No SID in clearance, fly it anyway?

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
k.net...

Or "VHF" towers, or "VHS" towers...all of which came up in aviation
media
reports about the hearings and debates.

Or the slightly less popular beta towers.


LOL. If only that damn union would get out of the way, we could outsource
for some 8-track capability.

I favor privatization for just that reason, but these "experts" didn't even
bother to develop a model of the system they want to modify immediately.
Boeing spent a fortune developing a model to implement DCAC and take
advantage of manufacturing automation, but there was still a nose wheel
collapse on the the first DCAC 747-4xx.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

[snipped]

LOL. If only that damn union would get out of the way, we could
outsource
for some 8-track capability.

I favor privatization for just that reason, but these "experts" didn't
even
bother to develop a model of the system they want to modify immediately.

You favor privatization of the public National Airspace System simply so
that you can bust up a tiny labor union? You must be a Republican. That's
the best reason they could come up with to justify ATC privatization too,
since the facts don't lend themselves to any higher motive.

Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American government
works best when we run it like a business, just like Enron, MCI, or any
major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc). Thanks to the political
lobbying efforts of persons such as the Federal Aviation Administrator
herself, we have defeated the evil force of collective bargaining for
employees. Now we can rest assured that any Republican-owned private
business monopoly winning the low bid on American ATC can turn a profit, and
profit is what business is all about.

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote:
Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American government
works best when we run it like a business, just like Enron, MCI, or any
major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc).

And management better watch out if the stockholders get too ****ed off.
The last time the stockholders got really ****ed, King George got a
black eye. Might happen again some day :-)

"Chip Jones" wrote:
Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American government
works best when we run it like a business,

Sounds nice, but it's a myth. One can't run a government like a business
because the rules are the inverse of one another (bureaucracy vs.
flexibility of decision making).

just like Enron, MCI, or any
major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc).

And those companies tired to run the business like a government.

"Tom S." wrote in message
...
"Chip Jones" wrote:
Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American government
works best when we run it like a business,

Sounds nice, but it's a myth. One can't run a government like a business
because the rules are the inverse of one another (bureaucracy vs.
flexibility of decision making).

just like Enron, MCI, or any
major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc).

And those companies tired to run the business like a government.


Now that's an interesting point, Tom. :-) Well taken.

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
link.net...

"Tom S." wrote in message
...
"Chip Jones" wrote:
Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American
government
works best when we run it like a business,

Sounds nice, but it's a myth. One can't run a government like a business
because the rules are the inverse of one another (bureaucracy vs.
flexibility of decision making).

just like Enron, MCI, or any
major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc).

And those companies tired to run the business like a government.


Now that's an interesting point, Tom. :-) Well taken.

Who destroyed those companies? The management? To a great extend, they did;
they tried to run like a bureaucracy. But what really did them in? The
(relatively) free market; they could bribe (see: PAC and campaign
contributions) a few legislators, but they can't fool millions of consumers.

A government can't run like a business (not a limited government), nor can a
business hope to endure when run as a bureaucracy (i.e., a government).

The next time your say government is a hopeless bureaucracy, but glad it is,
because tight rules and restrictions are what a limited government are all
about (not to be confused with Third World governments in which bureaucracy
exists for graft and corruption).

Tom S. wrote:
"Chip Jones" wrote:

Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American government
works best when we run it like a business,


Sounds nice, but it's a myth. One can't run a government like a business
because the rules are the inverse of one another (bureaucracy vs.
flexibility of decision making).


just like Enron, MCI, or any
major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc).


And those companies tired to run the business like a government.



Not nearly. There is quite a difference between inefficiency and
outright deception and fraud.

Failure to deliver by public agencies is often as much the fault of the
shareholders' (taxpayers) lack of investment as it is the fault of
management's incompetence. Government agencies can be as flexible as
large private companies, if they have some assurance of continuity of
budget and programs. But if all the management hours have to be spent
figuring out how to cut as opposed to what and how to deliver, then what
do you expect?


The bottom line is that you have little way of knowing if the company
you choose to run your ATC will operate like a "good" company or a bad
one... so would you rather have a Government agency screw it up, which
is at least somewhat under the scrutiny of press and public, or a
private company screw it up, which can hide its shady dealings until
it's too late.

It is easy to continue cutting an agency's budget, because we all "don't
want to pay taxes" and then complain that it is not producing. Then we
invested our "savings" in ENRON. Good deal. It would be an interesting
excercise to see how good an ATC system we might have now if all the
outright stock market fraud losses of the last 10 years had been
re-directed to government agencies instead of invested in the "private
sector".

If the general culture is that people are good, then a government agency
can produce good results just as well as a private one, given the
resources, especially in a monopoly industry such as ATC. If the
general culture is that people are bad, then I would rather have the
accountable, scrutinized agency doing the work, as opposed to a
self-serving, private one.

People are people whether in "private industry" or "government service"
and I can't quite see this idea that the people of one are somehow
"different" or "worse" than the other.

"Icebound" wrote in message
able.rogers.com...
Tom S. wrote:
"Chip Jones" wrote:

Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American government
works best when we run it like a business,


Sounds nice, but it's a myth. One can't run a government like a business
because the rules are the inverse of one another (bureaucracy vs.
flexibility of decision making).


just like Enron, MCI, or any
major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc).


And those companies tired to run the business like a government.



Not nearly. There is quite a difference between inefficiency and
outright deception and fraud.

In that case, it's EXACTLY like government.


Failure to deliver by public agencies is often as much the fault of the
shareholders' (taxpayers) lack of investment as it is the fault of
management's incompetence. Government agencies can be as flexible as
large private companies, if they have some assurance of continuity of
budget and programs. But if all the management hours have to be spent
figuring out how to cut as opposed to what and how to deliver, then what
do you expect?

See my post about LIMITED government. There is no way they can be "flexible"
and legitimate.

"Icebound" wrote in message
able.rogers.com...
The bottom line is that you have little way of knowing if the company
you choose to run your ATC will operate like a "good" company or a bad
one... so would you rather have a Government agency screw it up, which
is at least somewhat under the scrutiny of press and public, or a
private company screw it up, which can hide its shady dealings until
it's too late.

Looks like that scrutiny has been such an advantage til now.

One group that WILL NOT stand ofr incompetence is the consumers in a market.
Guess who beat the media and the government to to the punch on Enron, MCI,
etc.


[rest of naiveté snipped]

Tom S. wrote:

...

One group that WILL NOT stand ofr incompetence is the consumers in a market.
...



Consumers do not make wise choices. They do not care a damn about
competance at all... They care about the lowest short-term cost. Hence
they opt for the 2-dollar-per-day offshore wages and no pollution
controls. I am not sure whether that qualifies as competence/efficiency.

I am not sure that consumers have that much power. They are forced to
operate in an existing infrastructure... infrastructure that is largely
the long-term result of corporate and government policy. There is no
easy way of knowing if it is the most efficient infrastructure or not.