death of GA in NY

[[email protected]]

The slow death of GA is in acceleration in the NY area. TEB FBO's moving
out pushing the feeding chain down. FBO's now requiring TSA clearance
even for renters (not just trainees as required by law; since when did
FBO's become worse than homeland security?).

FBO's outside of TEB losing students by the dozens due to fuel and the 3rd
price hike in less than a month.

Nice going everyone. I always thought what would finally kill GA would be
the media or anti airport sentiment; not FBO's. There is not one that I
would recommend within 25 miles of new york city.

And .. if you respond and defend an FBO here I can only wonder why.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 10:54:19 -0400, wrote in
>::

>FBO's now requiring TSA clearance
>even for renters (not just trainees as required by law; since when did
>FBO's become worse than homeland security?).

Dear Elie,

What action have you taken to mitigate the issue you raise? Have you
contacted your local FSDO inspector? Have you contacted your
governmental representatives?

[Ben Hallert]

The TSA clearance, is that for foreign students/renters? If so, that's
a new requirement nationwide.

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

[Skylune]

Probably just the useless, recreational form of GA is dying for economic
reasons. And this is before the user fees are enacted! Outstanding!

Part of the reason that user fees are inevitable is because commercial
aviation is tired of subsidizing small planes. The upcoming Delta
bankruptcy will shine more light on the huge subsidies that GA is
receiving, from the AIP operating and capital grants, to the FAA system
that GA gets to use for free.

The next major GA incident (whether it be another violation of the ADIZ,
or the next high profile crash) will provide opportunity for anti-GA
activists to really pile on. For now, we wait, patiently.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" > made like a vulture, circled and
lied :

> Probably just the useless, recreational form of GA is dying for economic
> reasons. And this is before the user fees are enacted! Outstanding!


Let's also get rid of:
1. national parks, as they serve only recreational uses
2. state and local parks (ditto above)
3. golf courses (ditto above)
4. sports arenas (ditto above), plus, they subsidize super-wealthy
owners and players
5. concert halls
6. public libraries, as people can buy their own books


> Part of the reason that user fees are inevitable is because commercial
> aviation is tired of subsidizing small planes. The upcoming Delta
> bankruptcy will shine more light on the huge subsidies that GA is
> receiving, from the AIP operating and capital grants, to the FAA system
> that GA gets to use for free.


Actually, GA subsidizes the airlines, by providing a pipeline for pilot
training.


> The next major GA incident (whether it be another violation of the ADIZ,
> or the next high profile crash) will provide opportunity for anti-GA
> activists to really pile on. For now, we wait, patiently.

Written like a true vulture!

[Steve Foley]

This one deserves more than one sentence.

You need 1500 hours to get an ATP. At $100 per hour, that's $150,000 just
for the minimum flying hours required to *take* the test. How much multi
time is required?

Now, think about the drop out rate among pilots. Jay Honeck started a thread
recently about the number of drop outs from flying. I would expect at least
50% of first time flyers do not get a private ticket.

The majority of the 1500 hours needed for an ATP is gained through
instruction. This instruction is funded by General Aviation. What would
happen if GA dissapeared from this training stream. What happens to the
number of qualified pilots? Does the FAA lower the standards? Do the
airlines begin training newly minted commercial pilots to become ATPs? That
would only cost them $125,000 each (assuming none drop out).

Any way you look at it, the elimination of GA would cause major problems for
the airlines.




"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...


> Actually, GA subsidizes the airlines, by providing a pipeline for pilot
> training.

[Steve Foley]

I don't expect user fees will reduce GA activity much. Only safety.

I flew to Maine and back this weekend (Almost over your house, but at 5500
or 6500 feet), and never spoke to ATC, or anyone else except a friend of
mine flying the same route. Would not have incurred any user fees.


