Now that I have again provided the amount of annual funding deriving from
GA fuel taxes (including AV GAS and Jet A), compare that to 2005 capital
grants to airports by looking at the ACTUAL 2005 DATA below. (Note that
these figures DO NOT include the $150K annual operating subsidy that many
GA airports receive.)

DAMN: the subsidies are enormous, as every informed person knows....

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/aip/grant_histories/media/grants_2005.pdf

"> DAMN: the subsidies are enormous, as every informed person knows....
>
> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/aip/grant_histories/media/grants_2005.pdf
>
>
As they very well should be. We deserve the best.

Now if we could each receive a modest stipend to help offset the high cost
of fuel----------------------------

Cheers:

Tri-Pacer

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>
> Now that I have again provided the amount of annual funding deriving from
> GA fuel taxes (including AV GAS and Jet A), compare that to 2005 capital
> grants to airports by looking at the ACTUAL 2005 DATA below. (Note that
> these figures DO NOT include the $150K annual operating subsidy that many
> GA airports receive.)
>
> DAMN: the subsidies are enormous, as every informed person knows....
>
> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/aip/grant_histories/media/grants_2005.pdf
>

The data you provided does not indicate a subsidy to GA.

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Now that I have again provided the amount of annual funding deriving from
> GA fuel taxes (including AV GAS and Jet A), compare that to 2005 capital
> grants to airports by looking at the ACTUAL 2005 DATA below. (Note that
> these figures DO NOT include the $150K annual operating subsidy that many
> GA airports receive.)
>
> DAMN: the subsidies are enormous, as every informed person knows....
>
> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/aip/grant_histories/media/grants_2005.pdf
>
>
>

I looked at the info above and searched for South Arkansas which is my
airport. It quoted as service level of GA which is how I'm assuming you are
getting that it is a GA only airport. The only problem... This airport does
have scheduled commercial service by Mesa airlines and the specific work
done was primarily for them and the jets that fly for Murphy Oil Corp.

While Murphy Oil Corp is GA they raised over 2 million dollars of private
money for airport & terminal improvements which is a pretty good considering
we only got ~$800,000 in Federal grants.

How do you figure, with the 05 capital grants obviously exceeding the
peanuts collected in AV gas taxes? Add in the amounts provided for annual
operating subsidies (which I don't have yet), and you get a MASSIVE
SUBSIDY. (which, by the way, the Bureau of Transportation STatistics
study confirms. GA gets a bigger subsidy than AMTRAK, for goodness
sakes.)

You "patriotic" American private pilots should pay for your own
entertainment. USER FEES NOW!!!

You deserve USER FEES!!! And, you will have them, as well as additional
airspace restrictions and airport closures!!!

(The Destroyer's latest childish rant notwithstanding....)

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Now that I have again provided the amount of annual funding
> deriving from GA fuel taxes (including AV GAS and Jet A), compare
> that to 2005 capital grants to airports by looking at the ACTUAL
> 2005 DATA below. (Note that these figures DO NOT include the
> $150K annual operating subsidy that many GA airports receive.)
>
> DAMN: the subsidies are enormous, as every informed person knows....
>
>
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/aip/grant_histories/media/grants_2005.pdf
>

What are the definitions for the acronyms in the "Service Level" column?
The local GA airports that received grants are listed as "R" in this column.

"Skylune" > wrote:
> How do you figure, with the 05 capital grants obviously exceeding the
> peanuts collected in AV gas taxes?

Steven is correct - most of the grants listed appear to be for work that
primarily benefits air transport carriers.

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>
>How do you figure, with the 05 capital grants obviously exceeding the
> peanuts collected in AV gas taxes?
>

How much was collected in AV gas taxes in 05 and how much was spent in
capital grants at airports served only by AV gas burning GA aircraft?


>
> Add in the amounts provided for annual
> operating subsidies (which I don't have yet), and you get a MASSIVE
> SUBSIDY. (which, by the way, the Bureau of Transportation STatistics
> study confirms. GA gets a bigger subsidy than AMTRAK, for goodness
> sakes.)
>

You get a subsidy if more is spent to benefit a specific class of user than
is collected from that same user. You have yet to show that is the case for
AV gas burning GA.

