[Bruff]

Originally Posted by Willy702

He's probably figured out they would raise rates on the airlines so maybe 10-20% of the air traffic would be wiped out. Or maybe he wishes they would somehow go out of business so Las Vegas can become a great community of Luddites. Who knows...

Willy. The idea behind privatization is making money, so why would a private outfit do anything that would "wipe out 10-20% of its business"?
I say that the first thing they would do what Las Vegas does best: reinvent itself. Repurpose the present site into parks, homes and resorts and take advantage of the incredible opportunity a mere 20 miles to the southwest.
As for your Luddite-comment, you need to get out your dictionary: it's the Luddites that want to keep things the way they are. Redeveloping a loser is the exact opposite.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by Bruff

Easier to ask "What problem wouldn't be solved by privatizing it?".
Name one thing that giverment does better than the private sector.
(With most of you, I have to keep reminding myself that we're not in China).

Run Airports.

[Bruff]

Originally Posted by Hockeygirl063

yea sounds rather paranoid if you are so afraid then maybe move some place else that does not have an airport at all

HockeyGirl.
If you took two minutes of your valuable time and looked at it objectively (pollution, noise, Big Bang, economic opportunity, for starters) you might change your mind. Too many on this site abide by "Don't confuse me with facts: my mind is made up".

[Bruff]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

Run Airports.

Mensch. How would you (we) know when they're all being run by giverment?

[BBMW]

There are a lot of smaller, specialized airports that are privately owned and run, but none of the major commercial passenger airports. If they were profitable to be built and run by private companies, you would think some would have happened that way.

Originally Posted by Bruff

Mensch. How would you (we) know when they're all being run by giverment?

[Bruff]

Originally Posted by Bruff

Mensch. How would you (we) know when they're all being run by giverment?

Another thing: If you've ever worked for government you would know that workers are not productive, most wanting to get paid just for showing up. Since there is little-to-no incentive, the goal of the typical government worker is to expend as little effort as possible. Chances of that happening in the private sector are far less.

[observer53]

Originally Posted by Bruff

Another thing: If you've ever worked for government you would know that workers are not productive, most wanting to get paid just for showing up. Since there is little-to-no incentive, the goal of the typical government worker is to expend as little effort as possible. Chances of that happening in the private sector are far less.

The overwhelming majority of the people one sees working in a large city or county owned airport are not government employees at all, but private sector.


Your last big crusade about McCarran was to "get rid of it" https://www.city-data.com/forum/las-v...rnational.html. Privatizing it won't change that.

[Bruff]

Originally Posted by observer53

The overwhelming majority of the people one sees working in a large city or county-owned airport are not government employees at all, but private sector.

There's a reason for that: private-sector contractors are motivated and thus more efficient. Even socialists can see that.

Your last big crusade about McCarran was to "get rid of it" https://www.city-data.com/forum/las-v...rnational.html. Privatizing it won't change that.

And why not? Privatizing it would and give the private sector an opportunity to do what Denver did: rid itself of a danger and annoyance and repurpose wasteland into something highly productive.

Unfortunately, we live in a scenario where that won't happen until the day after the Big Bang. Or, like Denver, there's a big lawsuit. Watch for one or the other. Or both.

[observer53]

Originally Posted by Bruff

There's a reason for that: private-sector contractors are motivated and thus more efficient. Even socialists can see that.


And why not? Privatizing it would and give the private sector an opportunity to do what Denver did: rid itself of a danger and annoyance and repurpose wasteland into something highly productive.

Unfortunately, we live in a scenario where that won't happen until the day after the Big Bang. Or, like Denver, there's a big lawsuit. Watch for one or the other. Or both.

Oh, for heaven's sake. We are talking about people in the restaurants and shops. No airport operates its own amenities like that. It's not because the private sector is more motivated or efficient, it's simply what the private sector does, and airport travelers like seeing some of the same brand names they see outside the airports. On other components like cleaners and porters, the governing entity saves money by not carrying those workers as employees.


What private entity is going to buy the land and build a new airport? This is another crazy thread that I'm done with.

[Cold Warrior]

that won't happen until the day after the Big Bang

I thought everyone knew what the 'Big Bang' was, but apparently some think it has yet to happen.