The Pros And Cons Of Privatization Of The Air Traffic Control System

The heartbeat of business and corporations is to improve within their industry and rise to the proverbial cream of the crop. The same agenda applies to governments and the services provided by their arms. The Federal Aviation Administration, the Air Traffic Control system, and Commercial Aviation all fall in within a corporate government that has the responsibility to provide a constant acceleration of services provided; In short, more efficient service for those citizens that utilize this form of transportation inside and outside this country’s borders. Privatization of the Air Traffic Control system is a current argument for excellent and expedient services for air travel. However, government service capably providing qualitative service
Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada are three countries that have transferred ATC control to private organizations; and passengers/tax payers suffer in the aftermath. (Pitfalls pdf citation) “In the United Kingdom, the newly privatized National Air Traffic System (NATS) has been forced to go to the government for financial bailouts valued to date at two thirds of the original sale price, while technological failures have led to multiple system shutdowns and operational irregularities.” (Pitfalls pdf citation) Fees generated by the air industry for normal operations generally accelerate under a privatized model. “In Canada, the privatized system has led to massive increases in user fees for passengers.” (Pitfalls pdf citation) Australia’s privatized ATC system pales in comparison to the other two countries featured. “In Australia, excessive demands on controllers have led to a series of strikes, while failures with new technologies led to actual radar blackouts and major traffic disruptions.” (Pitfalls pdf citation) As the symptoms experienced by Australia appear to be made up of technological and human factors, they show a valid argument against privatization of a system as intricate and pivotal as the
is somewhat privatized in the sense that sparse Air Control Towers are operated by private entities and local level governments. These airports do not meet the requirements for a federally operated control tower due to inadequate activity-level criteria. Advocates in favor of restructuring the ATC system, and making it similar to the U.S. Postal Service and Amtrak model, lament that federal laws inhibit the FAA’s endeavor to update information systems that would lead to flight improvement for the public. Opponents quickly argue that the two leading flight delays in the industry are weather and airport congestion; which are nearly always beyond control. Updated computers and information systems could negate the resulting fraction of manageable delays; essentially the cost does not equal the gain for updating the system through privatization. Furthermore, the privatization of the system only removes the operating expense from the federal budget without any actual reduction of operating cost. This, in effect, could lead to the establishment of yet another fatal government corporation reminiscent of the two already mentioned.