There also enough evidence that private enterprise does not result in better quality, just higher costs for clients. Big companies ultimately get the same problems as governments do. They become bureaucratic entities. And clients going to a different business is possible in many sectors, but with airports it's much more difficult. Competition is not great in the airport industry.
Where has airport privatization resulted in higher costs and worse services? Also, competition may not be as intense as in other industries, but certainly it will be more competitive than it was under a government monopoly. Also, companies are less likely to become bureaucratic because they actually have an incentive to increase efficiency.
First, a company could own several airports in the area, making competition disappear as well. Monopolies are created among companies as well. There is a long history of companies making deals with eachother so they can screw the people. And I have no doubt that many people within a public-owned airport want to make it as efficient as possible. To bad, it does not always work that way. In public and private owned enterprises.
And governments are accountable to the people. But a public-owned airport does not have shareholders looking over the shoulders to see of the profits are high enough.
How are governments accountable to the people for airport inefficiencies? I don't think many people base their votes on the quality of airport services. Also, the lack of accountability to shareholders is precisely the problem. With a profit incentive in place, airport managers have much more incentive to cut out waste, offer competitive rates and services, and expand when profitable (this is explained in greater detail the Reason Foundation study I provided).
No, not many people vote on the quality of airport services. But at least they have a vote on them. With private-owned airports they don't. And yes, they could go to another airport. Which may be 200 miles away. And also owned by the same company.
And profit incentives does not make better companies. It could come at the cost of workers and clients. Because when things go south, they will pay the price.
What you are writing always sounds nice in theory, too bad that it doesn't work that way in many areas. The airport business is too small to make for efficient competition. And the risks of being dubbed by the companies are too big.
When it comes to regulations, I am talking about how many planes can land on the airport, how many planes can take off, how many passengers can pass through, which airlines can use the airport. Things like that.
Under this law, air traffic control would still be controlled by the government. Air traffic controllers would still be public employees, they would simply go to work at privately owned control towers.
And what is to say that they won't increase the number of airplanes arriving and departing the airport? Adding a additional runway can be done, safe or not? After all, increasing the number of airplanes and passengers at the airport is increasing incomes. But other areas like safety and the environment will suffer.