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Now that I have again provided the amount of annual funding deriving from
> GA fuel taxes (including AV GAS and Jet A), compare that to 2005 capital
> grants to airports by looking at the ACTUAL 2005 DATA below. (Note that
> these figures DO NOT include the $150K annual operating subsidy that many
> GA airports receive.)
>
> DAMN: the subsidies are enormous, as every informed person knows....

Looks like they are classifying airline improvements as GA.

Take a look at Worcester Regional. The improvements were done specifically
to attract an airline, but they're listed as GA.

Why is Westover Airforce Base listed as GA?

>
>
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/aip/grant_histories/media/grants_2005.pdf
>
>
>

"Tom Conner" > wrote:

>
>"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>> Now that I have again provided the amount of annual funding
>> deriving from GA fuel taxes (including AV GAS and Jet A), compare
>> that to 2005 capital grants to airports by looking at the ACTUAL
>> 2005 DATA below. (Note that these figures DO NOT include the
>> $150K annual operating subsidy that many GA airports receive.)
>>
>> DAMN: the subsidies are enormous, as every informed person knows....
>>
>>
>http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/aip/grant_histories/media/grants_2005.pdf
>>
>
>What are the definitions for the acronyms in the "Service Level" column?
>The local GA airports that received grants are listed as "R" in this column.

R is probably "reliever" which is the status of my airport.

Ron Lee
>
>

"Skylune" > wrote in message
>
> DAMN: the subsidies are enormous, as every informed person knows....

If this is the basis of your information, then every MIS-informed person
knows....


>
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/aip/grant_histories/media/grants_2005.pdf
>

Now, I am assuming the majority of pilots can do simple addition.

Conservatively, take the grants that are clearly for GA airports only, and
compare that to the number (about $180mm) in combined AVgas and Jet A gas
tax receipts.

Then, tell me the GA is not subsidized. Tell me the Bureau of
Transportation statistics is wrong about GA being subsidized (in that
case, maybe AMTRAK isn't subsidized either).

Or, try and change the topic to economic benefits (I can argue that too:
those studies are rigged), supposed national benefits (true only for
remote areas of the country), etc.

Better yet, quote the Destroyer, who laughingly claims that the Highway
trust fund is "going broke" (completely false, as fed gas taxes exceed
amount of outlays, even with all the pork in the ground transportation
projects) while the AV trust fund is doing well.

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:ivBOg.7$_k1.3@trndny01...
>
> Why is Westover Airforce Base listed as GA?
>

Westover Air Reserve Base, aka Westover Metropolitan Airport, hasn't been an
Air Force Base since 1974.

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>
> R is probably "reliever" which is the status of my airport.
>

And what does a "reliever" provide relief for?

Yes. Be conservative. Add up only the grants to airports listed as GA
(knowing that R and P categories also use GA, sometimes exclusively GA),
then compare to the amount of AV gas taxes.

Guess which number is MUCH larger. (Of course the grants to large
passenger airports like O'Hare is large -- don't include those numbers).

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>
> Now, I am assuming the majority of pilots can do simple addition.
>
> Conservatively, take the grants that are clearly for GA airports only, and
> compare that to the number (about $180mm) in combined AVgas and Jet A gas
> tax receipts.
>

But it isn't clear what grants are for GA airports only.

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>
> Yes. Be conservative. Add up only the grants to airports listed as GA
>

But some of those have air carrier service.


>
> (knowing that R and P categories also use GA, sometimes exclusively GA),
> then compare to the amount of AV gas taxes.
>

What are the R and P categories?

> Conservatively, take the grants that are clearly for GA airports only, and
> compare that to the number (about $180mm) in combined AVgas and Jet A gas
> tax receipts.

There's your fallacy. One should not take "grants that are clearly for
GA airports only" but "grants that are clearly for GA only". There's a
difference.

Or, take "grants that do not benefit the airlines".

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

No amount of actual data or reasoning will ever convince private pilots
that the paltry couple of hundred million dollars generated by AV gas
taxes per year doesn't cover the cost of the grants and FAA services
absorbed by GA.

For a group that likes to consider itself technical and scientific-minded,
this is astonishing. (Well, actually not, based on the other nonsense put
out by some GA groups on safety, cost, convenience, etc.)

Skylune wrote:
> No amount of actual data or reasoning will ever convince private pilots
> that the paltry couple of hundred million dollars generated by AV gas
> taxes per year doesn't cover the cost of the grants and FAA services
> absorbed by GA.
>
> For a group that likes to consider itself technical and scientific-minded,
> this is astonishing. (Well, actually not, based on the other nonsense put
> out by some GA groups on safety, cost, convenience, etc.)

