Trump's plan to remove FAA from govt.

[scottcolbath]

Is this a good or a bad thing?

http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/336374-trump-unveils-plan-to-separate-air-traffic-control-from-government

S.C.

[Chris Janes]

I think it It will be an airline run transportation system and they are the experts at tacking on user fees to its customers, so your part 135 charter operators will likely incur increased fees to operate within the system, depending on how big the 135 company is they will likely be able to absorb the fee. If its a smaller 135 operation say a company that uses a twin Cessna 414 to fly Doctors to areas with little services, they may not be able to handle the fee, thus shutdown business. General Aviation took a hit after Sep't 11 this will likely be the kiss of death to general aviation as it will open the door to user fees. I've heard that won't be the case, but my belief is it will happen. I think your smaller rural areas who have a greater dependence on general aviation will suffer the most, part 61 flight schools (mom and pop owned schools) will also suffer, it's hard enough now with the sheer cost of daily operations and having to deal with TSA requirements, and then user fees....hardly worth the effort. I do think it will help speed up projects like NextGen and help get some better and up to date equipment and technologies out there. The nice new tower at KTUS actually has some equipment that was moved over from the old tower. It's good if your on the airline side of operations, not so good for everybody else. 

[Anna M. Wood]

Everyone gets screwed but the airlines...

[Anna M. Wood]

Also the FAA will still be around...

This is about the air traffic control system.   There is more to the FAA then ATC.

[John B.]

Is this a good or a bad thing?

Generally speaking, I have not seen anything that differs from what Chris and Anna have said above.  Here is one quick primer on the issue.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/05/news/air-traffic-control-private/index.html

The great worry does seem to be about to regional and muni type airports as well as smaller (meaning non-corporate) operators.  Also, the ATC system upgrades are actually underway and in progress.  If you think upgrading your PC is a pain in the ass imagine upgrading that type of network.  I suspect that the idea that upgrades to the system would happen more rapidly are overly optimistic.  Private industry despises that sort of upgrade and capital outlay and I suspect we will end up with an ATC system similar to the horrible telecommunications network we have here.  The first thing will be the new operators looking to find ways to stall upgrades or a way to not have to upgrade at all as a way to cut their overhead expenses.

Lastly, not just small airports and small businesses would be affected, but this will cost the consumer/taxpayer more.  As a rule, contractors are always more expensive.  So more tax dollars will have to pay the contractors.  Even though those costs will be covered by tax dollars, the airlines will still jack up their fares citing their new ATC expenditures and fees as their rationale.  Then, hidden somewhere in the agreements will be tax credits for the airlines to help them subsidize the new high cost of the ATC system that that is already being paid for by the taxpayer and consumer.

We'll just have to wait and see if it is good or bad.  But, it seems about normal for the way things go!

[Jay Beckman]

I'm on the fence on this subject...

At the root of my thinking is that I'm no fan of how government runs anything... 
The bloat, the largess, the lethargy, the intransigence, the inability to react in a timely and efficient manner (can you say UAV licensing?) are all hallmarks of how NOT to do something.   The entire ADS-B evolution is ridiculous...

However, there is a certain degree of "If It Ain't Broke..." involved which makes me wonder if this is something that's even necessary.  Aviation is, and IMO should be, a national infrastructure issue and as such, it should fall to the Federal Government to maintain it.

As for user funding: I've seen pilots from Canada (where they have a "pay to play" system) say that their costs aren't anywhere near as bad as the European "a la carte" nightmare that usually gets dragged out whenever "User Fees" are discussed.  Nobody who has chimed in from Canada has put forth a dollar amount higher than around $80/yr.  However, I don't know enough about Canadian GA to say whether or not their system has any chilling effect on flying.

What has surprised me a bit is the lack of hue and cry from businesses who rely on GA to do what they do.  I know NBAA is against this, but specifically, I'd like to see more Fortune 50 Flight Departments actually speak up and articulate better as to why BizAv matters.

Stay Tuned...

[Jay Beckman]

Addendum...

I got curious regarding the geography and demographics of the US Vs Canada and I was surprised on both:

1) Canada and the US are nearly the same size (my assumption was that Canada was considerably larger due to all that land up north but I guess Alaska balances that equation)
2) The really big surprise is that Canada has nearly 283 Million less inhabitants.

I'm guessing the second point has an impact on the size of the Canadian pilot population Vs the US.