GA paying fair (fare?) share

[Dude]

Having seen the recent diatribes from airline executives, I feel like I
could just about throw up.

Don't these idiots realize that if it was not for their "all important"
fleets of precious cargo we could slash ATC by 90 plus percent?

Let's see how well they can compete with the charters if they start having
to fly right traffic while announcing their position when the tower goes
away.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> Having seen the recent diatribes from airline executives, I feel like I
> could just about throw up.
>
> Don't these idiots realize that if it was not for their "all important"
> fleets of precious cargo we could slash ATC by 90 plus percent?

How do you figure that?

[No Spam]

>
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Having seen the recent diatribes from airline executives, I feel like I
>> could just about throw up.
>>
>> Don't these idiots realize that if it was not for their "all important"
>> fleets of precious cargo we could slash ATC by 90 plus percent?
>
> How do you figure that?
>
>
>

Because GA (non-biz jet) uses very little of the ATC capacity
(Tower/TRACON/Center/etc.).

No Spam

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"No Spam" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because GA (non-biz jet) uses very little of the ATC capacity
> (Tower/TRACON/Center/etc.).
>

Why exclude biz-jets?

[Dave S]

So what would be equitable?

A per-seat capitation? A capitation based on gross weight? or a per-user
fee? While it would cost me more in the pocketbook, I have a hard time
seeing that I am financing my share of services using JUST the avgas
fuel tax.... (and if I go autogas, or deisel.. dont I get a TOTAL free
ride?). Prove that the status quo is fair and equitable. We (as GA) have
been getting a hell of a deal, in my mind.

On the other hand.. paying 50 bucks for a flight briefing and another 50
for flight following for me in a spam can would be prohibitive in the
long run (since i flight follow on almost every flight out of the pattern).

Dave


Dude wrote:

> Having seen the recent diatribes from airline executives, I feel like I
> could just about throw up.
>
> Don't these idiots realize that if it was not for their "all important"
> fleets of precious cargo we could slash ATC by 90 plus percent?
>
> Let's see how well they can compete with the charters if they start having
> to fly right traffic while announcing their position when the tower goes
> away.
>
>

[Rip]

Except that the ATC system was put in place because the airline demanded
it. Look at the history, going back to the 1920's. I'd be perfectly
happy flying GPS direct, with no ATC involvement at all.

Dave S wrote:
> So what would be equitable?
>
> A per-seat capitation? A capitation based on gross weight? or a per-user
> fee? While it would cost me more in the pocketbook, I have a hard time
> seeing that I am financing my share of services using JUST the avgas
> fuel tax.... (and if I go autogas, or deisel.. dont I get a TOTAL free
> ride?). Prove that the status quo is fair and equitable. We (as GA) have
> been getting a hell of a deal, in my mind.
>
> On the other hand.. paying 50 bucks for a flight briefing and another 50
> for flight following for me in a spam can would be prohibitive in the
> long run (since i flight follow on almost every flight out of the pattern).
>
> Dave
>
>
> Dude wrote:
>
>> Having seen the recent diatribes from airline executives, I feel like I
>> could just about throw up.
>>
>> Don't these idiots realize that if it was not for their "all important"
>> fleets of precious cargo we could slash ATC by 90 plus percent?
>>
>> Let's see how well they can compete with the charters if they start
>> having
>> to fly right traffic while announcing their position when the tower goes
>> away.
>>
>>
>

[CriticalMass]

Dave S wrote:

> A per-seat capitation? A capitation based on gross weight? or a per-user
> fee? While it would cost me more in the pocketbook, I have a hard time
> seeing that I am financing my share of services using JUST the avgas
> fuel tax.... (and if I go autogas, or deisel.. dont I get a TOTAL free
> ride?). Prove that the status quo is fair and equitable.

No. **YOU** do the same thing for driving our cars on the interstate
highway system.

Who pays for establishment of, and maintenance thereof, said highways?
The Feds, of course. Is there some sort of convoluted rate structure
for users, based on their weights, or any other measure? No, there isn't.

It's a universally-accepted burden on the US taxpayer. Is the national
airspace system different? Why?

This isn't an issue of "who gets a *free ride*" There are things the
federal government ought to be doing with our tax dollars for the
greater good.

*YOU* want to pay more taxes for the privilege of flying? Fine with me.
But, this business of "total free ride" doesn't wash. I don't pay
extra for every red light I encounter when I drive, and I see a parallel
with every (free) flight service station pre-flight briefing I get.

These things are bona-fide tax-supported gov'ment responsibilities.
It's the diversion of said tax dollars to support social re-engineering
I vehemently object to.

[CriticalMass]

Rip wrote:

> I'd be perfectly happy flying GPS direct, with no ATC involvement at all.

Actually, I *DO* that. You don't?

[Kevin]

CriticalMass wrote:
> Rip wrote:
>
>> I'd be perfectly happy flying GPS direct, with no ATC involvement at all.
>
>
> Actually, I *DO* that. You don't?
>


That works, no vor, no adf, no dg . Pure GPS .

[Dave S]

Ok.. so by your own statement, the Feds outta pay for it..

How about every registered N number contributes one share in
registration tax, just like every licence plate/vehicle registration on
cars pays a portion. Remember, the states maintain this "federal"
system, and not all of its cost comes from federal funds. And, if I do
recall, commercial trucks pay additional taxes and fees to engage in
interstate and intrastate commerce, so there are "user fees" to engage
in commercial carriage on said highways and interstates. You also pay
fees if your wheeled vehicle's gross weight is over a certain amount
(80,000 pounds in many states) and operated on public roads. (or if its
too long, too wide, too tall or doesnt look purty enough... well all
except the last one)

Something tells me you wont like a 152 paying equal share to a 747-400,
but the airline exec's would prolly **** themselves in glee if the
"automobile" analogy came to pass. Imagine.. every N-number pays $1000
(or maybe $10,000)a year in a fly-tax to keep that N-number valid. Drop
in the bucket to the airlines, and quite painful for people like you and
me. THats what I would want to avoid. Try compromising.

