While my first impression was that privatization could be a good thing, I don't know enough about the FAA and the airline industry to know if a change is really needed.

Modernization is a common complaint of the FAA. Ideally, a private company could install better equipment. The next question is what happens if the private company loses the contract and they take their equipment with them. I guess the airports will have to be shut down until the new equipment can be installed and verified.

Modernization is a common complaint of the FAA. Ideally, a private company could install better equipment. The next question is what happens if the private company loses the contract and they take their equipment with them. I guess the airports will have to be shut down until the new equipment can be installed and verified.

Not only that imagine if company C will install it for X amount cheaper with it being "x" amount junker.  Barely meeting the needed guidelines and cutting corners to make extra cash.  Or they hiring cheaper paid employees not as qualified employees to save on costs.  I wouldn't want to be on a plane that is guided by cheap equipment and cheap employees.

Its like arming the police (mall cops) all with hi-points cause it saves money and still most of the time goes "bang".  If they were privatized too.

Not only that imagine if company C will install it for X amount cheaper with it being "x" amount junker.  Barely meeting the needed guidelines and cutting corners to make extra cash.  Or they hiring cheaper paid employees not as qualified employees to save on costs.  I wouldn't want to be on a plane that is guided by cheap equipment and cheap employees.

Its like arming the police (mall cops) all with hi-points cause it saves money and still most of the time goes "bang".  If they were privatized too.

Did you listen to or read Trump's comments? Which include:

I’m also proud to be joined today by passenger advocates, pilot unions, and leaders of airlines and cargo companies who strongly support our new framework and our bidding process. And we’re bidding, ideally, to one great company — there will be many bids, but one great company that can piece it all together — not many companies all over the United States, like in the past. When they came time to piece it together, it didn’t work. There were all different systems. We threw away billions and billions of dollars.

I am very grateful that every former FAA chief and chief operating officers and three former Transportation Secretaries — Jim Burnley, Elizabeth Dole, and Mary Peters — stand with us today. Thank you. (Applause.)

This is an incredible coalition for change. All over the room, it’s a coalition for change. The leaders of the industry.

* * * *

You think all those people are in it for personal profit at the expense of public safety? Or what?

Did you listen to or read Trump's comments? Which include:

I’m also proud to be joined today by passenger advocates, pilot unions, and leaders of airlines and cargo companies who strongly support our new framework and our bidding process. And we’re bidding, ideally, to one great company — there will be many bids, but one great company that can piece it all together — not many companies all over the United States, like in the past. When they came time to piece it together, it didn’t work. There were all different systems. We threw away billions and billions of dollars.

I am very grateful that every former FAA chief and chief operating officers and three former Transportation Secretaries — Jim Burnley, Elizabeth Dole, and Mary Peters — stand with us today. Thank you. (Applause.)

This is an incredible coalition for change. All over the room, it’s a coalition for change. The leaders of the industry.

* * * *

You think all those people are in it for personal profit at the expense of public safety? Or what?

Don't bother with the troll. It's not worth your time. 

Modernization is a common complaint of the FAA. Ideally, a private company could install better equipment. The next question is what happens if the private company loses the contract and they take their equipment with them. I guess the airports will have to be shut down until the new equipment can be installed and verified.

Please cite an example where that has happened, in government or private.  I can see if the service was leased or some other arrangement where equipment installed was NOT owned by the facility it was being installed in, I could potentially see that happening.  However, in being in the construction industry for 20 years and working on contracting most of that time, I haven't seen that happen.  Yeah, I guess you could have someone foolish enough to negotiate such a contract, but then again, we have foolish people who will believe anything these days. . .

Not only that imagine if company C will install it for X amount cheaper with it being "x" amount junker.  Barely meeting the needed guidelines and cutting corners to make extra cash.  Or they hiring cheaper paid employees not as qualified employees to save on costs.  I wouldn't want to be on a plane that is guided by cheap equipment and cheap employees.

Its like arming the police (mall cops) all with hi-points cause it saves money and still most of the time goes "bang".  If they were privatized too.

