41–50 of 90 posts
Interestingly he's having the private organization take out loans for upgrades, instead of the government. That is a win for taxpayers if you ask me.
Why . I don't get this at all. Why privatize? What is the benefit? All I see this doing is decreasing safety.
Seems to have worked for Canada. Non-profit private sector organization, and they don't seem to have any more air disasters than anywhere else.
A monolithic private institution doesn't inspire confidence in me any more than a monolithic public one. I don't see the purpose in switching one for the other, and would probably rather see it run by the government. If it was replacing the current system with one where you had 12 different companies competing with one another, maybe so but I don't really see the benefit in what I'm reading. But I don't feel strongly…
Indeed; this is why almost all "let's privatize X" initiatives are ultimately pointless (or perhaps even counterproductive). They merely shift the monopoly-holder from public-sector to private-sector, without alleviating the "there is a monopoly" status. Indeed, the private sector's legendary efficiency advantage specifically occurs when there is competition, and is not some magical thing that is endowed to the private sector and forbidden from the public sector.
> Donald Trump on Monday unveiled his proposal to hand over control of the U.S. air-traffic control system to a non-profit corporation, calling the current system an antiquated mess that doesn’t work and wastes money. Did someone point out to this idiot that we are having a string of years where there are no deaths in domestic commercial travel. Whatever is happening in the US Traffic System appears to be working rea…
I remember an article where it claimed someone told him to buy a house near airport and sue them for noise. According to Wikipedia he did it twice and lost twice teen sold the property.
Here is another article on same subject:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/13/luxury/trump-palm-beach-laws...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These people are not being fired, just being transferred to a new company. I believe they will continue to perform at the same level. And with a non-gov entity we also get the benefit of optimal resource allocation. A win-win for everyone. Only reason of opposing this would be personal vendetta against Trump.
with a non-gov entity we also get the benefit of optimal resource allocation How do you figure?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems to have worked for Canada. Non-profit private sector organization, and they don't seem to have any more air disasters than anywhere else.
Right, but why. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Is there any evidence that our current system doesn't work?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Private organizations are more efficient than governmental ones. Ideally the way they are managed/regulated will remain the same. It would be really neat to see some innovation here as well, with governmental agencies there really isn't an incentive to break the status quo. edit: If you're downvoting at least comment with why you think this isn't the case
There is a reason that air traffic is tightly controlled, primarily there is massive public risk for minimal errors. There is a saying that the FARs are written in blood, as in regulations aren't passed willy-nilly, but passed after there has been a serious incident. Air traffic is one place where "Iterate quickly and break shit" doesn't work. What happens when in the name of "efficiency", one tower reduces current s…
I see what you're saying, but couldn't these same regulations be applied to private industry?
You don't necessarily need 0 governmental oversight for it to be private.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Private organizations are more efficient than governmental ones. Ideally the way they are managed/regulated will remain the same. It would be really neat to see some innovation here as well, with governmental agencies there really isn't an incentive to break the status quo. edit: If you're downvoting at least comment with why you think this isn't the case
There is a reason that air traffic is tightly controlled, primarily there is massive public risk for minimal errors. There is a saying that the FARs are written in blood, as in regulations aren't passed willy-nilly, but passed after there has been a serious incident. Air traffic is one place where "Iterate quickly and break shit" doesn't work. What happens when in the name of "efficiency", one tower reduces current s…
The airlines are for it, the key labor union is for it, aviation experts are for it, and the second-largest nation on earth did it. Canada privatized its system in 1996, and today the nonprofit Nav Canada is on the leading edge of ATC efficiency and innovation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Private organizations are more efficient than governmental ones. Ideally the way they are managed/regulated will remain the same. It would be really neat to see some innovation here as well, with governmental agencies there really isn't an incentive to break the status quo. edit: If you're downvoting at least comment with why you think this isn't the case
Is this really that controversial? Competition only exists in Capitalism, if there's no competition, then there's little benefit to improve.
That's both insane and inane. There's a simple incentive to improve aviation safety that has nothing to do with capitalist competition: people don't want to die in plane crashes. Airlines, otoh, would be happy to be able to cut corners and save billions at the slight cost of a few dozen more customer fatalities per year. Putting Airline is control of ATC by proxy will ensure the latter outcome.