Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Australia, New Zealand, among others, have managed it. Mind you as we're discussing the US I guess we do have to take into consideration that wonderful American combination of ineptitude & greed that seems to come into play so often.
Control of US airspace is the domain of the Air Force is it not?
This all came up in the United States in 2005, and was shot down (no pun intended).
By definition, it is difficult to compare countries that use the American military / nuclear umbrella for protection as a point of comparison. Simply put, it is a different situation that has nothing to do with running a bureaucracy efficiently.
The biggest, toughest, richest guy on the block will always get the greatest target painted on his back.. so watch your back.
Ok, ok, ok, apparently you believe that America is incapable of figuring out how to adapt to the modern world. <shrug>
I'm sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever.
I was very clear: you are discussing secondary, smaller, less powerful nations that are under the protection of larger, more powerful nations as examples.
Regardless of how they run their systems, the United States, China, and Russia have different responsibilities and priorities than say, New Zealand or Britain.
I'm sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever.
I was very clear: you are discussing secondary, smaller, less powerful nations that are under the protection of larger, more powerful nations as examples.
Regardless of how they run their systems, the United States, China, and Russia have different responsibilities and priorities than say, New Zealand or Britain.
Same arguement people are making for healthcare, single payer works in smaller places but the us is just too big. If those countries can figure it out, so can we.
I see where you are coming from, but that is not the comparison I was trying to make.
It is more a military and shared alliance issue. For example, before the Ogdensburg Agreement, Canada relied on Great Britain for defense. Now, Canada relies on the USA.
On paper, it is a joint military defense body. The reality, of course, is much different. Canada is far to weak and sparsely populated while adhering to immense territorial claims. Simply put, like the other countries on the list, they cannot defend themselves against the larger powers.
They realize they require protection but cannot physically produce and/or afford the military necessary. The United States "should" realize that their responsibility to a current treaty should be upheld. Keeping airspace under complete federal control is part of this responsibility.
Frankly, weaker and smaller powers have fewer responsibilities than larger powers.
This also is my criticism of President Trump regarding NATO. Just because the other guy is not hold up to his end of the bargain doesn't automatically mean you don't hold up yours.
Privitized means for profit, everytime.
Privitized means for profit, everytime.
I'll believe it when I see it. I'm very skeptical of this new administration.If they follow the Canadian example, which seems to be what they want to do, the spin off would be a non-profit organization.
Yes. Do you think corporate America is doing right by the average citizen?If so is that a bad thing?
I'll believe it when I see it. I'm very skeptical of this new administration.
Yes. Do you think corporate America is doing right by the average citizen?
Like this one?If they follow the Canadian example, which seems to be what they want to do, the spin off would be a non-profit organization.
Yea, but it tastes weird.They are! Don't you feel it trickling down?
Yes. Do you think corporate America is doing right by the average citizen?
Explain to me how capitalism will save the FAA, and why it needs to be saved.So capitalism is bad right?
Explain to me how capitalism will save the FAA, and why it needs to be saved.