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.
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.
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.....
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 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.
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.
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?
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..
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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!
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?
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.
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.
I'm on the fence too because we won't know if it will work until we know what it is.
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 RME Euclid If this works, would it be better if private railroads operated on a non-profit basis? It occurs to me that 'non-profit basis' may be the sensible way to manage the infrastructure (ensuring, for example, that operating 'profit' from the track-providing entity be earmarked for maintenance and improvement, debt reduction, etc.) leaving the operating companies free of large stranded real-estate-related costs and able to compete on their best for-profit operational models -- now with no cheap or expedient deferred-maintenance or track-eliminating "economies" hiding their true operating performance... I got this out of Kneiling's "iron ocean" ideas back in the '60s. I still find the idea attractive in many contexts. Unfortunately, that is one of his great iconoclastic ideas that still meets resistance, certainly on here.
RME Euclid If this works, would it be better if private railroads operated on a non-profit basis? It occurs to me that 'non-profit basis' may be the sensible way to manage the infrastructure (ensuring, for example, that operating 'profit' from the track-providing entity be earmarked for maintenance and improvement, debt reduction, etc.) leaving the operating companies free of large stranded real-estate-related costs and able to compete on their best for-profit operational models -- now with no cheap or expedient deferred-maintenance or track-eliminating "economies" hiding their true operating performance... I got this out of Kneiling's "iron ocean" ideas back in the '60s. I still find the idea attractive in many contexts.
It occurs to me that 'non-profit basis' may be the sensible way to manage the infrastructure (ensuring, for example, that operating 'profit' from the track-providing entity be earmarked for maintenance and improvement, debt reduction, etc.) leaving the operating companies free of large stranded real-estate-related costs and able to compete on their best for-profit operational models -- now with no cheap or expedient deferred-maintenance or track-eliminating "economies" hiding their true operating performance...
I got this out of Kneiling's "iron ocean" ideas back in the '60s. I still find the idea attractive in many contexts.
Unfortunately, that is one of his great iconoclastic ideas that still meets resistance, certainly on here.
Espically from those of us that have worked in both environments.
Private non-profit operations (often university) that are of the highest quality would include most/all the top 10 hospital/medical centers in the US, such as Mayo Clinic, Mass Gen, UCLA Med Center, Johns Hopkins, etc.
I think they are misunderstanding a few points.
Proposal is 100% private and non-profit, only analogy I can see that fits that description is the Federal Reserve.
Both Amtrak and USPS are quasi-governmental and are not 100% private Corporations. Amtrak and USPS are for profit quasi-governmental organizations even though they do not act like it.
Proposal is to be managed and funded by the airlines and airline users, meaning it will not have to seek budgets or capital from the Feds.........ever.
Non-Profit means if it makes a profit, the profit is either turned over to the Treasury Dept or to the IRS...........or spent down to zero.
And to be 100% honest, this is not Trumps idea, it existed pre-Trump and Pence is the biggest promoter of private infrastructure, so if anything the idea came from the VP. However, it was an option and has been an option decades before the last election. We just never choose the path before.
Likewise for Soverign Wealth Fund, used to subsidize Health Care or used to pay off our National Debt. Obvious non-taxpayer involvement solution that would raise Trillions but up to this point.........never chosen. Norway has done social wonders with their Soverign Wealth Fund including paying off completely their national debt.
EuclidWhat is the advantage of running air traffic control with a private non-profit organization? Why would it be more efficient and save money?
You mean like running the Economy using the Federal Reserve? Can you imagine if the Economy were run by the Treasury Dept how expensive that would be and how many government employees it would take......not to mention how political it would be and how long it would take to act on a decision.
Speaking of which, the Federal Reserve actually performs many of the Treasury Departments Information Technology and bookkeeping tasks at probably one third the cost. Very efficient for it to be private and non-profit and somewhat under the government thumb vs another government department or a profitable corporation........which would be going too far in either direction for management of the Money Supply.
I am all for this proposal as we have several working and proven models of it at the Federal Level...........Federal Reserve System is the biggest example, that I can think of off hand.
I can see the proposal delivering a workable system faster and cheaper than the FAA, unless the FAA went passive-aggressive with the oversight.
The losers here might be general aviators. They currently get to use the system nearly free. Would they be asked to fund a larger chunk?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
IF (and this is a HUGE if) it is done right, it could be a good thing. The two big advantages to true privatization over a government organization are personnel and privatization. A private entity can easily get rid of the deadwood in an organization, while it is almost impossible to fire a government employee. A private entity can also buy things (new technology for the system) much more quickly and easily than government. A private entity can research what technology is available, decide what is best, and buy it in a matter of months, and the unsuccessful bidders have very few opportunities to delay the process or cause the purchase of inferior items with bid protests, lawsuits, and political influence.
Mind you, what I've said is only true for TRULY private entities, free from political influence and bureaucratic rules. I know whereof I speak - I spent 30 years doing procurement for the Federal gov't, and work with contracts in state gov't now.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
Yes this is the point of my rhetorical question. There is always the argument as to whether public sector business should be privatized. It really goes to the fundamental faith in capitalism. Capitalism includes profit, and some argue that a business model will be more efficient without the need to extract a profit from production. The capitalists will say that profit is the necessary reward to pay for the risk of investment in the business.
Rarely in this debate have I heard of a third way of non-profit privatization. That is why I ask what it actually is. Who takes the risk of investing in a business that produces no profit to reward the risk of investment?
It seems to me that if government controls every detail of the non-profit entity, then that entitiy is fundamentally a public sector enterprise just like the FAA.
Take a look at 20+ years of trying to make it work in the U.K. and it becomes less attractive rather quickly
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
EuclidIf this works, would it be better if private railroads operated on a non-profit basis?
Euclid Generally, what I wonder is who is supposed to like this plan and why?
Oh that's easy. Trump's big business croonies (and probably Trump himself). Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but why not empower the FAA to enforce what's already implace and push the upgrades through? I realize there's a lot of red tape (of course there is, there's always red tape) but at the same time it would seem more effecient to me at least to use what's already implace.
An artist sees the world in colors and patterns. An engineer sees the world in mathematical equations. Both help shape the World and are just as important as the other.
I think the main idea is to get ATC out from under the FAA bureaucracy, and allow for more expedient modernization.
There's a lot of hand wringing going on in the general aviation community over potential user fees, and also to a lesser degree among consumer groups concerned with airline passengers. Considering the overall cost of air travel, I can't see that these fees are going to be at a level that makes air travel cost prohibitive. The real whiners are the airplane owners at the high end of the scale, who are worried about a few bucks an hour ATC fee, for a $4 million airplane, that as is, cost $2000 an hour to operate.
I am just asking to understand the economic principles involved. It seems to me that for the non-profit model to work, it would have to be government regulated in every detail. And then those regulations would need the economic wisdom to correctly manage supply and demand as though it were actually a for-profit business. If this works, would it be better if private railroads operated on a non-profit basis?
So the system in place operating today has a specific operating cost that is borne by the taxpayers. If you shift that cost over to the air passengers exclusively, their fare prices rise because there are fewer of them than the pool of taxpayers. If major infrastructure and technology upgrades are needed, fares will have to further increase to pay for that.
As fares increase, fewer people will fly, and there will be less money available for upgrades. Without a need for profit, how is it decided how much upgrading is necessary and how much less revenue can be tolerated as a consequence before the system’s cost has outpaced its use?
That choice is decided naturally in a for-profit business because cost has to be balance by demand.
In other words, why would there be any motive for a non-profit business to keep its costs down?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.