Umm...better re-read that again..

Highways, its your money fixing those too.

Yeppers, and it's my money for the FAA and the Airport Authority, etc, etc, etc. Apples and Oranges. I did not raise an issue on funds been spent for the FAA, NTSB, or other governmental agencies. I do have a problem with a buyout of a privately-held corporation (or series of corportations).

>You< forcibly took 5 days of revenue from the airlines. now you want to refuse them when they ask to be compensated.

Ahem, the government FORCIBLY took revenue from the airlines? Terrorists weren't involved? Intriguing thought. This implies that the airlines had the right to fly immediately after the attack and place the public in danger. Sorry, not buying it. No airline has the right to place the public in danger, period.

Furthermore, the government, not only has the right but the responsibility to 'ensure the general welfare' and keep the public safe. And I still haven't seen anything that says that the government must compensate businesses that attempt to endanger the public.

The scary thing is the precident this establishes. Say the Boeing 777 has a fatal flaw that shows up in 5 years or so. Suddenly Boeing 777 start crashing. The NTSB grounds all Boeing 777 while they investigate.

Should the airlines should be compensated for this by the government?

Next thing you know, Firestone makes truck tires that are faulty, resulting in crashes. Firestone tires (perhaps) are used by 90% of the Trucks on the US roads. The NTSB demands a recall of these faulty tires and refuses to allow the trucks on the road with these faulty tires.

Should the truck company should be compensated for this by the government?

Next it's passenger cars, with families dying. Are they compensated for this by the government?

S'ok I guess...but it sure will take a long time for me to get to California driving.

I have a coworker who had to drive from Memphis down to Orlando immediately after 11th.

Isn't this your argument regarding the Green Party lady? That travel wasn't being restricted, merely the means. After all, as you pointed out, she could drive. She doesn't have the right to fly.

Post #16,720 by Simon_Jester 11/5/01 5:57:24 PM Reply	Umm...better re-read that again.. Highways, its your money fixing those too. Yeppers, and it's my money for the FAA and the Airport Authority, etc, etc, etc. Apples and Oranges. I did not raise an issue on funds been spent for the FAA, NTSB, or other governmental agencies. I do have a problem with a buyout of a privately-held corporation (or series of corportations). >You< forcibly took 5 days of revenue from the airlines. now you want to refuse them when they ask to be compensated. Ahem, the government FORCIBLY took revenue from the airlines? Terrorists weren't involved? Intriguing thought. This implies that the airlines had the right to fly immediately after the attack and place the public in danger. Sorry, not buying it. No airline has the right to place the public in danger, period. Furthermore, the government, not only has the right but the responsibility to 'ensure the general welfare' and keep the public safe. And I still haven't seen anything that says that the government must compensate businesses that attempt to endanger the public. The scary thing is the precident this establishes. Say the Boeing 777 has a fatal flaw that shows up in 5 years or so. Suddenly Boeing 777 start crashing. The NTSB grounds all Boeing 777 while they investigate. Should the airlines should be compensated for this by the government? Next thing you know, Firestone makes truck tires that are faulty, resulting in crashes. Firestone tires (perhaps) are used by 90% of the Trucks on the US roads. The NTSB demands a recall of these faulty tires and refuses to allow the trucks on the road with these faulty tires. Should the truck company should be compensated for this by the government? Next it's passenger cars, with families dying. Are they compensated for this by the government? S'ok I guess...but it sure will take a long time for me to get to California driving. I have a coworker who had to drive from Memphis down to Orlando immediately after 11th. Isn't this your argument regarding the Green Party lady? That travel wasn't being restricted, merely the means. After all, as you pointed out, she could drive. She doesn't have the right to fly.
Post #16,761 by bepatient 11/5/01 9:36:21 PM Reply	We'll just have to disagree here... The amount given to aid the airlines is minor compared to what wholesale failure of the system would cost. Granted the airlines were not the best managed gang...but costing them a billion in short term cash flow and telling them "deal with it" is just a tad drastic. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,776 by Simon_Jester 11/5/01 10:30:21 PM Reply	Perhaps so... Granted the airlines were not the best managed gang...but costing them a billion in short term cash flow and telling them "deal with it" is just a tad drastic. Perhaps...with one difference: I believe the terrorists cost them a billion or so in short term cash flow, not the government. In the end, it doesn't matter. The airlines have the cash.
Post #16,779 by bepatient 11/5/01 11:05:37 PM Reply	Re: Perhaps so... Sure. Either way...we really can't afford for them to fail. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!