Speak for yourself only. I've worked in both sectors, successfuly and enjoyed the experiences. There are positive and negative aspects to both. I was lucky to have gained the perspective of having lived abroad at times and appreciated the lessons to be learned, negative and positive. Some have not. C'est la vie!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
blue streak 1 The US ATC system can be reduced to a two words . " Traffic density ". Other world systems run by "private" corporations do not run with as close separation with a few exceptions. One being over Germany. The whole NE traffic from BOS - Albany - Montreal -Cleveland -Pittsburg - Atlanta - Jacksonville -Washington - Boston is very tight. The computer programers have not been able to come up with lines of code that will cover all problems.
The US ATC system can be reduced to a two words . " Traffic density ". Other world systems run by "private" corporations do not run with as close separation with a few exceptions. One being over Germany. The whole NE traffic from BOS - Albany - Montreal -Cleveland -Pittsburg - Atlanta - Jacksonville -Washington - Boston is very tight. The computer programers have not been able to come up with lines of code that will cover all problems.
Airspace isn't designed by computers, or programmers. As with just about anything these days, there is software designed to aid the specialists who do such work. But the actual decision on what airspace looks like, is a joint effort by users of the ATC system, taking into account geography, environmental factors, and prescribed separation standards.
Reduction of separation standards is a cornerstone of the long proposed and slowly implemented NextGen plan. The principle behind reduced separation standards is a function of using satellite based navigation to replace ground based radio and radar facilities. Satellite has infinitely greater accuracy than the ground based variety, allowing for tighter separation standards. This is already known by the FAA. It has been stifled by the FAA's inability to move forward with equipment acquisition, of which privatization is supposed to remedy.
It has nothing to do with the inabiity of computers or coding to solve the problem. This technology is in everyday use in other aspects of life, and has been for over a decade. In fact, the technology is onboard many aircraft today, but can't be used to it's full potential because of the FAA's molasses flowing bureaucracy.
schlimm Seems to work just fine in the countries that switched, in the German case, for over 20 years.
Seems to work just fine in the countries that switched, in the German case, for over 20 years.
The counterpoint to "other countries have done it", is that the US system is much larger and complex, and it won't work. Not my argument, just what some in aviation believe. I'm on the fence, because we won't know until it's done.
BLS53 schlimm Seems to work just fine in the countries that switched, in the German case, for over 20 years. The counterpoint to "other countries have done it", is that the US system is much larger and complex, and it won't work. Not my argument, just what some in aviation believe. I'm on the fence, because we won't know until it's done.
I'm on the fence too because we won't know if it will work until we know what it is.
schlimm Speak for yourself only. I've worked in both sectors, successfuly and enjoyed the experiences. There are positive and negative aspects to both. I was lucky to have gained the perspective of having lived abroad at times and appreciated the lessons to be learned, negative and positive. Some have not. C'est la vie!
in a railway environment? That's my experience, I was even on the team that set up the "company limited by guarantee " now known as Network Rail which was a for profit but not for dividend company wholly owned by the U.K. government. I say WAS as a EU unit declared it to be a unit of government and required Parlamentry approval for expenditures a couple of years ago. How the exit from the EU will affect this remains to be seen. I can also speak for more than myself as most of my professional (railway) colleagues that have the same experience base feel the same way, some very strongly.
Your rail related experience please?
Buslistin a railway environment? That's my experience, I was even on the team that set up the "company limited by guarantee " now known as Network Rail which was a for-profit but not for dividend company wholly owned by the U.K. government.
Irrelevant. This thread is about non-profits, specifically running the ATC. If you want to argue about rail infrastructure ownership, RME is your man. Or read Kneiling.
Were you involved with "setting up" the for-profit Railtrack or its post-Hatfield successor Network Rail, which was and is a non-profit in the US corporate governance sense? If the former, I would think you would want to delete that disaster from your resume. The UK experiences are hardly universal.
The ONLY reason Trump wants to do this is because the FAA is taking to long to role out the Second Gen ATCS, it's only in a few airports as of this date, and it's taken them at least a decade if not longer just to get those up and running. The system has been designed, tested and is operational in a few select locations, they're just dragging their feet in installing the equipment across the U.S..
