> Maureen wrote: > > True, but there are lots of safety features that have not been > implemented, and lots of problems that have not been fixed because of > cost. > planes safer but the money guys at the airlines said no. He was a > very vigilant man, and Southwest had no fatal crashes on his watch, so > I assume he knew his stuff. >
Well NWA has never lost one ( ::knock, knock::) and has a world class maintenance program in my opinion. I've worked closely with Southwest too and they're damn good, but then they only fly one a/c: 737s and they don't fly international. But this argument is very similar to health insurance in that the problem is a failed market. This is where republicans get it wrong: stop complaining about government vs. private and start worrying about integrity of the market. If you, the consumer, has no confidence that the products you'll buy at market will be safe to use, then you won't buy them. That's what market regulation is all about: ensuring that consumers feel confident to buy. Where this goes awry is when the consequences take a long time or seem distant (externalities). In other words you buy a product but don't pay the cost (negative consequences) until a long time later. Take cars. Popular argument now goes, consumers only want gas guzzlers. Yeah, but that's because the cost of those guzzlers doesn't reflect their externalities (smog, terrorism, etc) Take health care. People eat like shit and don't exercise. Then they get diseases that are treated by drugs prescribed after a series of doctor visits, specialists, and lab tests. But insurance companies get blamed because they're trying to limit their exposure to this moving target of costs which they don't control. The market has failed. Take the airlines. Consumers feel confident that they won't die when they fly so they don't think twice about doing it. In other words the government has regulated the market to allow free enterprise while at the same time guaranteeing security. So did your uncle probably have lots of great ideas? Sure. But the government's role is to regulate the market by ensuring that ANY airline is relatively safe to fly. And it is. So what's left is up to the consumer: would you want to pay for an airline that, say, exceeds the FAA maint program by 20%? 50%? The answer is no. Nobody on this list would $1000 to fly to San Francisco if they could get a regular ticket for $40 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:297903 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
