Rand Paul Approves of Trump's Plan To Privatize the Air Traffic Control System

[AuH20]

[merkelstan]

Does it open the franchise up to competition? Or does it hand-over a regulated monopoly to a couple of fat-cats?

[Ender]

Does it open the franchise up to competition? Or does it hand-over a regulated monopoly to a couple of fat-cats?

I have the exact same question.

[Keith and stuff]

I have the exact same question.

1 non-profit is the plan mentioned in the press conference. The less like the American system and the only like the Canadian system the better. John Stossel has been one of the top promoters of this reform for years. There's a good chance that's where Trump got the idea as they have likely run in the same Manhattan circles for years.

[dannno]

1 non-profit is the plan mentioned in the press conference. The less like the American system and the only like the Canadian system the better. John Stossel has been one of the top promoters of this reform for years. There's a good chance that's where Trump got the idea as they have likely run in the same Manhattan circles for years.

You don't get it, it doesn't matter if Rand Paul, John Stossel, Judge Napolitano, Thomas Massie, Peter Schiff, Alex Jones or even the man himself Ron Paul likes something proposed by Trump, because if it is proposed by Trump it HAS to be bad no matter what.

[helmuth_hubener]

Does it open the franchise up to competition? Or does it hand-over a regulated monopoly to a couple of fat-cats?

Even the latter would be an improvement (and a major one!).

As a professional pilot and semi-professional policy wonk I am thinking this is going to be the worst of both worlds.

It works great for New Zealand.

Good enough for the Kiwis, good enough for me!

Next up for privatization: the DMV.

[helmuth_hubener]

There's a good chance that's where Trump got the idea as they have likely run in the same Manhattan circles for years.

Nay, he got it from @idiom's signature block right here on RPF!

Makin' it Great, guys! Let's keep it up!

[Matt Collins]

As a professional pilot and semi-professional policy wonk I am thinking this is going to be the worst of both worlds.

More than likely they will give whichever company that wins the contract monopoly status. And they likely are not going to ease up the regulations. And the potential for graft and corruption will be yuuge. Big corporate bureaucracy piled on top of big government. Remember that anything the government does it screws up.

The honest truth is that the vast majority of the actions undertaken by ATC are obsolete and can be automated. Not everything, but most of it. The way that ATC currently operates is mostly manual by human beings which is absurd given the tools available to us in this modern era.

And this doesn't even begin to address the fact that the Constitution does not provide authorization for the federal government to manage air traffic.

My solution? Automate and decentralize (look up the NASA "SATS" program for more details).

[Chester Copperpot]

it just occurred to me that the impetus for this is because the ATC is a money losing operation for the govt so to spin it off saves money and at the same time if they can get money for selling the franchise so more the better. sounds like a good thing to me.


ATC is also the old stock symbol for Atari Corporation when it was listed on the American Stock Exchange.. Just saying.. lol

[specsaregood]

For those commenting but too lazy to lookup even the most basic aspects of the plan:
http://www.npr.org/2017/06/05/531574...raffic-control

excerpts:

President Trump announced Monday a plan to privatize the nation's air traffic control system — a move that would remove the job of tracking and guiding airplanes from the purview of the Federal Aviation Administration

Guided by legislation that has been proposed in the past by House Transportation Committee chairman Bill Shuster, a private, nonprofit corporation would be created to operate, manage and control air traffic control nationwide, similar to what Canada does. The FAA would still have some oversight capacity, but a board made up mostly of representatives of the major airlines would govern this corporation.

The air traffic controllers' union is generally supportive of the proposal, as it sees the current FAA air traffic control system as somewhat inefficient. The Shuster plan would still allow for the controllers to be part of the union.

But some groups have been critical of efforts to privatize air traffic control operations, saying it gives the airlines too much control over the system for their own benefit.

The group Flyers' Rights calls it the "creation of an airline controlled corporate monopoly." It also says privatizing air traffic control amounts to "handing the airlines (for free) control over a core public asset, and providing them nearly unbridled power to extract new fees and increased taxes from passengers

[Keith and stuff]

If it becomes like the Canadian system, as Trump spoke about, it will be a very good thing.

Let's Balance the Budget
Here's how to reduce the size and scope of government
John Stossel | February 3, 2011
http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/0...nce-the-budget

I'll begin with things I'm most eager to cut. Let's privatize air traffic control. Canada did it, and it works better.

Video of Stossel on FOX. https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian...ate_is_better/

TL;DW, private airport screeners are twice as effective at finding contraband than the TSA, Canada's private air traffic control is cheaper and better than America's bureaucracy, much drone testing is being done overseas to avoid FAA rules...

[Keith and stuff]

Would More Government Infrastructure Spending Boost the U.S. Economy?
By Ryan Bourne
June 6, 2017
https://www.cato.org/publications/po...ost-us-economy

Ryan Bourne occupies the R. Evan Scharf Chair for the Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute.

