Proposal to Remove ATC Function from FAA
12-15-2024 | 07:40 AM
#42
Banned
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 8,831
Likes: 499
This is 100% not correct. The military does this all the time. Soemtimes the incumbent *assumes* they will be a shoe-in, but sometimes they get an ugly suprise.
The way the mil (and presumably other agencies) arrange such things is by structuring the contracts such that it *can* be awarded to a competitor in the future, to avoid the effective monopoly you suggested. .Gov may be dumb, but they're not *that* dumb.
For example, the initial award might be for facilities, hardware, software, and operations. Ops being the staff. But the facilities and hardware might be a purchase (or long-term lease), software indefinite lease with maintenance, and operations fixed term. You can swap out the ops and software independently of each other as needed.
Of interest, it's common for many of the employees to stay across contracts, by simply switching to the new company. I've also seen them not stay, because the new employer didn't want to pay enough... that could be a good thing or a bad thing short term but tends to even out in the long run.
As I've said a couple times already, it has to be structured properly, and it's still going to be as effecient pure private-sector business. But done properly, it's more efficient than .gov doing it with civil servants.
The way the mil (and presumably other agencies) arrange such things is by structuring the contracts such that it *can* be awarded to a competitor in the future, to avoid the effective monopoly you suggested. .Gov may be dumb, but they're not *that* dumb.
For example, the initial award might be for facilities, hardware, software, and operations. Ops being the staff. But the facilities and hardware might be a purchase (or long-term lease), software indefinite lease with maintenance, and operations fixed term. You can swap out the ops and software independently of each other as needed.
Of interest, it's common for many of the employees to stay across contracts, by simply switching to the new company. I've also seen them not stay, because the new employer didn't want to pay enough... that could be a good thing or a bad thing short term but tends to even out in the long run.
As I've said a couple times already, it has to be structured properly, and it's still going to be as effecient pure private-sector business. But done properly, it's more efficient than .gov doing it with civil servants.
definitely the model of the free market cutting costs, that dod.
12-15-2024 | 07:51 AM
#43
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,625
Likes: 0
12-15-2024 | 08:00 AM
#44
Can’t find crew pickup
Joined: Jun 2021
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 168
12-15-2024 | 08:01 AM
#45
Can’t find crew pickup
Joined: Jun 2021
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 168
military contracts are known for their efficiency and not for being concentrated in the hands of a handful of politically-connected mega-contractors. also known for high product quality and never any service failures.
definitely the model of the free market cutting costs, that dod.
definitely the model of the free market cutting costs, that dod.
12-15-2024 | 08:03 AM
#46
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
but since when do our decision makers (or voters, for that matter) care about data?
this fight - if it's not already over due to DOGE - will be decided by slogans and emotion
say I'm wrong but watch and see...
12-15-2024 | 08:41 AM
#48
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 600
Likes: 0
And the employees starting out at year one for vacation accrual!!
12-15-2024 | 08:55 AM
#49
Banned
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 8,831
Likes: 499
the idea that the usps should both perform its service to every address in america and also make a profit seems silly.
so which rural people are you abandoning with this new privatized service? not everything that makes a society function needs to creat shareholder value. some good things simply cost us, as a collective, to provide.
edit: I’ll save you the keystrokes of arguing “but ups and fedex serve rural areas!” they do, but not all, and go ahead and price match the cost of a letter. they also provide a service to many addresses by contracting with the usps for last-mile delivery (last-mile is a colloquial term, not literally describing the distance)
so which rural people are you abandoning with this new privatized service? not everything that makes a society function needs to creat shareholder value. some good things simply cost us, as a collective, to provide.
edit: I’ll save you the keystrokes of arguing “but ups and fedex serve rural areas!” they do, but not all, and go ahead and price match the cost of a letter. they also provide a service to many addresses by contracting with the usps for last-mile delivery (last-mile is a colloquial term, not literally describing the distance)
12-15-2024 | 10:09 AM
#50
Thread Starter
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,618
Likes: 557
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
the idea that the usps should both perform its service to every address in america and also make a profit seems silly.
so which rural people are you abandoning with this new privatized service? not everything that makes a society function needs to creat shareholder value. some good things simply cost us, as a collective, to provide.
edit: I’ll save you the keystrokes of arguing “but ups and fedex serve rural areas!” they do, but not all, and go ahead and price match the cost of a letter. they also provide a service to many addresses by contracting with the usps for last-mile delivery (last-mile is a colloquial term, not literally describing the distance)
so which rural people are you abandoning with this new privatized service? not everything that makes a society function needs to creat shareholder value. some good things simply cost us, as a collective, to provide.
edit: I’ll save you the keystrokes of arguing “but ups and fedex serve rural areas!” they do, but not all, and go ahead and price match the cost of a letter. they also provide a service to many addresses by contracting with the usps for last-mile delivery (last-mile is a colloquial term, not literally describing the distance)
Private carriers would have to meet certain standards, ex. no felons handling the official mail chain of custody.
USPS could even be retained and subsidized for areas which are problematic for commercial service, as you say it's beneficial to have it available to all.
But USPS as a stand-alone government monopoly doesn't make sense now that most important communications are digital. Starting to look like AMTRACK... an important service for people who are afraid to fly, but have too many DUI's to rent a car.
My best friend drives for UPS, his big sister (damn was she hot back in the day) is a USPS DC bureaucrat... I've heard all the arguments for both sides over holiday dinners, and it's been pretty heated a couple times.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
