Privatized air traffic control?!?!?!
OK WHAT?!?!
I don't even understand how this would work and more importantly, why it would ever be considered good.
Firstly, about the only POSSIBLE thing you can salvage from this is that it stops the government from paying for it. Which means it isn't something you are taxed for. But, I can't really imagine that this is an astronomical part of the US budget. In fact, it is likely not even measurable by comparison to the tax cuts for the wealthy.
But, if your taxes aren't paying for it, then you are paying for it directly. Firstly, when you travel is the obvious place to see it impact you directly. But, even if you never travel, many of the things you buy and companies you rely upon do. They will pass that cost along to you in many cases. And while the impact likely won't be dramatic, it will cost you more. And when it does, it will cost you more than you saved by not paying taxes to this end. In fact, this is the blessing and curse of publicly funded services. By being buoyed by everyone else, and even more so by the wealthy, things which are generally expensive become free or much more affordable.
I won't spend any more time on finances though.
Next point... HOW THE FUCK DOES THIS EVEN WORK? Is it a sole company that gets to control air traffic? Is it somehow bid upon like cellular frequencies? Does the government enforce any rules or oversight? How much does the oversight cost in comparison to simply not privatizing it? Who is responsible when some fails to say stop an accident? Or is bribed to allow foreign invaders in?
My point is... air traffic control is fundamentally a military function and a matter of public safety. Privatizing tends to result in companies with more concern for their stock prices than matters of national security and public safety.
And what does competition on air traffic control even look like? If it is bid upon, companies basically end up with monopolies on certain air space. You can't really SHARE air traffic control. A single mishap in communications between one or more regulators of a certain piece of airspace could lead to a tragedy.
The next problem is... WHO WOULD BE CRAZY ENOUGH TO BUY INTO THIS PLAN?!?! This is a HUGE F***ing red flag for something the next administration is likely to repeal. Especially if it doesn't go 100% according to plan. So, who would be involved on day 0? Given the risk involved... it seems an awful lot like the likely candidates would be people who would love to get some a little Russian "kickback" for letting a few "reconnaissance" jets into American airspace without notifying the appropriate authorities.
Look, I'm not trying to FUD this up. But this really seems like a bad idea. The kinds of risk takers who would get on board with such an idea seem like the same sort who would could be bribed, or would cut corners to keep margins up or jeopardize things in any number of ways. And the above situation is simply one which isn't outside the realm of possibility.
I just don't get it.
I don't even understand how this would work and more importantly, why it would ever be considered good.
Firstly, about the only POSSIBLE thing you can salvage from this is that it stops the government from paying for it. Which means it isn't something you are taxed for. But, I can't really imagine that this is an astronomical part of the US budget. In fact, it is likely not even measurable by comparison to the tax cuts for the wealthy.
But, if your taxes aren't paying for it, then you are paying for it directly. Firstly, when you travel is the obvious place to see it impact you directly. But, even if you never travel, many of the things you buy and companies you rely upon do. They will pass that cost along to you in many cases. And while the impact likely won't be dramatic, it will cost you more. And when it does, it will cost you more than you saved by not paying taxes to this end. In fact, this is the blessing and curse of publicly funded services. By being buoyed by everyone else, and even more so by the wealthy, things which are generally expensive become free or much more affordable.
I won't spend any more time on finances though.
Next point... HOW THE FUCK DOES THIS EVEN WORK? Is it a sole company that gets to control air traffic? Is it somehow bid upon like cellular frequencies? Does the government enforce any rules or oversight? How much does the oversight cost in comparison to simply not privatizing it? Who is responsible when some fails to say stop an accident? Or is bribed to allow foreign invaders in?
My point is... air traffic control is fundamentally a military function and a matter of public safety. Privatizing tends to result in companies with more concern for their stock prices than matters of national security and public safety.
And what does competition on air traffic control even look like? If it is bid upon, companies basically end up with monopolies on certain air space. You can't really SHARE air traffic control. A single mishap in communications between one or more regulators of a certain piece of airspace could lead to a tragedy.
The next problem is... WHO WOULD BE CRAZY ENOUGH TO BUY INTO THIS PLAN?!?! This is a HUGE F***ing red flag for something the next administration is likely to repeal. Especially if it doesn't go 100% according to plan. So, who would be involved on day 0? Given the risk involved... it seems an awful lot like the likely candidates would be people who would love to get some a little Russian "kickback" for letting a few "reconnaissance" jets into American airspace without notifying the appropriate authorities.
Look, I'm not trying to FUD this up. But this really seems like a bad idea. The kinds of risk takers who would get on board with such an idea seem like the same sort who would could be bribed, or would cut corners to keep margins up or jeopardize things in any number of ways. And the above situation is simply one which isn't outside the realm of possibility.
I just don't get it.
Comments
Post a Comment