Wingman: Keep Privatized ATC Option Open

The convergence of two events in recent days has caused a minor uproar from a handful of lobby groups in Washington, D.C.  One was the disclosure that the new Bush Administration budget request makes mention of ATC privatization again, and the other is the announcement by the partly privatized National Air Traffic Services in the UK that it wants to raise prices for its services because of revenue shortfalls resulting from September 11.

The main cause of this collective apoplexy was a reference in the proposed budget for the Department of Transportation which said that if the newly planned performance-based organization for the U.S. ATC system is not effective after a year of operation, “the Department will look to other options, including partial privatization and franchise operation of components of the air traffic system.”

“This is ludicrous,” said John Carr, the president of National Air Traffic Controllers Association.  “Before Sept. 11, privatization was simply a foolish idea with serious implications for the safety of our system.  Now, it’s downright reckless and irresponsible to even consider playing games with the safety and security of the service we provide….  The Administration talks about franchising parts of our system.  That’s unbelievable,” Carr continued.  “Look, this is not Burger King, where you can have it your way. I find it hard to believe baggage screeners are now federal employees but yet this Administration would consider franchising air traffic control.  It’s a very bad idea.”

In a press release, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association called the Bush budget comment “storm clouds on the horizon.”  AOPA’s President Phil Boyer said, "If aviation didn't have enough to be concerned about in the post 9/11 environment, it now seems that privatization is creeping back up through all of the security concerns."

Why was there such an eruption over a relatively innocuous mention?  Wingman believes there are two reasons – and it hasn’t anything to do with the public’s safety and security.  Frankly, he thinks they are about the safety of a few uneconomic benefits to one user group and the security of a politically powerful government union.

NATCA and AOPA are primarily lobbying organizations, of course, so their hyperbolic remarks are understandable.  But Wingman wishes they would be more magnanimous and forthright in this discussion.  Wingman isn’t aware of any real evidence that privatization will degrade safety or security, or even that removing ATC from government operational management has anything inherently to do with those values.  U.S. airlines and most other airspace users are private after all, and no one is seriously suggesting they would be more safe if flown by federal pilots or managed by Washington bureaucrats.

(Wingman says this with complete awareness of the hysteria about the shortcomings of contract screening of passengers at the time of the terrorist attacks.  Safety and security can suffer from inattention and from lack of funds, yes, and both public and private institutions have been guilty or these deficiencies on occasion.  The question ought to be which type of institution responds more appropriately and effectively to discovered weaknesses?  Wingman believes that history overwhelming shows that private institutions do, but that’s beyond the scope of today’s topic.)

Suffice to say that when NAV CANADA and NATS announce that they are having to consider raising fees, reducing some non-essential services, and delaying some capital expenditures, in response to a substantial downturn in revenue expectations, this is good management, not a sign of institution weakness.

This is not anti-government commentary.  Government has an important role to play in aviation, including oversight of public safety and security.  But numerous economic, political and organizational heavy-duty thinkers – including – Nobel Prize recipient’s Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman, as well as Joseph Schumpeter and Peter Drucker – have written extensively on the merit of making some public functions private, and the social benefit of letting market forces set priorities.   In other words, the idea of privatizing ATC services is respectable: hardly the feckless, reckless, ill-conceived and irresponsible scheme that some trade association advocates claim.

As tragic as last September’s events have been, they will pass, and previous problems of airspace inefficiencies and friction will reappear.  And it seems to Wingman that reasonable and knowledgeable observers of the ATC privatization movement around the world should be more impressed with its many successes than its few setbacks.  This is especially true about the adoption of new technology and procedures to modernize air space.  What has occurred in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, to name a few notable examples, should create at least some mild interest of what is working right in those places.  Instead, too often we get derision and it-can’t-work-here expressions of dismissal.

Some months ago, the Reason Foundation offered a cogent argument on the merits of privatizing the U.S. ATC system and offered a number of suggestions about how it could be done with a system of economic and operational equity for all concerned.  The was plan was summarily ridiculed by a number of aviation organizations and mainly ignored by others.  DOT Secretary Mineta and FAA Administrator Garvey didn’t want to touch it.

Wingman understands that lobbyists are paid to be advocates or their organization’s point of view – no matter how provincial and self-serving.  Wingman wonders, however, if these critics aren’t using these arguments because real discussions of how U.S. ATC can be improved in both safety and efficiency comes to close to killing some “sacred cows.” 

Click here to become a registered Flt Tech Online subscriber and receive headlines delivered to your e-mail each week

Click here to go back to the headlines