Obviously you are misinformed at how the government works. To simplify...most of the government technological advancements are through large R&D contracts that remain with the government, and then follow-on T&E contracts. The contractor doesn't take it with them when they leave or lose a contract....the government owns the rights and equipment. A designated government program office is responsible for the transition and life cycle sustainment of said capability. Just take ships for example....virtually all the systems on our navy ships were developed and manufactured by large defense contractors, such as Raytheon and the likes. Take any area...missile defense, etc, etc. There isn't multiple contracts with different specs...that's not how things work.

Acquisition contracts are not the same as Operation and Maintenance (O&M) contracts. For instance, PMRF has O&M contracts, which consist of the base and the range. These contracts change...that's called competition and it doesn't mean the cheapest one necessarily wins. These are the guys who operate and maintain all the equipment and the base (facilities, etc), and typically as companies change, the skilled employees roll with the new contract. They have nothing to do with the development of all the systems at PMRF. Same with ATF operators...they would not be the same contractors who develop the equipment.   

Please cite an example where that has happened, in government or private.  I can see if the service was leased or some other arrangement where equipment installed was NOT owned by the facility it was being installed in, I could potentially see that happening.  However, in being in the construction industry for 20 years and working on contracting most of that time, I haven't seen that happen.  Yeah, I guess you could have someone foolish enough to negotiate such a contract, but then again, we have foolish people who will believe anything these days. . .

We're talking about some major equipment, potentially billions invested, not a tower crane or skip loader. The FAA has been talking about modernization for decades but never seems to come to fruition. https://www.faa.gov/about/plans_reports/modernization/

They could write up a contract that says any equipment that the contractor installs is kept at the airports, but then there would be no incentive to upgrade the equipment and the traffic control infrastructure will continue to suck except that it will be run by the lowest contract bidder.

Modern companies use Six Sigma to eliminate quality problems in their product. That means 3.4 failures per million parts sold. There are reportedly 31.7 million commercial flights in the US per year. If the airline industry embraced Six Sigma, they could expect 107.78 crashes per year. How many would choose to fly if that were the case? One major fuckup could bring the whole system to a grinding halt and 9/11 almost permanently did.

Don't know why but this discussion reminds me, need I say...our very own rail FUBAR......time to duck now.

Don't know why but this discussion reminds me, need I say...our very own rail FUBAR......time to duck now.

Personally, I don't care if Trump builds a high speed rail from coast to coast and contracts all the work to his children as long as he starts building something soon.

Personally, I don't care if Trump builds a high speed rail from coast to coast and contracts all the work to his children as long as he starts building something soon.

The problem is Congress appropriates the funds and the democrats hate him, along with a lot of the old establishment republicans, hence the mess we're in today.

Can someone provide some insight now how privatization saves money?  People like government jobs for benefits and job security, while pay and promotion potential are usually higher in the private sector.  Low skill jobs may pay more on the government side, however it reverses on the higher end of the scale.

I'm thinking it's not necessarily pay and benefits, but more efficiency and less regulation.

I was thinking the same thing. Private industry seems to just run things more efficiently. Certain things should not be privatized though this is one I think is open for discussion.
I think the FAA would still retain some level of legal control with regulations but the actual day today things would be easier when private.
Two questions though,
#1. What happens to existing aircraft controllers? Are they just let go and directed to apply for the private job? What if they are a week away from retiring?
#2  What happens when they go on strike?

I was thinking the same thing. Private industry seems to just run things more efficiently. Certain things should not be privatized though this is one I think is open for discussion.
I think the FAA would still retain some level of legal control with regulations but the actual day today things would be easier when private.
Two questions though,
#1. What happens to existing aircraft controllers? Are they just let go and directed to apply for the private job? What if they are a week away from retiring?
#2  What happens when they go on strike?

