Simple. This is a union-busting move. This would squash the National Air Trafic Controllers Association[1] as a public union.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Air_Traffic_Controlle...

I don't think Republicans would mind busting a union but that is far from the primary motivation.

Seems to have worked for Canada. Non-profit private sector organization, and they don't seem to have any more air disasters than anywhere else.

Right, but why. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Is there any evidence that our current system doesn't work?

$

That is usually pretty powerful "evidence".

Doesn't really compare. The US sets de-facto global aviation safety standards; Canada does not. Regulatory capture of Canada's ATC wouldn't move the needle, this absolutely will.

Interesting. The famous example is UK private railways that became bad very quickly. Again Canada is balanced.

Here's a helpful article: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/air-traffic-control-tech-...

The article's argument is that the current U.S. ATC system is understaffed and has antiquated equipment. It doesn't actually help explain what privatization would accomplish.

You get fired for complaining? (I'm only half in jest, here.)

Union-busting and multiple someones get to make a lot of money. All of them are likely funneling some of said future money into the pockets of those pushing for this privatization as well.

Reduce the size of government.

Private organizations are more efficient than governmental ones. Ideally the way they are managed/regulated will remain the same. It would be really neat to see some innovation here as well, with governmental agencies there really isn't an incentive to break the status quo.

edit: If you're downvoting at least comment with why you think this isn't the case

There is a reason that air traffic is tightly controlled, primarily there is massive public risk for minimal errors.

There is a saying that the FARs are written in blood, as in regulations aren't passed willy-nilly, but passed after there has been a serious incident.

Air traffic is one place where "Iterate quickly and break shit" doesn't work. What happens when in the name of "efficiency", one tower reduces current safety limits because "99% of the time these are unnecessary", then the one time it actually was necessary, you've got two jets about to make a head-on collision, or one quickly changes course, loses control, and crash-lands into a town.

There are absolutely improvments that can be made with the FAA, but privatizing ATC is definitely not one of them.

I find the proposal suspect, but this seems like fear-mongering. Planes are already built and operated by private companies, yet I don't see them "iterating quickly and breaking shit". Of course the FARs have much to do with that, but it's not like they'll stop existing.

Well then don't iterate quickly. Ideally they would introduce some automation that removes human error.

I see what you're saying, but couldn't these same regulations be applied to private industry?

You don't necessarily need 0 governmental oversight for it to be private.

Over the last 30 years I have worked for or with for profit corporations, government agencies and the type of non-profit government formed corporation being discussed here. In general I haven't found for profit corporations to be intrinsically more efficient than government agencies of the same scope of mission. In fact many have been less efficient than the government agencies I have worked with. And many of the least efficient places have been the government established non-profit corporations. Take a look at the USPS, Amtrak, FDIC, or PBGC for examples.

I like the idea of government established nonprofits in theory, but as an additional option rather than the only choice. The idea is that they serve as a guard against excessive profiteering by private sector organizations. Municipal broadband networks are a good example of this in practice.

Without having multiple competing private orgs, what incentive do they have to be more efficient instead of sitting on their butts as usual?

(I'm not saying that privatization alone has no potential or that it is not necessary; I merely question whether it is sufficient.)

Yeah, but private orgs usually like to play fast and loose with safety regulations to cut costs and increase efficiency. I believe ATCs top priority should be safety, and efficiency should be secondary.

Is this really that controversial? Competition only exists in Capitalism, if there's no competition, then there's little benefit to improve.

> Competition only exists in Capitalism, if there's no competition, then there's little benefit to improve

That's both insane and inane. There's a simple incentive to improve aviation safety that has nothing to do with capitalist competition: people don't want to die in plane crashes. Airlines, otoh, would be happy to be able to cut corners and save billions at the slight cost of a few dozen more customer fatalities per year. Putting Airline is control of ATC by proxy will ensure the latter outcome.