Another "Why Not Here" - the privatized Canadian version of the FAA is making our pathetic incompetent pack of bureaucrats look like….well a pathetic pack of incompetent bureaucrats.
Just when you give up on the Canucks as a bunch of unrepentant socialists, stubbornly marching back to a Neolithic economy, you do see a couple of hopeful signs.
WSJ July 17
The Unfriendly Skies
When was the last time you had something good to say when asked, "How
was your flight?" We thought so. Air travel in America has become such a
chore -- a seemingly endless routine of delays, cancellations and tarmac
touring -- that many summer traTvelers are understandably dropping planes
for a date with trains and automobiles.
But fed-up vacationers trading in their coach seats for rental cars won't curb
the long-term trend of increasingly congested air traffic. At present growth
rates, the 30 airports that now handle two-thirds of America's commercial
air traffic will be completely gridlocked by the end of President Bush's first
term. In other words, our increasingly unfriendly skies will soon become
unbearable.
Weary travelers are properly skeptical about the Federal Aviation
Administration's ability to solve the problem. The FAA's own figures show
demand for air travel will outpace the increase in system capacity its recently
announced reforms promise. Incredibly, the FAA's best-case scenario more
or less concedes that a bad situation is going to get worse, much worse.
It's time the Bush Administration and Congress realize that the FAA isn't
properly equipped to provide an escape plan from this mess. The General
Accounting Office recently concluded: "Over the past two decades, FAA's
modernization projects have experienced substantial cost overruns, lengthy
delays, and significant performance shortfalls . . . . We have designated it a
high-risk information technology investment since 1995." Nothing in the
FAA's current plans changes that outlook.
But there is a solution if we look north. FAA Chairman Jane Garvey has
herself touted recent progress by her agency in relieving congestion by
offloading some air traffic into Canadian airspace. Planes there come under
the control of Nav Canada, an independent user-owned corporation that
has unsnarled Canadian airspace since it was formed in 1996. Last month,
the International Air Transport Association gave Nav Canada its prestigious
Eagle Award as an example "of a successful conversion of a government
bureaucracy into an efficient corporate operation."
Under Nav Canada, air traffic has increased by 20%, but Canada's air
safety record has logged only two operating safety irregularities per every
100,000 aircraft movements -- a sterling record. Nav Canada pays for itself
through user fees that have declined over time and avoided ugly political
fights in Parliament over how to allocate resources. It has thus been able to
invest vast sums in new technology while cutting overhead, increasing staffing
and raising the salaries of controllers. Airline related delays have declined
and customer service improved.
Canadian air traffic controllers even supported the shift to a privatized
system, agreeing that having a government agency ensuring safety while also
promoting expansion of air travel was a conflict of interest. U.S. controllers
supported some privatization in the 1980s, but now propose building more
runways instead. But that solution faces fierce environmental resistance, and
even if overcome would take a decade to implement.
Overall, Nav Canada has worked so well that David Stemper, head of the
Airline Traveler's Association, is touting it as a possible model. "We will
need a moon shot dose of innovation and creativity in the next three to five
years to get us out of the woods," he told NBC News recently.
Ironically for a nation that went to the moon, the U.S. is now a world
laggard in privatizing air traffic control. A total of 17 nations have surged
ahead of the U.S., including Australia, Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, and
even Fiji. In Britain, the Labour government is going further and creating a
for-profit, public-private partnership called National Air Traffic Services to
go along with Britain's efficient, privatized airports. Bill Sample, the chairman
of NATS, says: "Unless we all have the courage to do something different,
we're kidding ourselves about solving this problem. We must move toward
privatization, commercialization, or corporatization. Take your pick."
A dozen former FAA officials agree and have signed a Reason Foundation
statement endorsing an air traffic control corporation along the lines of Nav
Canada. Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta himself headed a federal
commission in 1997 that recognized the need for radical changes in the
"outdated management structure" of the FAA. Unfortunately, he has since
openly questioned the chances of getting such change through a Congress
jealous of its power. It would have been nice to know before he took the
job that Mr. Mineta would throw in the towel on this crucial issue.
Politicians at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue would be doing themselves
and the flying public a favor by fast-tracking radical reform of the FAA.
Untangling the crowded skies is too important a job to leave to the folks
who largely got us into this mess. |
