Gromit wrote…
Public Transportation = Publicly funded.
Private Transportation = Privately owned.
In addition to Jim’s example of many UK train lines being “private,” according to Gromit, one, using Gromit’s argument, could say Air Force One is “public” transportation because it is “publicly funded.” Does that mean I can sit in Michelle’s seat the next time the President is flying somewhere??
While airlines, in the US, are privately owned the legal theory of “a man’s home is his castle” does NOT appear to impose the same restrictions on rights of airline passengers and cargo customers one would experience if they were a guest in someone’s private home. How much of his “castle” a private property owner can keep, according to one US Supreme Court decision, rides on the degree to which said owner’s use of his property impacts on the public interest. In
Munn v. Illinois (1877), the majority held:
“(when one puts his)
property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good…” *
Thus, if one owns an airline, and said airline is “…controlled by the public for the common good…”, as all US-registered airlines are, how then are US-based airlines NOT “public transportation??”
*
http://www.answers.com/topic/munn-v-illinois