So.. lets see.. a total free ride.. I build my lil 4 seat 200 mph IFR
capable experimental, get it signed off, use auto gas (and not pay any
aviation fuel tax.. and since its OFF ROAD, I can also dodge the state
fuel taxes too), get a flight service briefing from a live briefer.. (i
just dont FEEL like dealing with duats, in this hypothetical example). I
file IFR or use flight following for all of its percieved benefits, and
land only at places that dont have government imposed ramp/landing fees.
Tell me how I have not gotten a total free ride on the back of the
airspace system? Is it my RIGHT to have major elements of my hobby (or
maybe future career, or what have you) subsidized on the backs of
others? On the same note, I dont think a cessna 152 using NAS benefits
and facilities should be liable for the same fraction that a dumbojet is
liable for.

Im not VOLUNTEERING to pay more taxes, but on the same token, without
attracting all the rabid junkyard dogs I would like to suggest that
perhaps an equitable solution for EVERYONE involved lies somewhere other
than what the present status quo is. Speaking of the status quo, if I
recall correctly, the airlines get a break on the aviation fuel tax, so
they are not paying the same per gallon that us little guys do. I will
have to re-read Boyer's letter to refresh my memory on that.

I pay my AOPA dues, and in general I think they do a good job of
protecting my interests, or at least getting issues I agree with heard
and noted. I dont think a small GA plane should be liable for the same
amount that an airliner should. Im thinking weight or seats would be a
good gauge, or have everyone pay the same fuel tax rate. It is worth
noting that Northwest chose to make a LOCAL issue into a national one
using their inflight magazine, with others jumping on the bandwagon.

Im sorry if I came across sounding like a philantrophic lotto winner..
thats not the case, but I do try to seem SOMEWHAT objective when the
notion strikes me. I'm not made of greenbacks either. I have to work OT
to go flying, and I have to work a LOT of OT to take major trips. That
being said, I would hate to see GA as a group dig in its heels and not
attempt to address this reasonably. We might win the battle, and lose
the war (hmm... ATC is no longer inherently governmental.. lets go
PRIVATIZE ATC and bill every system user like they do in some parts of
Europe). I'd hate to see us paying for ATC specialists billable-hours or
something perverse like that.

Flame suit on.
Dave



CriticalMass wrote:
> Dave S wrote:
>
>> A per-seat capitation? A capitation based on gross weight? or a
>> per-user fee? While it would cost me more in the pocketbook, I have a
>> hard time seeing that I am financing my share of services using JUST
>> the avgas fuel tax.... (and if I go autogas, or deisel.. dont I get a
>> TOTAL free ride?). Prove that the status quo is fair and equitable.
>
>
> No. **YOU** do the same thing for driving our cars on the interstate
> highway system.
>
> Who pays for establishment of, and maintenance thereof, said highways?
> The Feds, of course. Is there some sort of convoluted rate structure
> for users, based on their weights, or any other measure? No, there isn't.
>
> It's a universally-accepted burden on the US taxpayer. Is the national
> airspace system different? Why?
>
> This isn't an issue of "who gets a *free ride*" There are things the
> federal government ought to be doing with our tax dollars for the
> greater good.
>
> *YOU* want to pay more taxes for the privilege of flying? Fine with me.
> But, this business of "total free ride" doesn't wash. I don't pay
> extra for every red light I encounter when I drive, and I see a parallel
> with every (free) flight service station pre-flight briefing I get.
>
> These things are bona-fide tax-supported gov'ment responsibilities. It's
> the diversion of said tax dollars to support social re-engineering I
> vehemently object to.
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> So what would be equitable?
>
> A per-seat capitation? A capitation based on gross weight? or a per-user
> fee? While it would cost me more in the pocketbook, I have a hard time
> seeing that I am financing my share of services using JUST the avgas
> fuel tax....
>

What is your share of services? What do you feel is the marginal cost of
providing services to you?

[Victor J. Osborne, Jr.]

I also remember AOPA's response that GA doesn't need 10,000ft runways either
but we use them. This whole 'aviating thing' started off with folks giving
rides from fields and now we have 7xx's and Airbus, etc. moving people
around.

The problem is with the (poor) allocation and waste of tax dollars. Don't
get me started on the liability nonsense of these lawsuits.

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.

[Dave S]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>So what would be equitable?
>>
>>A per-seat capitation? A capitation based on gross weight? or a per-user
>> fee? While it would cost me more in the pocketbook, I have a hard time
>>seeing that I am financing my share of services using JUST the avgas
>>fuel tax....
>>
>
>
> What is your share of services? What do you feel is the marginal cost of
> providing services to you?
>
>
I'd need access to the direct costs, personnel costs, as well as the
manner in which ATC allocates its "productivity" and measures
performance. Without them, I'd be picking a number out of the air. One
ironic way of looking at it would involve me flying at night and maybe
being the only target in the sector.. ATC isnt busy at all, but I'm
receiving 100% of their attention (in theory only) where if there are 25
targets, the controller is much more busy, but each target is only
recieving 4% of the attention/service (VERY bad and flawed example, but
illustrates the difference. You dont pay a higher toll at midnight cause
you are the only car on the road, so you are the only one the guy in the
toll booth can "bill" for his time)

I think a sliding scale based on weight would be the most appropriate -
it accounts for frieght as well as passengers. Again, without specific
numbers, and a lot of time to crunch em, this is beyond me. I would
probably be willing to pay an additional $5-10 for local flights and and
additional $20-50 for longer cross countries.. these are rough figures I
just pulled out of the air that seemed reasonable for me to utilize
services. If I didnt use them, I wouldnt expect to pay the fees.

In a direct answer to your question.. I havent reached a firm decision
yet on what I think my share is of the costs of the NAS.

Dave

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Victor J. Osborne, Jr." > wrote in message
...
>
> I also remember AOPA's response that GA doesn't need 10,000ft
> runways either but we use them.
>

Of course we use them; they're there. If GA didn't exist those 10,000'
runways would still be needed to serve the airlines. If the airlines didn't
exist those 10,000' runways wouldn't exist.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> I'd need access to the direct costs, personnel costs, as well as the
> manner in which ATC allocates its "productivity" and measures
> performance. Without them, I'd be picking a number out of the air. One
> ironic way of looking at it would involve me flying at night and maybe
> being the only target in the sector.. ATC isnt busy at all, but I'm
> receiving 100% of their attention (in theory only)
>

If you weren't there, if there were no targets in the sector, would the
costs change?


