5 ms·

why are traffic controllers government employees at all? wouldn't it be better for the government to maintain a standards/licensing body and only have a couple

• pwthornton 1y ago
  It's probably because a lot of smaller airports in the middle of nowhere would be hard to get coverage for. The current system sends controllers to where they are needed, not to where people want to work. Now, should more productive parts of the country be subsidizing air travel in less productive parts of the country? That's for you to decide.
  • inglor_cz 1y ago
    "Now, should more productive parts of the country be subsidizing air travel in less productive parts of the country? That's for you to decide." I would say "no", personally. In the absence of a subsidy, the network of the rural airports would likely become sparser, but the surviving ones would have better economy and, as a result, infrastructure too.
    • Freedom2 1y ago
      Isn't that arguably want rural communities want, however? I believe they're the strongest advocates of small government, less subsidies and pulling oneself (ie, their community) up by their bootstraps, regardless of what reality is.
      • pwthornton 1y ago
        I think the issue with many rural Americans is that they don't realize they are the most subsidized people in this country.
        • deleted 1y ago
          [deleted]
  • philipwhiuk 1y ago
    Bear in mind you need radar coverage for overflight even if you don't land.
    • pwthornton 1y ago
      This is true, but do we have a need for random airports in sparse parts of the country that require government subsidies?
      • ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
        There's more of a need to not have planes hit each other and cover areas with wreckage. I can just imagine the hilarity if air-space was sold off to the highest bidder and then some of the smaller airports may decide to host advertising blimps in their share of the airspace and then charge plane companies extra to navigate around them.
• tayo42 1y ago
  Why would it be better to have this job be driven by profit? It's a service provided to the public. Seems like a natural fit for being run by government. The only thing is this funding situation for this government is dumb. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it.
  • tbrownaw 1y ago
    > Why would it be better to have this job be driven by profit? Er, to avoid it being used as leverage during government infighting?
    • actionfromafar 1y ago
      That will save you for 15 minutes until the infighting goes after the company providing services because it’s not owned by the right oligarch.
  • krisoft 1y ago
    > It's a service provided to the public. Seems like a natural fit for being run by government. I don't understand this part of your reasoning. It sounds like you are saying it is a service provided to the public therefore it is a natural fit for being run by the government. Do I understand your reasoning right? Because if so: A lot of services are provided to the public. For example baking bread. Should every baker be a government employee?
    • Tiktaalik 1y ago
      The difference here is that everyone needs air traffic control and there's zero choices so a market structure doesn't make sense. With bread, maybe I only like certain types of bread. Maybe I don't want bread. It makes sense for there to be a market with diverse offerings. If bread inputs get expensive maybe everyone pivots to eating potatoes. In contrast if you want to fly out of a major city there's one major airport, and you need air traffic control. It's a uniform service that is required. The same sort of market structure is not really viable.
• epolanski 1y ago
  Because managing the skies over your country is a public service.