"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> And this is before the user fees are enacted! Outstanding!
>
> Part of the reason that user fees are inevitable is because commercial
> aviation is tired of subsidizing small planes. The upcoming Delta
> bankruptcy will shine more light on the huge subsidies that GA is
> receiving, from the AIP operating and capital grants, to the FAA system
> that GA gets to use for free.
>
> The next major GA incident (whether it be another violation of the ADIZ,
> or the next high profile crash) will provide opportunity for anti-GA
> activists to really pile on. For now, we wait, patiently.
>

[Andrew Sarangan]

How much money do you think we have paid to bail out TWA, Continental,
United etc...?

[Larry Dighera]

On 12 Sep 2005 12:01:18 -0700, "Andrew Sarangan" >
wrote in om>::

>How much money do you think we have paid to bail out TWA, Continental,
>United etc...?

Oh, you mean like federalizing the security screeners, and paying
billions to the families of 9/11 victims in exchange for their
forfeiting their right to sue the airlines, or the direct subsidies?

[Michael]

<i>Any way you look at it, the elimination of GA would cause major
problems for
the airlines.</i>

Nope. Not true. You don't need to be an ATP to be a copilot on an
airliner, only a commercial pilot. That takes only 250 hours (and less
under Part 141). Of course more experience is desirable, but it's not
necessary. If we're talking about airliners like the Airbus, which
(according to all my friends who have flown them) handle far more like
Microsoft Flight Sim than like an airplale (right down to the little
joystick with no feedback), the experience is not even particularly
desirable.

You forget that when hiring gets tight, the regionals start taking
people at 500 hours. In much of the world, 250 hours gets you into the
right seat of an airliner even today - and that's without family
connections. You earn the rest of your 1500 hours towards the ATP in
the right seat. In fact, the US is pretty unusual in that someone can
become an ATP without being an airline employee. In Europe, this is
already impossible - to take the ATP checkride, you need 500 hours as
SIC in a crew environment (no, safety pilot doesn't count) so you have
to get the airline job first, before you can get the ATP.

There are already large numbers of flight schools out there, located in
the middle of nowhere, which are quite prepaed to take pilots from zero
to 250-hour CFI/CFII/MEI without any contact with recreational GA (or
real-world flying). They train their own instructors, and the
instructors train the next crop, with maybe a retired (or failed)
airline pilot or two supervising the whole deal. They can keep
supplying the airlines long after there is a 30-mile no-fly zone around
every major city and there is a fee for every flight plan.

Don't kid yourself - the airlines don't need GA, especially not
recreational GA.

Michael

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >How much money do you think we have paid to bail out TWA, Continental,
> >United etc...?
>
> Oh, you mean like federalizing the security screeners, and paying
> billions to the families of 9/11 victims in exchange for their
> forfeiting their right to sue the airlines, or the direct subsidies?

No, he probably means the huge "get out of jail free" fund that the
federal government made available to companies that are so mismanaged
that they have no business being in business.



JKG

[John Doe]

> wrote in message
...
>
> The slow death of GA is in acceleration in the NY area. TEB FBO's moving
> out pushing the feeding chain down. FBO's now requiring TSA clearance
> even for renters (not just trainees as required by law; since when did
> FBO's become worse than homeland security?).
>
> FBO's outside of TEB losing students by the dozens due to fuel and the 3rd
> price hike in less than a month.
>
> Nice going everyone. I always thought what would finally kill GA would be
> the media or anti airport sentiment; not FBO's. There is not one that I
> would recommend within 25 miles of new york city.
>
> And .. if you respond and defend an FBO here I can only wonder why.
>

I know you think the world revolves around NY, but there are many more
airfields and airplanes outside the NYC area that will continue, dispite any
cease in GA around the big apple.

Since I rarely ever even file a flight plan, I'm not too concerned about
user fees either.

[Larry Dighera]

On 12 Sep 2005 13:07:13 -0700, "Michael"
> wrote in
. com>::

>There are already large numbers of flight schools out there, located in
>the middle of nowhere, which are quite prepaed to take pilots from zero
>to 250-hour CFI/CFII/MEI without any contact with recreational GA (or
>real-world flying).