>
> where if there are 25
> targets, the controller is much more busy, but each target is only
> recieving 4% of the attention/service
>

Do the costs change now that there are 25 targets in the sector, everything
else being equal?


>
> I think a sliding scale based on weight would be the most appropriate -
> it accounts for frieght as well as passengers.
>

It's pretty much that way now, at least indirectly. Heavier aircraft burn
more fuel and thus pay more fuel tax. Heavier aircraft pay more in landing
fees.


>
> Again, without specific
> numbers, and a lot of time to crunch em, this is beyond me. I would
> probably be willing to pay an additional $5-10 for local flights and and
> additional $20-50 for longer cross countries.. these are rough figures I
> just pulled out of the air that seemed reasonable for me to utilize
> services. If I didnt use them, I wouldnt expect to pay the fees.
>
> In a direct answer to your question.. I havent reached a firm decision
> yet on what I think my share is of the costs of the NAS.
>

Without specific numbers nobody is in a position to say GA isn't paying it's
fair share now.

[Dave S]

>
> Without specific numbers nobody is in a position to say GA isn't paying it's
> fair share now.
>

NOR can anybody assert that we ARE paying our fair share. Your assertion
is valid from both points of view.

Dave

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> NOR can anybody assert that we ARE paying our fair share. Your assertion
> is valid from both points of view.
>

That's true. But the assertion that we ARE paying our fair share is being
made in response to the assertion that we are not. Let those that made the
first assertion be the first to present their evidence.

[Dude]

I figure if we only had the ATC necessary for GA, and the scheduled planes
had to use that, then there would be no towers at most of what are now class
C airports. Also, the class B airports would easily get by as class C, or
even D.

Yes, we use those towers for free, but if the towers were not there, it
would not cost us so much in fuel and insurance that we would go broke.
Now, lets say a Delta 737 has to enter the traffic pattern whenever the
field is VFR...

They would be unable to function. We don't piggyback off of their ATC
infrastructure because we NEED it. THEY NEED IT. I could fly IFR all over
using a CTAF like system to announce my presence on the airways, and on
approaches. The reason I cannot is because of THEM.

We put up a class B to keep ME away from THEM when I am not IFR. Now they
count it as me using ATC service everytime I leave my airport. My use of
the system is mostly for THEIR benefit.

The whole system is designed around THEIR needs, not ours.



"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Having seen the recent diatribes from airline executives, I feel like I
> > could just about throw up.
> >
> > Don't these idiots realize that if it was not for their "all important"
> > fleets of precious cargo we could slash ATC by 90 plus percent?
>
> How do you figure that?
>
>
>

[Dude]

I say that each user or group of users should pay taxes and fees that are in
line with what they actually need to use. I use very little that I am not
mandated to use.

Fuel taxes are one way to go, because there is a likely correlation with
fuel use and system use. Though it is hardly perfect.

If they were whining for us to pay our fair share, that would be fine. That
is not what they are whining about. They are whining about how much they
pay, and they are whining about seeing much of their business go away to
small bizjets.

There has been evidence that the airlines are being milked by the overall
local, state, and federal taxation. I would support less taxes on airline
travel, but they are not getting my support with this ridiculous tact. If
there were no airlines, GA would use much LESS ATC than we do now.

Also, the airlines presently do not train pilots from the time they are
students. How will new pro pilots get trained if they shift the cost of ATC
to the flight schools?





"Dave S" > wrote in message
link.net...
> So what would be equitable?
>
> A per-seat capitation? A capitation based on gross weight? or a per-user
> fee? While it would cost me more in the pocketbook, I have a hard time
> seeing that I am financing my share of services using JUST the avgas
> fuel tax.... (and if I go autogas, or deisel.. dont I get a TOTAL free
> ride?). Prove that the status quo is fair and equitable. We (as GA) have
> been getting a hell of a deal, in my mind.
>
> On the other hand.. paying 50 bucks for a flight briefing and another 50
> for flight following for me in a spam can would be prohibitive in the
> long run (since i flight follow on almost every flight out of the
pattern).
>
> Dave
>
>
> Dude wrote:
>
> > Having seen the recent diatribes from airline executives, I feel like I
> > could just about throw up.
> >
> > Don't these idiots realize that if it was not for their "all important"
> > fleets of precious cargo we could slash ATC by 90 plus percent?
> >
> > Let's see how well they can compete with the charters if they start
having
> > to fly right traffic while announcing their position when the tower goes
> > away.
> >
> >
>

[Dude]

Exactly my point.

Another way to look at the situation would be to see what happened if you
took the government out of it altogether.

You and I would fly around, mostly VFR, or maybe we would have to pay to use
an IFR service from a private company that was likely started to service the
airlines. Or, we could take the risk and fly IFR all on our own.

The Airlines would HAVE to have this service. We could use it or not. Then
they would have to fly around US. They would likely tell the service to
service us for free JUST TO GET US OUT OF THEIR WAY! Airports would be
privately owned, and the really big long runways would cost a lot to use, or
maybe they would cost nothing if you bought fuel there. At any rate, if
they tried to charge some guy in his Mooney a $100 landing fee, he would
take his business elsewhere. Which would be fine. Or, the airlines could
have their own airports, which would be fine (except they would have to be
in the middle of nowhere because only a government can build an airport near
a city full of NIMBY's).

Only when the government is involved does the whole idea of fair share come
up (and get perverted).

Their argument is based on the idea that they are an equal player in the
system, but that is a false premise. The system is designed mostly for
THEIR safe use, not ours.

If you start with a FAIR and EQUAL system, then publicly owned Class B
airports could not turn me away because I was not a scheduled airliner and
they were too busy. Nope, if it were fair and equal, it would be first come
first serve. They ask us and need us to use ATC for their purposes, and now
they want us to pay for the privilege.

In otherwords, they want us out of THEIR sky.




