So the government should subsidize airline tickets? You say costs will increase if the system is privatized. I have my doubts, but even so, the cost would likely be offset by ability to terminate non-performers and the streamlining of administration. Why not look at countries where this has worked before making judgements?

Just as an aside, a really great movie about Air Traffic Control: "Pushing Tin"

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
We all know about the TSA, but in what way is the air traffic control system "broken?"

Our radar systems are from the 50s. Mainly we don't have a sustained way to upgrade the infrastructure. We are having to have more and more delays because the system can't handle the growing air traffic. Right now companies are working on systems to reduce spacing but until we get the $$$ to implement those systems, we are stuck.

As an aside, non-profit != no money. A non-profit can piss away money just like a for-profit business.

At one point I did some consulting work for AAA of Northern California in Walnut Creek. The CFO drove a Ferrari. I don't know how much he was paid, maybe he was independently wealthy, I dunno. My point is just because a business is a non-profit, doesn't mean they know how to spend money wisely.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for privatization. I just want stable funding so we can modernize the airspace. But if we are to go private, I'd want non profit over profit.

Flight Service Stations have been run by Lockheed Martin for more than a decade if I recall and FSS works just fine

I think privatizing it is a wonderful idea, has been proposed for years

the straw that breaks the back of the FAA camel is they got their wrists slapped for trying to regulate drones (which was in violation of an existing regulation that prohibited them from doing so), and the fact that ATC modernization has been an abysmal failure and they cannot account for the billions they have spent and have nothing to show for it

yeah, give it to a private company - they certainly can't do any worse, and as a pilot, I think its a wonderful step forward in reducing the size of the government

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
It has happened to me many, many, times: "What do you mean you don't have a flight plan for me? I filed it just a few hours ago, it was accepted, and now you don't have it?"

Just an FYI...non-FAR Part 121 flight plans usually don't stay in the system longer than 2 hours before they drop out. If you filed "a few hours ago" (as you stated), I'd say the system dropped your flight plan since you didn't depart in the 2-hour window from the time you filed the plan. We've had to call up our dispatch and have them re-file our flight plan if we've been delayed a very long time on the ground, usually going to EWR when it's been in a ground stop or ATC delay program.

Unless things have changed, all flight plans drop out at 2 hours unless the drop interval is modified. Thunderstorms and low ceilings, visibility, lower arrival rates, the flight data folks are told to change these parameters in the host computer. Part 21 folks have dispatch folks who called frequently and massaged proposed departure times, hence they stayed in the system longer.

Folks don't want a pay to play system like Europe has. It has literally killed general aviation with fees. Otto makes other valid points.

You can only land so many aircraft on limited concrete in an hour. Hence delays when the air carrier folks schedule 75 aircraft into a 15 minute window.

If you filed from a towered airport, just call clearance delivery and ask them to keep it in the system. It's really no problem for us.

Canada saw great things happen with it.

While we're at it, open up the shop for railroads, so they can modernize as well.