Trump selling AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ....

[directfiesta]

Sell the assets to give the tax breaks ..... MABA



(Make America Broke Again )

[bronco67]

Just started listening. Let's see how much misinformation and horseshit he can deliver this time. He almost broke the scale last time.

[bronco67]

OMG is this stupid shit actually making some sense for once?

[bronco67]

Who replaced our president with this imposter? Some well thought out ideas and solutions for better air travel, spoken eloquently and to the point. Now go stick your head in a fucking blender.

I'm sure he won't be profiting off of this "amazing new technology".

[Rochard]

He is selling this as a "trillion dollar infrastructure movement". However, he wants most of the money to come from the private sector so.... No "act" or action required by the government, basically he is saying "the private sector needs to fix things".

Can you imagine how this will work? The town I live in is over 100 years old, and we are having problems with our sewer and water systems. Everything needs to be replaced. LOL - You want to hand this over to businesses to make a profit off of this? The costs will go through the roof.

[Barry-xlovecam]

I read that -- gives a new meaning to "trump tower" ...

There are some merits to commercial air traffic control but in the final analysis -- the US Government HAS to control US airspace. Airspace is a national interest and prerogative.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by Rochard

He is selling this as a "trillion dollar infrastructure movement". However, he wants most of the money to come from the private sector so.... No "act" or action required by the government, basically he is saying "the private sector needs to fix things".

Can you imagine how this will work? The town I live in is over 100 years old, and we are having problems with our sewer and water systems. Everything needs to be replaced. LOL - You want to hand this over to businesses to make a profit off of this? The costs will go through the roof.

There is some fallacy in that statement. Have you ever bid government funded construction work -- I have.

The prevailing wage laws -- the Davis-Bacon Act both protects wage earners and also tends to inflate government bids. Most government work is bid by the prevailing low bidding General Contractor. That general contractor currently will sub-contract "some of the work" -- bidding documents may limit this. The general contractor will mark up the sub contractor's prices again -- bidding documents may limit this.

In any event, sewer and water as well as road drainage systems are not constructed or renewed by city or county workers - they are maintained.
So, this is your fallacy in your analogy -- there is no change -- sewer and water as well as road drainage systems are government owned.

Unless you meant; we will sell off the public assets -- then you have a point.

Some of this may just be mindless chatter and diversion from real issues. Trumpspeek -- get your boots and shovel -- the shit is getting deep ...

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by bronco67

Who replaced our president with this imposter? Some well thought out ideas and solutions for better air travel, spoken eloquently and to the point. Now go stick your head in a fucking blender.

I'm sure he won't be profiting off of this "amazing new technology".

He bought used the Obama teleprompters ....

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by Rochard

He is selling this as a "trillion dollar infrastructure movement". However, he wants most of the money to come from the private sector so.... No "act" or action required by the government, basically he is saying "the private sector needs to fix things".

Can you imagine how this will work? The town I live in is over 100 years old, and we are having problems with our sewer and water systems. Everything needs to be replaced. LOL - You want to hand this over to businesses to make a profit off of this? The costs will go through the roof.

Sewer and water is paid for locally. Take it up with your local officials who are likely more concerned with building viaducts to the ocean to redirect all your drinking water in order to save some microorganism.

[sperbonzo]

For your consideration.......






Cato Handbook for Policymakers, 8th Edition (2017)
Air Traffic Control

Congress should

• move air traffic control operations from the Federal Aviation Administration to a self-funded nonprofit corporation separate from the government.

The nation’s air traffic control (ATC) system is currently operated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). ATC is an increasingly high-technology industry, but we are still running it as an old-fashioned bureaucracy from Washington. The FAA is an inflexible and slow-moving agency, and it has a history of cost overruns and delays on major projects.

In recent decades, many nations have partly or fully separated their ATC systems from their governments. In 1996, Canada moved its ATC to a private nonprofit corporation, Nav Canada. That reform is the model for an FAA restructuring bill that passed the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in 2016.