Murphy Siding Euclid If this works, would it be better if private railroads operated on a non-profit basis? They did for many years before Staggers. How'd that turn out?
Euclid If this works, would it be better if private railroads operated on a non-profit basis?
They did for many years before Staggers. How'd that turn out?
And as far as Non Profits go, The Alaska Railroad is almost a case in point...It was for years, a non-profit, quasi-government entity. It struggled and later became a paradigm changer for the US and State Governments...Now seems to be struggling, under that regime of "profitability'.
The costs of operating the ATC system is already borne by the users.
Federal taxes on aviation gasoline ($0.194/gal) and jet fuel ($0.244/gal) is directed exclusively to fund the FAA via the Aviation Trust Fund.
By comparison federal gasoline taxes for highway users are $0.184/gal and $0.244/gal for diesel paid into the Federal Highway Trust Fund.
Railroads must also pay a federal fuel tax of $0.244/gal, plus various state taxes and the railroads do not get operating or maintenance funds from the Federal government.
samfp1943 BIG Railroads EAT Little Railroads..... And as far as Non Profits go, The Alaska Railroad is almost a case in point...It was for years, a non-profit, quasi-government entity. It struggled and later became a paradigm changer for the US and State Governments...Now seems to be struggling, under that regime of "profitability'.
BIG Railroads EAT Little Railroads.....
The closing of the largest oil refinery in the interior (Flint Hills @ North Pole) has to have had a big effect on ARR traffic. Additionally I understand export coal is also down.
MidlandMikeThe closing of the largest oil refinery in the interior (Flint Hills @ North Pole) has to have had a big effect on ARR traffic. Additionally I understand export coal is also down.
I think the original intent of the ARR was to lead development vs waiting for it. That is how the first railroads were built that linked the United States together.
IMO, they should build the connection to Canada carefully but build it so that line operating and maintenence costs are the lowest and potential future traffic is the highest. Give ARR land grants along the line and let them plat it out and develope into towns and settlements, let ARR draw in new settlers.
Also believe Canada and U.S. should subsidize maintenence on the rail connection until it is profitable and self-supporting so it doesn't become a cash drain. Anyways............my two cents. They should have ditched the Ferry Operation decades ago in favor of an overland rail connection.
Vern MooreThe costs of operating the ATC system is already borne by the users.
It should be because I do not see that it costs a whole lot to operate. Still would rather have the airlines pay directly for it and manage it than the Feds. Get it off the Federal Budget. The more transportation items they can offload to become privately operated and funded the better off we all are and the more equitable our transportation system becomes.
CMStPnP Vern Moore It should be because I do not see that it costs a whole lot to operate. Still would rather have the airlines pay directly for it and manage it than the Feds. Get it off the Federal Budget. The more transportation items they can offload to become privately operated and funded the better off we all are and the more equitable our transportation system becomes.
Vern Moore
You don't know the half of it. Users do contribute to a degree through fuel taxes, landing fees, and other gotchas well hidden from public scrutiny. Given their fuel consumption, the airlines contribute a huge portion. However, those fees come nowhere near funding the system in it's entirety so your tax dollars contribute more than you realize. Taxes passengers pay also contribute a miniscule amount.
Beyond the immediate cost of controllers and their pay and benefits are the generous retirement program they enjoy including lifetime health care benefits that are taxpayer funded and some items I likely don't know about because they are above my pay grade.It's a great job if you can handle the stress and want to retire at 60. That's the maximum age for controllers but given the controller shortage some have been called back to work as supervisors.
Then there are the costs of maintaining the infrastructure. Most towers, enroute facilities, approach control, radar, (Can't throw in flight service. That was contracted to Lockheed Martin years ago and has saved money in the long run.)and other facilities are not going to magically disappear by getting the controllers out of the federal feeding trough. All those facilities including airports have to be maintained to FAA standards. Some of those facilities such as VOR's (VHF OmniRange transmitters) are becoming obsolete as GPS and the related equipment in airplanes becomes more accurate. Times are-a-changin'.
Bottom line: There are costs that are, for the forseeable future, unavoidable. To totally revamp the system will take years and given that they want to protect teir jobs the FAA will be leading the opposition to change.
Railroad executives would be tickled pink if they received the subsidies the air traffic, both airline and General Aviation receive.
