Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
I have to note that this is certainly not the first time that the airline interests have responded to the problem in this manner.
A bit of history: Back in the 60s/70s when I was a controller, FAA Air Traffic Control (ATC) had no equipment capable of communicating directly with aircraft making the crossing between the continental US and Hawaii. Since it was obvious that such communication was necessary, the major airlines themselves formed an entity named "ARINC" which constructed, maintained, and operated short-wave stations which did this 24/7.
FAA ATC had direct phone lines that connected to ARINC, and FAA controllers made all instructions and requests to aircraft en route between the US mainland and Hawaii via ARINC. I assume that there was a similar arrangement on the East Coast. With the introduction of satellite communications the ARINC short-wave operation was phased out, but I have no idea if the FAA controllers now have direct communication with this type of oceanic traffic.
After Reagan fired all of the striking controllers there was a proposal from the airlines that they assume responsibility for ATC, proposing to set up a commercial operation similar in concept to ARINC. There was of course huge objections from many different interests to the proposal. One of the most important groups opposing this proposal was AOPA- the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.
That group consists of a wide spectrum of aircraft operators of all types, excluding only the major commercial airlines. The AOPA realized that if the airlines proposal became operational, all other aircraft operators would then be charged for any and all ATC usage. There was serious heavyweight pressure brought to bear politically, and the airline proposal went nowhere.
The FAA ATC has struggled for adequate funding support from Congress ever since. Absolutely nothing new here, not any particular blame on either major political party. It was simply that in the absence of major political pressure there was no way that Congress was going to voluntarily spend the huge amount of money necessary to upgrade and properly maintain the ATC system.
Intermittently over the years the commercial airlines would try to get some serious attention on this, but ATC supporters didn't have a platoon of K-Street lobbyists, or spend a lot of money getting congressmen and senators elected.
With all of the current attention on various government services that are being eliminated, it tends to encourage thinking about things like this.
• Who benefits from the Air Traffic Control operation? • Commercial Air Carriers • All passengers and crew of those carriers • All non airline civilian air operations • All military flight operations in U.S. airspace. • All public safety flight operations- Coast Guard, National Guard, Police, etc.
• Who pays for the ATC operation? • Every federal tax payer.
I dunno- it looks as if a pretty large chunk of America benefits from the present FAA ATC system, so maybe it's an OK arrangement. It's pretty hard to imagine a private company capable of building and operating such a system in the US. A private company, Nav Canada, does in fact operate ATC in Canada, but their air traffic would be a lot less than ours.
The big problem is that the federal government hasn't really been paying what needs to be paid to maintain the FAA in a sound operating condition. It may be cynical, but I just don't see a private U.S. operation doing much better on that score.
Well anyway, it's not likely that any of the 3.8 billion dollars that Trump wants us to go into debt for is earmarked for Air Traffic Control. He feels that tax cuts for those who are already wealthy are a better use of the money.
I expect that @FD1000 will avoid commenting on that too.
Comments
A bit of history: Back in the 60s/70s when I was a controller, FAA Air Traffic Control (ATC) had no equipment capable of communicating directly with aircraft making the crossing between the continental US and Hawaii. Since it was obvious that such communication was necessary, the major airlines themselves formed an entity named "ARINC" which constructed, maintained, and operated short-wave stations which did this 24/7.
FAA ATC had direct phone lines that connected to ARINC, and FAA controllers made all instructions and requests to aircraft en route between the US mainland and Hawaii via ARINC. I assume that there was a similar arrangement on the East Coast. With the introduction of satellite communications the ARINC short-wave operation was phased out, but I have no idea if the FAA controllers now have direct communication with this type of oceanic traffic.
After Reagan fired all of the striking controllers there was a proposal from the airlines that they assume responsibility for ATC, proposing to set up a commercial operation similar in concept to ARINC. There was of course huge objections from many different interests to the proposal. One of the most important groups opposing this proposal was AOPA- the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.
That group consists of a wide spectrum of aircraft operators of all types, excluding only the major commercial airlines. The AOPA realized that if the airlines proposal became operational, all other aircraft operators would then be charged for any and all ATC usage. There was serious heavyweight pressure brought to bear politically, and the airline proposal went nowhere.
The FAA ATC has struggled for adequate funding support from Congress ever since. Absolutely nothing new here, not any particular blame on either major political party. It was simply that in the absence of major political pressure there was no way that Congress was going to voluntarily spend the huge amount of money necessary to upgrade and properly maintain the ATC system.
Intermittently over the years the commercial airlines would try to get some serious attention on this, but ATC supporters didn't have a platoon of K-Street lobbyists, or spend a lot of money getting congressmen and senators elected.
C'est la vie.
• Who benefits from the Air Traffic Control operation?
• Commercial Air Carriers
• All passengers and crew of those carriers
• All non airline civilian air operations
• All military flight operations in U.S. airspace.
• All public safety flight operations- Coast Guard, National Guard, Police, etc.
• Who pays for the ATC operation?
• Every federal tax payer.
I dunno- it looks as if a pretty large chunk of America benefits from the present FAA ATC system, so maybe it's an OK arrangement. It's pretty hard to imagine a private company capable of building and operating such a system in the US. A private company, Nav Canada, does in fact operate ATC in Canada, but their air traffic would be a lot less than ours.
The big problem is that the federal government hasn't really been paying what needs to be paid to maintain the FAA in a sound operating condition. It may be cynical, but I just don't see a private U.S. operation doing much better on that score.
Well anyway, it's not likely that any of the 3.8 billion dollars that Trump wants us to go into debt for is earmarked for Air Traffic Control. He feels that tax cuts for those who are already wealthy are a better use of the money.
I expect that @FD1000 will avoid commenting on that too.