Air traffic control reform is long overdue. Moving ATC operations out of the government would improve efficiency and spur innovation. The benefits would include shorter flight times, fewer delays, and lower fuel costs.
Management and Technology Failures

The FAA has struggled to modernize America’s ATC system. It relies on 20th-century technologies, such as radar and voice radio, despite the development of newer technologies, such as satellite-based navigation. In a detailed study of the FAA’s performance, Robert Poole of the Reason Foundation found that the agency is risk averse, is slow to make decisions, and mismanages procurement. It loses skilled people to private industry because of a lack of pay flexibility and frustration with the government work environment. Poole found that the FAA “is slow to embrace promising innovations” and is “particularly resistant to high-potential innovations that would disrupt its own institutional status quo.” That is the opposite of what is needed in a dynamic technology-based industry.

Dorothy Robyn, a policy expert in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, examined ATC reforms in a Brookings Institution study. She concluded, “As a traditional government agency constrained by federal budget rules and micromanaged by Congress, the FAA is poorly suited to run what amounts to a capital-intensive, high-tech service business.”

Robyn argues that Congress has “long blocked large-scale consolidation of the FAA’s aging and inefficient facilities,” and it “micromanages FAA spending on investment and maintenance.” Members of Congress have intervened to save FAA jobs in their districts, and they have required the FAA to procure certain hardware.

These problems can be solved by separating ATC from direct federal control. Such a reform would solve the conflict of interest arising from the FAA both operating ATC and overseeing aviation safety. Splitting off ATC operations would increase transparency because hidden decisions now made internally within the FAA would be made public. Such a separation is recommended by the International Civil Aviation Organization.

In coming years, rising demands for air travel are expected to severely strain the FAA. Our airspace is getting more crowded, and our antiquated ATC is causing delays and wasting fuel. Transitioning to new ATC technologies would increase safety, while also raising airspace capacity and saving fuel by allowing aircraft to fly more direct routes. New technologies would also reduce the number of needed ATC facilities.

However, those benefits remain elusive because the FAA has struggled to upgrade its system. A 2012 Government Accountability Office report found that half of FAA’s major acquisition programs were behind schedule. A 2016 report from the Department of Transportation’s inspector general found that several critical programs “remain over budget and behind schedule due to overambitious plans, unresolved requirements, software development problems, ineffective contract management, and unreliable cost and schedule estimates.” The report also found that the FAA’s “total budget, operations budget, and compensation costs have doubled while operational productivity … has decreased substantially.”
Gains from Privatization

Dozens of nations have restructured their air traffic control systems to separate them from their government budgets. Canada privatized its system in 1996 in the form of a self-funded nonprofit corporation, Nav Canada. That reform caught the eye of House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA), who introduced legislation to transfer our ATC to a similar nonprofit corporation that would have a cost-based user fee structure.

The Canadian reform has been very successful. Nav Canada has won three International Air Transport Association (IATA) Eagle Awards as the world’s best ATC provider. The IATA has said that Nav Canada is a “global leader in delivering top-class performance”; its “strong track record of working closely with its customers to improve performance through regular and meaningful consultations, combined with technical and operational investments supported by extensive cost-benefit analysis, place it at the forefront of the industry’s air navigation service providers.”

In Canada, funding was changed from a government ticket tax to direct charges on aircraft operators for services provided. Nav Canada revenues come from charges for flying through Canadian airspace and for terminal services at airports. Those cost-based charges are a more efficient way to price ATC services than the U.S. system, which is mainly based on ticket taxes.

Nav Canada is a private monopoly, so there might be concerns that its user charges would rise excessively. But that has not happened. Indeed, Nav Canada’s real customer charges have fallen by one-third over the past decade, as efficiency has increased. The system is handling 50 percent more traffic than before privatization, but with 30 percent fewer employees, noted Robyn. One reason for the good performance is that airlines and other aviation stakeholders have seats on Nav Canada’s corporate board, and those stakeholders have a strong interest in increasing both efficiency and safety.

