As a public service, I have again reviewed Boyer's testimony to
Congress.

At .49 minutes in, he says he has "never seen such a distortion"
regarding the funding crisis, which he thinks is fictious. For the
Destroyer to talk about "distortions" is laughable on its face. Why
does he never mention the FACT the the AV gas tax contributes less
than 5% to the aviation trust fund? Probably, he considers factual
data as distorting his mission to continue to rip off the taxpaying
public.

At 1.20 in, he for the first time says "get user fees off the table"
before engaging in meaningful dialogue. More silliness. Talk must be
on the Destroyer's terms, using his "nondistorted facts." The man
never, ever discusses the funding sources of the AIP -- cant' go
there. But, he will tell you to a dime what the General Fund
contribution (i.e. a piece of the subsidy) should be.

2.06: Criticizes airlines as getting taxpayer bailout. Well, I agree
with him on that, but many forms of public transportation get
subsidies (like subways and AMTRAK). He wants GA to be placed into
the same category. Ha. Note to Phil: GA is not public
transportation. Neither is my car. A subway or train is.

6.40: His disputes those who say that increasing the AV gas tax to
70.1 cents per gallon is "not a major burden" when taking into account
the full costs of operating a private plane. He says it is a major
burden, but then claims that airlines who charge customers a few bucks
in taxes experience no adverse effects from the tax, because only the
passengers pay. (This is among the most laughable statements The
Destroyer continues to make, one that any economics professor would
roll his/her eyes at.) Just more situational logic here.

7.49: now he wants to get the av gas tax increase off the table
too. Previously, he complained that such a large increase should
have been phased in, and he stated he was open to restructuring the
gas tax. Not sure what to make of these varying positions.

All in all, a standard performance from the retired TV executive, who
still lives in a world of fiction who cannot distinguish between a
script and reality.

Oh, and by the way, for the AOPA support staff who posted this on the
web site, an increase from 19.3 to 70.1 cents is NOT a 366% increase.
They should hire a fifth grade math teacher to put up the proper
number.

<SNIP>

> All in all, a standard performance from the retired TV executive, who
> still lives in a world of fiction who cannot distinguish between a
> script and reality.

<SNIP>

TV Executives aren't on-air people. Hence, they do not need to know
what a script is or how to read one.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

"Skylune" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> As a public service, I have again reviewed Boyer's testimony to
> Congress.
>

Skylune" > wrote in message


oups.com...


> See below BTS study, and explain where the study has gone awry in
> concluding that GA is heavily subsidized. Its funny that you say that
> though, since I have worked on numerous GA projects that were 95%
> federally funded. 95% of runway, land acquisition, etc. comes from
> the feds. Yet you say there is no subsidy. Yeah....



As a public service, identify the GA projects that you worked on so that we
can examine them.

On Mar 23, 1:19 pm, "Skylune" > wrote:
>
> Oh, and by the way, for the AOPA support staff who posted this on the
> web site, an increase from 19.3 to 70.1 cents is NOT a 366% increase.
> They should hire a fifth grade math teacher to put up the proper
> number.

I hate to agree with you, but that is a pretty sizeable math error.
The funny thing is that even if you use the wrong technique to
calculate the percentage, 366% is still the wrong number. I can't
even figure out how they arrived at that number.

Deadstick wrote:

> On Mar 23, 1:19 pm, "Skylune" > wrote:
>
>>Oh, and by the way, for the AOPA support staff who posted this on the
>>web site, an increase from 19.3 to 70.1 cents is NOT a 366% increase.
>>They should hire a fifth grade math teacher to put up the proper
>>number.
>
>
> I hate to agree with you, but that is a pretty sizeable math error.
> The funny thing is that even if you use the wrong technique to
> calculate the percentage, 366% is still the wrong number. I can't
> even figure out how they arrived at that number.
>
>
if you increased the tax from 19.3 to 38.6 cents thats a 100 % increase
(you are doubling the tax). If you increase it from 19.3 to 56.9 cents
thats a 200% increasde (the tax triples). If you increase the tax from
19.3 to 76.2 cents thats a 300% increase in the tax.

I'll leave it to the intereseted student (if there are any left) to
see if increasing a tax from 19.3 to 70.1 is a 366% increase in tax.

Lune, you need to get a hobby and stop playing with your pud so much.

>
> I hate to agree with you, but that is a pretty sizeable math error.
> The funny thing is that even if you use the wrong technique to
> calculate the percentage, 366% is still the wrong number. I can't
> even figure out how they arrived at that number.

Why is it wrong and what is the correct procedure to calculate the
percentage increase? Just curious!

> Why is it wrong and what is the correct procedure to calculate the
> percentage increase? Just curious!

Consider going from 30 to 33. It's an =increase= of 10% (an increase of
3, referenced to the starting point of 30). The =new= value is 110% of
the old value (100% + 10%). There are several equivalent ways of
calculating a percent increase, one is to divide the new value by the
old value, convert to percent ("per hundred"), and then subtract 100%.
In the AOPA case, 70.1/19.3 = 3.63 so the new value is 363% of the old
value. Since the old value is (by definition) 100%, when we subtract
that, we get a 263% increase.

I wouldn't blame Boyer; he's probably using an old pentium. "two plus
two is pretty close to three point something".