Flying is not a science...it's an art.

:OP

Jay B

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>
> No amount of actual data or reasoning will ever convince private pilots
> that the paltry couple of hundred million dollars generated by AV gas
> taxes per year doesn't cover the cost of the grants and FAA services
> absorbed by GA.
>

Actually, it would require only factual data and sound reasoning.

No fallacy.

The grants for airports listed as GA can all be considered to benefit GA
only. "R" airports are also largely GA (some that I know almost
exclusively GA). Make conservative assumptions about how much of the
grants are for GA.

Then, compare to the AV gas tax generation. There is no debate, Jose. It
is fact, confirmed by Bureau of Transportation STatistics.

Why doesn't AOPA quote the acutal numbers (revenues, capital outlays, and
operating subsidies) whenever they make their ludicrous claims?
(Rhetorical question)

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:07:28 GMT, "Tom Conner" >
wrote:

>
>"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>> Now that I have again provided the amount of annual funding
>> deriving from GA fuel taxes (including AV GAS and Jet A), compare
>> that to 2005 capital grants to airports by looking at the ACTUAL
>> 2005 DATA below. (Note that these figures DO NOT include the
>> $150K annual operating subsidy that many GA airports receive.)
>>
>> DAMN: the subsidies are enormous, as every informed person knows....
>>
>>
>http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/aip/grant_histories/media/grants_2005.pdf
>>
>
>What are the definitions for the acronyms in the "Service Level" column?
>The local GA airports that received grants are listed as "R" in this column.

The meanings of "service level" are:

P - Primary airport: Large, medium, and small Hubs and non-hubs with
more than 10,000 annual emplanements. Received $1,109.8 million in
grants in 2004.

CS - Commercial Service: Between 2,500 and 10,000 annual emplanements.
Received $137.9 million in grants.

R - Reliever airports: 100 or more based GA aircraft and > 25,000
annual itinerant operations. Received $209.4 million in grants.

GA - General Aviation airport: No scheduled commercial service and not
CS. Typically 1 per county in rural areas. Average 33 based aircraft.
Home for 40% of GA fleet. Received $540.2 million in grants.

RK Henry

> The grants for airports listed as GA can all be considered to benefit GA
> only.

To do so would be an error.

> "R" airports are also largely GA (some that I know almost
> exclusively GA).

"R" airports benefit airlines by making more room for them elsewhere.
That's their purpose.

> There is no debate, Jose.

Then what are we having here, an argument? I'm not allowed to argue
unless you've paid.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Skylune,

You seem to assume that the main purpose of GA airports is
entertainment for private pilots. This is incorrect.

Public GA airports are part the the U.S. transportation infrastructure.
They are essential for providing support for activities that are in
the public interest. These activities include:

Aerial Firefighting
Time critical medical tranportation
Disaster relief (often airports are the only access points to affected
areas)
U.S. Mail delivery
Package and parcel delivery
and many more...

Should private pilots have to pay the full cost of the infrastructure
if it is there to serve the public interest? If private pilots went
away tommorrow, most of the airports would still need to exist to serve
public needs, and they would receive less fuel tax support than they do
now. Talk about a subsidy!

Dean

Skylune wrote:
> Now that I have again provided the amount of annual funding deriving from
> GA fuel taxes (including AV GAS and Jet A), compare that to 2005 capital
> grants to airports by looking at the ACTUAL 2005 DATA below. (Note that
> these figures DO NOT include the $150K annual operating subsidy that many
> GA airports receive.)
>
> DAMN: the subsidies are enormous, as every informed person knows....
>
> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/aip/grant_histories/media/grants_2005.pdf

I am paying, as are all American taxpayers who are getting hosed.

Of course, these are only FEDERAL subsidies, never mind the state and
local subsidies that airports get. Just one example: The Destroyer wants
Blue Ash to increase local income taxes by .25% to help fund improvements
to the airport!!!!

Beyond audacious!!!

> I am paying, as are all American taxpayers who are getting hosed.

I'm sorry about that. We're doing our best to slam people (and houses),
but the subsidies aren't big enough to make it go any faster.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>
> I am paying, as are all American taxpayers who are getting hosed.
>

What are you paying?