"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Victor J. Osborne, Jr." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I also remember AOPA's response that GA doesn't need 10,000ft
> > runways either but we use them.
> >
>
> Of course we use them; they're there. If GA didn't exist those 10,000'
> runways would still be needed to serve the airlines. If the airlines
didn't
> exist those 10,000' runways wouldn't exist.
>
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > NOR can anybody assert that we ARE paying our fair share. Your assertion
> > is valid from both points of view.
> >
>
> That's true. But the assertion that we ARE paying our fair share is being
> made in response to the assertion that we are not. Let those that made
the
> first assertion be the first to present their evidence.


I pay for much more than I use, therefore I should be entitled to a rebate
based on this "fair" thing.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
y.com...
>
> I pay for much more than I use,
>

How do you know?

[Dave Stadt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> y.com...
> >
> > I pay for much more than I use,
> >
>
> How do you know?


I am making an assumption just like everybody else does that spouts off
about this topic. Prove me wrong.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
y.com...
>
> I am making an assumption just like everybody else does that spouts off
> about this topic. Prove me wrong.
>

I asked you first.

[Rip]

I was referring to IFR. Sorry.

CriticalMass wrote:
> Rip wrote:
>
>> I'd be perfectly happy flying GPS direct, with no ATC involvement at all.
>
>
> Actually, I *DO* that. You don't?
>

[Gary Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> What is your share of services? What do you feel is the marginal cost of
> providing services to you?

Why is the >marginal< cost what's relevant (rather than a pro rata share of
the total cost)? If I fly on an airliner, or I step onto a bus or subway,
the marginal cost of my presence (in terms of the extra energy expenditure)
is a negligible fraction of the fare. Should I therefore expect to be
transported nearly for free?

--Gary

[Paul Sengupta]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> Exactly my point.
>
> Another way to look at the situation would be to see what happened if you
> took the government out of it altogether.
>
> You and I would fly around, mostly VFR, or maybe we would have to pay to
use
> an IFR service from a private company that was likely started to service
the
> airlines. Or, we could take the risk and fly IFR all on our own.
>
> The Airlines would HAVE to have this service. We could use it or not.
Then
> they would have to fly around US. They would likely tell the service to
> service us for free JUST TO GET US OUT OF THEIR WAY! Airports would be
> privately owned, and the really big long runways would cost a lot to use,
or
> maybe they would cost nothing if you bought fuel there. At any rate, if
> they tried to charge some guy in his Mooney a $100 landing fee, he would
> take his business elsewhere. Which would be fine. Or, the airlines could
> have their own airports, which would be fine (except they would have to be
> in the middle of nowhere because only a government can build an airport
near
> a city full of NIMBY's).

You've just described aviation in Britain. Apart from three things. 1) They
keep
the airliners in controlled airspace to keep us out of each other's way and
2) you only pay the IFR fees if you're over 2000kg IIRC (Eurocontrol) and
receiving a service. You can fly IFR without it, as you described above.
3) The airports are privately owned, but not by the airlines...not directly
anyway.

At least there's (2) at the moment. When Mode S transponders are made
compulsory in 2008 so they know who everyone is in the air, they can then
charge everyone....or could if they wanted to.

http://www.eurocontrol.int/activities/navigation-charges/

Paul

[Peter R.]

CriticalMass ) wrote:

> Rip wrote:
>
> > I'd be perfectly happy flying GPS direct, with no ATC involvement at all.
>
> Actually, I *DO* that. You don't?

And where is it you fly?

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 12:25:06 GMT, "Gary Drescher" >
wrote:

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>
>> What is your share of services? What do you feel is the marginal cost of
>> providing services to you?
>
>Why is the >marginal< cost what's relevant (rather than a pro rata share of
>the total cost)?

Because the services are in place due to airlines, and you have no choice
about using them. If there were not GA, the cost would be virtually
unchanged.




Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Gary Drescher]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 12:25:06 GMT, "Gary Drescher" >
> wrote:
>
> >"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >>
> >> What is your share of services? What do you feel is the marginal cost
of
> >> providing services to you?
> >
> >Why is the >marginal< cost what's relevant (rather than a pro rata share
of
> >the total cost)?
>
> Because the services are in place due to airlines, and you have no choice
> about using them. If there were not GA, the cost would be virtually
> unchanged.

And if my immediate relatives and I didn't ride the subway, the subway
system would still be in place and the cost would be virtually unchanged. So
why should my relatives and I be required to pay a fare to ride the subway?

For just about any transportation service with a large clientele, you can
say of any single client--or any tiny subset of clients--that their marginal
cost is much less than their pro rata share. If marginal cost is your basis
for saying what everyone's fair share is, then it turns out that everyone's
fair share is near zero.

--Gary

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:BA_uc.36617$Ly.26936@attbi_s01...
>
> Why is the >marginal< cost what's relevant (rather than a pro rata
> share of the total cost)?
>

Pro rata works fine if all users are equal. What's a Skylane's share of a
runway built to support 747s?


>
> If I fly on an airliner, or I step onto a bus or subway, the marginal cost
> of my presence (in terms of the extra energy expenditure)
> is a negligible fraction of the fare. Should I therefore expect to be
> transported nearly for free?
>

Of course not. You get one seat, the same as every other passenger.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:ns1vc.27128$pt3.21321@attbi_s03...
>
> And if my immediate relatives and I didn't ride the subway, the subway
> system would still be in place and the cost would be virtually unchanged.
> So why should my relatives and I be required to pay a fare to ride the
> subway?
>

You're right. You shouldn't. Nor should any of the other riders because
they can all make the same argument. Of course, since nobody is paying to
ride, the subway ceases to operate.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 15:41:07 GMT, "Gary Drescher" >
wrote:

>"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 12:25:06 GMT, "Gary Drescher" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>> >>
>> >> What is your share of services? What do you feel is the marginal cost
>of
>> >> providing services to you?
>> >
>> >Why is the >marginal< cost what's relevant (rather than a pro rata share
>of
>> >the total cost)?
>>
>> Because the services are in place due to airlines, and you have no choice
>> about using them. If there were not GA, the cost would be virtually
>> unchanged.
>
>And if my immediate relatives and I didn't ride the subway, the subway
>system would still be in place and the cost would be virtually unchanged. So
>why should my relatives and I be required to pay a fare to ride the subway?
>
>For just about any transportation service with a large clientele, you can
>say of any single client--or any tiny subset of clients--that their marginal
>cost is much less than their pro rata share. If marginal cost is your basis
>for saying what everyone's fair share is, then it turns out that everyone's
>fair share is near zero.
>

Your analogy is flawed.

