It's probably because a lot of smaller airports in the middle of nowhere would be hard to get coverage for. The current system sends controllers to where they are needed, not to where people want to work.

Now, should more productive parts of the country be subsidizing air travel in less productive parts of the country? That's for you to decide.

"Now, should more productive parts of the country be subsidizing air travel in less productive parts of the country? That's for you to decide."

I would say "no", personally. In the absence of a subsidy, the network of the rural airports would likely become sparser, but the surviving ones would have better economy and, as a result, infrastructure too.

Isn't that arguably want rural communities want, however? I believe they're the strongest advocates of small government, less subsidies and pulling oneself (ie, their community) up by their bootstraps, regardless of what reality is.

I think the issue with many rural Americans is that they don't realize they are the most subsidized people in this country.

Bear in mind you need radar coverage for overflight even if you don't land.

This is true, but do we have a need for random airports in sparse parts of the country that require government subsidies?

There's more of a need to not have planes hit each other and cover areas with wreckage.

I can just imagine the hilarity if air-space was sold off to the highest bidder and then some of the smaller airports may decide to host advertising blimps in their share of the airspace and then charge plane companies extra to navigate around them.

Because managing the skies over your country is a public service.

Why would it be better to have this job be driven by profit?

It's a service provided to the public. Seems like a natural fit for being run by government. The only thing is this funding situation for this government is dumb. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it.

> It's a service provided to the public. Seems like a natural fit for being run by government.

I don't understand this part of your reasoning. It sounds like you are saying it is a service provided to the public therefore it is a natural fit for being run by the government. Do I understand your reasoning right?

Because if so: A lot of services are provided to the public. For example baking bread. Should every baker be a government employee?

The difference here is that everyone needs air traffic control and there's zero choices so a market structure doesn't make sense.

With bread, maybe I only like certain types of bread. Maybe I don't want bread. It makes sense for there to be a market with diverse offerings. If bread inputs get expensive maybe everyone pivots to eating potatoes.

In contrast if you want to fly out of a major city there's one major airport, and you need air traffic control. It's a uniform service that is required. The same sort of market structure is not really viable.

> The difference here is that everyone needs air traffic control

This is very much not true. People who don’t own or operate aircraft don’t need air traffic control.

> and there's zero choices

Probably what you are saying here is that air traffic control is a natural monopoly. You can’t have two (or more) paralel systems issuing clearances at the same time in the same airspace. That would be madness.

But what I’m saying is not that we should have some crazy capitalist system where rival air traffic controllers compete with each other in the same airspace. What I’m talking about is a system where air traffic control services are provided by a private company. A private company which is funded by service charges to aircraft operators, and one whose operations are regulated by the government.

You can argue why that is not possible, but this is exactly how Canada’s air traffic control is organised. There the air traffic controllers are employed by a non-profit corporation which is funded by service charges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nav_Canada

Similarly air traffic controllers in the UK are employed by the NATS which is a public-private partnership.

Germany has a similar structure with Deutsche Flugsicherung, or switzerland with Skyguide (formerly known as Swisscontrol).

When you are arguing why it cannot work, you are arguing against all these examples.

Yea that's the point I'm making that it's a natural monopoly. And yea the examples you provide are another way to handle a monopoly, though it's not really clear to me what the comprehensive benefits actually would be. Other than to create an appearance of arms length from government.

Would have the upside of not being shutdown due to the USA's crazy government shutdown nonsense, tho possibly you still have the shutdowns of a union strike.

Kind of reminds me about how people slip up and occasionally call BC Ferries a crown corporation, and are corrected that no, actually BC Ferries is an independent, company, simply one with the sole monopoly contract to provide ferry service that is 100% owned by BC Ferry Authority, which is... owned by the Province and whose board is 44% selected by the Province (another 44% by municipalities, who are creatures of the Province).

(boy sure does sound like a crown corporation...)

> Other than to create an appearance of arms length from government.

Big benefit is to separate the regulator from the regulated entity. That alone could probably stop the kind of group thinking which let them route a busy helicopter route through a busy landing corridor with inadequate procedural controls.

Other big benefit is to make the flight operators pay directly for the services the flight operators need. We are not paying their fuel from taxes, why do we pay for air navigation services from taxes?

> Would have the upside of not being shutdown due to the USA's crazy government shutdown nonsense

That is why it is brought up, yes. That is the most direct benefit at this moment.

> People who don’t own or operate aircraft don’t need air traffic control.

Also people who ride on airplanes.

Also, people living under the paths of airplanes need ATC because they don't want planes colliding and crashing into their homes. It's a clear public service that benefits the public broadly. I personally wouldn't want to turn it over to profit-seeking, race-to-the-bottom private contractors.

> Also, people living under the paths of airplanes need ATC because they don't want planes colliding and crashing into their homes.

Also a very good point, especially given I have a brother-in-law who knows someone killed by a plane crashing into their home.

Indirectly. Do you think electric substations should be also bought from tax money? Everyone who uses electricity need those too (indirectly).

It is a clear service which certain companies and individuals need. Why don’t we let them pay for it.

This is not some crazy fringe idea. This is how it works in Canada. Here are the current prices to operate a flight in or over Canada: https://www.navcanada.ca/en/customer-guide-to-charges---effe...

Are you flying a Boeing 747-400 from Seatle to London return overflying Canada? That will be $5,370.78 please. It consist of $66.10 for oceanic services and $5,304.68 for enroute services.

Are you flying an Embraer 175 from Halifax to St John return? Good on ya. That will be $1,608.04. Pleasure doing busines.

> Do you think electric substations should be also bought from tax money? Everyone who uses electricity need those too (indirectly).

I mean, yeah, I do.

Maybe there's a better word for it. I'd put it in a class of things like firefighters, police departments, life guards. Utilities should be there.

> Why would it be better to have this job be driven by profit?

Er, to avoid it being used as leverage during government infighting?

That will save you for 15 minutes until the infighting goes after the company providing services because it’s not owned by the right oligarch.