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Skylune,
>
> You seem to assume that the main purpose of GA airports is
> entertainment for private pilots. This is incorrect.
>
> Public GA airports are part the the U.S. transportation infrastructure.
> They are essential for providing support for activities that are in
> the public interest. These activities include:
>
> Aerial Firefighting
> Time critical medical tranportation
> Disaster relief (often airports are the only access points to affected
> areas)
> U.S. Mail delivery
> Package and parcel delivery
> and many more...
>
> Should private pilots have to pay the full cost of the infrastructure
> if it is there to serve the public interest? If private pilots went
> away tommorrow, most of the airports would still need to exist to serve
> public needs, and they would receive less fuel tax support than they do
> now. Talk about a subsidy!
>
> Dean
>

Perhaps you are not familiar with Skylune. He is an anti-aviation troll,
nothing more. He may even be aware that what he posts is incorrect.

"Skylune" > wrote in
lkaboutaviation.com:

> Now that I have again provided the amount of annual funding deriving
> from GA fuel taxes (including AV GAS and Jet A), compare that to 2005
> capital grants to airports by looking at the ACTUAL 2005 DATA below.
> (Note that these figures DO NOT include the $150K annual operating
> subsidy that many GA airports receive.)
>
> DAMN: the subsidies are enormous, as every informed person knows....
>
> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/aip/grant_histories/med
> ia/grants_2005.pdf
>
>
>

A quick look at this report for airports I'm personally familiar with
shows that you have no comprehension whatsoever of what you are talking
about.

Several of the airports listed as GA are served by air freight
carriers such as FedEx, which operate under Part 91, which governs GA.

One interesting entry is for Moffett Field, formerly a Navy base. It
is listed as GA but it is not open to the public. It's use is pretty much
NASA and air freight from Lockheed. When POTUS comes to the area, it is
used by Air Force One.

Sacramento Mather, formerly an Air Force base, listed as R, is where
air freight to the Sacremento area was moved to from Sacramento
International.

Other "GA" airports receiving grants are CDF (California Department of
Forestry) fire bomber bases.

Many of the environmental studies being funded by the AIP grants are
mandated by the federal government.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> No amount of actual data or reasoning will ever convince private pilots
> that the paltry couple of hundred million dollars generated by AV gas
> taxes per year doesn't cover the cost of the grants and FAA services
> absorbed by GA.

I'm glad you used the term absorbed, rather than consumed.

My point is that the expenses are incurred primarily for the benefit of
airlines. A new runway eight feet thick was not designed with a Piper
Cherokee in mind, yet you feel the Cherokee is expected just as much to use
that runway as the 747 it was designed for.

>
> For a group that likes to consider itself technical and scientific-minded,
> this is astonishing. (Well, actually not, based on the other nonsense put
> out by some GA groups on safety, cost, convenience, etc.)

When the data presented is factually wrong (ORH is not a GA airport, neither
is Westover AFB or Barnes), what do you expect when people call for 'GA
paying it's fair share'?


>
>
>
>
>
>

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> No fallacy.
>
> The grants for airports listed as GA can all be considered to benefit GA
> only. "R" airports are also largely GA (some that I know almost
> exclusively GA). Make conservative assumptions about how much of the
> grants are for GA.

No they can't. As I showed earlier South Arkansas Airport at Goodwin Field
(search he document for 'South Arkansas') is listed as GA but has several
scheduled flight a day.

"RK Henry" > wrote in message
...

>
> GA - General Aviation airport: No scheduled commercial service and not
> CS. Typically 1 per county in rural areas. Average 33 based aircraft.
> Home for 40% of GA fleet. Received $540.2 million in grants.
>

Then there is at least one mistake in the document because it lists the
grants received by South Arkansas Regional Airport as "GA" and we have
scheduled service

In article . net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> Westover Air Reserve Base, aka Westover Metropolitan Airport, hasn't been an
> Air Force Base since 1974.

However, Westover sure isn't a GA-only airport.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

In article <gPDOg.488$HZ5.421@trndny08>,
"Steve Foley" > wrote:

> When the data presented is factually wrong (ORH is not a GA airport, neither
> is Westover AFB or Barnes), what do you expect when people call for 'GA
> paying it's fair share'?