The benefits, purpose and funding, of the subway system are entirely
different than the purpose and funding and benefits of ATC.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Dude]

But that analogy is no good at all.

The closest thing to this analogy would be if the subway trains were
privately run, competitively, and for profit. While the tracks remained
public property maintained byt the state. The large subway operators get
preferential use of the tracks, while other citizens have to wait to cross
them (assume that all or part of the tracks are above ground).

You want to charge the public to cross the subway tracks because they are
using them too? Maybe you want to charge those that use the facility to get
out of the rain, even when not riding? Sure, there may be private trains on
the tracks, but they have to conform to the safety system set up for the big
operators at their own expense, AND give way to the scheduled operators.

The private trains should certainly pay something for the wear and tear, and
cost to the state for the use of the facilities. In the case of a subway,
there is a cost, but what is the cost of the sky?

Remember, the sky is a public property. We all have the right to use it,
and there is no expense for its construction and maintenance. If you can
figure out a way to charge the GA user who desires services over and above
what he is FORCED to use, then go for it. The problem is that the result is
a diminished safety and efficiency for the users of the system. Remember -
IFR traffic gets vectored around VFR pilots not on radar service.

The airlines could not function without the system, but you and I can do
just fine. When we use the system it reduces THEIR costs. In fact, it
allows them to operate in the first place. Their livelihoods depend on our
agreement to make way for them, and the fact that we pay to train their
future pilots.

The better analogy is the tanner blaming the rancher for stinking up the
neighborhood.






"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:ns1vc.27128$pt3.21321@attbi_s03...
> "Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 12:25:06 GMT, "Gary Drescher"
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >>
> > >> What is your share of services? What do you feel is the marginal
cost
> of
> > >> providing services to you?
> > >
> > >Why is the >marginal< cost what's relevant (rather than a pro rata
share
> of
> > >the total cost)?
> >
> > Because the services are in place due to airlines, and you have no
choice
> > about using them. If there were not GA, the cost would be virtually
> > unchanged.
>
> And if my immediate relatives and I didn't ride the subway, the subway
> system would still be in place and the cost would be virtually unchanged.
So
> why should my relatives and I be required to pay a fare to ride the
subway?
>
> For just about any transportation service with a large clientele, you can
> say of any single client--or any tiny subset of clients--that their
marginal
> cost is much less than their pro rata share. If marginal cost is your
basis
> for saying what everyone's fair share is, then it turns out that
everyone's
> fair share is near zero.
>
> --Gary
>
>

[Gary Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> news:ns1vc.27128$pt3.21321@attbi_s03...
> >
> > And if my immediate relatives and I didn't ride the subway, the subway
> > system would still be in place and the cost would be virtually
unchanged.
> > So why should my relatives and I be required to pay a fare to ride the
> > subway?
> >
>
> You're right. You shouldn't. Nor should any of the other riders because
> they can all make the same argument. Of course, since nobody is paying to
> ride, the subway ceases to operate.

So isn't that a good argument against using marginal cost as a basis for
determining fair payment? Yet when discussing GA fees, you seem to favor a
marginal-cost assessment:

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> What is your share of services? What do you feel is the marginal cost of
> providing services to you?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
>
> Remember -
> IFR traffic gets vectored around VFR pilots not on radar service.
>

Only if they ask to be vectored around them.

[Dude]

Not true at all.

If I am flying a commercial plane, and get warning of traffic on my course,
I really have NO choice but to accept vectors or other avoidance measures.
The VFR pilot is oblivious to the fact that he is about to get squished by
the ridiculously fast jet traffic, and has no way to avoid it.

Even if an IFR plane is right on altitude, he will be blamed for the midair
if he fails to avoid the traffic.

On the other hand, when VFR pilots use radar service, they almost always
voluntarily comply with altitudes and vectors rather than drop radar
service. That allows the IFR pilot, and the airlines, to continue through
like they own the place.

Which apparently the airlines have gotten all to used to.

GA's use of the system improves the cost of operations for the airlines, not
the other way around.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Remember -
> > IFR traffic gets vectored around VFR pilots not on radar service.
> >
>
> Only if they ask to be vectored around them.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:ir3vc.37599$Ly.13077@attbi_s01...
>
> So isn't that a good argument against using marginal cost as a basis for
> determining fair payment?
>

In subway trains, yes; in aviation, no.


>
> Yet when discussing GA fees, you seem to favor a
> marginal-cost assessment:
>

Of course. That's the fair way to do it. Think about it for a moment.
What portion of the national aviation infrastructure would not exist if GA
did not exist? Whatever it costs to support that portion is GA's fair
share. Now, what portion of the bus or subway system would not exist if
there were no bus or subway riders? All of it, of course!

It's fair for bus or subway riders to all pay the same fare because they all
pose the same cost on the system. It's not fair to charge GA and air
carriers the same fees because GA poses far smaller costs on the system.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not true at all.
>

Of course it's true. Why do you say it isn't?


>
> If I am flying a commercial plane, and get warning of traffic on my
course,
> I really have NO choice but to accept vectors or other avoidance measures.
>

It's been my experience that very few commercial planes request vectors
around VFR targets which they've been advised of.


>
> The VFR pilot is oblivious to the fact that he is about to get squished by
> the ridiculously fast jet traffic, and has no way to avoid it.
>

He can't see it?


>
> Even if an IFR plane is right on altitude, he will be blamed for the
midair
> if he fails to avoid the traffic.
>

No more so than the other participant in the midair.


>
> On the other hand, when VFR pilots use radar service, they almost always
> voluntarily comply with altitudes and vectors rather than drop radar
> service. That allows the IFR pilot, and the airlines, to continue through
> like they own the place.
>

Comply with altitudes and vectors? What altitudes or vectors would there be
for them to comply with?


>
> Which apparently the airlines have gotten all to used to.
>
> GA's use of the system improves the cost of operations for the airlines,
not
> the other way around.
>

You have a poor understanding of the system.