Yep.

What percentage of airline flight crew would you estimate were trained
in the military?

[Skylune]

Read the "Fuel Price Affect" (sic) posted on the AOPA member board (easy to
hack into their site if you are not a member; I-pilot is a bit tougher,
but doable): Rising AV gas prices are definitely having an "affect."

[Andrew Gideon]

wrote:

> The slow death of GA is in acceleration in the NY area.


I believe you're missing the smaller picture. TEB has been *small* GA
unfriendly for quite some time now. It's all about money: which makes more
for the FBO, a 4 172s or 1 citation?

Right now, MMU is pretty good about small GA. But I predict that this won't
last long. The best break we "little plane" pilots got in a while in this
area was the rejection of the idea to extend CDW's 4/22 and put in an ILS.

And, of course, we've several smaller airports in the neighborhood. We do
need to work to keep them. NJ's been pretty good about this recently, I'm
please to note, trying to buy development rights and such.

TEB with its volume of commercial GA operations is, I suspect, less the rule
than the exception. Fortunately, I don't think most GA airports can handle
the traffic TEB's receiving.

Further to this, one particular FBO at TEB had a recent insurance problem.
Even though this wasn't related to small GA, a consequence was a severe
restriction in what could be done with their rented planes.

At least, that's the story. There's still the fact that small airplanes
take space and management that makes more money on larger planes.

- Andrew

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2005 13:07:13 -0700, "Michael"
> > wrote in
> . com>::
>
> >There are already large numbers of flight schools out there, located in
> >the middle of nowhere, which are quite prepaed to take pilots from zero
> >to 250-hour CFI/CFII/MEI without any contact with recreational GA (or
> >real-world flying).
>
> Yep.
>
> What percentage of airline flight crew would you estimate were trained
> in the military?

IIRC the proportion dropped below 50% within the past 5-10 years and is
continuing to drop as the airline industry grows and the military keeps
shrinking.

-cwk.

[Ron Natalie]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> What percentage of airline flight crew would you estimate were trained
> in the military?

Not much. In the seventies and eighties it was a substantial
proportion, but we don't use that many pilots in the military
these days so there aren't that many transitioning into civil
careers. Many of the reserve and NG pilots flying now have
non-flying careers they go back to.

[Steve Foley]

I don't think fuel prices will have a permanant effect. How many gallons of
fuel could you buy for the same as a new Skyhawk on 1970? How about now?

I would guess that consumption in every recreational activity that burns
petrolium fuel is is down. How much gas did you burn in those twin 350s this
weekend? It looked to me that boating was way off this weekend.

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Read the "Fuel Price Affect" (sic) posted on the AOPA member board (easy
to
> hack into their site if you are not a member; I-pilot is a bit tougher,
> but doable): Rising AV gas prices are definitely having an "affect."
>

[Steve S]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
gonline.com...
> wrote:
>
>> The slow death of GA is in acceleration in the NY area.
>
>
> I believe you're missing the smaller picture. TEB has been *small* GA
> unfriendly for quite some time now. It's all about money: which makes
> more
> for the FBO, a 4 172s or 1 citation?
>
> Right now, MMU is pretty good about small GA. But I predict that this
> won't
> last long. The best break we "little plane" pilots got in a while in this

I wouldn't call a $35.00 landing/parking/handling fee by Signature the only
FBO small GA friendly

[kontiki]

Steve S wrote:

> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> gonline.com...
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The slow death of GA is in acceleration in the NY area.
>>
>>
>>I believe you're missing the smaller picture. TEB has been *small* GA
>>unfriendly for quite some time now. It's all about money: which makes
>>more
>>for the FBO, a 4 172s or 1 citation?
>>
>>Right now, MMU is pretty good about small GA. But I predict that this
>>won't
>>last long. The best break we "little plane" pilots got in a while in this
>
>
> I wouldn't call a $35.00 landing/parking/handling fee by Signature the only
> FBO small GA friendly
>
>
Agreed. A reasonable overnight parking fee ($10 a night ?) I could go
along with but $35 will pretty much guarantee a lot of GA aircraft
will avoid that FBO. In their own way they are contributing to the
extermination of general aviation.