Why feed the troll?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" > wrote:

> Now that I have again provided the amount of annual funding deriving from
> GA fuel taxes (including AV GAS and Jet A), compare that to 2005 capital
> grants to airports by looking at the ACTUAL 2005 DATA below. (Note that
> these figures DO NOT include the $150K annual operating subsidy that many
> GA airports receive.)
>
> DAMN: the subsidies are enormous, as every informed person knows....
>
> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/aip/grant_histories/media/gran
> ts_2005.pdf

Why single out GA in the first place? What about subsidies for bicycle
lanes? When the Dumbarton Bridge was built across San Francisco Bay,
they spent $4 million to install bicycle lanes, which may get two or
three bicycles a week using them.

Tell you what, Loon: Cut out all the rest of the "unnecessary"
subsidies, then let's talk about GA subsidies.

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
:

> In article
> utaviation.com>,
> "Skylune" > wrote:
>
>> Now that I have again provided the amount of annual funding deriving
>> from GA fuel taxes (including AV GAS and Jet A), compare that to 2005
>> capital grants to airports by looking at the ACTUAL 2005 DATA below.
>> (Note that these figures DO NOT include the $150K annual operating
>> subsidy that many GA airports receive.)
>>
>> DAMN: the subsidies are enormous, as every informed person knows....
>>
>> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/aip/grant_histories/medi
>> a/gran ts_2005.pdf
>
> Why single out GA in the first place? What about subsidies for bicycle
> lanes? When the Dumbarton Bridge was built across San Francisco Bay,
> they spent $4 million to install bicycle lanes, which may get two or
> three bicycles a week using them.
>
> Tell you what, Loon: Cut out all the rest of the "unnecessary"
> subsidies, then let's talk about GA subsidies.

Why stop at transportation?

Perhaps we should have User Fees for the Welfare system?

Judah wrote:
<snip>
>
> Why stop at transportation?
>
> Perhaps we should have User Fees for the Welfare system?

You're forgetting, the poor people who use welfare can't help
themselves, whereas we pilots are filthy rich and can pay.

You know, I really wonder why someone which such hatred for GA posts in
a group like this.

Impact and wear due to heavy vehicles is DRAMATICALLY caused almost
exclusively by the heavy vehicles. If it was just cars on the road, the
damage to the road due to cars would be miniscule. It all comes from
heavy trucks and busses.

Much the same is true with runways and planes. The heavy planes do most
of the damage and require strong expensive runways. Light GA planes do
not need much in the way of pavement reinforcement.

For that matter most light GA aircraft don't need towers.

Still the guy has a point. The small, strickly GA airports get
subsidized. Having an airport is a point of pride in a community and
there is a safety aspect so far as medical transport goes. But maybe
raising the aviation fuel tax would be appropriate here, trying to get
GA to pay it's way.

There is a LOT of pork in almost all aspects of our economy. It's
downright scary. GA is getting govt subsidy, that is true.

Doug wrote:
> Having an airport is a point of pride in a community and
> there is a safety aspect so far as medical transport goes.

Not really. You can helo someone out of a town without an airport.

>But maybe
> raising the aviation fuel tax would be appropriate here, trying to get
> GA to pay it's way.

Are you kidding me? How about after everyone ELSE starts paying their
way? I promise you, GA contributes more to this country than some woman
on welfare with eight kids...and yet she's NEVER going to pay her way.

In article >,
Emily > wrote:

> You know, I really wonder why someone which such hatred for GA posts in
> a group like this.

(Not sniping at Emily) why do people insist on feeding the trolls?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Why should she? Everyone ELSE gets a subsidy, why not her?

We're all against govt subisidies until it comes to OUR gov't subsidy.
Then strangely, we are in favor of THAT one.

Emily wrote:
> Are you kidding me? How about after everyone ELSE starts paying their
> way? I promise you, GA contributes more to this country than some woman
> on welfare with eight kids...and yet she's NEVER going to pay her way.

Doug wrote:
> Why should she? Everyone ELSE gets a subsidy, why not her?
>
> We're all against govt subisidies until it comes to OUR gov't subsidy.
> Then strangely, we are in favor of THAT one.

There's a huge difference. Sorry if you can't see that.

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> Emily > wrote:
>
>> You know, I really wonder why someone which such hatred for GA posts in
>> a group like this.
>
> (Not sniping at Emily) why do people insist on feeding the trolls?

Alright, hand's been slapped, thread's been killed....

Oh, I see it. I just think that GA should pay its own way, at least as
close as possible. And the fuel tax is the most painless way to
accomplish that. I'd much prefer that over landing fees or ATC fees.

