| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> 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.
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
>
> 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 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The big lie
|
| (...) Why the smiley? It's certainly good enough for me! What better to avoid such disasters than the certainty that rapid and humongous suits would follow? Chris (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The big lie
|
| Larry, This is all fine and good, but IF they were to fully privatize airlines/airports/ma...nance/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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