Just as with excessive income taxes, there is a point of diminishing
returns. There somes a point where reducing tax rates actually results
in an overall increase in tax revenues because people start increasing
economic activities. I think some of these FBOs need a little dose of
supply side economic thinking.

[Steve Foley]

I've seen way too many CFIs go on to get airline jobs to believe that losing
that stream of employees wouldn't hurt.
"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...


> There are already large numbers of flight schools out there, located in
> the middle of nowhere, which are quite prepaed to take pilots from zero
> to 250-hour CFI/CFII/MEI without any contact with recreational GA (or
> real-world flying). They train their own instructors, and the
> instructors train the next crop, with maybe a retired (or failed)
> airline pilot or two supervising the whole deal. They can keep
> supplying the airlines long after there is a 30-mile no-fly zone around
> every major city and there is a fee for every flight plan.
>
> Don't kid yourself - the airlines don't need GA, especially not
> recreational GA.
>
> Michael
>

[cjcampbell]

Skylune wrote:
> Probably just the useless, recreational form of GA is dying for economic
> reasons. And this is before the user fees are enacted! Outstanding!
>
> Part of the reason that user fees are inevitable is because commercial
> aviation is tired of subsidizing small planes.

Yeah, yeah. And motorists are tired of 'subsidizing' bicyclists. City
dwellers are tired of 'subsidizing' the national parks. Small
businesses are tired of 'subsidizing' giant corporations, who believe
they are 'subsidizing' the small buinesses. And we are all tired of
'subsidizing' the farmers.

Get a clue. Everyone pays taxes. The method of collecting taxes is
meaningless. It all goes into one big pot anyway. No one is
'subsidizing' anyone else. Just because the government, in its infinite
mercy, chooses to let you keep some small part of your own money does
not mean that you are subsidizing anyone. Be sure that they are getting
their share, well, more than their share, actually, of your hide from
somewhere else.

[Tom]

This is the guy who castigated someone on the board who said he didn't
bother getting a medical or do a BFR.

Hey Skylune, you probably think your hacking is simply harmless fun, right?

What a putz. (Putzlune would be a better moniker you dolt/Emery-Riddle
washout.)



"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Read the "Fuel Price Affect" (sic) posted on the AOPA member board (easy
> to
> hack into their site if you are not a member; I-pilot is a bit tougher,
> but doable): Rising AV gas prices are definitely having an "affect."
>

[Maule Driver]

kontiki wrote:
>> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message

>> I wouldn't call a $35.00 landing/parking/handling fee by Signature the
>> only FBO small GA friendly
Is $35 really unfriendly in the NYC metro area? I haven't lived in the
area for almost 10 years but even then it cost over $20 to park a car
for the day in prime midtown spot. Why would it not cost the same or
more to park an aircraft?
>>
> Agreed. A reasonable overnight parking fee ($10 a night ?) I could go
> along with but $35 will pretty much guarantee a lot of GA aircraft
> will avoid that FBO. In their own way they are contributing to the
> extermination of general aviation.
I expect to pay $10 a night almost anywhere. Often it's less. But at
prime locations I'm sometimes surprised at how little we pay... and how
much we complain.

I'd like use of all airports to be free too. I hate getting charged
parking and service and whatever. Although with the increased security
that 9/11 caused, I feel like I get a little more for the dollar. But
I'm willing to pay to get access, security, and service. I'm glad
someone is there to provide it and I have to be willing to pay for it.

