Not all scientists agree that climate change is caused by man. Many don't.

Generally true, but for some critical functions in society it's better to give up some competitive efficiency in favor of regulated stability/reliability. Law enforcement and defense are prime examples of things you REALLY don't want privatized. Also the NRC and FAA.

You can (and should) have a hybrid system wherever possible. In the case of the power grid management and oversight by the government, with commercial contracts for new equipment, MX, and operation of most equipment. You don't need a vast bloated government bureaucracy for ever aspect of that.

only way that works is if you assume 1 person per car but every seat on an airliner is full. airliners getting 80 MPG per seat sounds great compared to a 28 MPG SUV but the SUV has 5 seats giving it a 140MPG/seat full or 112MPG for a family of 4

Even if full (they're often not), that SUV isn't carrying any useful payload other than its occupants so MPG is only part of the equation in that scenario. Apples to oranges comparison. Fuel consumption per pound of payload carried would be a much more useful metric IMO in terms of utility. Of course rail dominates here, but only for things that can wait a while.

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

This is a correct rough approximation.

It does not however account for cargo carriage, which is significant on larger jets (non-RJs).

It also does not account for indirect environmental and societal costs of driving for days on longer trips. Also does not account for the difficulty involved in driving across oceans, or desolate wastelands.

no doubt there are many other factors and overall air travel generates many efficiencies lost on surface transportation. but just a blanket ststment saying planes have better MPG than cars by using per seat on a plane vs per vehicle on a car can be a flawed logic; assuming you are traveling with your family and not alone

I agree with law enforcement and defense but the FAA should be privatized, it isn't even Constitutional. Canada has a private ATC system and it seems to be working well for them.


No, that's the worst case scenario because you then have mass corruption / corporatism also known as crony capitalism.

ATC, sure. It's a commodity, easy to define requirements and performance metrics, and supervise compliance of the service provider.

FAA, no. They are a regulator, not a service provider. Look at what happened with the Max when they "outsourced" some regulatory authority...


The constitution says government must do some things, and it says it must not do certain other things. Anything not specifically called out is fair game either way.

The constitution does NOT prescribe how the government runs, it just sets some boundaries. I'm not a softy on the constitution by any means, I actually took an oath on that. But it has to be taken fairly literally, otherwise anyone can rationalize anything and then you have to take up arms to settle the issue.

As opposed to corporations with no oversight?

Obviously elected officials have to watch the the overseers, and the voters have to watch the elected officials. If not, then your crooked types will naturally gravitate to unsupervised public money.

Yes, I agree. But it's close enough to a wash, since most planes carry cargo, and most drivers don't take a family of five.

I think on average driving is probably a little more efficient but not by a large margin. Not enough to justify a three-day road trip over a three hour flight (unless you're on vacation and want to see the scenery).

Have you ever read the 9th and 10th Amendments? :confused: :rolleyes: