Pros And Cons Of Privatizing The United States

Many people have deep connection with the military, whether they served, or know someone who has served. After the service, veteran’s face a difficult transition back into civilian life, in the form of finding a job, healthcare, and general change in life. The benefits veterans receive before, during and after service is great, the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs or the V.A. for short, offer to be a veteran’s health insurance and healthcare. Of course, with this, there are rules and requirements to receive the V.A. benefits. Although for civilian healthcare, and insurance, there are also rules and requirements. So, the question is, should we privatize the V.A.? Quite a few people argue against it, while others are all for it, when I pro

The publicly funded National Health Service (NHS) is riddled with several challenges of the 21st century such as increasing population, changing health care needs, and financial crisis all of which threaten its sustainability. This raises a debate on whether to privatise the health care system or to find other solutions for mitigating its two leading problems: high debt and high deficit. Despite the claims that privatisation will improve efficiency and cut the cost of expenditure, privatisation may lead to less accountability, a focus on profit, and the erosion of NHS’s core principal of accessible health care. There is evidence that private funding initiative (PFI) of some NHS trusts has led to an increase in debt and not recovery.

The sector employs more than 3 million people. Prior to the 1990’s, the air transport industry in Europe had been traditionally highly regulated and dominated by national carriers and state owned airports. Since then a single market for aviation has been created. The single market has seen the removal of all commercial restrictions for airlines flying within Europe. These include restrictions on routes, number of flights and the setting of prices.

According to Samuel Flam and William Keane authors of Public Schools: Private Enterprise, the definition of privatize is “...the process of turning over to private companies, programs, services and sometimes properties previously operated and/or owned by a government agency” (Flam & Keane, 1997, p.15). Privatizing of a school service is selling a service of the school district to a private company that runs, maintains and keeps up the service. The school district no longer oversees this service and virtually has no control over what they do but outsourcing this service would cut back on the economic spending of the school. A school service is something that students receive that is provided for them in school to enhance their well-being. In the school system, some examples of services that could be outsourced by a private company are school lunches, buses and janitor staff. According to Joe Argon author of Changing of the Guard, “for schools, transportation, food service, HVAC maintenance, computer servicing and printing continue to be the areas privatized most often” (Argon, 1997). The main issue behind this is finding out if privatizing school services does the school district more harm or good and what happens to the services and students after they have been privatized.

This case study will discuss the pros and cons of operating an airport with a government-operated system of security versus returning to a privately owned and operated security organization. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was introduced to the airline industry after the attacks on September 11th, 2001. Complaints of slow wait times during periods of heavy traffic and the ability to manage the labor force have recently sparked an interest of Airports switching their security to a privatized company.

The odds are that at some point in time, most people in America will travel by air. What most of these people do not realize is that a simple flight is in reality a well-oiled, complex machine unlike any other air navigation service provider in the world. After the Wright brothers took their first successful flight, America embraced air travel.  The Federal Aviation Agency (now Administration) officially began operations in May of 1958, and later developed a sophisticated air traffic control system that is responsible for the largest volume of air traffic in the world (“A Brief History of the FAA”). Today, however, many politicians believe that government involvement in air traffic control is inhibiting the overall performance of air traffic control. Several bills have been proposed to Congress since the 1970s in attempt to separate air traffic control (referenced as ATC) from the FAA by privatization, corporatization, or other means (Elias 2). The most recent of these bills has caused serious debate in the aviation world over economic policies, safety regulations, and overall effectiveness of the current ATC system. The Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization Act (21st Century AIRR Act) as proposed by Representative Bill Shuster should not be passed by Congress because it would privatize air traffic control by removing it from the Federal Aviation Administration. This would entail the creation of a board of stakeholders who would have the power to make regulatory

Although there was a deregulation of the airline industry, the one significant component that did not change was the infrastructure of the airline industry. Constrained by the limitations of the airports and the air traffic control system, airlines did not see significant increases in profits despite the large growth and operations. As the airlines increased the number of flights and structure, the air traffic control system did not experience the same increase. Because the ATC system was still controlled and owned by the government, growth was, and continues to be slow.

