| |
Larry,
This is all fine and good, but IF they were to fully privatize
airlines/airports/maintenance/etc, and remove the liability shields........
how long would YOU wait before flying again?
I sure as hell wouldn't fly for many years. I wouldn't want to be a guinea pig in
the private airlines experiments as to how close they could cut the line between
losses that are bad PR and losses that put them out of business.
Maybe YOU are willing to take that chance. I am NOT.
I also don't think the airlines should enjoy any liability shields at all, even
under the current regulatory system.
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> > Christopher Weeks wrote:
> >
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > >
> > > > I was talking more about how the air industry has weakened security
> > > > proposals in the past - not their failure to implement existing
> > > > regulations.
> > >
> > > Because it was expensive. Everything has a price and sometimes we're not
> > > willing to pay it.
> > >
> > > > My worry is that if the market is allowed to dictate airline safety then the
> > > > safety may become heavy with superficial safety issues and the ones the
> > > > public does not understand fully (say widget maintenance) slip. Safety
> > > > should be based on risk assessment not focus groups or public hysteria .
> > >
> > > I agree with the final comment. Why would a government agency provide more
> > > sure widget maintenance than would a private corporation.
> >
> > ???
>
> I have made some changes and insertions so that the resulting statement is
> one that I agree with.
>
> > The FAA has fined airlines many times for rebadging used parts (or
> > dangerous/damaged parts) as certified for re-use. Seems damned
> > obvious to me that the private
>
> c/private/mixed/
>
> (Mixed economy corps, not private. If they take bailouts, invoke liability
> shields, and use subsidised facilities, they aren't *quite* private... Not
> hardly)
>
> > corps are trying to cut widget maintenance costs IN SPITE OF government
> > agency rules/regs. Remove those regs,
>
> add:
> without removing the liability shield
>
> > and planes will be dropping from the skies
> > left and right without any "help" from terrorists.
>
> This is standard economic analysis, if you set things up so the market can't
> operate, you don't get optimal results. Work through the analysis with
> unlimited liability for negligence and see if you get the same result.
>
> Friedman didn't.
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The big lie
|
| (...) I'd be in the air that very day. :-) (...) That would be a great place to start... we should be pushing for it. I wrote my rep and my senators about it already, although now that the bailout passed, getting it undone isn't likely. (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The big lie
|
| (...) But Tom... Under the system proposed by Larry, if your plane were to fall from the skies your loved ones would be able to tale the airlines to the cleaners. Is that not good enough for you? :) Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The big lie
|
| (...) I have made some changes and insertions so that the resulting statement is one that I agree with. (...) c/private/mixed/ (Mixed economy corps, not private. If they take bailouts, invoke liability shields, and use subsidised facilities, they (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
74 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