Another advantage of privatization is innovation. Nav Canada is praised for its development of new technologies. Robert Poole noted, “the technical expertise at Nav Canada has led to a thriving business marketing innovative ATC hardware and software and advising other air navigation service providers.” In a 2013 address, Nav Canada’s chairman Nicholas Geer said that the company has “sold and installed our home-grown technology around the world from Australia to Hong Kong to Dubai, and all over the UK and Europe.”

In testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee on May 19, 2015, the head of the U.S. National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA), Paul Rinaldi, described some of Canada’s advantages:

They have the air traffic controller, the engineer, and the manufacturer working together from conceptual stage all the way through to training, implementation, and deployment within their facilities. And what that does is it saves time and money. And they actually are developing probably the best equipment out there, and they are selling it around the world. And they are doing it in a 30-month to three-year time frame, when we have to look much longer down the road because of our procurement process in this country.

In 2016, the NATCA backed the Shuster bill to move our ATC into a nonprofit corporation. It may seem unusual that a labor union is supportive of such reforms, but the controllers are concerned that our system is not receiving the steady funding and advanced technology that is needed. A self-funded ATC would create more financial stability than the current system, which is buffeted by chaotic federal budget battles.

A 2009 study by Glen McDougall and Alasdair Roberts examined 10 partly or fully commercialized (or privatized) ATC systems in other nations. They looked at performance and safety data, and they interviewed users of the different systems. They found that, in general, service quality improved, safety improved, and costs were reduced in the commercialized systems.

A 2005 Government Accountability Office study looked at the performance of commercialized ATC systems in Australia, Canada, Germany, Great Britain, and New Zealand. It concluded that those systems had cut costs, invested in new technologies, and either maintained or increased safety under the reforms.
Reforms Are Long Overdue

Since the 1970s, numerous studies and commissions have recommended restructuring the U.S. air traffic control system. In the 1990s, for example, the Clinton administration proposed moving ATC from the FAA to a self-funded government corporation.

Today, the dominant reform model is the privatized Canadian system. Privatization would provide the flexibility, incentives, and funding needed for ATC managers to increase efficiency and pursue innovation. Innovation is the key to reducing flight times, increasing airspace capacity, and cutting fuel costs.

In an October 18, 2015, interview in the Wall Street Journal, the head of Nav Canada, John Crichton, was blunt: “This business of ours has evolved long past the time when government should be in it… . Governments are not suited to run … dynamic, high-tech, 24-hour businesses.”






.

[Bladewire]

So much for Trump being anti globalist.

You know the name of the Russian company he wants to sell our air traffic control to? Or is it a Chinese company? Or is it an Arab company?

Our nation's security is at risk with air traffic control and he's offering it for sale to the biggest bidder from any country.

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

He bought used the Obama teleprompters ....

I'm surprised that mongoloid can actually read.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

So much for Trump being anti globalist.

You know the name of the Russian company he wants to sell our air traffic control to? Or is it a Chinese company? Or is it an Arab company?

Our nation's security is at risk with air traffic control and he's offering it for sale to the biggest bidder from any country.

Bush (W) did similar

P & O was bought last week by Dubai Ports World, a business owned and operated by the government of United Arab Emirates. The Bush administration considers the U.A.E. an ally in the war on terror, but the 9/11 Commission found that some of the money for the terror attacks went through banks located in the Arab Emirates and two of the hijackers were, for what it?s worth, from the U.A.E.

....

[Barry-xlovecam]

WASHINGTON ? Shifting air-traffic control from the Federal Aviation Administration to a private corporation would raise the deficit $46 billion over the next decade, under President Trump?s budget proposal released Tuesday.

The budget acknowledged the $46 billion because of projected growth at the agency, but argued that the actual spending difference would be smaller, at about $20 billion over 10 years, based on historical trends. Wherever the figures end up, the budget said changing the governance and structure of air traffic control is key to accommodate projected growth in air traffic.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...rol/102026976/

Well, that makes a lot of sense .. ???

[baddog]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

For your consideration.......






Cato Handbook for Policymakers, 8th Edition (2017)
Air Traffic Control

Congress should

? move air traffic control operations from the Federal Aviation Administration to a self-funded nonprofit corporation separate from the government.

