3 ms·

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.
  - opo 7y ago
    Disagree. You preemptively publicly say that you "are skeptical" because of something irrelevant to the argument and don't address anything I brought up - that is kind of the definition of poisoning the well. >...To commit a preemptive ad hominem attack against an opponent. That is, to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/140/Poisoning-the-Well https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla... >...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. This is odd speculation on your part. 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... >...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. Most people don't associate the idea of "socialized health care" with the regulatory bodies that exist like the FDA. Most people would not say we have "socialized nuclear power" just because the NRC regulates nuclear power plants, etc. >...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. Straw man. I didn't claim there was. What I said was "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." and I cited 2 articles showing how it is less efficient and behind other countries. Your claim was that it was "superb". Considering that every other major country has separated the regulation and provision of air traffic control, if you want to claim the current ATC system is "superb", you should provide some evidence why you think that.

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.
- opo 7y ago
  Disagree. You preemptively publicly say that you "are skeptical" because of something irrelevant to the argument and don't address anything I brought up - that is kind of the definition of poisoning the well. >...To commit a preemptive ad hominem attack against an opponent. That is, to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/140/Poisoning-the-Well https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla... >...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. This is odd speculation on your part. 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... >...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. Most people don't associate the idea of "socialized health care" with the regulatory bodies that exist like the FDA. Most people would not say we have "socialized nuclear power" just because the NRC regulates nuclear power plants, etc. >...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. Straw man. I didn't claim there was. What I said was "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." and I cited 2 articles showing how it is less efficient and behind other countries. Your claim was that it was "superb". Considering that every other major country has separated the regulation and provision of air traffic control, if you want to claim the current ATC system is "superb", you should provide some evidence why you think that.