Read Chesley Sullenberger's thoughts on this and on general aviation: ‘Sully’ Sullenberger wants to save the FAA
I'm sure Sullenberger's testimony will make a big splash. But on a more serious note.... I think this will get moved to purgatory reasonably soon, as it's a highly-political issue. Privatization* generally is. I'd guess that it will be privatized*, though. After all, why run something for the public good when you could mess it up and give it to a private, preferably foreign (as I understand it, quite possibly Saudi in this case) company which will screw your citizens, provide a vastly inferior service, not reinvest income, raise prices and move money offshore? There are areas where privatization* works, because they're areas where there's natural competition, and there are areas where it doesn't, because there isn't. The FAA clearly falls into the latter category. The British government in its wisdom privatised (it was in Britain so it gets an s) the railways in order to bring market forces into play. It's brilliant: now, if you're unhappy with the prices you pay or the service you get from Southern Rail when it transports you from London to Brighton, you can take your business to ScotRail, which will offer you far better prices and service on the Glasgow-Edinburgh route. Gosh, the wonders of market forces know no bounds.
I'd guess that it won't be privatised* (note that we are now cross-pandering. Nothing good can come of this. I soon expect outbreaks of emerods on Biblical scales). My evidence: US Science de-funding has gone poorly so far en legislatif. National Monuments begin to look similar. Not here suggesting that Legislators are better equipped with conscience and sense. Rather, that they respond to a broader range of financial convincing than has yet found traction in the still-young apex of Executive Branch.
Well, that would be a pain in the nice person*. It's nice to see that optimism. But might not some well-targeted campaign-fund donations and fact-finding trips change those legislators' minds? The Public Good is not strong on donations and five-star fact-finding.
Hmmmm.... I generally lean away from privatization for non-competitive critical infrastructures, but it seems that there should be a third path here. Since everything is so very polarized these days, then this "debate" will leave people claiming alternately that planes will tumble from the sky because rich oligarchs are putting high school dropouts into control towers - or - planes will tumble from the sky because the FAA will continue on its path to rival the US public education system in cost and effectiveness. I have relatives who are air traffic controllers, and I've served in the reserves under several bosses who are military pilots (squid airdales call themselves...."aviators.") It would surprise many people that most of the time (at least in the US) the person in the tower earns more than the person that's on the other end of the radio. I don't have a problem with that. They earn it.....and besides....Robbie the Robot will be doing both jobs before it's all over anyway, so this will be largely a self solving problem. In a fair and just world, the FCC would be a profitable agency for dot.gov, just like the the DOT "should" be. You simply place a tax something like........oh, I don't know.......fuel, for example. Unfortunately, if past is prologue, then all revenue that is collected goes thru the general fund in DC and you wind up with an underfunded agency that is struggling to be a larger line item in an already hyper bloated federal budget that they are funding at levels above their costs - despite the fact that they're spending money like drunken sailors. Trust me. I know how quickly an intoxicated sailor can spend money. Unfortunately, you cannot tax things like poverty and getting old and sick, and there is no government on the planet that will tolerate a simplified system of taxes, so it is what it is. Some entities......like the FBI, and the FCC will continue to struggle for funding despite the fact that they generate (or have the ability to generate) considerable revenues. Flying is cheap. Dirt cheap, compared to what it used to be just a few years ago and this despite the fact that there are a lot fewer airlines out there. Flying is even relatively cheap in oppressed parts of the world where people pay taxes at rates that are intolerable in the US. Flying is also safer. Both "statistically" and real-world. So.....I'm inclined to think that there is room to discuss both privatization or letting the US ATC system struggle under the weight of bloated bureaucracy and more crowded skies. Either way? It's a self solving problem....... That is until they unionize robots....
Of course, you do realise that when these autonomous systems wobble and fail, and they do sometimes, then the fall back is the human. Now when you've fired the humans replace by the autonomous systems, or replaced them with young well qualified and inexperienced guys on a continent far far away... Well look what happened to British Airwaysa few weeks ago! Transpires this to whichever set of circumstances you like, Murphy's Law and Sod's Law will inevitably apply. Really enjoyed reading (and approving) the comments above, although I suspect the auto-corection got in the way of Tochatihu's 'cross-pondering'. Long may that expression live with me, whether you coined it or not, it's brilliant.
What pisses me off more than anything else is the capabilities of a cell phone in the pocket of too many private pilots has more ability and capability than: running out of gas taking off with the wrong fuel in the gas tank poor emergency landing flying into a cloud without instruments and/or skill stall-spin <gerrrrrrrr> Bob Wilson