The nation?s air traffic control (ATC) system is currently operated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). ATC is an increasingly high-technology industry, but we are still running it as an old-fashioned bureaucracy from Washington. The FAA is an inflexible and slow-moving agency, and it has a history of cost overruns and delays on major projects.

In recent decades, many nations have partly or fully separated their ATC systems from their governments. In 1996, Canada moved its ATC to a private nonprofit corporation, Nav Canada. That reform is the model for an FAA restructuring bill that passed the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in 2016.

Air traffic control reform is long overdue. Moving ATC operations out of the government would improve efficiency and spur innovation. The benefits would include shorter flight times, fewer delays, and lower fuel costs.
Management and Technology Failures

The FAA has struggled to modernize America?s ATC system. It relies on 20th-century technologies, such as radar and voice radio, despite the development of newer technologies, such as satellite-based navigation. In a detailed study of the FAA?s performance, Robert Poole of the Reason Foundation found that the agency is risk averse, is slow to make decisions, and mismanages procurement. It loses skilled people to private industry because of a lack of pay flexibility and frustration with the government work environment. Poole found that the FAA ?is slow to embrace promising innovations? and is ?particularly resistant to high-potential innovations that would disrupt its own institutional status quo.? That is the opposite of what is needed in a dynamic technology-based industry.

Dorothy Robyn, a policy expert in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, examined ATC reforms in a Brookings Institution study. She concluded, ?As a traditional government agency constrained by federal budget rules and micromanaged by Congress, the FAA is poorly suited to run what amounts to a capital-intensive, high-tech service business.?

Robyn argues that Congress has ?long blocked large-scale consolidation of the FAA?s aging and inefficient facilities,? and it ?micromanages FAA spending on investment and maintenance.? Members of Congress have intervened to save FAA jobs in their districts, and they have required the FAA to procure certain hardware.

These problems can be solved by separating ATC from direct federal control. Such a reform would solve the conflict of interest arising from the FAA both operating ATC and overseeing aviation safety. Splitting off ATC operations would increase transparency because hidden decisions now made internally within the FAA would be made public. Such a separation is recommended by the International Civil Aviation Organization.

In coming years, rising demands for air travel are expected to severely strain the FAA. Our airspace is getting more crowded, and our antiquated ATC is causing delays and wasting fuel. Transitioning to new ATC technologies would increase safety, while also raising airspace capacity and saving fuel by allowing aircraft to fly more direct routes. New technologies would also reduce the number of needed ATC facilities.

However, those benefits remain elusive because the FAA has struggled to upgrade its system. A 2012 Government Accountability Office report found that half of FAA?s major acquisition programs were behind schedule. A 2016 report from the Department of Transportation?s inspector general found that several critical programs ?remain over budget and behind schedule due to overambitious plans, unresolved requirements, software development problems, ineffective contract management, and unreliable cost and schedule estimates.? The report also found that the FAA?s ?total budget, operations budget, and compensation costs have doubled while operational productivity ? has decreased substantially.?
Gains from Privatization

Dozens of nations have restructured their air traffic control systems to separate them from their government budgets. Canada privatized its system in 1996 in the form of a self-funded nonprofit corporation, Nav Canada. That reform caught the eye of House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA), who introduced legislation to transfer our ATC to a similar nonprofit corporation that would have a cost-based user fee structure.

The Canadian reform has been very successful. Nav Canada has won three International Air Transport Association (IATA) Eagle Awards as the world?s best ATC provider. The IATA has said that Nav Canada is a ?global leader in delivering top-class performance?; its ?strong track record of working closely with its customers to improve performance through regular and meaningful consultations, combined with technical and operational investments supported by extensive cost-benefit analysis, place it at the forefront of the industry?s air navigation service providers.?

In Canada, funding was changed from a government ticket tax to direct charges on aircraft operators for services provided. Nav Canada revenues come from charges for flying through Canadian airspace and for terminal services at airports. Those cost-based charges are a more efficient way to price ATC services than the U.S. system, which is mainly based on ticket taxes.

