Bob, While I was not asking you directly, I appreciate the response. * Increase safety by separating ATC safety regulation (FAA) from ATC service provision (Air Traffic Organization). Self-regulation is a conflict of interest; ICAO called for this kind of organizational separation in 2001 and most countries have done this. While it may be a conflict of interest, how does privatization directly “Increase safety by separating ATC safety regulation (FAA) from ATC service provision (Air Traffic Organization)” and by how much (e.g. 10%, 20%, etc.). * Properly finance and rebuild a capital-investment-starved system with ancient technology and aging, sometimes-decrepit facilities. While I agree, does anyone have a breakdown of the age of the US ATC systems, system by system? Exactly which are “decrepit”? Many systems have been replaced in the last 20 years (ERAM, STARS, etc.). Exactly which systems need to be replaced first, and in what order and timetable? * Restore professional staffing, such as systems engineers, to free the Air Traffic Organization from dependence on aerospace contractors. I agree. * Increase productivity, as Nav Canada has done. Productivity of what, and by how much? How is Nav Canada’s productivity measured and how is higher than FAA’s? I believe that a new ATC system needs much more specific goals. FAA has been told to work harder, do better and spend more for decades, without success. In what way does Privatization change this? Before we conclude that Privatization is better for FAA, we need many more answers. Thanks, Michael xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx R. Michael Baiada ATH Group, Inc. cell - (303) 521-6047 <mailto:rmbai...@greenlandings.net> rmbai...@greenlandings.net <http://www.greenlandings.net/> www.GreenLandings.net xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The information contained in this email (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-252 and is confidential and proprietary and should be treated as such. The information contained herein may contain ATH Group, Inc. Privileged/Proprietary Information and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by email or telephone, and destroy the original message and any copies thereof in whatever medium stored. Information contained in this message that does not relate to the business of ATH Group, Inc. is neither endorsed by nor attributable to ATH Group, Inc. Thank you. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From: bob.poole--- via Mifnet <mifnet@lists.mifnet.com> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2025 09:15 To: mifnet@lists.mifnet.com Cc: bob.po...@reason.org Subject: [Mifnet 🛰 72843] Re: Here's my ATC story My goals for ATC “corporatization” in one form or another are to: * Increase safety by separating ATC safety regulation (FAA) from ATC service provision (Air Traffic Organization). Self-regulation is a conflict of interest; ICAO called for this kind of organizational separation in 2001 and most countries have done this. * Properly finance and rebuild a capital-investment-starved system with ancient technology and aging, sometimes-decrepit facilities. * Restore professional staffing, such as systems engineers, to free the Air Traffic Organization from dependence on aerospace contractors. * Increase productivity, as Nav Canada has done. Those goals are absent in the “brand new air traffic system” proposal, which would subsidize a poorly performing status quo. Nav Canada demonstrates all four of these improvements, as the Forbes article explains. Bob Poole From: ATHGroup--- via Mifnet <mifnet@lists.mifnet.com <mailto:mifnet@lists.mifnet.com> > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2025 11:25 AM To: mifnet@lists.mifnet.com <mailto:mifnet@lists.mifnet.com> Cc: athgr...@baiada.com <mailto:athgr...@baiada.com> Subject: [Mifnet 🛰 72841] Re: Here's my ATC story Before the US embarks on ATC Privatization, we should build a detailed plan and identify the program goals, which I have yet to see. So far, all I hear about is throwing more money at FAA to buy new equipment. If ATC Privatization is meant to lower FAA’s costs, this is an admirable goal, but what is the target reduction and how is planned to be achieved? If ATC Privatization is meant to increase ATC efficiency, by how much and what does increasing ATC efficiency mean? If ATC Privatization is meant to reduce airline delays, it will never happen since ATC is not the root cause of airline delays. Does Nav Canada, NATS or Eurocontrol have less delays than the US (at airports with comparable traffic density)? In my 40 years of flying, I did not notice any appreciably difference in the ATC function or service anywhere in the world. Finally, as long as the airlines sit on the sidelines as cheerleaders instead of participants/leaders, while refusing to define how they want to fly their aircraft, little will change. Michael xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx R. Michael Baiada cell - (303) 521-6047 rmbai...@greenlandings.net <mailto:rmbai...@greenlandings.net> From: bob.poole--- via Mifnet <mifnet@lists.mifnet.com <mailto:mifnet@lists.mifnet.com> > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2025 08:01 To: mifnet@lists.mifnet.com <mailto:mifnet@lists.mifnet.com> Cc: bob.po...@reason.org <mailto:bob.po...@reason.org> Subject: [Mifnet 🛰 72840] FW: Here's my ATC story Here is an article on ATC reform just out from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2025/06/26/why-the-us-should-copy-canada-to-fix-its-broken-air-traffic-control-system/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Revised: 20250507
You are receiving The Mifnet because you requested to join this list. The Mifnet is largely a labor of love, however the infrastructure isn't exactly cost-free. If you'd care to make a small contribution to the effort, please know that it would be greatly appreciated: https://wardell.us/url/mifbit All posts sent to the list should abide by these policies: 1) List members acknowledge that participation in Mifnet is a privilege--not a right. 2) Posts are always off the record, absent specific permission from the author. 3) The tone of discussions is collegial. 4) Posts are expected to be in reasonably good taste. 5) We discuss ideas and not personalities, and we don't speak ill of other Mifnet members. * The Mifnet WEB SITE is: https://www.mifnet.com/ * To UNSUBSCRIBE from this list at any time please visit: https://lists.mifnet.com/ OR: SEND THIS MESSAGE via email: mifnet-requ...@lists.mifnet.com?subject=leave * Send Mifnet mailing list POSTS/SUBMISSIONS to: mifnet@lists.mifnet.com * You may reach the person managing The Mifnet at: mifnet-ow...@lists.mifnet.com * Please consider the DIGEST version of The Mifnet, which consolidates all list traffic into 1-3 messages daily. See instructions at: https://lists.mifnet.com/ * Manage your personal Mifnet SUBSCRIPTION at: https://lists.mifnet.com/ * For a list of all available Mifnet commands, SEND THIS MESSAGE via email: mifnet-requ...@lists.mifnet.com?subject=help * View The Mifnet LIST POLICIES and PRIVACY POLICY at: https://mifnet.com/index.php/policies * View instructions for Mifnet DELIVERY PROBLEMS at: https://mifnet.com/index.php/delivery-problems * View The Mifnet LIST ARCHIVE at: https://lists.mifnet.com/hyperkitty/list/mifnet@lists.mifnet.com/
