If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message ... Sure you can. Not the head-to-head competition that exists in consumer goods markets, but certainly competition akin to what exists in the telecom market and other such markets. Also, the gummint could retain ownership of ATC, but hold a competition every 4-5 years for who gets to operate ATC for the next 4-5 years. Not real privatization, but a hybrid that gets closer. It's the head-to-head competition that makes private firms more efficient. And the profit motive. The latter can exist without competition. The edge is certainly much sharper with competition as now it is that much harder to make a profit, but making an even larger profit is still pretty strong motivation. Matt |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Tarver Engineering wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message ... Tarver Engineering wrote: "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message ... Tom S. wrote: "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message ... Commercial aviation has far more money to spend than any GA operation short of the Fortune 500 corporations. I agree that those with the dough will get the service, but it won't be us who fly anything less than 12,500 lbs. Why should it be any other way? "Those who bears the costs, gets the goods". That isn't true in vast sectors of the American economy. You don't even begin to pay for what you use in cost of roads, etc., and people who live in the city don't pay for the real cost of public transportation. These are subsidized by general tax revenue just as general aviation is. I don't you'd really want to pay via user fees for every service you use, unless you live in a shack in Wyoming. In that case, you should get behind privatization. Admitting that he's fresh out of logical arguments for his position, Tarver tries a lame insult. Asking you to join me and AOPA in advocating privatization is not intended to be an insult. Since when is AOPA advocating privatization? This is news to me. They've lobbied heavily against that in the past. Matt |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
John R. Copeland wrote:
My experience is that few of the private controllers attain even the average level of ability and courtesy I've learned to expect at FAA towers. That's been my experience, too. Dave Remove SHIRT to reply directly. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Matthew S. Whiting wrote: Because most private companies that perform functions similar to governmental agencies are more efficient. I think new technology would be adopted faster and with less bureaucracy. I think controller performance would be rewarded more effectively. Last I knew, most civil service jobs still had a lot of focus on seniority, more like a union workforce in the private sector than a professional workforce in the private sector. Seniority is a nonfactor at the FAA. We only use it to bid our days off twice a year. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "G.R. Patterson III"
writes: The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a gay bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves, and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriages. Geo, This made my day. Sent a copy to several friends. Chuck |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Newps wrote:
Matthew S. Whiting wrote: Because most private companies that perform functions similar to governmental agencies are more efficient. I think new technology would be adopted faster and with less bureaucracy. I think controller performance would be rewarded more effectively. Last I knew, most civil service jobs still had a lot of focus on seniority, more like a union workforce in the private sector than a professional workforce in the private sector. Seniority is a nonfactor at the FAA. We only use it to bid our days off twice a year. That is truly good to know. Are annual increases merit based or COLA? What are the promotion criteria? Matt |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message ... That isn't true in vast sectors of the American economy. You don't even begin to pay for what you use in cost of roads, etc., and people who live in the city don't pay for the real cost of public transportation. These are subsidized by general tax revenue just as general aviation is. I don't you'd really want to pay via user fees for every service you use, unless you live in a shack in Wyoming. In that case, you should get behind privatization. Admitting that he's fresh out of logical arguments for his position, Tarver tries a lame insult. Asking you to join me and AOPA in advocating privatization is not intended to be an insult. Nor could it be construed as an insult. Quite the contrary, the "being out logical arguments" falls on Whiting, not Tarver. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ... Cub Driver wrote: Let's put it this way. If you had a very valuable package that just had to get there, would you take it to the post office or to Fed Ex? USPS. It's a mile away. Sure, I have to pay for express mail and insure the package, but that's still cheaper than driving 25 miles to the nearest FedEx office and paying *their* prices. Hmmm.... FedEx picks up at MY house. Maybe you should cut your grass so they can find yours, George. :~) BTW, my last two "Priority Mail" packages from the USPS never arrived (One in September, one this past couple weeks). I've had that happen with UPS just once in seven years, and never with FedEx. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ink.net... "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message ... Because most private companies that perform functions similar to governmental agencies are more efficient. Sure, susccessful private companies are forced by competition to be more efficient or fail. But you can't have competition in ATC. That's what the Bell System thought on Long Distance calling back in the 70's and 80's regarding their industry. Automation is the natural competitor of civil service. And if they fail to deliver the goods, someone else gets the deal (unless ATC is privatized the way Qwest, the Postal DisService, and most utilities are chartered. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
"Newps" wrote in message news:aIrub.236709$Tr4.696802@attbi_s03... Matthew S. Whiting wrote: Because most private companies that perform functions similar to governmental agencies are more efficient. I think new technology would be adopted faster and with less bureaucracy. I think controller performance would be rewarded more effectively. Last I knew, most civil service jobs still had a lot of focus on seniority, more like a union workforce in the private sector than a professional workforce in the private sector. Seniority is a nonfactor at the FAA. We only use it to bid our days off twice a year. Bull!! Seniority is a major (the major?) key in any bureaucracy or Union. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|