My qualifications? Thirty years in the aviation industry.
Norm
Do you realize that Airlines are a small part of aviation traffic? The increased costs are just an annoyance to them, they can pass them on the the passengers. The increased costs will be a major burden on private pilots, corporate flight departments, air ambulance services, police aviation units, and the 11,000 small public use airports. Expect many small towns to lose their airports. Most UPS and FedEx packages move by air as to several smaller companies.
Non profit is an oxymoron. There are no stock holders collecting dividends, but all the rest of the costs of running a major corporation are there and there is no limit on how much executives, directors, and senior management can be paid.
The red tape and bureauracy being blamed for slow upgrades are just another label for money. Money for upgrades does not magicaly appear when the entity becomes private. Look at the huge costs to taxpayers when schools are turned over to for profit companies or when roads suddenly become toll roads run by a private company.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe Vet Do you realize that Airlines are a small part of aviation traffic? The increased costs are just an annoyance to them, they can pass them on the the passengers. The increased costs will be a major burden on private pilots, corporate flight departments, air ambulance services, police aviation units, and the 11,000 small public use airports. Expect many small towns to lose their airports. Most UPS and FedEx packages move by air as to several smaller companies. Non profit is an oxymoron. There are no stock holders collecting dividends, but all the rest of the costs of running a major corporation are there and there is no limit on how much executives, directors, and senior management can be paid. The red tape and bureauracy being blamed for slow upgrades are just another label for money. Money for upgrades does not magicaly appear when the entity becomes private. Look at the huge costs to taxpayers when schools are turned over to for profit companies or when roads suddenly become toll roads run by a private company.
Your opinion is noted but taken with a grain or pound of of salt. Plase tell me more when you understand ATC and it's nuances. Have you been in the air as a pilot and dealt with ATC? I have. There is no red tape between controllers and aircraft, just positive communications. Tell me again how well you are versed in the subject. I find it ridiculous to discuss the differences between rail traffic control and aircraft traffic control. They are two totally different subjects.
Norm48327 CMStPnP Vern Moore It should be because I do not see that it costs a whole lot to operate. Still would rather have the airlines pay directly for it and manage it than the Feds. Get it off the Federal Budget. The more transportation items they can offload to become privately operated and funded the better off we all are and the more equitable our transportation system becomes.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
JPS1According to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AAFT) Fact Sheet, in 2016 AAFT revenues were $14.4 billion. Taxes levied on the transportation of passengers (ticket taxes and fees) were $9.9 billion or 68.8 percent of AAFT revenues. Use of international air facilities accounted for another $3.4 billion or 22.9 percent. Other revenues, which ranged from $15 to $476 million, included Liquid Fuel used in a Fractional Ownership Flight, Aviation Gasoline, Aviation Fuel Other than Gas Non-commercial, Aviation Fuel Commercial, and Transportation of property. In 2016 AAFT provided 87.8 percent of the FAA’s revenues, which was down from 92.8 percent in 2015 but up from 80.1 percent in 2014. The differences were made up by transfers from the General Fund, which was approximately $2 billion in 2016, $1.1 billion in 2015, and $3.2 billion in 2014. Of the $9.9 billion required for operations (mostly towers and centers) in 2016, $7.9 billion or 80 percent was provided by AAFT and $2 billion or approximately 20 percent came from the General Fund. Other major outlays included $2.6 billion for facility construction and maintenance, $3.3 billion for grants in aid for airports, and $166 million for research, engineering, and development.
Thanks for the facts.
Every time privatization is floated, the defenders of the public sector tell us that privatization will raise the cost due to the profit and greed of the corporations involved in the privatization. To the champions of the public sector, profit is the bullseye of objection because it the fundamental lynchpin that separates the public and private sectors. Profit is portrayed as the way the rich steals from the poor.
Therefore, I suspect the “non-profit” model has been attached to this privatization proposal to make it sound more palatable to those who would attack it explicitly because of its profitmaking component. It is just like saying that we shall use private investment to fund infrastructure improvements so we don’t have to worry about wasting our money in government boondoggles.
It should be the other way around, railroads are taxed unfairly,
why don't roadways and waterways have to pay?
