ATC User Fees

If I thought they would truly privatize ATC, I'd be for it. It would be
wonderful to truly take advantage of modern technology in a way that only
private business can roll out and employ.

However, you *know* what would happen. It would be "privatized" in the
same way that Chicago Tollways are "privatized", and become nothing but
sink-holes for graft and kickbacks.

Or, worse, it would be "privatized" like the Postal Service, or Medicare --
both of which exist in a half-private/half-public netherworld that seems to
combine the worst of both worlds...

At the moment I'm of the mind that if it's working, don't screw with it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:Srpce.26243$c24.22849@attbi_s72...

If I thought they would truly privatize ATC, I'd be for it. It would be
wonderful to truly take advantage of modern technology in a way that only
private business can roll out and employ.


To truly privatize it would require free market competition among providers
of ATC services. That simply is not possible.

To truly privatize it would require free market competition among
providers
of ATC services. That simply is not possible.

Exactly.

Economic sectors where only monopoly businesses can function pretty much
defines (in my mind) where "government" should exist.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:2mqce.34479$r53.15777@attbi_s21...
To truly privatize it would require free market competition among
providers
of ATC services. That simply is not possible.

They used to say that the phone company or the utility companies needed to
be monopolies.


Exactly.

Economic sectors where only monopoly businesses can function pretty much
defines (in my mind) where "government" should exist.

Such as?

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

They used to say that the phone company or the utility companies needed to
be monopolies.


That's not quite the same situation. True competition between phone and
utility companies would require each company to create their own
distribution networks in the same area. Separate phone, gas, and electrical
lines for each company. It could be done but at greater cost to the
consumer and less profit for the company.

You could have separate ATC providers, each providing their own
infrastructure in the form of radar sites, radio transceivers, etc., but
their clients would all be operating in the same airspace. Customers of
Acme ATC would be separated from other Acme ATC customers, and Consolidated
ATC clients would be separated from each other, but Acme ATC customers could
not be separated from Consolidated ATC clients.

"Matt Barrow" writes:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:2mqce.34479$r53.15777@attbi_s21...
To truly privatize it would require free market competition among
providers
of ATC services. That simply is not possible.

They used to say that the phone company or the utility companies needed to
be monopolies.

And, in fact, there is only *one* gas pipe, *one* water pipe, *one*
sewer pipe running down the street out front of my house. And only
*one* set of electrical wires in the neighborhood. And *one* set of
phone wires. And *one* set of cable company coax.

It's possible to multiplex services from different companies on them,
to some extent. It's not very meaningful for the water, phone,
electricity, or sewer; for the phone wires, also used for DSL, it
actually seems to work well to allow multiple ISPs to connect
through those lines. But tht's because it's a separate run from the
switching office to each house, whereas all the rest use shared
wiring/piping.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:

To truly privatize it would require free market competition among providers
of ATC services. That simply is not possible.

If you look at ATC services as being people who talk to you on the
radio and tell you where to go, then you're probably right. It's hard
to see how there could be competing services with that system.
However, if you look at ATC services as primarily being separation and
sequencing into the busiest airports, then I think we can find
different mechanisms for those that might allow for competition.

Start with a decent spec for air to air datalink and once pilots can
"see" other traffic, they can supply their own separation.
Competition is now between the vendors of radios that provide this
service.

Sequencing is a little harder but not much. The easy way out is to
say that it's still done by people on the ground talking on radios and
the competition is simply that which comes from bidding on the
contract to execute this service for the various airports that need
it.

I think a better answer would be to extend the datalink system so that
it could transmit approach corridor information to inbound aircraft
who then sequence themselves through different approach gates sorted
by speed.

I'm not sure we're ready to replace tower controllers with something
like this though Canada's idea of Mandatory Frequency airports is one
option that could reduce the number of airports that need towers.

-Dave

"David Bridgham" wrote in message
...

If you look at ATC services as being people who talk to you on the
radio and tell you where to go, then you're probably right. It's hard
to see how there could be competing services with that system.
However, if you look at ATC services as primarily being separation and
sequencing into the busiest airports, then I think we can find
different mechanisms for those that might allow for competition.

Start with a decent spec for air to air datalink and once pilots can
"see" other traffic, they can supply their own separation.
Competition is now between the vendors of radios that provide this
service.


I don't see any free market competition among providers of ATC services
there. It appears to me you've eliminated the provision of ATC services!
Who then is responsible for separation?



Sequencing is a little harder but not much. The easy way out is to
say that it's still done by people on the ground talking on radios and
the competition is simply that which comes from bidding on the
contract to execute this service for the various airports that need
it.


But then there'd be no free market competition among providers of ATC
services.

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:

Start with a decent spec for air to air datalink and once pilots
can "see" other traffic, they can supply their own separation.
Competition is now between the vendors of radios that provide this
service.

I don't see any free market competition among providers of ATC services
there. It appears to me you've eliminated the provision of ATC services!
Who then is responsible for separation?

The pilots of course. They've always had the responsibility for the
aircraft, technology just now allows us to give them the information
needed to also have the ability to make their own decisions instead of
handing that job over to someone on the ground.

Sequencing is a little harder but not much. The easy way out is to
say that it's still done by people on the ground talking on radios and
the competition is simply that which comes from bidding on the
contract to execute this service for the various airports that need
it.

But then there'd be no free market competition among providers of ATC
services.

Right, the only competition is in the bidding process for the various
contracts to provide approach services at those airports that think
they need them. That's why I went on to describe what I think is a
better system; one that does away with the need and again puts
responsibility with the pilots, where it belongs.

The point I'd hoped to make was not my particular ideas of how to make
a better system for air traffic (though I'm happy to talk about that
too). My point is that the monopoly situation that we currently have
with ATC is a result of the particular design that came to be for good
reasons given the technology at hand. However, technology has changed
so much since the 40's (even though our planes haven't) that it seems
worth reconsidering the fundamentals, not just trying to push ahead
with the same old thing. The need for a monopoloy is not a given.

-Dave

"David Bridgham" wrote in message
...

The pilots of course. They've always had the responsibility for the
aircraft, technology just now allows us to give them the information
needed to also have the ability to make their own decisions instead of
handing that job over to someone on the ground.


If everybody's responsible then nobody's responsible.



Right, the only competition is in the bidding process for the various
contracts to provide approach services at those airports that think
they need them. That's why I went on to describe what I think is a
better system; one that does away with the need and again puts
responsibility with the pilots, where it belongs.


Many pilots just aren't up to that level of responsibility.