[Gary Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> > Yet when discussing GA fees, you seem to favor a
> > marginal-cost assessment:
> >
> Of course. That's the fair way to do it. Think about it for a moment.
> What portion of the national aviation infrastructure would not exist if GA
> did not exist? Whatever it costs to support that portion is GA's fair
> share. Now, what portion of the bus or subway system would not exist if
> there were no bus or subway riders? All of it, of course!

You're missing my analogy. I'm comparing the use of the aviation
infrastructure by GA to the use of the subway structure by my relatives and
me. If my relatives and I didn't ride the subway, there'd be little
difference to the subway system's needs; if GA didn't use the airspace,
there'd be little difference to the aviation system's needs. (Yes, if
>everyone< stopped riding the subway--not just the group in
question--there'd be no subway. And similarly, if >everyone< stopped using
the aviation infrastructure--not just the group in question--there'd be no
aviation infrastructure.)

> It's fair for bus or subway riders to all pay the same fare because they
all
> pose the same cost on the system. It's not fair to charge GA and air
> carriers the same fees because GA poses far smaller costs on the system.

To the extent that GA imposes a smaller cost, I agree it should pay a
smaller share. What I'm disputing is your claim that the >marginal< cost is
the right measure.

Similarly, if I have five immediate relatives, then it's fair for us to
collectively pay half the daily subway fare than some group that has ten
members. Less resource use, lower fees. But that's not the same concept as
assessing our fare according to the >marginal< cost of our ridership, which
would have us paying practically nothing. Same principle applies to GA.

--Gary

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:af5vc.28592$IB.4693@attbi_s04...
>
> You're missing my analogy.
>

It's not that I'm missing it, your analogy just doesn't work.


>
> I'm comparing the use of the aviation
> infrastructure by GA to the use of the subway structure by my relatives
and
> me.
>

Do you consider you and your relatives to be of a different class than other
riders of the subway?


>
> If my relatives and I didn't ride the subway, there'd be little
> difference to the subway system's needs; if GA didn't use the airspace,
> there'd be little difference to the aviation system's needs. (Yes, if
> >everyone< stopped riding the subway--not just the group in
> question--there'd be no subway. And similarly, if >everyone< stopped using
> the aviation infrastructure--not just the group in question--there'd be no
> aviation infrastructure.)
>

With regard to subway riders there is only one distinct group; subway
riders. With regard to civil aviation there are two distinct groups;
airlines and GA. That's why your subway analogy doesn't work; you treat one
part of the group, you and your relatives, differently than the rest of the
group.


>
> To the extent that GA imposes a smaller cost, I agree it should pay a
> smaller share. What I'm disputing is your claim that the >marginal< cost
is
> the right measure.
>

That's fine, but you should provide something to support your position.
Your subway analogy is demonstrably flawed.


>
> Similarly, if I have five immediate relatives, then it's fair for us to
> collectively pay half the daily subway fare than some group that has ten
> members. Less resource use, lower fees. But that's not the same concept as
> assessing our fare according to the >marginal< cost of our ridership,
which
> would have us paying practically nothing. Same principle applies to GA.
>

By that reasoning Cardinals should be charged less than Skyhawks. You need
to rethink your position.

[Gary Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> With regard to subway riders there is only one distinct group; subway
> riders. With regard to civil aviation there are two distinct groups;
> airlines and GA. That's why your subway analogy doesn't work; you treat
one
> part of the group, you and your relatives, differently than the rest of
the
> group.

Any group we care to delineate is "distinct" in some respect or other
(including the arbitrarily delineated group in my analogy). How does the
degree of "distinctness" of a given group bear on the question of whether
marginal cost is the the right measure to use when assessing fees for that
group? It seems to me that you're arbitrarily requiring the group to be very
"distinct" just because that gives the answer you want to arrive at
regarding GA fees. The wider public, which does not share our incentive to
invent reasons to keep GA fees low, will not be persuaded that the degree of
the group's distinctness is relevant.

--Gary

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:Zb6vc.38159$Ly.15351@attbi_s01...
>
> Any group we care to delineate is "distinct" in some respect or other
> (including the arbitrarily delineated group in my analogy).
>

In what meaningful way are you and your relatives distinct from other subway
riders?


>
> How does the
> degree of "distinctness" of a given group bear on the question of whether
> marginal cost is the the right measure to use when assessing fees for that
> group?
>

Nobody should be required to pay for things they do not use.


>
> It seems to me that you're arbitrarily requiring the group to be very
> "distinct" just because that gives the answer you want to arrive at
> regarding GA fees.
>

I'm not requiring them to be distinct, they simply are distinct. Do you not
agree? Does a Cessna 172 have the same runway needs as a Boeing 747?


>
> The wider public, which does not share our incentive to
> invent reasons to keep GA fees low, will not be persuaded that the degree
of
> the group's distinctness is relevant.
>

We're not inventing them, were simply pointing them out. I think the wider
public can see the difference. It's easy to put it in terms the non-flying
public understands. Most of them operate motor vehicles. How many Toyota
drivers believe they should pay the same fees as Peterbuilt operators?

[Gary Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> >
> > How does the
> > degree of "distinctness" of a given group bear on the question of
whether
> > marginal cost is the the right measure to use when assessing fees for
that
> > group?
> >
>
> Nobody should be required to pay for things they do not use.

How does that reply address the question it's replying to? In essence, the
question has to do with how we quantify the "things they use"--in
particular, is the >marginal< cost the right measure? You're proposing that
it >is< the right measure for "distinct" groups, but >not< for groups that
are not very "distinct" (such as in my analogy). What I'm wondering, and
what you have yet to address, is why you think a group's "distinctness" has
anything to do with whether marginal cost is the right way to quantify what
they "use".

--Gary

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:kS6vc.27832$3x.24720@attbi_s54...
>
> How does that reply address the question it's replying to?
>

Sorry, I don't see how I can state it any simpler.


>
> In essence, the
> question has to do with how we quantify the "things they use"--in
> particular, is the >marginal< cost the right measure?
>

Yes.


>
> You're proposing that
> it >is< the right measure for "distinct" groups, but >not< for groups that
> are not very "distinct" (such as in my analogy). What I'm wondering, and
> what you have yet to address, is why you think a group's "distinctness"
has
> anything to do with whether marginal cost is the right way to quantify
what
> they "use".
>

Because to do it any other way would require a group to pay for things they
do not use. Everyone should pay their own way. Don't you agree?

