Trump wants to privatize the FAA

[Puffnstuff]

He's staying on course with this one and wants to sell a part of our infrastructure to the private sector. I've linked several stories starting with the newest so you can verify the trend for this idea which is not wavering unlike some of his other half baked ideas.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...1bb629f64cb_story.html?utm_term=.8985787dfc82
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...nfrastructure-drive-with-air-traffic-proposal
http://fortune.com/2017/03/16/trump-budget-air-traffic-control-privatize/

 

[UNCjigga]

Tell me again where the profits are in air traffic control? Charging all airliners in your airspace a fee for service, then seeing how many people you can replace with computers without crashing a plane??

 

[sandorski]

Doubt that this is a good idea, just seems like cutting something for the sake of Cutting. A Study should be taken to see what the potential benefit/risk there is to it first. You know, to figure out what's going on!

 

[yoddle]

Oh, wonderful, so how many hours do I have to drive to get from LA to Paris ?

 

[Jhhnn]

Doubt that this is a good idea, just seems like cutting something for the sake of Cutting. A Study should be taken to see what the potential benefit/risk there is to it first. You know, to figure out what's going on!

Republicans justify privatization on purely ideological grounds. Government is bad, mmkay?

Instead of the investor class paying taxes to pay for infrastructure it allows the guys at the top to profit from it. Whatever they make is at the expense of decent paying govt jobs.

It's another one of Conservative's blind spots, where they've bought into rhetoric of highly efficient wealth concentration. Efficiency is for profit. Profit is for stockholders & exec bonuses, not for the rest of America.

 

[JSt0rm]

More plane crashes would be cool.

 

[feralkid]

More plane crashes would be cool.

I think that's the point; give America something to look at besides his expanding ass and tiny hands.

No, it is not photo-shopped.

 

[alien42]

Tell me again where the profits are in air traffic control? Charging all airliners in your airspace a fee for service, then seeing how many people you can replace with computers without crashing a plane??

he wants to make it non-profit so i guess they run on donations? it just seems like such a bad idea.

 

[Zorba]

Republicans have been wanting to privatize the FAA for a long time, probably because it is one of the most functional parts of the government.

 

[Jhhnn]

Republicans have been wanting to privatize the FAA for a long time, probably because it is one of the most functional parts of the government.

They want to privatize everything. I mean, what good is a thing if there's no profit in it?

 

[trenchfoot]

Shrink the gov't into the dirt and give the corporatists free reign over the nation.

Result: a Democracy in name only.

Yeh, just what we need. We give the very wealthy everything they ever wanted in the way of tax cuts, deregulation and total control of the nation and the middle class and the poor of the nation will be so much better off in regards to the best health care everyone will be able to afford, the plethora of jobs that will be created from bringing them back to our shores, the generous tax cuts they all will get from the bountiful trickle down the very wealthy promised.

Yeh, sure.

 

[SKORPI0]

This is not a new idea. GOP has been trying to push the bill for a while.

http://thehill.com/policy/transport...-house-air-traffic-control-privatization-bill - July 2015
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/shuster-faa-bill_us_56cf593be4b0bf0dab31424e - Feb 2016.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeboyd/2015/10/06/time-to-privatize-air-traffic-control-the-right-way - Oct 2015.https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeboyd/2015/10/06/time-to-privatize-air-traffic-control-the-right-way

 

[kage69]

And people thought privatizing social security was a shitty idea! Petulant Manbaby is out to prove there's nothing he can't fuck up with short sighted idiocy and a sense of greed.

 

[Thebobo]

He's staying on course with this one and wants to sell a part of our infrastructure to the private sector. I've linked several stories starting with the newest so you can verify the trend for this idea which is not wavering unlike some of his other half baked ideas.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...1bb629f64cb_story.html?utm_term=.8985787dfc82
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...nfrastructure-drive-with-air-traffic-proposal
http://fortune.com/2017/03/16/trump-budget-air-traffic-control-privatize/

Need to change the title to Bannon wants to. Trump hasn't a clue.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Shrink the gov't into the dirt and give the corporatists free reign over the nation.

I see that theme in many different tv shows like Continuum where there is a corporate congress that rules the world. Same with Incorporated where the companies own the resources and if you aren't a member you won't have any normalcy.

 

[Puffnstuff]

I think that's the point; give America something to look at besides his expanding ass and tiny hands.

No, it is not photo-shopped.

Remember back when only raisin bran had two scoops?

 

[mikeymikec]

I'll never understand (except maybe in extreme scenarios of gross incompetence, yet surely those are also fixable) why privatisation keeps getting raised as a "cost saving" measure. Do these people conveniently forget that privatising something means turning it into a for-profit business? Any money saved through profit-driven efficiency boosts is quickly funnelled back to shareholders and top-level management, and that's just aside from the fact that seeking maximum profit in some lines of work can very quickly lead down a path of extremely dubious morality.

 

[Meghan54]

I think I'm now going to go pluck my eyeballs out. Cannot unsee that!!! Thanks a bunch!


Should report this.

/s

I think that's the point; give America something to look at besides his expanding ass and tiny hands.

No, it is not photo-shopped.

 

[Meghan54]

I think you answered your own question. All one has to do is look who is promoting this to reveal their mindset. And it isn't altruism.

I'll never understand (except maybe in extreme scenarios of gross incompetence, yet surely those are also fixable) why privatisation keeps getting raised as a "cost saving" measure. Do these people conveniently forget that privatising something means turning it into a for-profit business? Any money saved through profit-driven efficiency boosts is quickly funnelled back to shareholders and top-level management, and that's just aside from the fact that seeking maximum profit in some lines of work can very quickly lead down a path of extremely dubious morality.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Why does the government run the FAA anyways?

 

[feralkid]

Why does the government run the FAA anyways?

Gee, I don't know...why does the government run the Air Force or the Navy?

Cough...National Security?

 

[UglyCasanova]

Gee, I don't know...why does the government run the Air Force or the Navy?

Cough...National Security?

How is the FAA national security?

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

Didn't Reagan try this at some point?

 

[yllus]

It wouldn't exactly be privatization as you expect; I believe it would mean the creation of a non-profit that FAA workers would move to being employed under. There are some significant positives to this move:

- Less reliance on the notoriously unreliable budget process of the federal government; big capital expenditures that need to be made but the U.S. is now decades behind on can finally start taking shape
- Once systems are upgraded, reliability of air travel should improve significantly (welcome to the age of GPS, America!)

One major downside I can see is that I'm told the U.S. already has awful pay for FAA workers, and that might actually get worse. That's a scary proposition.

 

[feralkid]

How is the FAA national security?

You're right; how could having command and control of a nation's airspace possibly have any effect on its security?