It shouldn't work the way it worked for me this weekend. I filled up at
our private tank, then flew to our local Class C airport to pick up my
passenger. The FBO generously provided a car and driver to do the round
trip to the passenger terminal. No charge but I tipped the driver. We
returned and flew to a busy Class B. There were a number of smaller
airports nearby but none as close to our downtown hotel as the this one.
We tookour tail dragger directly to the overnight parking area knowing
that it can't be towed. We were met by 2 golf carts for luggage and the
trip to the FBO. We checked in, ate a cookie, met our host, and off we
went. We stayed an extra day. Returned, told the receptionist that we
needed a ride out to our plane because it couldn't be towed but
otherwise didn't need anything else. "Fine, have a nice flight". Three
different guys helped us get our luggage out to the plane.

No charge. I'm embarrassed by that. I know that they have charges for
overnight parking and service in lieu of a fuel purchase. But I didn't
offer and they didn't ask. It shouldn't work that way but often than
not, it does. (Taildragger helps). How do these guys stay in business?
I know my $35 isn't going to make or break the business but how many
businesses provide great, on-demand service and don't bother to collect
anything? Maybe I'll invest that $35 in a new ANR headset to stimulate
the economy.

No, actually I returned home and filled up again at the private tank
with the $35 I didn't pay the FBO. Great for me!
>
> Just as with excessive income taxes, there is a point of diminishing
> returns. There somes a point where reducing tax rates actually results
> in an overall increase in tax revenues because people start increasing
> economic activities. I think some of these FBOs need a little dose of
> supply side economic thinking.
It was BS then, it's BS now.

[Andrew Gideon]

Steve S wrote:

> I wouldn't call a $35.00 landing/parking/handling fee by Signature the
> only FBO small GA friendly

Oh. Well. I'm out of date again, then.

I thought a new school/FBO had opened there a couple of years ago ("Blue"
something?).

- Andrew

[W P Dixon]

Maybe I look at it strangely?
When you pay to park your car in a parking lot is it on private
property? When you pay to park your plane is it on private property? My take
on it is, if it is being (car or plane) parked on public property funded by
taxpayers it has already been paid for.
Heck I hate toll roads! Now if a private company wants to build a road
and charge a toll , fine. When tax dollars pay for the construction it just
really gets my goat. I don't mind some sort of tax, but I hate being
"double" taxed . I just do not see taxes funding airports and then the
airport turning around charging someone a landing fee or what have you ,
when the Federal tax dollar supports the airport. If the airport wants to
charge for it's use, then it needs to be a private airport and not publicly
funded. IMHO, a 2 buck charge at a funded airport is 2 bucks to much .
Is it just me or does anyone else feel they are being ripped off when
airports do this? Seems to me they could do more biz by not having landing
and parking fees. More pilots would stop there and use their services
wouldn't they? I think the fees just add to the slow death of GA in an area.

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

>>> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
>
>>> I wouldn't call a $35.00 landing/parking/handling fee by Signature the
>>> only FBO small GA friendly
> Is $35 really unfriendly in the NYC metro area? I haven't lived in the
> area for almost 10 years but even then it cost over $20 to park a car for
> the day in prime midtown spot. Why would it not cost the same or more to
> park an aircraft?
>>>

[Skylune]

Given the clear weather and the (odd) northeasterly wind, I travelled a bit
farther out of the Peconic than I normally would have. Got some shelter
around Southhold bay, about 8 nm from the marina. Total travel time, each
way, about 25 minutes. So, say about an hour of travel time, at about 15
gph. We spent about 6 hours on the water, and several more at the dock.

[Orval Fairbairn]

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

> Given the clear weather and the (odd) northeasterly wind, I travelled a bit
> farther out of the Peconic than I normally would have. Got some shelter
> around Southhold bay, about 8 nm from the marina. Total travel time, each
> way, about 25 minutes. So, say about an hour of travel time, at about 15
> gph. We spent about 6 hours on the water, and several more at the dock.


I forgot to include boaters and their marinas and Coast Guard protection
to my list of "subsidies of recreational activities."

