic-control-tech-overhaul-article-1.3196591 http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/air-traffic-control-tech-...
- linkregister 9y ago
  I recommend you explain what benefit a transfer to private administration would offer, because the article doesn't actually make any statement about what would improve. According to the article, which does not cite any study or even interview a single official or anyone from the airlines, there are two obstacles posed by the current "inefficient" system: 1) Antiquated technology, and 2) insufficient staffing levels. To remedy these issues, we would need to look at solutions for the existing system and compare them with the new one. I actually don't disagree that a private organization might be better; if the limits on staffing and equipment procurement are imposed by Congress, then it might be better for a private organization to simply raise rates on airlines to account for the increased costs.

bobbington 9y ago

For everybody who seems baffled by this decision, it's about finances. He believes a private organization, which doesn't have the infinite pockets of the government is a better way to reign in cost. Interestingly he's having the private organization take out loans for upgrades, instead of the government. That is a win for taxpayers if you ask me.

goodcanadian 9y ago

While I would have liked to find a source other than the Cato institute for it (https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-pursues-air-traffic-control-reform https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-pursues-air-traffic-control-...): The airlines are for it, the key labor union is for it, aviation experts are for it, and the second-largest nation on earth did it. Canada privatized its system in 1996, and today the nonprofit Nav Canada is on the leading edge of ATC efficiency and innovation.

Florin_Andrei 9y ago
Ah, yes, Cato Institute, that paragon of unbiased, reality-based thought. /s
- goodcanadian 9y ago
  Indeed . . . that is why I would have preferred another source. I have read very similar things from better sources, but I was not able to find them, today. EDIT: Here is one from the Economist from last year describing NAV Canada in favourable terms as compared to the FAA.: http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21703477-americas-antiquated-air-traffic-control-system-hindering-safety-sky-navigating http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/2170347... And the Wall Street Journal (paywalled): https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-canadian-air-traffic-control-compared-1467219369 https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-canadian-air-traffic-contro... And the Financial Post (part of Canada's National Post): http://business.financialpost.com/news/transportation/u-s-looks-to-canadian-model-as-it-debates-air-traffic-control-privatization http://business.financialpost.com/news/transportation/u-s-lo...

bearcobra 9y ago

Outside of NavCanada, does anyone know if there are any other private entities that manage ATC?

goodcanadian 9y ago
From the Economist (http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21703477-americas-antiquated-air-traffic-control-system-hindering-safety-sky-navigating http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/2170347...): Over the past couple of decades more than 50 countries, including Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand, have privatised (or at least “commercialised”) their ATC services, . . .

pasbesoin 9y ago

I caught a snippet of his comments, complaining about managing "thousands of flights" using "slips of paper". It's been a few years, but I recall reading at least one article wherein was described how those slips of paper actually made a lot of sense. (It may have been one of the articles that made the rounds, describing the surprising endurance and resilience of paper-based work.) The slips of paper supported both regular and immediate, ad hoc workflows as they were needed. Also, paper is immune to systems failures. Your electronic board goes down -- you still have all your flights at hand. Start spacing them and shoving incoming traffic into wider holding patterns.