Man, the Destroyer's latest lies are more blatant and transparent than
usual. Here's what he says about the FAA funding problem:

That's where AOPA comes in — with the facts.

"There is no funding shortfall
Contrary to those who say the system is going broke, by AOPA's most
conservative view, and using White House budget office estimates, the
aviation trust fund could have a $4.2 billion surplus by 2011. And by
AOPA's most liberal estimates, it could reach $9.3 billion by that time.

As for the airlines' claim that the aviation trust fund would shrink
because ticket prices are declining...that's fiction as well."

ROTFL. This is hysterical. AOPA comes in "with the facts." LOL. The
surpluses (conservative and liberal) are AOPA estimates. LOLOLOL. Based
on what???? Hysterical. What White House estimates??? The White House
is proposing a revamping of the funding formula. The ex-TV executive
obviously cannot distinguish his own musings from reality. Probably
because of his long association with network television...

Then he says it is "fiction" that average ticket prices are declining.
More absurdity. From the Transportation Research Board:


"According to the Air Travel Price Index, an experimental measure being
developed by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, airline ticket prices have declined by 3.2
percent from the third quarter of 2000 to the third quarter of 2003"

And that followed a longer period of declines following deregulation.
Combined with the severe travel dropoff after 9/11, and the fact that the
aviation trust fund is overwhelmingly funded with taxes on commercial
airline tickets, the decline in Aviation Trust Fund revenues is a
DOCUMENTED FACT.

But, the Destroyer will make any mistatement, propogate any lie, etc. for
his own purposes. Of course, if anyone bothers to check the facts (as
Senator McCain has), they know this man is either an intentional liar, or
so delusional that he should lose his own license.

Again i say: this man is a disaster for your industry. Someone less
combative, with some credibility and ethics would serve your cause much
better.

Follow-up. I was laughing so much I forgot to post more Boyerisms. In (a
very poor attempt) to defend the adequacy and efficiency of the current
funding system...

Boyer said. "Just look at the facts: In 2005, the United States had nine
times more departures than United Kingdom and four times more airports
than Brazil. And general aviation is a large part of the U.S. aviation
industry. In 2004, 68 percent of all aircraft in the country were GA."

LOL again. Well, those "facts" may be accurate. But obviously they are
irrelevant. Of course the US has more airports and departures than the
UK
and Brazil. WTF does that prove?? Maybe he should compare the number of
airports in the US to Luxembourg also.

>>>Someone less combative, with some credibility and ethics would serve your cause much better.<<<

Allow me to use your own words here, they describe you to a T. When you
start replying to your own posts you have identified yourself to all as
a loon. Again.

by "Kingfish" > May 3, 2006 at 12:18 PM


>>>Someone less combative, with some credibility and ethics would serve
your cause much better.<<<

Allow me to use your own words here, they describe you to a T. When you
start replying to your own posts you have identified yourself to all as
a loon. <<

I post references to the statistics I cite. Boyer makes stuff up. If
you think Boyer has credibility, good luck!

The compelling argument (with factual data) made in 5/4 testimony to House
Transportation Subcommittee by President of the ATA. It has actual facts
(e.g. GA airports receive over one third of AIP capital grants, while GA
contributes less than 2% of ATF revenues), and presents compelling
evidence that commercial airlines support the system that GA uses.

http://www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/05-04-05/may.pdf



The Truth Squad has also reviewed Boyer's testimony, and found the usual
rhetorical arguments, misstatements, and outright falsehoods. I can post
his idiocy, but maybe you can find them for yourselves....

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> The compelling argument (with factual data) made in 5/4
> testimony to House Transportation Subcommittee by President
> of the ATA. It has actual facts (e.g. GA airports receive
> over one third of AIP capital grants, while GA contributes
> less than 2% of ATF revenues), and presents compelling
> evidence that commercial airlines support the system that GA uses.
>
> http://www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/05-04-05/may.pdf
>
>

I found the receive over one-third part, but not the less than 2% part. Of
course, it was a quick scan after having a few glasses of wine. I have to
admit you do provide valid data to backup your points. How, and where, do
you find this stuff?

"Tom Conner" > wrote

> I found the receive over one-third part, but not the less than 2% part.
> Of
> course, it was a quick scan after having a few glasses of wine. I have to
> admit you do provide valid data to backup your points. How, and where, do
> you find this stuff?

There are intangibles that can not be calculated, however.

Where do commercial pilots receive their training?

Where do many corporations fly into and out of?

How many corporations base their operations in a certain community,
partially because of a GA airport being handy?

Where do police, and air ambulances, and organ transports, fly into and out
of, and base their organizations?

How much does this compare to many other infrastructures, that has users
that do not pay enough to keep the asset in good operating condition?

There are more examples, but I have already wasted too much time, rebutting
skyloon's rants.
--
Jim in NC

by "Tom Conner" > May 5, 2006 at 08:25 AM


"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> The compelling argument (with factual data) made in 5/4
> testimony to House Transportation Subcommittee by President
> of the ATA. It has actual facts (e.g. GA airports receive
> over one third of AIP capital grants, while GA contributes
> less than 2% of ATF revenues), and presents compelling
> evidence that commercial airlines support the system that GA uses.
>
> http://www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/05-04-05/may.pdf
>
>

I found the receive over one-third part, but not the less than 2% part.
Of
course, it was a quick scan after having a few glasses of wine. I have
to
admit you do provide valid data to backup your points. How, and where,
do
you find this stuff?


<<

Thanx Tom. I may not have my PPL, but I do know stuff about commercial
and general aviation from my (previous) business life, and I know
government finance. Plus, I like to fly on the little C-172 a buddy
owns. So its not like I hate everything GA-related. But there are
problems.....

My sources: Varied, but I've read the ATA newletters for many years, and
understand who is paying and for what. Also, the Federal Bureau of
Transporation Statistics has a treasure trove of funding data. That would
be a good place to start.

Today, I think that by just Googling with certain key words, you can find
the real info.


Skylune, back from Montreal on a beautiful Air Canada flight. Heureux
d'etre a la maison!