Zones said:
"A "private" company's whole existence (in this line of business ie. aviation) depends upon the level of safety it provides. If it doesn't provide the necessary levels, then either i/ customers go away and use competition or preferably ii/ the law (in this case future SRG) steps in and makes the necessary changes in one way or another."
<RANT ON>
For the record privatised companies care only for one thing - The Stock Market.
You can get away with a loss (Freeserve makes a massive loss but the shares just keep going up. Likewise most 'net companies.) and they still love you.
You can get away with killing people through possible negligence (Railtrack shares went up when they made a profit, despite Paddington et al. Not that I'm using that as an example you understand.) and they love you.
The level of safety that a company provides has NO RELATION to the way they are viewed by the stock market.
The "business will go elsewhere" argument is nonsense. Where exactly? NATS is a monopoly in the area side and a virtual monopoly on the a/d side. And the sort of safety lapses we are talking about are non-attributable anyway. Lack of investment is impossible to prove. Christ you can't even get a conviction when a co. forgets to close the doors at the front of a boat causing it to tip over! How far would you get explaining ATC systems to a jury?
The airline argument is gibberish - they aren't monopolies.
AS for SRG's ineffectiveness. You blame closeness. How are they close to non-state a/d's? Errrm not at all? They are just toothless like all the other regulators. We regulate ourselves to a certain extent and privatised we will see investment in a whole new light.
<RANT OFF>