4 ms·

Air traffic control is not a great example to cite here. The USA is one of the few countries where the regulator also provides the ATC service. In comparison

by opo 7y ago

Air traffic control is not a great example to cite here. The USA is one of the few countries where the regulator also provides the ATC service. In comparison to Canada, the US government run air traffic control is noticeably less productive and more expensive. Some examples here: https://jdasolutions.aero/blog/guest-author-robert-poole-faa-atc-productivity/ https://jdasolutions.aero/blog/guest-author-robert-poole-faa... Some more descriptions of the problems with US air traffic control: >...Much of the system still depends on radar technology developed in the 1940s. A new system called NextGen has taken so long to develop and install that controllers are still operating a clunky patchwork that combines antiquated and updated equipment. >...You could hardly find a more egregious example of serial mismanagement than the history of NextGen. Between 2004 and 2006 the FAA spent nearly $26 million just planning the system. Since 2010 it has spent nearly a billion dollars a year on attempting to implement it, frequently missing deadlines and, according to government watchdogs, exceeding budgets. https://www.thedailybeast.com/lobbyists-and-congress-just-killed-the-best-hope-for-ending-your-airport-nightmares https://www.thedailybeast.com/lobbyists-and-congress-just-ki...

hollerith 7y ago
>Between 2004 and 2006 the FAA spent nearly $26 million just planning the system Or less than .10 USD per American. Nor does spending a billion USD a year since 2010 scream mismanagement to me given the magnitude of the public benefit if it eventually works. By far the most important barometer of the quality of the US's air-traffic control system is how many fatal collisions there have been between aircraft being controlled by the system, and you haven't offered any data about that.
- opo 7y ago
  I agree that safety is paramount here. This is why other countries like Canada have implemented newer technology like GPS flight tracking and digital messaging between pilots and controllers. Improvements like this makes flights safer. In the US, they try to mitigate the dangers of the aging air traffic control system by spacing the planes out further. As the American Airline CEO has said: >“Today to fly from DFW to Philadelphia is about 30 minutes longer than it was in 1979,” Parker said, “simply because we have an [air traffic control] system that hasn’t kept pace with the rest of the world.” https://www.dallasnews.com/business/american-airlines/2017/03/31/american-airlines-ceo-continues-push-reform-broken-air-traffic-control-system-cnbc https://www.dallasnews.com/business/american-airlines/2017/0... This wired article also has some more background on the US air traffic control system: https://www.wired.com/2015/02/air-traffic-control/ https://www.wired.com/2015/02/air-traffic-control/ The US is the last major country to still have government act as the regulator and provider of air traffic control. This is an inherent conflict of interest for the regulator that other countries avoid. By having political control of air traffic control, it also means air traffic control is routinely held hostage to government shutdowns and budget impasses which can also impact safety. For example: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/how-shutdown-impacting-air-safety/579616/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/how-shutdo... Doing a google search on air traffic safety brought up this paper which examined the air traffic control systems of the US and Australia, Germany, New Zealand, and Switzerland: >…An analysis was made to determine the effect privatization had on operating cost and air MIC safety involving the privatized ATC systems of Australia, Germany, New Zealand, and Switzerland. The study showed reduced operating cost and increased safety would result from corporate structuring of the ATC system. It was concluded that corporate style policy regarding personnel management and equipment procurement procedures would increase efficiency, which would reduce operating cost and increase ATC flight safety. https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1521&context=jaaer https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1521&co... Considering that every other major country has separated the regulation and provision of air traffic control, those who are opposed to it should cite some evidence why the US should be different in this regard.
mikeash 7y ago
I hope you’ll forgive me for being skeptical of arguments for ATC privatization from the founder of Reason.
- opo 7y ago
  It goes without saying that you should be skeptical of any argument someone makes, but discounting something solely based on the messenger seems like a logical fallacy. In the article written by Poole, the data he quotes is from: >...The data source is CANSO’s Global Air Navigation Services Report 2017: The ANSP View. This online document provides the raw data, explains the methodology to construct each key performance indicator (KPI), and notes that all cost numbers have been converted to U.S. dollars, for apples vs. apples comparison. Reviewing the data from all 32 participants in the 2017 report, it is clear that there is some degree of economies of scale, but since costs such as payroll are so much lower in developing countries, metrics involving costs are best compared among ANSPs in countries at the same level of economic development. Is the data source bad? Was the data inaccurate? The other article which goes into more detail is not associated with Bob Poole.
  - mikeash 7y ago
    Logical fallacies deal in absolutes. "This is false because the person making the claim is..." is a logical fallacy. "I'm skeptical and don't find this to be convincing because the person making the claim is..." is not. We all have to apply heuristics to the information we take in, because there's far too much to be rigorously logical to it all. And my heuristic here is that libertarians in general and Reason in particular are not typically purveyors of good arguments, and this is very clearly an ideologically motivated argument, not a dispassionate analysis. Ideologically motivated arguments can be correct, but they're much less likely to be. I'm sure the data is just fine. Interpreting it is tricky. The US and Canada are such vastly different countries. For example, Canada has a huge number of flights passing over it without stopping there (lots of flights between the US and Europe and Asia pass over Canada) and ATC for flights in cruise is vastly easier than ATC for flights descending to land or climbing to cruise. Does this actually make a significant difference? I have no idea. But the fact that this isn't even mentioned in the article, nor are any other potential explanations for the difference other than the supposed inherent superiority of privatization, makes it suspect. At any rate, privatized ATC is still under strict government regulation and control, so they really just show us another effective model for socialized health care, rather than serving as an argument against it. If there's a country where ATC is run by many different competing businesses with wide latitude in how they operate, and that country's ATC is better, then that would be another matter. I doubt there are any.