This is the #1 step in a 7 step Cato Institute plan. You are welcome to debate it on Fedbook. https://www.facebook.com/CatoInstitu...type=3&theater

[Danke]

If you're feeling steamed at the airlines for how they've been treating passengers, you might want to save some outrage for those who fly on private jets, two advocacy groups suggest.
As most travelers endure long security lines, increasing flight delays and extra charges for checked baggage, they are helping subsidize far more elegant travel for a privileged few, according to a report to be released today by Washington-based organizations Essential Action and the Institute for Policy Studies.
In particular, the report contends, owners of private jets benefit from a disproportionate share of federal funds for airport improvements and don't pay their fair share of the cost of the air traffic control system.
"The super-wealthy, private jet set are shifting the costs of their highflying indulgence on to the rest of us," said Robert Weissman, director of Essential Action and co-author of the report.


On top of that, because they bypass the security that everyday people have to put up with, private jet passengers can drive -- or be driven -- to their aircraft on the tarmac, have their unscreened luggage loaded directly onto the plane, and board with keys and Swiss army knives in their pockets and plenty of shampoo and bottled water in their carry-ons.
"Most people don't realize the privilege of flying private," said Chuck Collins, senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies. "This should be a wake-up call."
Selena Shilad, executive director of the Alliance for Aviation Across America, which represents makers, owners and users of private jets, said the report unfairly attacked her members, most of whom, she said, are farmers, small-business people and charities.
The report, Shilad noted, endorses a Federal Aviation Administration proposal, supported by the airlines, to overhaul air-traffic-control funding in a way that would charge airlines less and private jet operators more.
"We feel strongly that this so-called study holds no water and is just another airline-backed effort to justify a tax cut that would be paid for by farmers, ranchers, small businesses and other organizations that depend on general aviation around the country," she said.
Although the report backs the FAA funding proposal, airlines had no role in financing the study, Collins said. The study, from two groups known for taking egalitarian stands on such issues as income distribution, also calls for a luxury tax on the purchase of private planes and tighter security for passengers flying in them.
Among the report's findings:
* About $2.2 billion of the $7 billion in federal funds spent making capital improvements to airports over the last two years was used to fix up remote airports that primarily serve private jets, such as Sardy Field in Aspen, Colo., and the Napa Valley Airport in California.
* Private fliers avoid a variety of niggling fees that are added to the cost of a commercial ticket, such as a $3.40 segment fee, a $3 passenger facility charge and a $2.50 security fee.
* Passengers on private planes usually avoid a 7.5% tax on the cost of airline tickets, which is used to fund air traffic control services.
The FAA proposed last year to shift traffic-control funding from ticket taxes to user fees and fuel taxes. The proposal has languished in Congress.


"We sought the change for two reasons," said Ian McGregor, a spokesman for the FAA in Los Angeles. "One was to create a more stable source of revenue, the other was that it didn't seem fair that the commercial airline passenger should subsidize the business executive who travels on a private jet."Private jets use about 16% of the air traffic control system's resources, but pay only 3% of its costs, McGregor said. Shilad disputed those figures, saying the FAA was manipulating the data.
Since 1990, the number of private jets in service has more than doubled to more than 10,000, according to the FAA.

[acptulsa]

Interesting find. If there's a way for the FCC to torpedo this initiative and maintain itself and its power, driving a wedge between private and commercial operators is it.

Going to be interesting to see how it plays out.

[acptulsa]

Ah, yes. The Dannno Method. Argue first, ask questions later, make an honest effort to understand what is said never.

[dannno]

Ah, yes. The Dannno Method. Argue first, ask questions later, make an honest effort to understand what is said never.

Ok, let me try and understand then, because it's a pretty basic question.

Keeping in mind that the word "privatizing" does not necessarily mean full privatization, it could mean moving toward privatizing something by privatizing elements of said thing.

Do you believe that this is a move that pushes toward more private control as opposed to government control?

Do you believe that things will be better, worse or the same if implemented?

Rand Paul thinks that this is a move toward privatization, and that things will improve if implemented. Explain if and why he is wrong.

[acptulsa]

You're good at demanding that I jump through hoops for you.

Why don't you try reading the $#@!ing thread, and see if all your questions were answered long before you popped up in it?

[helmuth_hubener]

@acptulsa, chill buddy. I was not "baiting" you. I was expressing understanding and expressing respect, completely sincerely.

Look, I'll even help dannno out for you. @dannno, acp was just annoyed at me (and I guess to an extent the Collins) for being uninformed about the details of Trump's plan and saying irrelevant things. However, he does think this privatization is a good thing. As he put it:

"Establishing a system of civil air traffic control where Trump is unable to fire anyone involved is not [distasteful to me]."

Now that may not be the clearest way to put it, but putted it is. To fan away the opacity and do some algebraic reduction of the double-negative:

You're wrong, Hubener, you idiot, that under Trump's privatization plan he will be able to fire anyone. He won't. That said, this new system President Trump is establishing is tasteful [that is, pleasing] to me.

I.e.: It's a good thing.

Reluctant mad props to Trump.

[helmuth_hubener]

A "private" charter school is still a state school- they must comply with the state education programs/rules or they get no funding.

A REAL private school, not attached to the gov is a much better solution.

Yeah, I know, Ender. I agree.

[Ender]

Yeah, I know, Ender. I agree.

[helmuth_hubener]

Anyway, looks like all and sundry agree this air traffic control privatization is a great thing. A glimmer of light, a happy development, a reason to smile.

So..... woohoo!