Emily wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > Why should she? Everyone ELSE gets a subsidy, why not her?
> >
> > We're all against govt subisidies until it comes to OUR gov't subsidy.
> > Then strangely, we are in favor of THAT one.
>
> There's a huge difference. Sorry if you can't see that.

"Skylune" > wrote:
> DAMN: the subsidies are enormous, as every informed person knows....

If you would just go to the FAA website and check out their materials on
their budget, you'd find more relevant information. The document titled
"Revised Air Traffic Organization Data Package" [1] contains breakdowns
with better information than you are supplying. An explanation is given
in [2] on what the tables rows and columns mean and how the information
was collected.

The subsidies do not appear to be "enormous". The FAA appears to be
spending more than gets from all aviation fees and taxes [3], but that
appears to be a recent phenomenon (if I understand their Trust Fund
white paper).

[1] http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/aep/aatf/media/Revised_ATO_Data_Package.pdf

[2] http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/aep/aatf/media/ATO%20Technical%20Background.pdf

[3] http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/trust_fund/media/Trust_Fund.pdf

Emily wrote:

> Judah wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>
>> Why stop at transportation?
>> Perhaps we should have User Fees for the Welfare system?
>
>
> You're forgetting, the poor people who use welfare can't help
> themselves, whereas we pilots are filthy rich and can pay.
>
> You know, I really wonder why someone which such hatred for GA posts in
> a group like this.

Because people like that tend to live miserable lives of isolation as
they have no friends. Any attention is better than no attention, hence
the posts here.

Matt

Bob Noel > wrote:
> (Not sniping at Emily) why do people insist on feeding the trolls?

The issue is relevant to this newsgroup and, IMHO, worth discussing . The
information needed to support or refute skylune's assertions appear to be
available. I found it worthwhile and educational to track down facts to see
what the situation really is (and discovered it's complicated!)

Unlike Jay Honeck's Arizona voter ID law thread, which you have even
responded to, but is, IMHO, technically trolling. I objected to that thread
but not this one....

In article >,
Jim Logajan > wrote:

> > (Not sniping at Emily) why do people insist on feeding the trolls?
>
> The issue is relevant to this newsgroup and, IMHO, worth discussing . The
> information needed to support or refute skylune's assertions appear to be
> available. I found it worthwhile and educational to track down facts to see
> what the situation really is (and discovered it's complicated!)

but you haven't learned that skypuke hasn't exhibited any signs of learning.
He's very much like the long island looney bird.

A discussion of the issue can occur without feeding trolls.

>
> Unlike Jay Honeck's Arizona voter ID law thread, which you have even
> responded to, but is, IMHO, technically trolling.

OT is not the same as trolling.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why feed the troll?
>

I find making sport of Skylune to be amusing.

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> > Why feed the troll?
>
> I find making sport of Skylune to be amusing.

Bah - it's too easy

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Now that I have again provided the amount of annual funding deriving from
> GA fuel taxes (including AV GAS and Jet A), compare that to 2005 capital
> grants to airports by looking at the ACTUAL 2005 DATA below. (Note that
> these figures DO NOT include the $150K annual operating subsidy that many
> GA airports receive.)
>
> DAMN: the subsidies are enormous, as every informed person knows....
>
> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/aip/grant_histories/media/grants_2005.pdf
>
>
>

If anyone is serious about analysing this, here is a list of part 139
certified airports:

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/airport_safety/part139_cert/media/part139_cert_status_table.xls

Part 139 certification is required to handle scheduled service over 30
passengers. It's also the basis for determining eligibility for most federal
grants.

In Massachusetts: Barnes, Westover, and Worcester are all part 139
certified, yet lune tries to call them GA airports.

It is an Air Reserve base with heavy C5 activity. You can't do TnG's there
and the Metropolitan activity is small in comparison to C5 activity.

mike regish

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> news:ivBOg.7$_k1.3@trndny01...
>>
>> Why is Westover Airforce Base listed as GA?
>>
>
> Westover Air Reserve Base, aka Westover Metropolitan Airport, hasn't been
> an Air Force Base since 1974.
>

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

> Any attention is better than no attention,

The motto on every troll's wall.

