3 ms·
The problem is that the incentives are all wrong. The air traffic controllers represent a significant problem. The original union (since busted by Reagan) had
by bwhite 17y ago
The problem is that the incentives are all wrong.
The air traffic controllers represent a significant problem. The original union (since busted by Reagan) had an incentive to reduce work and increase pay, so they established conservative air separation rules, frequently made them even more conservative, and had regular slow-works. The union had an obvious incentive to fight against automation, too. (The current union isn't quite as bad. The incentives are the same, though.)
The USGOV has no obvious incentive to make the skies better. When flights go bad the people rail against the airlines, not the Feds. They also have the incentive to poorly fund the ATC system and use the money on other things that will give them more visible wins.
The airlines would like to upgrade their fleet but that's useless without ATC systems that can handle the new tech (like GPS). UPS finally bit the bullet and upgraded its planes and then paid for its main airport (in Kentucky) to be upgraded. I believe FedEx did the same (but in Tennessee).
A for-profit ATC system that was funded by mandated-minimum contributions from both general aviation and the airlines (both are already dinged to partially pay for the current ATC) would align the incentives properly. The airlines would be able to get more planes in the sky, packed tighter, and in more lanes. As new technology became available, they would use it. People would have much better flight experiences with fewer delays. USGOV would get to stop funding obsolete programs. And above all, the ATC company would have its incentives aligned with both the airlines and the people, since they'd get paid more if more flights were on time, etc. And the contract could be re-bid out every few years to ensure that the ATC firm doesn't let complacency reign.
- eli 17y agoI don't buy your argument about the current system. Of course the air traffic controllers and their union want better equipment! You really think they're intentionally making their jobs harder so that the government will have to hire more of them? (And if so, it isn't working) I also can't help but notice that "safety" is not mentioned in your argument at all. If your goal is safe flights, then letting a for-profit run them is a terrible idea.
- bwhite 17y agoMy argument was about incentives. Better equipment would mean learning a new skill set (how to operate the new gear), being responsible for more productive activity per unit time (managing more flights per hour instead of wrestling with antiquated gear), and being downsized (need fewer people to manage the new gear). Tell me again what the incentives are for the union to adopt the new systems? I don't think the union workers want to make their jobs harder, I think they have no reason at all to support using additional automation and technology to help do their jobs. You haven't explained how government-run ATC is safer than private ATC, either inherently or de-facto. Did you watch the video? Canada has the second-busiest ATC system in the world and it's run by a private for-profit company. Do you think the US's ATC needs are so vastly different than those of Canada that there is nothing to be learned here? Is your concern that the airlines would essentially capture the private firm and have it do their bidding? Require almost no dues from the airlines and push things too far such that safety is compromised? _Everything_ gets out. If there were a crash and it came to light that the airlines behaved this way they would be facing the mother of all lawsuits that would totally ruin their businesses.