LEADER 00738nam0-22002771i-450 001 990005089880403321 005 20210526152415.0 035 $a000508988 035 $aFED01000508988 035 $a(Aleph)000508988FED01 035 $a000508988 100 $a19990530f19--1997km-y0itay50------ba 101 0 $afre 105 $ay-------001yy 200 1 $a<>Avare$fMolière 210 $aStrasbourg$cHeitz$d19- 215 $a90 p.$d16 cm 225 1 $aBibliotheca romanica$iBibliothèque française 700 1$aMolière$f<1622-1673>$0389055 801 0$aIT$bUNINA$gRICA$2UNIMARC 901 $aBK 912 $a990005089880403321 952 $aP.3 A1(963)$bBibl.919$fFLFBC 959 $aFLFBC 996 $aAvare$948830 997 $aUNINA LEADER 03523nam 2200349 450 001 9910714493003321 005 20230615113130.0 035 $a(CKB)4950000000059500 035 $a(NjHacI)994950000000059500 035 $a(EXLCZ)994950000000059500 100 $a20230615d2018 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur||||||||||| 181 $ctxt$2rdacontent 182 $cc$2rdamedia 183 $acr$2rdacarrier 200 10$aAir Traffic Inc $eConsiderations regarding the Corporatization of Air Traffic Control (R43844) /$fBartholomew Elias 210 1$aWashington, D.C. :$cCongressional Research Service,$d2018. 215 $a1 online resource (30 pages) 225 1 $aCRS report for Congress 330 $aOver the past 40 years, Congress has intermittently considered proposals to establish a government corporation or private entity to carry out air traffic functions currently provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). While the issue had been relatively dormant since a proposal offered by the Clinton Administration in the 1990s failed to gain the support of Congress, interest reemerged following budget sequester-related funding cuts to FAA in FY2013. In the 114th Congress, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee ordered H.R. 4441, an FAA reauthorization bill that proposed to establish a government-chartered air traffic services corporation, to be reported. However, the bill was never reported in the House, and the FAA extension act passed by Congress in July 2016 (P.L. 114-190) did not make any organizational reforms regarding air traffic services. Authorizations under that extension expire at the end of FY2017, and debate over air traffic services reform has arisen once more. Many other countries have established government corporations, quasi-governmental entities, or private firms to perform air traffic services. While none of these air traffic service organizations are comparable to FAA in terms of their size or complexity, they represent a broad array of organizational models including a large number of wholly government-owned corporations, a public-private partnership model in the United Kingdom, a government-controlled joint stock company in Switzerland, and a fully private nonprofit entity controlled by aviation industry stakeholders in Canada. Direct comparisons among these models have been limited. There does not appear to be conclusive evidence that any of these models is either superior or inferior to others or to existing government-run air traffic services, including FAA, with respect to productivity, costeffectiveness, service quality, and safety and security. Certain corporate and private air traffic service providers have improved cost-effectiveness and performance as a result of access to financial markets to fund large-scale acquisition projects, and of faster implementation of technologies. In this regard, the tax status of a potential air traffic entity's debt could become a significant issue in the United States, as a privatized or a government-owned corporation could end up paying more to borrow in the financial market than the federal government does. 410 0$aCRS report for Congress. 606 $aAeronautics$xLaw and legislation 615 0$aAeronautics$xLaw and legislation. 676 $a343.097 700 $aElias$b Bartholomew$01170010 801 0$bNjHacI 801 1$bNjHacl 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910714493003321 996 $aAir Traffic Inc$93379138 997 $aUNINA