Sure, let me help explain the benefit of moving away from privatised government style external government contracting for software.

First government style contracting in high security scenarios lends itself to 10-20year contracts, no lie, anywhere from 10mil to 100mil a piece. The worst part is, the companies building the software companies are not software companies, they are dinosauric companies slowly dying.

Basically its the technological infrastructure.

So I work for a state mandated company thats an independent group, we actually set competitive markets and openly monitor but not as a government entity, but we are subject to follow state compliance rules as in, no employees who monitor the markets we set, are allowed to invest and profit in those companies in the stock market or have children or be married to people who do etc.

Anyways, in most cases though, because our security is high, we contract software much like the federal government does, and its horrific.

most of the issues you see with cascading flight cancellations, air traffic control issues, gas control problems etc, not being able to keep track of regulations well enough to streamline and lower barrier for new companies etc...is due to horrible..horrible software.

Privatizing and allowing companies to come in and truly compete and new software to come in takes away the 10million dollar ten year government contract software companies who do as little as possible and charge $200k for a new feature that should have been moldularized in the core functionality in the first place.

Want an API? How about 85 pages of doucmentation that took 150 meetings to put together, none by the actual software engineers...

This crap can't continue in large scale infrastructure where competition needs to come in and rescue the crippling energy and transportation issues that burden the people with horrible services and no other choices.

>if the limits on staffing and equipment procurement are imposed by Congress, then it might be better for a private organization to simply raise rates on airlines to account for the increased costs.

Except the Airlines are the ones who would staff the board of the proposed non-profit, so that won't happen.

The parent comment asked what the benefits could be, since deaths seem low. I listed some potential benefits, written by someone who used to work in NYC air traffic control. The article says the FAA doesn't have the experience or expertise to manage an ATC upgrade.

I don't have a position on what would be the most effective way to get there. I am guessing more funding, either public or private, would lead to an improvement.