Stop airlines’ power grab |
Letters to the Editor

Stop airlines’ power grab

The recent column from longtime Washington media figure John Stossel about privatizing air-traffic control ( “A better way to fly” ) may play well in some inside-the-Beltway circles, but it unfortunately left readers without some key information about the idea.

Let’s be clear: Privatized air-traffic control represents nothing less than a giveaway of the nation’s aviation assets, worth billions in taxpayer dollars, to a new, private entity that will essentially be governed by an airline-centric board.

When this power grab is complete, the airlines will run the system in their best business interests. Anyone who has watched the airlines’ long-standing behaviors knows that when their business interests come first, consumers, communities and competition often get left behind.

For this same reason, there is ample reason to believe that innovation and efficiency could in many cases be stifled, not fostered, in a privatized air-traffic control system.

Ironically, Stossel is right on one point: Everyone wants to remain the world’s aviation leader, five, 10 or 25 years from now. But to do that, we should first focus on making smart investments in continuing upgrades so that aviation in America keeps its edge.

It’s unfortunate that instead of focusing on that simple premise, opinion writers like Stossel are getting distracted by the highly questionable notion of air-traffic control privatization.

Ed Bolen

Washington, D.C.

The writer is president and CEO of the National Business Aviation Association (

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.