by opo 7y ago

hollerith 7y ago

>Between 2004 and 2006 the FAA spent nearly $26 million just planning the system Or less than .10 USD per American. Nor does spending a billion USD a year since 2010 scream mismanagement to me given the magnitude of the public benefit if it eventually works. By far the most important barometer of the quality of the US's air-traffic control system is how many fatal collisions there have been between aircraft being controlled by the system, and you haven't offered any data about that.

opo 7y ago
I agree that safety is paramount here. This is why other countries like Canada have implemented newer technology like GPS flight tracking and digital messaging between pilots and controllers. Improvements like this makes flights safer. In the US, they try to mitigate the dangers of the aging air traffic control system by spacing the planes out further. As the American Airline CEO has said: >“Today to fly from DFW to Philadelphia is about 30 minutes longer than it was in 1979,” Parker said, “simply because we have an [air traffic control] system that hasn’t kept pace with the rest of the world.” https://www.dallasnews.com/business/american-airlines/2017/03/31/american-airlines-ceo-continues-push-reform-broken-air-traffic-control-system-cnbc https://www.dallasnews.com/business/american-airlines/2017/0... This wired article also has some more background on the US air traffic control system: https://www.wired.com/2015/02/air-traffic-control/ https://www.wired.com/2015/02/air-traffic-control/ The US is the last major country to still have government act as the regulator and provider of air traffic control. This is an inherent conflict of interest for the regulator that other countries avoid. By having political control of air traffic control, it also means air traffic control is routinely held hostage to government shutdowns and budget impasses which can also impact safety. For example: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/how-shutdown-impacting-air-safety/579616/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/how-shutdo... Doing a google search on air traffic safety brought up this paper which examined the air traffic control systems of the US and Australia, Germany, New Zealand, and Switzerland: >…An analysis was made to determine the effect privatization had on operating cost and air MIC safety involving the privatized ATC systems of Australia, Germany, New Zealand, and Switzerland. The study showed reduced operating cost and increased safety would result from corporate structuring of the ATC system. It was concluded that corporate style policy regarding personnel management and equipment procurement procedures would increase efficiency, which would reduce operating cost and increase ATC flight safety. https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1521&context=jaaer https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1521&co... Considering that every other major country has separated the regulation and provision of air traffic control, those who are opposed to it should cite some evidence why the US should be different in this regard.

mikeash 7y ago

I hope you’ll forgive me for being skeptical of arguments for ATC privatization from the founder of Reason.

opo 7y ago
It goes without saying that you should be skeptical of any argument someone makes, but discounting something solely based on the messenger seems like a logical fallacy. In the article written by Poole, the data he quotes is from: >...The data source is CANSO’s Global Air Navigation Services Report 2017: The ANSP View. This online document provides the raw data, explains the methodology to construct each key performance indicator (KPI), and notes that all cost numbers have been converted to U.S. dollars, for apples vs. apples comparison. Reviewing the data from all 32 participants in the 2017 report, it is clear that there is some degree of economies of scale, but since costs such as payroll are so much lower in developing countries, metrics involving costs are best compared among ANSPs in countries at the same level of economic development. Is the data source bad? Was the data inaccurate? The other article which goes into more detail is not associated with Bob Poole.
- mikeash 7y ago
  Logical fallacies deal in absolutes. "This is false because the person making the claim is..." is a logical fallacy. "I'm skeptical and don't find this to be convincing because the person making the claim is..." is not. We all have to apply heuristics to the information we take in, because there's far too much to be rigorously logical to it all. And my heuristic here is that libertarians in general and Reason in particular are not typically purveyors of good arguments, and this is very clearly an ideologically motivated argument, not a dispassionate analysis. Ideologically motivated arguments can be correct, but they're much less likely to be. I'm sure the data is just fine. Interpreting it is tricky. The US and Canada are such vastly different countries. For example, Canada has a huge number of flights passing over it without stopping there (lots of flights between the US and Europe and Asia pass over Canada) and ATC for flights in cruise is vastly easier than ATC for flights descending to land or climbing to cruise. Does this actually make a significant difference? I have no idea. But the fact that this isn't even mentioned in the article, nor are any other potential explanations for the difference other than the supposed inherent superiority of privatization, makes it suspect. At any rate, privatized ATC is still under strict government regulation and control, so they really just show us another effective model for socialized health care, rather than serving as an argument against it. If there's a country where ATC is run by many different competing businesses with wide latitude in how they operate, and that country's ATC is better, then that would be another matter. I doubt there are any.