Slim,
Galileo will be better in the sense that it augments NAVSTAR and possibly GLONASS too, in addition I bet a Galileo versions of WAAS/dGPS and/or psuedollites are developed for precision approaches. That means more satellites, more redundancy and better accuracy (and no RAIM warnings). In addition, the pay to use Galileo will ensure levels of service, which is arguably necessary for commercial certification.
My reading between the lines, is that if you don't subscribe to Galileo, then you only get to use NAVSTAR. If that is the case then you don't get to use GPS approaches in EASA held teritory. In other words, if you don't pay for Galileo then not only can you not use it commercially, but you are limited to ADF and VOR (where they haven't been switched off).
Effectively, if you don't subscribe you can't run a viable commercial operation.
On the plus side, imagine how straight forward a utilitity (personal or otherwise) trip would be with a guarenteed levels of service GPS system. Plus the knowledge that you follow a GPS approach at the other end. Every airfield could have a non-precision approach without having to maintain and power transmiters. I think it would be fab.
However, for me bimbles, I'll stick with the Vagabond for forseeable future