Get a clue, "Skylune," you hypocrite!

[Skylune]

Orville: What percentage of boaters use Coast Guard Services vs.
percentage of flyers using FAA funded services (including the airports
themselves, controllers, etc.)? How much of an operating subsidy and
capital subsidy do private marinas receive?

Why does the AOPA cry about "privatization" and "user fees" while the Boat
US has no such issues?

By the way, your red plane is butt ugly.

[Maule Driver]

W P Dixon wrote:
> Maybe I look at it strangely?
> When you pay to park your car in a parking lot is it on private
> property?
I never know. It is being managed and presumably atleast leased by a
private operator. Go to a federal or state building and you park in a
pay parking lot.
> When you pay to park your plane is it on private property? My
> take on it is, if it is being (car or plane) parked on public property
> funded by taxpayers it has already been paid for.
I feel that way about using the ATC system and operating in and out of
public airports. But every ramp I see (and want to park on) is
privately operated. I don't think it makes any difference who *owns*
it, the question is who *operates* it. That is, who puts the chains
out, chocks at night as required, provides security, who is liable?
> Heck I hate toll roads! Now if a private company wants to build a
> road and charge a toll , fine. When tax dollars pay for the construction
> it just really gets my goat. I don't mind some sort of tax, but I hate
> being "double" taxed . I just do not see taxes funding airports and then
> the airport turning around charging someone a landing fee or what have
> you , when the Federal tax dollar supports the airport. If the airport
> wants to charge for it's use, then it needs to be a private airport and
> not publicly funded. IMHO, a 2 buck charge at a funded airport is 2
> bucks to much .
It's pretty obvious that roads *have* to be a public entity. It's a
regional and national interest and private ownership just won't work
(who would build the interstates? Or the PA turnpike? Major airports,
to a lesser extent, need to be public too. Otherwise they would all be
closed or closing. NIMBY applies, squared!
> Is it just me or does anyone else feel they are being ripped off when
> airports do this? Seems to me they could do more biz by not having
> landing and parking fees. More pilots would stop there and use their
> services wouldn't they?
No, I don't think so. If that were the case, someone would be running a
Walmart FBO chain and cleaning up. Who cleans up in the FBO business?
Who cleans up in the small piston FBO business. Let's see, "if I just
didn't have to pay $12 bucks to park overnight (with no fuel) I'd fly 20
more hours a year". I don't think so.
I think the fees just add to the slow death of
> GA in an area.
Myself, I fly to get somewhere and land where I'm closest to my
destination. I pay the fees with a smile when asked. I appreciate each
and every airport I land at mainly because they are there. Good
services are even better. I rarely end up paying a government entity
directly though I'm sure taxes are collected from those private
operators operating on public land. The few airports where the local
gov actually operates the airport, things seem to get strange... but
that's ok too.

I don't like the idea of ATC user fees. I don't like state run
lotteries. But I like successful FBOs and usually end up 'ripping them
off' (burp) rather than feeling ripped off.

[Michael]

> I've seen way too many CFIs go on to get airline jobs to believe that losing
> that stream of employees wouldn't hurt.

There are way more people who want to be airline pilots than there are
jobs for them. The airlines will never have a real shortage of pilots.
At worst, they will simply drop their mins to 250 hours, the way they
airlines in countries with essentially no GA do.

Michael

[W P Dixon]

I know what you are saying,
I have alot of friends here that will not fly to a airport with fees,
they hate them like I do. I wonder if it's just a southern thing? ;)

