AOPA Mag This Month

Borat,

Taken from a UK thread discussing the same article, this was written by the
Senior Air Traffic Controller at Biggin Hill


I regularly read the publication the pilot of that flight is editor-in-chief
for. The style of reporting fits the style of his magazine.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Borat,

Taken from a UK thread discussing the same article, this was written by the
Senior Air Traffic Controller at Biggin Hill


I regularly read the publication the pilot of that flight is editor-in-chief
for. The style of reporting fits the style of his magazine.


Style is one thing, but misrepresentation is another. Are you saying
that this author regularly lies in print?

Matt

if
you want to fly you will, and if the costs go up you sacrifice something
that is less important to stay flying.

That is only possible to a point. Then, the middle class drops out.

Nowhere for example in respect of the UK did they mention that all the
airports, Heathrow included are privately owned have shareholders and run
for a profit.

Just curious: Why, in a country far more socialist-leaning than the
U.S,, do you think the airports developed into non-municipal
entities?

Is all mass-transit privately owned in the UK? If not, why are
airports?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 2007-04-04, Jay Honeck wrote:
Is all mass-transit privately owned in the UK? If not, why are
airports?

Almost all of it is privately owned, yes. All the inter city railway
companies are privately owned (a name you may recognise is Virgin, since
they also run an airline). Virtually all the city bus companies are
privately owned, and all of the inter city bus companies are privately
owned.

A picture of a privately run train:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Trains

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"Dylan Smith" wrote

Almost all of it is privately owned, yes. All the inter city railway
companies are privately owned (a name you may recognise is Virgin, since
they also run an airline). Virtually all the city bus companies are
privately owned, and all of the inter city bus companies are privately
owned.

A picture of a privately run train:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Trains

I can only draw on my experience of England's rail service when I was there
in around '89 or '90, and say that the privatization of the rail was
detrimental, much like privatization has failed in other places, and types
of ventures.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
news

"Dylan Smith" wrote

Almost all of it is privately owned, yes. All the inter city railway
companies are privately owned (a name you may recognise is Virgin, since
they also run an airline). Virtually all the city bus companies are
privately owned, and all of the inter city bus companies are privately
owned.

A picture of a privately run train:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Trains

I can only draw on my experience of England's rail service when I was
there in around '89 or '90, and say that the privatization of the rail was
detrimental, much like privatization has failed in other places, and types
of ventures.
--
Jim in NC

Thanks for your informed comment. Unfortunately the railways were not
privatised until 1994 so your experience was definitely not on a privatised
service.

As it is now, there are record numbers of people using newer and faster
trains than ever before.

In article .com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Just curious: Why, in a country far more socialist-leaning than the
U.S,, do you think the airports developed into non-municipal
entities?

I know! I know!
Because the socialized systems didn't work and the government entities
were so far into the red and inept, they accepted buyouts to appease the
public outcry.

Unlike the US-style of outsourcing, of giving up the goods to profiteers
who charge high prices, reduce service, and pay the chief executives
high salaries and benefits.

The backlash to the outsourcing of government functions is about to come
to a head. The US people are going to punish the politicians as soon as
they learn that the US military is so cripled that it cannot operate
without independently of private contractors. The first reports of
contractors abandoning their dead employees in the Middle East are
starting to make it into the mainstream press.

I am not normally one to rant about the government, but when the
military cannot feed itself in the field, things have gone to far. The
aborted no-bid tanker leasing program with Boeing is another example of
how bad things have gotten. The corruption of the US government is
depressing. An not one candidate for state or federal office has what it
takes to put a stop to it.

Rant off.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
if
you want to fly you will, and if the costs go up you sacrifice something
that is less important to stay flying.

That is only possible to a point. Then, the middle class drops out.

Nowhere for example in respect of the UK did they mention that all the
airports, Heathrow included are privately owned have shareholders and run
for a profit.

Just curious: Why, in a country far more socialist-leaning than the
U.S,, do you think the airports developed into non-municipal
entities?

Is all mass-transit privately owned in the UK? If not, why are
airports?

with the exception of the London Underground most is privately owned.The
railways are owned by a variety of companies including Virgin, Stagecoach
(who own a lot of the US school bus operators and have just bought out
Greyhound)

all the bus companies are also privately operated too as are the airlines.

One motorway (interstate) is also privately owned and has a government
franchise for the next 50 years and charges a toll.

I suspect that this notion of socialist leaning depends on your viewpoint.
My view would be that GA in the US is a real socialist leaning enterprise
with public ownership and federal subsidy at the level it is.

I am not aware of any UK aviation related activity which receives public
money as a subsidy (other than the Air Force) except perhaps in the far
reaches of the Scottish Isles.

As to why airports developed into non municipal entities - well many
municipalities ran their airports as full commercial ventures anyway and
when the value of the venture grew they sold them off to finance other
municipal activities already guaranteeing that the jobs and businesses
created would stay. They had no further need to be running an airport. Even
those still owned by the local authorities, like Manchester are run as
independent businesses with the stockholders getting a dividend.

Generally if you base an aircraft at an airfield fees cover tie downs and
all landings. At my field I don't pay for landings and I can do as many as I
want. So that stuff about landings was sheer garbage. I pay to land when I
fly away.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
if
you want to fly you will, and if the costs go up you sacrifice something
that is less important to stay flying.

That is only possible to a point. Then, the middle class drops out.

So GA is not for the working class then?

Borat wrote:

So GA is not for the working class then?

I can not stand that phrase. Just because someone doesn't spend 8 hours in a
factory doesn't mean they don't work. At my airport every single one of the
people that fly or own airplanes there works or did until they retired at
70+ years of age. And even some of those 70+ guys still work everyday.

There really aren't that many idle rich in the US. I live in a town with
quite a bit of oil money dating back to the 1920's. I know of exactly one
adult male that one would consider idle rich. Now, there are a lot of them
that the only time their hands get dirty is when they have to pick up their
golf ball out of the mud but they do work and often way more hours than the
people that work for them.

If you change your question to "So GA is not for the poor then?" I'd have to
agree with you. But there are lots of things that the poor can't afford to
do. As for the middle class as any sane person would describe it then, in
the US, if they want to do it they could probably find a way. Will they have
their own Bonanza, probably not. Could they have a pretty could chance of
owning their own C-150 or Cherokee 140, sure. They might have to not buy the
newest SUV every few years but they could do it.