Hacker News Reader

Comment by Simulacra | Hacker News Reader

I'm cautious to say this is a good idea, but I'm also optimistic the private sector would be more efficient than the public sector.

View on HN

When did we decide efficiency was the goal of air traffic control? I want the thing to be effective and reliable, efficiency is way down the list here.

Do you think government performs better in that regard than well regulated private industry? There are plenty of air-traffic control horror stories, and it appears to be systemic: https://www.rt.com/usa/312138-secret-faa-study-chronic-fatig...

Don't forget to take everything RT says with a pretty major "grain of salt."

As in, RT doesn't allow content that doesn't criticize America to be published.

Right, but part of efficiency improvements would probably include some level of automation, which would be more safe in the end.

lot of hedging there.

What you're referring to is a research project, not a deployable one.

I agree it's worth researching. Common industrial research grants with a mixture of government and private funding can perform the research and develop it.

And those improvements may be deployed to the sector whether it's private or not. There's no need to pre-emptively privatize the industry to perform R & D.

Perhaps efficiency was a bad word. The private sector is able to make changes and fix problems faster than the public sector. Easier to fire a bad controller, or fix a problem in a private environment.

Privatizing something does not magically make it more efficient. The market tends to produce more efficient solutions than government because it tries many different approaches simultaneously, and they compete against each other. This probably won't work for air traffic control because it will be so regulated that innovation will be impossible (if innovation was even possible there in the first place). Furthermore, I doubt that the air traffic control market will be highly competitive - regulation will probably drive the market to cartel conditions.

In all likelihood this will result in a small price decrease coupled with degraded service.

I too look forward to the grand efficiencies that can only come from upholding share holder value above customer safety. Flying will be so much more exciting.

It would be a non-profit corporation. This doesn't have anything to do with increasing shareholder value.

But it would be controlled by a board, which would include representatives of the big airlines, and several other seats that could likely end up controlled by the same. So, effectively, I'd expect them to end up beholden to airline company shareholders moreso than the agency currently is.

Just because there's no incentive to reward shareholders doesn't mean there isn't incentive to maximize efficiency. Too many people wrongly assume that just because it says nonprofit that they are instantly humanitarians working toward the betterment of society.

> This doesn't have anything to do with increasing shareholder value.

> The plan drew immediate support from most airlines

> the White House said the 13-member board of directors for the new corporation should be made up of appointees from industry stakeholder groups

How about having directors nominated by those who actually pay the bills, the passengers?

So are the RIAA/MPAA and the NFL until recently.

Yes cause it works so well with health insurance, right ?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com