In article >,
"mike regish" > wrote:

> It is an Air Reserve base with heavy C5 activity. You can't do TnG's there

really? (I'm not doubting you - I just found it surprising).
I've only landed there once and never noticed that restriction.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Jay B" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Skylune wrote:
>> No amount of actual data or reasoning will ever convince private pilots
>> that the paltry couple of hundred million dollars generated by AV gas
>> taxes per year doesn't cover the cost of the grants and FAA services
>> absorbed by GA.
>>
>> For a group that likes to consider itself technical and
>> scientific-minded,
>> this is astonishing. (Well, actually not, based on the other nonsense
>> put
>> out by some GA groups on safety, cost, convenience, etc.)
>
> Flying is not a science...it's an art.
>
> :OP

Some pilots are Rembrandt's, others are Picasso's.

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>> > Why feed the troll?
>>
>> I find making sport of Skylune to be amusing.
>
> Bah - it's too easy

"Like shooting dairy cows with a scoped rifle" -- P.J. O"Rourke

Matt Barrow schrieb:

> Some pilots are Rembrandt's, others are Picasso's.

I wasn't aware that Picasso and Rembrandt ever owned pilots.

Stefan

Last I looked in the AFD it says no touch and goes-low approaches only. You
can full stop there if you are going to the Metropolitan Airport.

mike
"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "mike regish" > wrote:
>
>> It is an Air Reserve base with heavy C5 activity. You can't do TnG's
>> there
>
> really? (I'm not doubting you - I just found it surprising).
> I've only landed there once and never noticed that restriction.
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> Looking for a sig the
> lawyers will hate
>

"mike regish" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> It is an Air Reserve base with heavy C5 activity. You can't do TnG's there
> and the Metropolitan activity is small in comparison to C5 activity.
>

It's C-5, not C5.

Hi Steve.

I see you haven't changed at all...

mike

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> It is an Air Reserve base with heavy C5 activity. You can't do TnG's
>> there and the Metropolitan activity is small in comparison to C5
>> activity.
>>
>
> It's C-5, not C5.
>

"mike regish" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hi Steve.
>
> I see you haven't changed at all...
>

No reason to.

> Some pilots are Rembrandt's, others are Picasso's.

As a free artist, I don't belong to anyone.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

LOL!!!
Good one.

mike

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Hi Steve.
>>
>> I see you haven't changed at all...
>>
>
> No reason to.
>

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

> Some pilots are Rembrandt's, others are Picasso's.

Which one do you belong to?

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> "Jay B" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> >
> > Skylune wrote:
> >> No amount of actual data or reasoning will ever convince private pilots
> >> that the paltry couple of hundred million dollars generated by AV gas
> >> taxes per year doesn't cover the cost of the grants and FAA services
> >> absorbed by GA.
> >>
> >> For a group that likes to consider itself technical and
> >> scientific-minded,
> >> this is astonishing. (Well, actually not, based on the other nonsense
> >> put
> >> out by some GA groups on safety, cost, convenience, etc.)
> >
> > Flying is not a science...it's an art.
> >
> > :OP
>
> Some pilots are Rembrandt's, others are Picasso's.

.... And some are Thomas Kincades.

Can't argue the facts?

LOL.

The subsidies are massive. I agree with the Bureau of Transportation
statistics study.

You, like the Destroyer, rely on rhetoric. Never quote any numbers, just
silly arguments. The subsidies are obvious, yet all sorts of convoluted
reasoning is used to deny the obvious: MASSIVE TAX SUBSIDIES to GA.
Many studies besides the BTS study have reached this conclusion. Only
advocacy groups, for obvious reasons, deny reality.

BTW, here is what a "professional pilot" thinks about GA:

http://www.generalaviationnews.com/editorial/articledetail.lasso?-token.key=13383&-token.src=index&-nothing

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Can't argue the facts?

Sure I can.

Your facts are wrong. ORH (the airport I'm most familiar with) is not a GA
airport, yet you insist on calling the grants there GA subsidies.


> The subsidies are obvious, yet all sorts of convoluted
> reasoning is used to deny the obvious: MASSIVE TAX SUBSIDIES to GA.


See above


> Many studies besides the BTS study have reached this conclusion. Only
> advocacy groups, for obvious reasons, deny reality.

So it's only reality when you decide?


>
> BTW, here is what a "professional pilot" thinks about GA:
>

Couldn't care less.

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>
> Can't argue the facts?
>
> LOL.
>
> The subsidies are massive. I agree with the Bureau of Transportation
> statistics study.
>

It's a fact that you have yet to demonstrate a subsidy to GA. One must
conclude that's because there isn't any.