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> >
> > I hate to agree with you, but that is a pretty sizeable math error.
> > The funny thing is that even if you use the wrong technique to
> > calculate the percentage, 366% is still the wrong number. I can't
> > even figure out how they arrived at that number.
>
> Why is it wrong and what is the correct procedure to calculate the
> percentage increase? Just curious!
>
I missed the speech, or statement, so I do not know whether Phil Boyer
actually made such an error--but it is a common one.

The correct procedure is to divide the final value by the original value,
subtract 1.00 from the quotient, and then multiply the result by 100 in
order to express it as a percentage.

The common error is to neglect the subtraction step, resulting in an answer
which is 100 too high--for example 366% when the correct result is 266%.

Bottom line: Phil Boyer's point was well taken, despite the math.

Peter

On Mar 24, 9:59 am, Jose > wrote:
> > Why is it wrong and what is the correct procedure to calculate the
> > percentage increase? Just curious!
>
> Consider going from 30 to 33. It's an =increase= of 10% (an increase of
> 3, referenced to the starting point of 30). The =new= value is 110% of
> the old value (100% + 10%). There are several equivalent ways of
> calculating a percent increase, one is to divide the new value by the
> old value, convert to percent ("per hundred"), and then subtract 100%.
> In the AOPA case, 70.1/19.3 = 3.63 so the new value is 363% of the old
> value. Since the old value is (by definition) 100%, when we subtract
> that, we get a 263% increase.
>
> I wouldn't blame Boyer; he's probably using an old pentium. "two plus
> two is pretty close to three point something".
>
> Jose
> --
> Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
> follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
> understands this holds the world in his hands.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I nominate Jose to head the AOPA. He is at least capable of rational
discussion, unlike The Destroyer, who relies 100% (that means full
reliance, Phil, since you obviously are "percentage challenged") on
hyperbole, rhetoric, and faulty logic. All arguments The Destroyer
makes regarding user fees are easily rebuked. (The easiest is to
simply look at the contribution that AV gas taxes make to the Trust
Fund.)

But AOPA is a fairly powerful lobby, many politicians have vested
interests, and the FAA is nonaccountable to the nonflying public. The
battle to inject public/community rights into the use of airspace will
go on for many years. STN has made some nice progress, however.

Skylune out!

> All arguments The Destroyer
> makes regarding user fees are easily rebuked.

The arguments both for and against are quite simplistic, and it doesn't
matter whether they are "easily rebuked" or not. It's not so much a
question of whether you've counted the money correctly, as whether
you've counted all the money in the first place. Two very simple
(non-aviation) examples:

Who benefits from public education and public libraries?

What is the "proper" fee to charge pedestrians when an existing (free)
pedestrian bridge is torn down to make room for an automotive toll
bridge with a pedestrian walkway?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
.. .

>> What is the "proper" fee to charge pedestrians when an existing (free)
>> pedestrian bridge is torn down to make room for an automotive toll
>> bridge with a pedestrian walkway?
>>

> Thanks Jose,
>
> Nicely stated!
>
> Peter

I wouldn't mind seeing AOPA fight EVERY expenditure from the aviation trust
fund that does not benefit GA.

Why should my fuel tax go towards maintaining a runway that would easily
last one hundred years if only piston aircraft used it?

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
> > All arguments The Destroyer
> > makes regarding user fees are easily rebuked.
>
> The arguments both for and against are quite simplistic, and it doesn't
> matter whether they are "easily rebuked" or not. It's not so much a
> question of whether you've counted the money correctly, as whether
> you've counted all the money in the first place. Two very simple
> (non-aviation) examples:
>
> Who benefits from public education and public libraries?
>
> What is the "proper" fee to charge pedestrians when an existing (free)
> pedestrian bridge is torn down to make room for an automotive toll
> bridge with a pedestrian walkway?
>
> Jose
> --
> Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Thanks Jose,

Nicely stated!

Peter

"Skylune" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I nominate Jose to head the AOPA. He is at least capable of rational
> discussion, unlike The Destroyer, who relies 100% (that means full
> reliance, Phil, since you obviously are "percentage challenged") on
> hyperbole, rhetoric, and faulty logic. All arguments The Destroyer
> makes regarding user fees are easily rebuked. (The easiest is to
> simply look at the contribution that AV gas taxes make to the Trust
> Fund.)
>

Let's have a rational discussion on the GA projects that you worked on.
Please identify them.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...

> Let's have a rational discussion on the GA projects that you worked on.
> Please identify them.

KASH - Fuel Truck containment basin.

Although there has never been a fuel spill attributed to an airport based
fuel truck, Skylune found an EPA ruling somewhere that fuel trucks parked
overnight must be parked in a specially constructed basin to catch any fuel
that might leak.

He, and his Stop-The-Noise friends spent our tax dollars building a useless
basin.

Skylune wrote:
<snip>
> Oh, and by the way, for the AOPA support staff who posted this on the
> web site, an increase from 19.3 to 70.1 cents is NOT a 366% increase.
> They should hire a fifth grade math teacher to put up the proper
> number.
>


Hey dumbass. The math is correct. Where'd you go to school? (so it's
off by 1%)

19.3 * 3.66 == 70.638

Tim > writes:

> Skylune wrote:
> > [...] an increase from 19.3 to 70.1 cents is NOT a 366% increase. [...]

> Hey dumbass. The math is correct. Where'd you go to school? [...]
> 19.3 * 3.66 == 70.638

So a "10% increase" is to correspond to a multiplication by 0.1 ?


- FChE