This paper reviews the tragic mid-air crash of PSA flight 182 and Cessna N7711G a Cessna 172 over San Diego and its resulting FAA rules and regulation changes, and their affect on the U.S. aviation industry. PSA Flight 182’s mid-air resulted in the most sweeping FAA changes to airspace to date. The FAA rules and regulation changes was a success in preventing similar mid-airs of this type.

With the rapid growth of commercial air travel in the 1970s, the FAA recognized that the nation’s airports contributed significantly to the national economy and international commerce, as well as being a critical mode of transport for the public. Airports needed funding to improve safety and maintain airport infrastructure such as runways, taxiways, NAVAIDS, and land acquisition. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) formed the National Airport System Plan (NASP) to ensure these significant airports received Federal grants to make these improvements. The FAA revised the NASP with the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 and called the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) to reflect the further expansion.

At the onset of the airline industry in the United States, major network airlines were the sole providers of air travel. This multifaceted industry was a difficult industry to break into as a consequence of “sophisticated customer segmentation, hub-and spoke models and costly information systems for reservations, fare wars and intense competition” (Thompson 2008). Shrinkage in airline ticket prices augmented the demand for airline travel. Many markets were simply deserted or over-looked by major network airlines; this is a region a fresh “second tier of service providers” could enter into. This endeavor proved to provide a consumer savings of billions per year. Thus in June of 1971, after a tumultuous battle with other Texas-based

Those in the de-regulation camp see an opportunity to expand on the Deregulation Act. When the act was written, the government was taken out of the business of setting fares and routes. But various municipalities still retain ownership over airports. Given the massive improvements

Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Youness Elhamidi, Department of Public Administration, American Public University System, 111 W. Congress Street, Charles Town, WV 25414. E-mail: yelhamidi@apus.edu.

There have been few inventions to change how people live and experience the world considerably as the creation of the airplane. Today, traveling by air has become the norm and it would be difficult to imagine life without it. Air travel has improved the way people are able to conduct business by shortening travel time and changing their thought of distance. The companies within the airline industry exist in a very competitive market. One of those companies, Southwest Airlines, features low-fare, no-frills air service with frequent flights of mostly short routes. Costs are kept down by the exclusive use of Boeing 737 aircraft, which allows for low maintenance costs and quicker turnaround times for flights, and by an emphasis on ticketless travel (Encyclopedia Britannica). This paper will address two segments of the general environment and how they affect Southwest and the airline industry; evaluate how Southwest has addressed two forces of competition; predict what Southwest might do to improve its ability to addresses these forces; assess the external threats affecting Southwest; discuss Southwest’s greatest strengths and most significant weaknesses; determine Southwest’s resources, capabilities, and core competencies; and analyze their value chain.

The privatization and fragmentation of space in post-industrial urban America is a widespread social problem. As society becomes even more globalized as a result of technological advances, the rampant spread of a privatized public realm is ever-increasing. Public space is needed as a center in which to bring people together to share a common place. It is within public spaces that public life unfolds and without public spaces such as parks, streets, and buildings, the mixing of classes will become increasingly uncommon. Society is made up of two sectors: the private and public, and it is essential that both remain separate entities. However, through the use of fear tactics especially the threat of

More acute compared to the agricultural and rural sectors, is the commercial interest of drones through manufacturers and retailers like Amazon. These have come in headlines labeled as an innovation and as an intrusion, bringing more opposition than other areas of use. In an article by Trevir Nath, “it is estimated that every year integration is delayed; the US loses $10 billion in financial growth” (Nath 2). This is undermined by the citizens of Syracuse who believe that “as the nation becomes more accustomed to drones...fewer people will oppose their use in war and in commercial application that intrude upon American's privacy” (Semuels 2). Such strong arguments have came to light because of the growing drone hub in their area. They worry about the local economy as well, and more importantly— jobs. Dave Kashmer, a protestor, falls under the opposition, and stated “It’s not going to produce jobs for a Syracusan…” These arguments lend to a primary consequence of a shift to drone technology— a job market shift. Syracusans