When something like this happens and it happens often enough, government employees near retirement get incentives and compensation. For instance the guy with one year to retirement would likely get his full retirement or equivalent, less the number of years of service (e.g., 30 instead of 31) or in some cases the full pension depending on how it's restructured. The federal government (unless hired prior to 1983) is under the FERS retirement system (small pension compared to the old retirement system and 401K). They generally don't screw people over who are near or eligible to retirement. Employees who are mid career can seek other employment within the federal government or work for the privatized company. Then they could draw their pension down the road, provided they worked long enough to get a pension, and do just like others with their 401K. The last RIF we had was another story.

BTW...federal employees cost more than contractors because their pensions live until they die and if they elected for their spouse to get survivors benefits, she gets half of the employees pension, plus the health and life insurance retirement benefits. The government pays nothing in that regards to contractors...the company they work for provides any long-term benefits. That is the big difference with public and private cost differences per employee.

Oh...missed the second question. Some government contractors cannot strike and I would imagine this would be the case. They strike and they get fired. Just like Reagan with the FAA back when he was in office. Just because they are not government employees doesn't change that. Government employees would still need to be employed for inspections, core competencies, regulatory, compliance, etc, etc, just like some other agencies do.

The Concorde is another example of how tenuous the airline industry is. They were considered the safest aircraft with a perfect safety record. Then in 2000 one goes down in a fiery crash, and they have the worst safety record because there was only 18 of them. Three years later, they scuttled the entire fleet.

We're talking about some major equipment, potentially billions invested, not a tower crane or skip loader. The FAA has been talking about modernization for decades but never seems to come to fruition. https://www.faa.gov/about/plans_reports/modernization/

They could write up a contract that says any equipment that the contractor installs is kept at the airports, but then there would be no incentive to upgrade the equipment and the traffic control infrastructure will continue to suck except that it will be run by the lowest contract bidder.

Modern companies use Six Sigma to eliminate quality problems in their product. That means 3.4 failures per million parts sold. There are reportedly 31.7 million commercial flights in the US per year. If the airline industry embraced Six Sigma, they could expect 107.78 crashes per year. How many would choose to fly if that were the case? One major fuckup could bring the whole system to a grinding halt and 9/11 almost permanently did.

Sigh. Yes, I get that it's not a tower crane or skip loader. I've worked on renovating whole wings of the airport as well as building and revitalization of military installations. I am well aware of what it takes to design and construct the facilities. Been doing it for over 20 years. The contracting "what ifs" that you mention just don't happen. The process just doesn't work that way. At least not that I am aware of. If you have an example, I'd be happy to hear it. Ask guys like Inspector, they are in the same (or similar) industry.

Management of airport facilities is another thing. That's where I can see the "what ifs" you propose happening. But I don't have any real experience in that realm, so I don't know either way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sigh. Yes, I get that it's not a tower crane or skip loader. I've worked on renovating whole wings of the airport as well as building and revitalization of military installations. I am well aware of what it takes to design and construct the facilities. Been doing it for over 20 years. The contracting "what ifs" that you mention just don't happen. The process just doesn't work that way. At least not that I am aware of. If you have an example, I'd be happy to hear it. Ask guys like Inspector, they are in the same (or similar) industry.

Management of airport facilities is another thing. That's where I can see the "what ifs" you propose happening. But I don't have any real experience in that realm, so I don't know either way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, I concur with drck1000. The process just doesn't work that way.

Obviously you are misinformed at how the government works. To simplify...most of the government technological advancements are through large R&D contracts that remain with the government, and then follow-on T&E contracts. The contractor doesn't take it with them when they leave or lose a contract....the government owns the rights and equipment. A designated government program office is responsible for the transition and life cycle sustainment of said capability. Just take ships for example....virtually all the systems on our navy ships were developed and manufactured by large defense contractors, such as Raytheon and the likes. Take any area...missile defense, etc, etc. There isn't multiple contracts with different specs...that's not how things work.

Acquisition contracts are not the same as Operation and Maintenance (O&M) contracts. For instance, PMRF has O&M contracts, which consist of the base and the range. These contracts change...that's called competition and it doesn't mean the cheapest one necessarily wins. These are the guys who operate and maintain all the equipment and the base (facilities, etc), and typically as companies change, the skilled employees roll with the new contract. They have nothing to do with the development of all the systems at PMRF. Same with ATF operators...they would not be the same contractors who develop the equipment.

