"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...


Also, so long as ATC is a 100% government entity, it is easier to
pressure
it to make decisions politically, which is to say un-economically.

It's easier to pressure then to behave in the default fashion? Wowza!!!

Personally I think this works out in our favor more often than not.

Except when we expect them to adapt or change...oh, every 20 or 30 years.

What specific types of change are we talking about here? OK, I think it's a
little nutty that getting a GPS certified for IFR use costs as much as it
does, when one can slap an ADF in that does hardly more than give you the
baseball scores and have it be approach legal. But in the grand scheme of
things this is small beer.


I don't doubt that privatized ATC could in time become more economically
efficient, though the benefits are probably overstated by many. But I do
wonder whether the airspace that results from this would be more or less
accessible to us.

Think how well Wal-Mart is doing compared to someone like Macy's. Or how
well the early Ford company did compared to all their competitors.

Those are red herrings- mass market retail is quite a different market.

Here's a more intereting example: Perhaps you've heard of the "fire your
worst customers" trend (if not just google it for background) The basic idea
is, that in many cases 20% of your customers account for 80% of your cost of
service but only 10-20% of your revenue. A number of large retail stores
have started implementing policies designed to reduce their appeal to these
customers.

Personally, I think there's good reason to believe that as far as ATC is
concerned, piston GA is its "worst customer." Like I said, it costs roughly
as much to push a 172 through the system as it does a Gulfstream, but the
Gulfstream sure buys a lot more fuel (and thus contributes more tax).
Perhaps the 172 does ultimately pay its share, but it's sure a lot lower
margin.

I think all of us can agree that the skies belong to all
of us and should be kept as open as possible. Most of the time, freedom
and
economic efficiency overlap. But when they don't, I will favor freedom.

They always do. Even when it doesn't there's a big contextual gap (WW2).

Perhaps you'd care to give a little more detail? "More economically
efficient" encompasses the whole market, in other words, better ATC services
could simply make things more efficient for the airlines. Better routing,
fewer delays, less fuel burned, lower ticket prices, more people getting on
737s to visit grandma. There's a lot of potential economic benefit in there.
None of it has anything to do with *our* freedom of access. If push comes to
shove, they will win.

-cwk.