No, I wouldn't pay for a live briefing (and shame on me); or if I did it
would only be a single snapshot
at the time of departure. I am not alone in that pay per drink aviation
services would be a disincentive to
safety.

Its an interesting debate. In general, I am in favor of user-fee taxation.
I would prefer the users pay for the
system and the funds are sequestered to that activity. I would add the
caveat that some activities (or some
percentage of many activities) are supplied thru the general fund in
proportion to the rough national need.

The current FAA funding satisifies this for me; the bulk is a fuel surcharge
and percentage is paid for out
of general taxes. This is appropriate because a country needs a highway
system even if I don't use it. Our daughter goes to Catholic school but I
don't begrudge my property taxes becuase a national school system is
necessary.

I will confess though, in the FAA/AFSS debate I seem be to dead set against
direct use based taxation. I believe
its a disincentive to safety and also that I probably enjoy richer service
without it. I also don't see how my general tax
burden is going to go down if there is a privatization shift, this is a bait
and switch way to raise revenues. I also believe that strong small aviation
in the US is a component to our safe national airspace system. It forms the
"farm leagues" for the airlines and becuase the average competency of the
fellow in the Aeronca Champ is so high, the whole system taps a very capable
pilot base.

This is not the case in many other countries where you sit in the back and
worry about who is sitting in the front.

To return to the AFSS debate, it amazes me that we felt we would derive some
commercial efficiency by
bidding this to a large military contractor with no experience developing a
call center and no transaction profit incentive. Not to minimize the AFSS
infrastructure but it is a very easy process to analyze and scale for.
This was really screwed up at the most basic levels. If we are going to
shut it down, shut it down -- but the current system is going to do more
harm than good and I feel in my bones there will be an increase in small
aircraft accidents tracable to the shoddy quality.

Good debate,
I guess I agree with you -- but don't want to pay?

Todd



"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
...

If there's sufficient demand for service as you like it someone will
likely offer it. I object to being taxed to pay for services I don't use.