There's a belief that

the only reason proponents of airport privatization want the city of Atlanta

to hand over airport operations to the private sector is so that it would

operate more efficiently, therefore cost-efficiently. The airport is already

operating efficiently, some say, and that negates the need for privatization.

The bottom line is this: The

city of Atlanta says it needs $3.2 billion to upgrade its sewer system

or it faces court-ordered economic decline brought on by sewer moratoriums.

Its options are to obtain the money from rate-payers, continuing to ratchet

up sewer rates to the extent that industry and wealthier residents relocate

while the 25 percent of households that are low-income must be subsidized.

Atlanta can continue the pipe

dream (pardon the pun) of taxpayer funding, from the feds, the state or

from a Fulton County sales tax increase that will drive consumers to other

counties to shop. Or it can examine city holdings to find an existing

source of funds.

Atlanta doesn't have to

look far. Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport is that source. Ron

Utt, the Heritage Foundation expert on transportation and privatization,

estimated the airport's value using the "per-enplaned passenger

basis," an industry rule of thumb that values an airport based on

the number of passengers served each year.

"Consider Atlanta's

Hartsfield and Chicago's O'Hare, the nation's busiest airports,"

Utt said. "Each serves more than 30 million passengers a year and

each may be worth as much as $5.5 billion."

Utt made that statement in

1999. Last year, Atlanta's airport served 76,876,128 passengers.

Factor in inflation, and Atlanta's rate-payers have the means to

a top-notch sewer system.

Echoing the argument that it

can't happen because federal airport privatization regulations give

the airlines the final say-so and the airlines won't allow it is

na�ve. If a feasibility study shows privatization is a viable option,

public opinion may well make it politically difficult for airlines to

stand in the way.

Even more na�ve is the recitation

that the airport is as efficiently operated as it can be, so why the need

to privatize? And dismissing the possibility simply because the privatization

process of part or all of Hartsfield-Jackson could take a while and the

city needs the money immediately is, well, wasting time.

It's commendable that

Atlanta's airport, the world's busiest in passenger traffic,

has landing fees among the lowest in the nation. But undercutting the

competition does not necessarily translate to cost effectiveness or efficiency.

Lower user fees don't always reflect the true cost of the service

to the users, in this case, the airlines.

No wonder they're resisting

privatization: Atlanta hasn't raised its landing fees since 1961.

As airport manager Ben DeCosta told the Atlanta Business Chronicle recently,

"We believe the fee is inadequate."

Contrast that with DeCosta's

comments last year to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "An airline

would have to be crazy to agree to the privatization of Hartsfield,"

DeCosta said, "Because a private company would have only one incentive,

and that is to raise their rents and rates."

Meanwhile, the world's

busiest passenger airport ranks only 22nd globally in cargo volume, beaten

even by its closest passenger competitor, Chicago's O'Hare (15th).

Could that be remedied? Not if everyone supports DeCosta's dismissive

comment to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "We're not looking

to make a profit. We're making sure that the public is safe and secure."

Those goals are not mutually

exclusive. The British government, pioneers of airport privatization,

consults with the air transport industry on security requirements for

airports and operators. Industry funds the costs of the strict safety

and security measures and decides which of the costs to pass on to airport

users.

A profit motive is not evil

or distasteful, and deregulation need not bring higher costs, as deregulating

the airlines and telecommunications proved. Nor does privatization require

raising rents and rates. In fact, privatization can encourage the kind

of out-of-the-box thinking that led to Conde Nast Traveler magazine ranking

Pittsburgh International Airport's fifth best in the world in 2003;

the airport's profitable Airmall is privately operated with store

prices guaranteed to match outside retail outlets.

Smugly dismissing a revenue

opportunity while leaders are racking their brains for options to pay

for the city's court-mandated sewer system overhaul means taxpayer

and rate-payer wallets are needlessly vulnerable. The city, taxpayers

and the sewer system can benefit from the revenue of airport privatization.

As long as there are guarantees that a private operator, whether in a

long-term lease or sale of all or part of the airport, will charge fair

and reasonable rates, airlines and passengers ought to be satisfied, too.

The road to privatization of

Atlanta's airport may be long, but the city's leaders have an

obligation to demonstrate the political will to take the first step: Explore

that road.

[Benita M. Dodd is vice president

of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, an independent think tank that

proposes practical, market-oriented approaches to public policy to improve

the lives of Georgians. © 2003 Georgia Public Policy Foundation.]