Nav Canada is a private monopoly, so there might be concerns that its user charges would rise excessively. But that has not happened. Indeed, Nav Canada?s real customer charges have fallen by one-third over the past decade, as efficiency has increased. The system is handling 50 percent more traffic than before privatization, but with 30 percent fewer employees, noted Robyn. One reason for the good performance is that airlines and other aviation stakeholders have seats on Nav Canada?s corporate board, and those stakeholders have a strong interest in increasing both efficiency and safety.

Another advantage of privatization is innovation. Nav Canada is praised for its development of new technologies. Robert Poole noted, ?the technical expertise at Nav Canada has led to a thriving business marketing innovative ATC hardware and software and advising other air navigation service providers.? In a 2013 address, Nav Canada?s chairman Nicholas Geer said that the company has ?sold and installed our home-grown technology around the world from Australia to Hong Kong to Dubai, and all over the UK and Europe.?

In testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee on May 19, 2015, the head of the U.S. National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA), Paul Rinaldi, described some of Canada?s advantages:

They have the air traffic controller, the engineer, and the manufacturer working together from conceptual stage all the way through to training, implementation, and deployment within their facilities. And what that does is it saves time and money. And they actually are developing probably the best equipment out there, and they are selling it around the world. And they are doing it in a 30-month to three-year time frame, when we have to look much longer down the road because of our procurement process in this country.

In 2016, the NATCA backed the Shuster bill to move our ATC into a nonprofit corporation. It may seem unusual that a labor union is supportive of such reforms, but the controllers are concerned that our system is not receiving the steady funding and advanced technology that is needed. A self-funded ATC would create more financial stability than the current system, which is buffeted by chaotic federal budget battles.

A 2009 study by Glen McDougall and Alasdair Roberts examined 10 partly or fully commercialized (or privatized) ATC systems in other nations. They looked at performance and safety data, and they interviewed users of the different systems. They found that, in general, service quality improved, safety improved, and costs were reduced in the commercialized systems.

A 2005 Government Accountability Office study looked at the performance of commercialized ATC systems in Australia, Canada, Germany, Great Britain, and New Zealand. It concluded that those systems had cut costs, invested in new technologies, and either maintained or increased safety under the reforms.
Reforms Are Long Overdue

Since the 1970s, numerous studies and commissions have recommended restructuring the U.S. air traffic control system. In the 1990s, for example, the Clinton administration proposed moving ATC from the FAA to a self-funded government corporation.

Today, the dominant reform model is the privatized Canadian system. Privatization would provide the flexibility, incentives, and funding needed for ATC managers to increase efficiency and pursue innovation. Innovation is the key to reducing flight times, increasing airspace capacity, and cutting fuel costs.

In an October 18, 2015, interview in the Wall Street Journal, the head of Nav Canada, John Crichton, was blunt: ?This business of ours has evolved long past the time when government should be in it? . Governments are not suited to run ? dynamic, high-tech, 24-hour businesses.?






.

Sorry, erectfiesta and Richard says it is a bad idea; I have to go with them

[crockett]

You guys will regret trying to sell roads and infrastructure to private companies. You get fucked in the ass and the govt lets them..

I drove to Tampa last summer and ended up on some fucking "private" toll road because my GPS sent me there.. They do tolls by license plate..

Well me driving less than 2 miles cost over $6 dollars..

The toll was like $2.25, but they get you with all sort of other horse shit fees that are state approved. The charge you for sending the bill by mail, they hit you with payment charges and some other state charge.. A $2.25 toll turned into $6 bucks..

This is becoming very common in FL & Texas two states I know of that have pushed private toll roads.

This is how Republicans tax you.. They hand them the infrastructure then let companies charge your ass off and rake in the profits..

The fucking treasonous fucks are still trying to sell off our national parks/lands to the highest bidders, while all the right wing dum dums cheer them on and then get the bill one day and say Why'd dem liberals sell our roads and national parks..

fucking idiots.