Dartmouth 2012 1 nextgen blocks
Airport privatization kills safety – Feds solve best
Download 1 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Privatization destroys jobs, creating many social costs
Airport privatization kills safety – Feds solve bestKeith 1 [Alexander, Issues and Controversies, “Air-Travel Delays” http://www.2facts.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/icof_story.aspx?PIN=i0601700&term=privatization] Other experts oppose reallocating air-traffic control to a separate organization, however. The U.S. is the safest nation for air travel in the world, due to the efforts of the FAA, they contend. They argue that air-traffic control and safety are inextricably intertwined, and that any reforms that weaken the FAA could threaten aviation safety. "Safety is a governmental responsibility," says Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. Moreover, critics of a privatized system argue that experts still do not have a complete understanding of the full consequences of systems such as Nav Canada. For example, recently some small regional airlines within Canada have complained that the system gives preference to Air Canada, the country's predominant airline. "The jury is out on privatization," says Kevin Psutka, president of the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association. Critics of privatization also question whether a system modeled after Nav Canada would even work in the U.S. They contend that the airline industry in the U.S. is much bigger and more complicated than in other nations, making U.S. air-traffic control a far greater challenge. "We have a lot we can learn from looking at private structures that are set up in place in Europe and Canada," says FAA Chairman Jane Garvey. "But our system is much more complex." Privatization destroys jobs, creating many social costsJoseph Stiglitz, winner of 2001 Nobel Prize in Economics, 2002 “Globalization and its Discontents” p. 58 http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=075MS-ZBsswC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Globalization+and+Its+Discontent.&ots=tprWMvl139&sig=wZHYhso47gc1kwwj3J_O1GxVuC8#v=onepage&q=privatization&f=false Privatization has also come not just at the expense of consumers but at the expense of workers as well. The impact of employment has perhaps been both the major argument for and against privatization, with advocates arguing that only through privatization can unproductive workers be shed, and critics arguing that jobs cuts occur with no sensitivity to the social costs. There is, in fact, considerable truth in both positions. Privatization often turns state enterprise from losses to profits by trimming the payroll. Economists, however, are supposed to focus on overall efficiency. There are social costs associated with unemployment, which private firms simply do not take into account. Given minimal job protections, employers can dismiss workers, with little or no costs, including, at best, minimal severance pay. Privatization has been so widely criticized because, unlike so-called Greenfield investments–investments in new firms as opposed to private investors taking over existing firms–privatization often destroys jobs rather than creating new ones. In industrialized countries, the pain of layoffs is acknowledged and somewhat ameliorated by the safety net of unemployment insurance. In less developed countries, the unemployed workers typically do not become a public charge, since there are seldom unemployment insurance schemes. There can be a large social cost nonetheless–manifested, in its worst forms, by urban violence, increased crime, and social and political unrest. But even in the absence of these problems, there are huge costs of unemployment. They include widespread anxiety even among workers who have managed to keep their jobs, a broader sense of alienation, additional financial burdens on family members who manage to remain employed, and the withdrawal of children from school to help support the family. These kinds of social costs endure long past the immediate loss of a job. They are often especially apparent in the case when a firm is sold to foreigners. Domestic firms may at least be attuned to the social context and be reluctant to fire workers if they know there are no alternative jobs available. Foreign owners, on the other hand, may feel greater obligation to their shareholders to maximize stock market value by reducing costs, and less of an obligation to what they will refer to as an “overbloated labor force.” It is important to restructure state enterprises, and privatization is often an effective way to do so. But moving people from low-productivity jobs in state enterprises to unemployment does not increase a country’s income, and it certainly does not increase the welfare of the workers. [LINKS TO PTX] Privatization is controversial and mucks up modernization debates bin Salam, Fellow, Eno Center for Transportation, 12 Sakib bin Salam, Fellow, Eno Center for Transportation, 4-12, [“NextGen Aligning Costs, Benefits and Political Leadership,” Eno Center for Transportation Policy, https://www.enotrans.org/store/research-papers/nextgen-aligning-costs-benefits-and-political-leadership] E. Liu Making a case for or against privatization is not the focus of this paper, as it deserves more thorough analysis. In any case, due to its controversial nature, privatization talks in Congress would likely cause more friction than fluency towards modernization efforts.
Elliott Sclar, Director of graduate programs in Urban Planning at Columbia, his book on privatization won two prestigious academic awards, the Louis Brownlow Award for the Best Book of 2002 from the National Academy of Public Administration and the 2001 Charles Levine Prize from the International Political Science, 03, [“Pitfalls of Air Traffic Control Privatization,” National Air Traffic Controllers Association, http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/sites/default/files/PitfallsofATCPrivatization.pdf] E. Liu The third blanket claim common to most privatization proposals is that the funding stream associated with a private ATC provider would keep costs to users down, and isolate the government from the risk of escalating provision costs. Review of the Canadian and British cases both demonstrate cost escalations and increased user fees. In Canada user fees have increased several times since NAV CANADA’s inception, and particularly since the traffic downturn of the past year. The system is structured in such a way that even when the control fee charged to airlines decreases, passengers end up paying more. By 2002, the average fee per-traveler increased from $12 to $22.11The user fee system in Canada has definitely hit travelers as ticket prices have increased dramatically. The situation in the United Kingdom is even more problematic. The British privatized their ATC services by selling a 46% stake to a consortium of seven airlines, and an additional 5% to employees. The government retained 49% plus an extra “golden share.” Over the past year the government has had to bail out the new National Air Traffic Services (NATS) twice, to the tune of $131 million – about two thirds of the original sale price. The private sector holds 46% percent of the equity in NATS, but as the recent government bailouts have demonstrated, the private sector is assuming none of the risk. Air traffic control is a vital public service, one in which a shutdown or catastrophic failure would cripple the nation. Regardless of technical or legal responsibility, the government will always be in a position of having to ensure continuing service. As has been made clear by the British case, market-based privatization of the air traffic control system means that the government surrenders its vital assets, but continues to assume the costs and final responsibility for ensuring continuing service. This situation could not possibly be described as “stabilized.” Perm – the United States federal government should establish a public-private partnership to fully fund the Next Generation Air Transportation System. this perm is testing the textual competition of the CP because basically the counterplan is our plan, the federal aviation industry contracts work all the time to private companies. Airplanes are made from corporations like Boeing and Airbus – the government doesn’t make them. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 1 Mb. Share with your friends:
|