Forum Thread

Trumps vision related to infrastructure

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 5 Posts
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I saw with horror what he's planning for infrastructure; he wants to "privatize" everything, so he can pocket what is not spent on it from the Government side and use that money for his "hobbies" such as the "wall" and hand outs to the "rich".

    The worst thing is to "privatize" the air traffic control. Since I was involved in aviation an long time, I still remember the mess we had with striking controllers etc. It takes a lot of coordination together with the FAA to keep things running. Also since the interfaces all over the world are involved, you got to have an "unified" disciplined system. To privatize such will be an total disaster, because then all of a sudden "profit" comes into the picture; not "safety". Furthermore the stupid notion that "satellites" make the job easier than "radar" is ridiculous. It always should be an combination of the two. An typical example is satellite info never helped finding the lost "Malasian 777". Since per day more than 6000 planes are above your head you can't take risks; thus stick to the present system, which has proven to work safely.

    Looking at what Trump wants, it is clear that he does not want an non-profit infrastructure done by the government. The effect will be that it will cost us, because we will be charged via property taxes etc. by the communities/States who carry out that work.

    The money he saves in the federal government will go directly into the pockets of the rich, while we will have the burden of "over budgeted" estimates because of the injected "profit" at the private companies doing the work. Why keep on paying "federal" taxes if they don't pay for the work they are supposed to do? Yes we may get an "tax cut" but that will go to the "rich" anyway; not us.

    This becomes an very sick "banana republic" in no time.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    There are two main components to Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) plan to "modernize" the air traffic control system. One is to privatize the system to make it "self funding" through user fees. The other part is the implementation of what they call "NextGen", Automated Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast or ADS-B -- the converting of the system from a radar based and largely analog driven system to a GPS digital system.

    However, many of the complaints about the current system are a result of Republican meddling with funding. If you sabotage a program or organization, whether it be the Post Office, the Affordable Care Act, or the air traffic control system you can make a better case for privatization. The main selling point of the privateers is that competition drives down costs. That argument doesn't fly in this case as there will be only one air traffic control organization...not two or more. So what we would get is a new "middleman" that can skim off a profit margin and is not subject to some of the regulatory oversight that comes with competitive bidding on systems.

    How conservatives broke air traffic control

    The second part of Shuster's plan is the implementation of the NextGen system and from what I have read it can indeed work in principle for cost savings for the airlines. But it will be very vulnerable to computer hackers. It will need a back-up system. Otherwise, those conducting cyberwar can cripple a digital based system for days if not weeks. That and causing havoc with planes in the air.

    Forbes: Next-Gen Air Traffic Control Vulnerable To Hackers Spoofing Planes Out Of Thin Air

    Still I am not necessarily against it. I just don't know enough about it, and I haven't researched it in depth. However, I wonder if the proposed cost savings will be realized.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    There are a variety of functions a society needs. A service provides a solution. Government provided services are judged and regulated by the quality of the service. Privatizing a service and profit becomes the regulator of the service. The quality of the service is dependent on the money generated minus the profit. Any privatised service has quality limited by the profit removed from the operating budget.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Kenosha, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    His vision is clouded by greed. Thi$ $$$$$$$ is all that matters. Hi$ off$pring I$ the $ame.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    There are two main components to Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) plan to "modernize" the air traffic control system. One is to privatize the system to make it "self funding" through user fees. The other part is the implementation of what they call "NextGen", Automated Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast or ADS-B -- the converting of the system from a radar based and largely analog driven system to a GPS digital system.

    However, many of the complaints about the current system are a result of Republican meddling with funding. If you sabotage a program or organization, whether it be the Post Office, the Affordable Care Act, or the air traffic control system you can make a better case for privatization. The main selling point of the privateers is that competition drives down costs. That argument doesn't fly in this case as there will be only one air traffic control organization...not two or more. So what we would get is a new "middleman" that can skim off a profit margin and is not subject to some of the regulatory oversight that comes with competitive bidding on systems.

    How conservatives broke air traffic control

    The second part of Shuster's plan is the implementation of the NextGen system and from what I have read it can indeed work in principle for cost savings for the airlines. But it will be very vulnerable to computer hackers. It will need a back-up system. Otherwise, those conducting cyberwar can cripple a digital based system for days if not weeks. That and causing havoc with planes in the air.

    Forbes: Next-Gen Air Traffic Control Vulnerable To Hackers Spoofing Planes Out Of Thin Air

    Still I am not necessarily against it. I just don't know enough about it, and I haven't researched it in depth. However, I wonder if the proposed cost savings will be realized.

    Yes Schmidt you got the picture; however I like to add that "privatization" is wrong, because the delicate secure disciplined way aviation should work; you can't cut corners. Also since the FAA remains the "oversight" and will be for sure curtailed financially by Trump ( even now there are not enough qualified field experts) then dealing with an "private air traffic control" is asking for trouble. Of course the systems can be modernized, but the cost to do so will be added to the consumer as always.

    I guess IATA should be involved, whatever we do.