[kem]

A monolithic private institution doesn't inspire confidence in me any more than a monolithic public one. I don't see the purpose in switching one for the other, and would probably rather see it run by the government.

If it was replacing the current system with one where you had 12 different companies competing with one another, maybe so but I don't really see the benefit in what I'm reading. But I don't feel strongly about it.

What worries me the most about this in some ways is how it seems to be focused on the large airlines and not on passengers and private pilots. This is the current trend that disturbs me the most about Trump and the GOP: they seem pretty blatantly to be representing large corporations and their own party rather than the public at large. The assumption seems to be that what benefits the fat cats is what benefits everyone.

I'm not anti-large-corporation per se, but a big part of the reason for democracy is to protect the average person.

I don't really see any arguments here other than "it makes the airlines happy." As if they needed more latitude.

[kevinburke]

"The New York metropolitan area is the single largest aviation market in the United States. Last year, there were nearly 33 million domestic origin and destination passengers that came to and from the three major New York airports (LaGuardia, Kennedy and Newark). Nearly 60% of the total delays endured by these passengers are a result of today’s inefficient air traffic control, among the highest in the nation."

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/air-traffic-control-tech-...

[linkregister]

I recommend you explain what benefit a transfer to private administration would offer, because the article doesn't actually make any statement about what would improve.

According to the article, which does not cite any study or even interview a single official or anyone from the airlines, there are two obstacles posed by the current "inefficient" system:

1) Antiquated technology, and 2) insufficient staffing levels.

To remedy these issues, we would need to look at solutions for the existing system and compare them with the new one.

I actually don't disagree that a private organization might be better; if the limits on staffing and equipment procurement are imposed by Congress, then it might be better for a private organization to simply raise rates on airlines to account for the increased costs.

[usmeteora]

Sure, let me help explain the benefit of moving away from privatised government style external government contracting for software.

First government style contracting in high security scenarios lends itself to 10-20year contracts, no lie, anywhere from 10mil to 100mil a piece. The worst part is, the companies building the software companies are not software companies, they are dinosauric companies slowly dying.

Basically its the technological infrastructure.

So I work for a state mandated company thats an independent group, we actually set competitive markets and openly monitor but not as a government entity, but we are subject to follow state compliance rules as in, no employees who monitor the markets we set, are allowed to invest and profit in those companies in the stock market or have children or be married to people who do etc.

Anyways, in most cases though, because our security is high, we contract software much like the federal government does, and its horrific.

most of the issues you see with cascading flight cancellations, air traffic control issues, gas control problems etc, not being able to keep track of regulations well enough to streamline and lower barrier for new companies etc...is due to horrible..horrible software.

Privatizing and allowing companies to come in and truly compete and new software to come in takes away the 10million dollar ten year government contract software companies who do as little as possible and charge $200k for a new feature that should have been moldularized in the core functionality in the first place.

Want an API? How about 85 pages of doucmentation that took 150 meetings to put together, none by the actual software engineers...

This crap can't continue in large scale infrastructure where competition needs to come in and rescue the crippling energy and transportation issues that burden the people with horrible services and no other choices.

[MaxfordAndSons]

>if the limits on staffing and equipment procurement are imposed by Congress, then it might be better for a private organization to simply raise rates on airlines to account for the increased costs.

Except the Airlines are the ones who would staff the board of the proposed non-profit, so that won't happen.

[kevinburke]

The parent comment asked what the benefits could be, since deaths seem low. I listed some potential benefits, written by someone who used to work in NYC air traffic control. The article says the FAA doesn't have the experience or expertise to manage an ATC upgrade.

I don't have a position on what would be the most effective way to get there. I am guessing more funding, either public or private, would lead to an improvement.

[mmirate]

> A monolithic private institution doesn't inspire confidence in me any more than a monolithic public one. I don't see the purpose in switching one for the other, and would probably rather see it run by the government.

Indeed; this is why almost all "let's privatize X" initiatives are ultimately pointless (or perhaps even counterproductive). They merely shift the monopoly-holder from public-sector to private-sector, without alleviating the "there is a monopoly" status. Indeed, the private sector's legendary efficiency advantage specifically occurs when there is competition, and is not some magical thing that is endowed to the private sector and forbidden from the public sector.

[kwhitefoot]

In some circumstances

> the private sector's legendary efficiency advantage

is in fact:

  the private sector's _mythical_ efficiency advantage

[mmirate]

Right; my point is that your "some" circumstances are precisely those under which there is no competitive pressure.

[mmirate]

(Which is to say, the private sector very much does have an efficiency advantage when there is a competitive market. Because only then is everyone in that market personally motivated, by the "vice" of greed, to be virtuously efficient. The only exception is what some people call a "monopoly par excellence"; a firm without competitors which nevertheless acts as though it has them.)

[usmeteora]

If even one company came in and wrote software with

1. an API written by a software engineer

2. code written post 1970s that knew how to write a for loop and allocate memory

Then we would all be better off....I promise...

Its hard for me to...describe how bad it is...

[awshepard]

Can you clarify this a little? Have you seen or worked with ATC code? I can believe some of your other comments about poor API specs, old code, aging infrastructure, etc., but I'm curious about your loop and allocation comments. My understanding is mission-critical software often has very strict formal verifications and bounds checking processes it goes through, and one of the techniques in those conditions involves loop unrolling. The absence of loops doesn't (always) mean bad software if it's designed to save lives. Just wanting to understand this particular complaint.

[usmeteora]

Basically its the technological infrastructure.

So I work for a state mandated company thats an independent group, we actually set competitive markets and openly monitor but not as a government entity, but we are subject to follow state compliance rules as in, no employees who monitor the markets we set, are allowed to invest and profit in those companies in the stock market or have children or be married to people who do etc.

Anyways, in most cases though, because our security is high, we contract software much like the federal government does, and its horrific.

most of the issues you see with cascading flight cancellations, air traffic control issues, gas control problems etc, not being able to keep track of regulations well enough to streamline and lower barrier for new companies etc...is due to horrible..horrible software.

Privatizing and allowing companies to come in and truly compete and new software to come in takes away the 10million dollar ten year government contract software companies who do as little as possible and charge $200k for a new feature that should have been moldularized in the core functionality in the first place.

Want an API? How about 85 pages of doucmentation that took 150 meetings to put together, none by the actual software engineers...

This crap can't continue in large scale infrastructure where competition needs to come in and rescue the crippling energy and transportation issues that burden the people with horrible services and no other choices.

One you step outside of silicon valley, or Seattle or the tech scene in NY, the world is a scary place, and there is alot of low hanging fruit to be had for software for the betterment of everyone.

Do you know how to write a for loop? ok good, you could probably do better...

I'm not joking.

[Arzh]

What do you see these companies competing for?

[usmeteora]

Software government contracts from 10million- to around 100-500million a piece per state in which they are utilized in.