[Gary Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> news:kS6vc.27832$3x.24720@attbi_s54...
> >
> > How does that reply address the question it's replying to?
> >
>
> Sorry, I don't see how I can state it any simpler.

Ok, then we're at an impasse.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:MZ6vc.28250$pt3.11333@attbi_s03...
>
> Ok, then we're at an impasse.
>

I don't think so. An impasse exists when no progress can be made. I think
progress could be made if you'd attempt to answer my questions.

[Rip]

Primarily the northeast. I've rarely had any luck getting clearance for
GPS direct anywhere around the New York, Washington, or Philly class
B's. It happens (Philly seems to be more accomodating), but not often.

Peter R. wrote:
> CriticalMass ) wrote:
>
>
>>Rip wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'd be perfectly happy flying GPS direct, with no ATC involvement at all.
>>
>>Actually, I *DO* that. You don't?
>
>
> And where is it you fly?
>

[Dude]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Not true at all.
> >
>
> Of course it's true. Why do you say it isn't?
>

Every pilots' number one responsibility is safety.



>
> >
> > If I am flying a commercial plane, and get warning of traffic on my
> course,
> > I really have NO choice but to accept vectors or other avoidance
measures.
> >
> > It's been my experience that very few commercial planes request vectors
> around VFR targets which they've been advised of.
>
>

Approach: Lear 1234 VFR traffic your 12 o'clock same altitude, same heading,
5 miles, do you see them?

Lear: No Visual

Approach: Lear 1234 - Immediate right turn to 090.

Lear: ???????

You propose to ignore this warning?


> >
> > The VFR pilot is oblivious to the fact that he is about to get squished
by
> > the ridiculously fast jet traffic, and has no way to avoid it.
> >
>
> He can't see it?
>

Even if he is trying, he may not see it, its going 350 knots straight at
him, maybe from behind.

>
> >
> > Even if an IFR plane is right on altitude, he will be blamed for the
> midair
> > if he fails to avoid the traffic.
> >
>
> No more so than the other participant in the midair.
>

I would not make that bet. The IFR traffic has been told to change course
by ATC to avoid a possible mid air. The VFR pilot could be flying perfectly
legally.

>
> >
> > On the other hand, when VFR pilots use radar service, they almost always
> > voluntarily comply with altitudes and vectors rather than drop radar
> > service. That allows the IFR pilot, and the airlines, to continue
through
> > like they own the place.
> >
>
> Comply with altitudes and vectors? What altitudes or vectors would there
be
> for them to comply with?
>

Yes, even outside the class B, I have been assigned altitude and vectors by
ATC to avoid VFR and IFR traffic. I once had a VFR plane coming right at
me, and the controller's voice had enough fear in it that you would have
thought he was in the plane with me. He did not vector me around it, I told
him I was changing course, but I have had my altitude and vector changed to
avoid possible conflicts.


>
> >
> > Which apparently the airlines have gotten all to used to.
> >
> > GA's use of the system improves the cost of operations for the airlines,
> not
> > the other way around.
> >
>
> You have a poor understanding of the system.
>

On what do you make this assumption? I will be at the FSDO tomorrow, should
I as them a question for you?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
>
> Every pilots' number one responsibility is safety.
>

That's swell, but it doesn't answer my question.


>
> Approach: Lear 1234 VFR traffic your 12 o'clock same altitude,
> same heading, 5 miles, do you see them?
>
> Lear: No Visual
>
> Approach: Lear 1234 - Immediate right turn to 090.
>
> Lear: ???????
>
> You propose to ignore this warning?
>

What do mean by "this warning"? The traffic advisory or the improper ATC
instruction? The traffic is five miles away and moving in the same
direction, there's certainly no imminent threat.


>
> Even if he is trying, he may not see it, its going 350 knots straight at
> him, maybe from behind.
>

So what prevents the Lear from spotting the traffic?


>
> I would not make that bet. The IFR traffic has been told to change
course
> by ATC to avoid a possible mid air. The VFR pilot could be flying
perfectly
> legally.
>

What bet? Does IFR traffic have a greater responsibility than VFR traffic
to see and avoid other traffic? Why do you have the controller issuing
improper instructions in your scenario?


>
> Yes, even outside the class B, I have been assigned altitude and vectors
by
> ATC to avoid VFR and IFR traffic. I once had a VFR plane coming right at
> me, and the controller's voice had enough fear in it that you would have
> thought he was in the plane with me. He did not vector me around it, I
told
> him I was changing course, but I have had my altitude and vector changed
to
> avoid possible conflicts.
>

ATC can issue headings and altitudes to VFR aircraft in Class B and Class C
airspace, in the outer area associated with Class C airspace, and in a TRSA.
Nowhere else.


>
> On what do you make this assumption?
>

From your statements.


>
> I will be at the FSDO tomorrow, should
> I as them a question for you?
>

I have no questions on this subject.

[Aaron Coolidge]

Dude > wrote:
: Having seen the recent diatribes from airline executives, I feel like I
: could just about throw up.

: Don't these idiots realize that if it was not for their "all important"
: fleets of precious cargo we could slash ATC by 90 plus percent?

It was my understanding that the diatribe from NWA had to do with fees
for use of the AIRPORT, not with the use of ATC services. Have the other
airlines' execs added ATC services to the list of things that they can't
pay for anymore?

It seems to me that when the airlines stop pricing their product below what
it costs to produce they'll be in better financial shape.
--
Aaron Coolidge

[Ray Andraka]

With the amount of government cash gifts given to the airlines to keep them
afloat, I fail to see where they have any room to complain. The government
cash handouts far exceed any financial burdens, real or imagined, that the GA
community has placed on the airlines.


