If user fees go into effect I'm done

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

About the only function of FSS that I use on a regular basis is flight
watch. I don't see any way to automate that. But, it certainly could be
centralized. I'm already talking to a person 100s of miles away; what
difference does it make where he's sitting? And what difference does it
make if he's sitting at a radio console in a building that says "FSS" on
the door or one that says "ATC" on the door?


Even in-flight weather is now available from sources other than FSS.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
hlink.net...
:
: "Roy Smith" wrote in message
: ...
:
: About the only function of FSS that I use on a regular basis is flight
: watch. I don't see any way to automate that. But, it certainly could be
: centralized. I'm already talking to a person 100s of miles away; what
: difference does it make where he's sitting? And what difference does it
: make if he's sitting at a radio console in a building that says "FSS" on
: the door or one that says "ATC" on the door?
:
:
: Even in-flight weather is now available from sources other than FSS.
:
:

Yea, sure, for a FEE!

"Blueskies" wrote in message
. net...

Yea, sure, for a FEE!


Yes. Is that a problem?

"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...

"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.

"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.

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

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"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.

Personally, I'd give up all government services if they would completely
stop taxing me.


Matt

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:
"Blueskies" wrote

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.

Just how much competition do you expect there would be to
provide Flight Watch service? Would there be even be one
company willing to provide it?

The incremental cost to the government to provide Flight
Watch is minimal -- the facilities and personnel are
already in place. The cost to replicate the facilities
and staff the operation for a private company would be
quite high as would be the fees necessary for the provider
to make a profit.

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