ATSFGuy It should be the other way around, railroads are taxed unfairly, why don't roadways and waterways have to pay?
Johnny
The main problem of ATC going into next gen is the persons hired to write the computer code. Using persons who do not understand the nuances is a waste but what person worth his salt for programing would work for the peanuts of a government job.
Another industry that had programing problems is the RR industry and PTC. Denver cannot get its "A" line working yet. Also remember NS and it great trip optimizer. Edit trip planner
blue streak 1 Also remember NS and it great trip optimizer.
Trip optimizer is a GE thing, you are thinking of NS's movement planner. Worthless form what I understand from people who have used it in the field. It was so bad that it was shut down on the Chicago area desks, as it melted down the territories, and as far as I know has not been brought back into use in the Chicago area.
An "expensive model collector"
blue streak 1The main problem of ATC going into next gen is the persons hired to write the computer code. Using persons who do not understand the nuances is a waste but what person worth his salt for programing would work for the peanuts of a government job.
As we move into the future, more and more computer code is generated by machine vs. written by people. The model will eventually be that computer code is generated entirely by machines as they need to resolve problems. One reason why you see the stock of IRBT taking off like a rocket ship to Mars is that labor automation is also accelerating along with computer code generation.
blue streak 1 The main problem of ATC going into next gen is the persons hired to write the computer code. Using persons who do not understand the nuances is a waste but what person worth his salt for programing would work for the peanuts of a government job. Another industry that had programing problems is the RR industry and PTC. Denver cannot get its "A" line working yet. Also remember NS and it great trip optimizer.
Another industry that had programing problems is the RR industry and PTC. Denver cannot get its "A" line working yet. Also remember NS and it great trip optimizer.
The original ATC code was presumably written by veterans of the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) program. Don't think there has been any equivalent training ground since then.
I would think PTC would be an even tougher nut to crack than ATC. With ATC there is a lot of experience with existing code and the incremental changes since the original ATC inplmentations came into being. I remember the issue that BART went through in the first few years of operation.
One thing that concerns me about both the next gen ATC and the up and coming PTC. There will be a strong incentive to use commercial off the shelf (COTS) hardware (i.e. PC's). While it is possible to migrate the software to newer hardware platforms, there's a risk that assumptions about the underlying hardware can lead to some very unpleasant surprises.
CMStPnP blue streak 1 The main problem of ATC going into next gen is the persons hired to write the computer code. Using persons who do not understand the nuances is a waste but what person worth his salt for programing would work for the peanuts of a government job. As we move into the future, more and more computer code is generated by machine vs. written by people. The model will eventually be that computer code is generated entirely by machines as they need to resolve problems. One reason why you see the stock of IRBT taking off like a rocket ship to Mars is that labor automation is also accelerating along with computer code generation.
blue streak 1 The main problem of ATC going into next gen is the persons hired to write the computer code. Using persons who do not understand the nuances is a waste but what person worth his salt for programing would work for the peanuts of a government job.
and how do the machines learn to write code?
erikem One thing that concerns me about both the next gen ATC and the up and coming PTC. There will be a strong incentive to use commercial off the shelf (COTS) hardware (i.e. PC's). While it is possible to migrate the software to newer hardware platforms, there's a risk that assumptions about the underlying hardware can lead to some very unpleasant surprises.
FRA's risk analysis proceedure for PTC applications should go a long way to reduce this problem.
n012944 It was so bad that it was shut down on the Chicago area desks, as it melted down the territories, and as far as I know has not been brought back into use in the Chicago area.
It was so bad that it was shut down on the Chicago area desks, as it melted down the territories, and as far as I know has not been brought back into use in the Chicago area.
Stand corrrected thanks
ATC should be easier than RR's, because you're basically dealing with movable points in space.
The ATC roadblocks mostly deal with equipment at the FAA's end. The technology exist in many, if not most, aircraft in the system already.
Stripped to the basics, this stuff is just a car GPS designed to operate in four dimensions, and built to a much higher standard of certification. The FAA just can't decide how much to spend, who to spend it with, and how to design the airspace to make it all work.
Here is Delta Airlines take on privatization.
http://news.delta.com/sites/default/files/The%20Costs%20of%20Privatizing%20Air%20Traffic%20Control_0.pdf
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.