--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Dude]

You apparently think you know everything, and are being argumentative and
obtuse. I am not getting anything from this anymore, and I am done. I will
talk to the guys at the FSDO, and maybe I will learn something there.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Every pilots' number one responsibility is safety.
> >
>
> That's swell, but it doesn't answer my question.
>
>
> >
> > Approach: Lear 1234 VFR traffic your 12 o'clock same altitude,
> > same heading, 5 miles, do you see them?
> >
> > Lear: No Visual
> >
> > Approach: Lear 1234 - Immediate right turn to 090.
> >
> > Lear: ???????
> >
> > You propose to ignore this warning?
> >
>
> What do mean by "this warning"? The traffic advisory or the improper ATC
> instruction? The traffic is five miles away and moving in the same
> direction, there's certainly no imminent threat.
>
>
> >
> > Even if he is trying, he may not see it, its going 350 knots straight at
> > him, maybe from behind.
> >
>
> So what prevents the Lear from spotting the traffic?
>
>
> >
> > I would not make that bet. The IFR traffic has been told to change
> course
> > by ATC to avoid a possible mid air. The VFR pilot could be flying
> perfectly
> > legally.
> >
>
> What bet? Does IFR traffic have a greater responsibility than VFR traffic
> to see and avoid other traffic? Why do you have the controller issuing
> improper instructions in your scenario?
>
>
> >
> > Yes, even outside the class B, I have been assigned altitude and vectors
> by
> > ATC to avoid VFR and IFR traffic. I once had a VFR plane coming right
at
> > me, and the controller's voice had enough fear in it that you would have
> > thought he was in the plane with me. He did not vector me around it, I
> told
> > him I was changing course, but I have had my altitude and vector changed
> to
> > avoid possible conflicts.
> >
>
> ATC can issue headings and altitudes to VFR aircraft in Class B and Class
C
> airspace, in the outer area associated with Class C airspace, and in a
TRSA.
> Nowhere else.
>
>
> >
> > On what do you make this assumption?
> >
>
> From your statements.
>
>
> >
> > I will be at the FSDO tomorrow, should
> > I as them a question for you?
> >
>
> I have no questions on this subject.
>
>

[Dude]

Apparently, the latest guy brought up a statistic about how many ATC
functions are performed for GA vs. the scheduled carriers.

If NW is PO'd about their airport costs, they should remember how easy they
got off when MN finally caught them a few years back. They had locked up
all the gates, and many of the routes in and out of the Twin cities which
only they flew had HUGE prices. I bet this led to more GA competition, and
they are now suffering for it.

"Aaron Coolidge" > wrote in message
...
> Dude > wrote:
> : Having seen the recent diatribes from airline executives, I feel like I
> : could just about throw up.
>
> : Don't these idiots realize that if it was not for their "all important"
> : fleets of precious cargo we could slash ATC by 90 plus percent?
>
> It was my understanding that the diatribe from NWA had to do with fees
> for use of the AIRPORT, not with the use of ATC services. Have the other
> airlines' execs added ATC services to the list of things that they can't
> pay for anymore?
>
> It seems to me that when the airlines stop pricing their product below
what
> it costs to produce they'll be in better financial shape.
> --
> Aaron Coolidge
>
>

[Peter R.]

Rip ) wrote:

> Primarily the northeast. I've rarely had any luck getting clearance for
> GPS direct anywhere around the New York, Washington, or Philly class
> B's. It happens (Philly seems to be more accomodating), but not often.

Are you the same poster as CriticalMass?

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Allen]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> You apparently think you know everything, and are being argumentative and
> obtuse.


Obtuse is the exact word I was thinking of when reading Steven's posts. I
don't believe he was always this way, it just started with the Rutan space
thread. Perhaps he should get in for a thorough check-up?

Allen

[Aaron Coolidge]

Dude > wrote:
: Apparently, the latest guy brought up a statistic about how many ATC
: functions are performed for GA vs. the scheduled carriers.

Since the airlines don't really pay for ATC services (neither does GA), this
little statistic should be treated as the worthless tidbit that it is.
The fuel tax assists in paying for ATC. The remainder of the money come from
the government's budget. This is not as unfair as some are making it out
to be. Every person in the US benefits from the ATC system, even if they
never fly! If you (1) eat food, (2) wear clothes or (3) have a job your
life has been improved by ATC.
--
Aaron Coolidge

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
>
> You apparently think you know everything, and are being argumentative
> and obtuse.
>

No, I don't know everything, but I do know everything about the subject
we're discussing.


>
> I am not getting anything from this anymore, and I am done.
>

I don't think you've tried to get anything from this.


>
> I will talk to the guys at the FSDO, and maybe I will learn something
there.
>

What will you ask the guys at FSDO?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Allen" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Obtuse is the exact word I was thinking of when reading Steven's posts.
>

In what way do you think I've been obtuse.


>
> I don't believe he was always this way, it just started with the Rutan
space
> thread.
>

If you check the statements I made in that thread you will find them all to
be correct.

[Peter R.]

Aaron Coolidge ) wrote:

> Every person in the US benefits from the ATC system, even if they
> never fly! If you (1) eat food, (2) wear clothes or (3) have a job your
> life has been improved by ATC.

Not to mention the improvement in safety to those on the ground. Imagine
how many more ground-based deaths there might be without an ATC system
controlling the aircraft above their heads.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Aaron Coolidge" > wrote in message
...
>
> Since the airlines don't really pay for ATC services (neither does GA),
this
> little statistic should be treated as the worthless tidbit that it is.
> The fuel tax assists in paying for ATC.
>

I haven't seen figures for several years now, but unless there've been some
significant changes, user fees cover about 85% of the cost of ATC. It'd be
more accurate to say the general fund assists in paying for ATC.

[Allen]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Allen" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > Obtuse is the exact word I was thinking of when reading Steven's posts.
> >
>
> In what way do you think I've been obtuse.
>
>
> >
> > I don't believe he was always this way, it just started with the Rutan
> space
> > thread.
> >
>
> If you check the statements I made in that thread you will find them all
to
> be correct.
>

Nothing personal, it just seems you are perfecting the art of answering a
question with a question.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Allen" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Nothing personal, it just seems you are perfecting the art of answering a
> question with a question.
>

Actually, I believe that was Socrates.

[PaulH]

We can argue for 6 months about what's fair but it's a waste of time.
The decision is made at the political level and will not have any
rationale other than competition between politicians with wealthy
constituents.

[Victor J. Osborne, Jr.]

Amen

--

Thx, {|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.



take off my shoes to reply