If user fees go into effect I'm done

Steven P. McNicoll writes:

What things provided as government services are superior to things provided
by private providers motivated by the potential for profit?

Just about every monopoly service is superior in quality when provided by the
government.

A profit motive can work to improve quality and efficiency and lower costs
when there is competition at work and these things are necessary to retain
business. But when there is no competition, the profit motive works in
exactly the opposite way, destroying quality and efficiency and raising costs
through the roof.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

I would much rather let Flight Watch die
and replace it with private sector service providers that charge fees and
compete for my patronage than pay a direct user fee to the FAA for each use
of Flight Watch.

How should the charges be structured for a service providing data the government
produces?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...

How should the charges be structured for a service providing data the
government
produces?


How are they structured now?

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote

Shut up . Oh really this is silly, you are using a very creative mix
of constantly shifting standards and equivocations to defend your
nationalist prejudices, without ever substantiating any of them. I
suggest you give up, it doesn't work.

But it is working, right to a tee, for a troll's plans.

It has your replying; how many times now? That is the goal.

He has openly admitted that he is a troll, and here to stir up trouble.

Why not be part of the solution? Don't respond, no matter how much his post
needs to be rebutted.

That goes for everyone, but there are two many here that have no self
control, or have diarrhea of the mouth, or keyboard.
--
Jim in NC

Blueskies wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...
:
: "Blueskies" wrote in message
: . net...
:
: Yea, sure, for a FEE!
:
:
: Yes. Is that a problem?
:
:


So, you are saying let Flight Watch die, which for now is a free service, and replace it with a privatized service for a
fee. Yes, that is the problem...



First, you can get your briefing for free on the ground. Second,
the inflight wx is provided by commercial services that compete
with each other, not by a monolithic FAA service. This is a far
better deal than we will ever get from the government, even if
they privatize it (which just creates yet another monopoly).

Scott

Blueskies wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...
:
: "Blueskies" wrote in message
: . net...
:
: So, you are saying let Flight Watch die, which for now is a free service,
: and replace it with a privatized service for a fee. Yes, that is the
: problem...
:
:
: Flight Watch is not a free service, there are no free services. You
: consider Flight Watch to be a "free service" only because you don't pay for
: it directly, it's paid with taxes. I would much rather let Flight Watch die
: and replace it with private sector service providers that charge fees and
: compete for my patronage than pay a direct user fee to the FAA for each use
: of Flight Watch.
:
:

Sure, I should have said govment provided service, rather than 'free', but that is the same as saying that you would
rather only ride on toll roads, rather than the freeways we have today. Some things are best as a govment service
because private providers will only do things that satisfy the profit motive.



And the "profit motive" has given us wx delivered by geosyncronous
satellite, including graphics. The FAA has given us an operator who
reads web pages to you.

The government would have got round to giving you satellite delivered
weather and graphics, certainly by 2040 at the latest.

By the way, all of that graphical weather comes from Nexrad radar, an
expensive and advanced system YOU paid to build. How much progress has
the FAA or NOAA made in getting that information to you in the cockpit?
(without commercial help)

Scott

Judah wrote:
"Chris" wrote in news:535rlaF1qs7rdU1
@mid.individual.net:

Have a look at the future for some of us it is the present.

http://www.eurocontrol.int/crco/publ...ance_tool.html

It looks like aircraft weighing less than 2 tons are exempt. I believe that
would pretty much cover all single engine pistons.

Hopefully that will be the same approach that they come up with here...

2 tons = 4000 pounds. Walk over to all the pilots on your home
field with aircraft in this range, and tell them you have no problem at
all with the government balancing the budget on their backs to save
your own skin. Then tell us who is going to be on YOUR side when they
reduce the weight requirement to 3,000 lbs.

Then 2,000 lbs.

Then 1,000 lbs.

Then pass a bill declaring that private "hobby" aircraft are to be
restricted to unpopulated areas only.

Scott

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...

The EU is not exactly a democratic organisation. Even though it was
originally implemented by democratically elected politicians, the
influx of the voter's opinion on politician's actions is limited in
representative democracies anyway. Once the damage has been done (and
noticed), very little can be done about it.

Privatisation of government tasks is part of neoliberal ideology,

What does the EU see as the proper function of government?

In _classical liberal_ thought, the role of government was police on the
local level, courts of law, and a military.

Recently, Steven P. McNicoll posted:

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
news

The US is a direct democracy?


No, it is a representative democracy, unfortunately.



The US government cannot ignore what the people want?


The US government does so regularly.

Woflgang understands these points. The one to whom the questions are
posed, not surprisingly at all, does not.

Neil

Jose wrote in
t:

Behind that nose is a very large camel.

The nose came in 1919. Head and neck - 1926. Front legs - 1940.

We're getting pretty close to the hind quarter's here, and I think there's
already too much momentum to stop the camel completely.

As a pragmatic, the best that I can hope for is that us little guys can still
afford to fly. Quite frankly, I have less sympathy for corporate Gulfstreams
who use the system more than I do, weigh enough to make a difference on the
runways, and probably are a more legitimate subject of the airline's
complaint.

In general, I don't think it would be a terrible idea to more clearly define
GA as two classes - light single engines / twin aircraft and corporate /
charter Jets.

Most of the complaints of the public and airlines regarding security threats
and tax advantages hold a different set of arguments with respect to the
larger aircraft.

One way to save yourself from the camel is to collect all your crap, move out
and find a new tent before you wake up outside with nothing.