RDT&E was another aspect that I was going to mention in response to a previous post, but decided to go with "nevermind" instead. People think they know how it all works when it really doesn't work that way.

There's also different procurement methods. Low price, technical acceptable is very common (essentially low bid), but best value and trade-offs is another common way. It allows the reviewer to evaluate such things as past performance, experience on a more subjective level, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

nevermind

 
I'd be interested in hearing your take on it. To me, I think its pretty clear that an inefficient controlling entity (government)+ an efficient worker entity (private corp.) simply does not = an efficient entity. It just equals an even larger ball of yarn.

I also work in the industry, and frankly the mix of government oversight/regulations, DoD oversight/regulations, and joint contractors is the most inefficient and wasteful machine I have ever been a part of. Its a waste of my/our taxpayer dollars where the government gets bigger, and a few private people get richer by exploiting the contracting system. Honestly if it were just under one roof, it would be much more efficient.

(In a large sector that is what is happening: one government agency which I won't mention slowly is eating everyone else and taking over.)

The problem is that there is no pure privatization anymore, nor will there likely ever be. The government is still running everything and there is so much government involvement that it can not be efficient. Too many cooks in the kitchen. Its just the reality.  If they are going to control ATC anyways (which they will), it's much more efficient to just let them keep it all.

Reading the plan, its just going to be turning it over to ONE "non-profit" company. No ongoing competition, nothing. Basically it is going to go to a Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, or the like. Smells awfully suspicious.

To me this all seems painfully obvious, but maybe I am thinking wrong?

Can any of you that support this explain how you see it happening otherwise?

RDT&E was another aspect that I was going to mention in response to a previous post, but decided to go with "nevermind" instead. People think they know how it all works when it really doesn't work that way.

There's also different procurement methods. Low price, technical acceptable is very common (essentially low bid), but best value and trade-offs is another common way. It allows the reviewer to evaluate such things as past performance, experience on a more subjective level, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was going to type out a long answer but after I saw what you typed I just said "Nevermind". 

I was way too involved in the process for the LA Rail project. Low price didn't get the go ahead. Rather the best qualified "Team" of contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and QA/QC (me) got the nod. Emphasis was placed on minority/woman owned businesses. The company I worked for at the time was a woman minority owned company. The worst part was having to deal with the Feds. It was decided to not provide direct rail access into LAX and provide bus service into the airport from a station a couple of miles away. This was the very late 80's. My understanding is that they just approved (or are trying to approve) a monorail type system to connect the rail to the airport. If the Feds had turned over control to a private contractor prior to the rail design, I think things would have been different and you would have seen the rail system designed from the beginning to go straight into the airport.

Oh...missed the second question. Some government contractors cannot strike and I would imagine this would be the case. They strike and they get fired. Just like Reagan with the FAA back when he was in office. Just because they are not government employees doesn't change that. Government employees would still need to be employed for inspections, core competencies, regulatory, compliance, etc, etc, just like some other agencies do.

I was thinking if they unionized.

I was going to type out a long answer but after I saw what you typed I just said "Nevermind". 
I was way too involved in the process for the LA Rail project. Low price didn't get the go ahead. Rather the best qualified "Team" of contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and QA/QC (me) got the nod. Emphasis was placed on minority/woman owned businesses. The company I worked for at the time was a woman minority owned company. The worst part was having to deal with the Feds. It was decided to not provide direct rail access into LAX and provide bus service into the airport from a station a couple of miles away. This was the very late 80's. My understanding is that they just approved (or are trying to approve) a monorail type system to connect the rail to the airport. If the Feds had turned over control to a private contractor prior to the rail design, I think things would have been different and you would have seen the rail system designed from the beginning to go straight into the airport.

I have clients who have to deal with NAVFAC and Corp of Engineers. It is their sworn duty to make sure that no contractor makes a profit from any project. It's amazing how they can pull the most obscure voluntary standard out of their ass and make it required.