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> W P Dixon wrote:
>> Maybe I look at it strangely?
>> When you pay to park your car in a parking lot is it on private
>> property?
> I never know. It is being managed and presumably atleast leased by a
> private operator. Go to a federal or state building and you park in a pay
> parking lot.
>> When you pay to park your plane is it on private property? My take on it
>> is, if it is being (car or plane) parked on public property funded by
>> taxpayers it has already been paid for.
> I feel that way about using the ATC system and operating in and out of
> public airports. But every ramp I see (and want to park on) is privately
> operated. I don't think it makes any difference who *owns* it, the
> question is who *operates* it. That is, who puts the chains out, chocks
> at night as required, provides security, who is liable?
>> Heck I hate toll roads! Now if a private company wants to build a road
>> and charge a toll , fine. When tax dollars pay for the construction it
>> just really gets my goat. I don't mind some sort of tax, but I hate being
>> "double" taxed . I just do not see taxes funding airports and then the
>> airport turning around charging someone a landing fee or what have you ,
>> when the Federal tax dollar supports the airport. If the airport wants to
>> charge for it's use, then it needs to be a private airport and not
>> publicly funded. IMHO, a 2 buck charge at a funded airport is 2 bucks to
>> much .
> It's pretty obvious that roads *have* to be a public entity. It's a
> regional and national interest and private ownership just won't work (who
> would build the interstates? Or the PA turnpike? Major airports, to a
> lesser extent, need to be public too. Otherwise they would all be closed
> or closing. NIMBY applies, squared!
>> Is it just me or does anyone else feel they are being ripped off when
>> airports do this? Seems to me they could do more biz by not having
>> landing and parking fees. More pilots would stop there and use their
>> services wouldn't they?
> No, I don't think so. If that were the case, someone would be running a
> Walmart FBO chain and cleaning up. Who cleans up in the FBO business? Who
> cleans up in the small piston FBO business. Let's see, "if I just didn't
> have to pay $12 bucks to park overnight (with no fuel) I'd fly 20 more
> hours a year". I don't think so.
> I think the fees just add to the slow death of
>> GA in an area.
> Myself, I fly to get somewhere and land where I'm closest to my
> destination. I pay the fees with a smile when asked. I appreciate each
> and every airport I land at mainly because they are there. Good services
> are even better. I rarely end up paying a government entity directly
> though I'm sure taxes are collected from those private operators operating
> on public land. The few airports where the local gov actually operates
> the airport, things seem to get strange... but that's ok too.
>
> I don't like the idea of ATC user fees. I don't like state run lotteries.
> But I like successful FBOs and usually end up 'ripping them off' (burp)
> rather than feeling ripped off.

[Andrew Gideon]

W P Dixon wrote:

> Seems to me they could do more biz by not having landing
> and parking fees. More pilots would stop there and use their services
> wouldn't they? I think the fees just add to the slow death of GA in an
> area.

You're still missing it, I think. You're thinking "small GA". A $35 fee is
nothing to "big GA", and it is those large jet-A burners that spend a
serious dollar or two on fuel (and other services, I presume).

That fee keeps pilots out; it's *supposed* to keep [certain] pilots out. We
use up almost as much space and time as the big guys, buy less than the big
guys, so we're somewhat undesirable from a commercial perspective.

In a way, this is a good sign: there's enough money to be made in GA, so the
airports and FBOs are turning away the less profitable business. Sadly,
some of us (ie. me) are a part of that less profitable segment.

- Andrew

[Skylune]

Andrew wrote:
You're still missing it, I think. You're thinking "small GA". A $35 fee
is
nothing to "big GA", and it is those large jet-A burners that spend a
serious dollar or two on fuel (and other services, I presume).

That fee keeps pilots out; it's *supposed* to keep [certain] pilots out.
We
use up almost as much space and time as the big guys, buy less than the
big
guys, so we're somewhat undesirable from a commercial perspective.

In a way, this is a good sign: there's enough money to be made in GA, so
the
airports and FBOs are turning away the less profitable business. Sadly,
some of us (ie. me) are a part of that less profitable segment.

- Andrew

Exactly. This is why I posed the question about why a busy GA airport
that is used almost exclusively for light planes and flight training
"needs" to lengthen a 5500 ft runway ("for safety") and whether the small
plane crowd objects. Of course I was ridiculed and someone asked why I
would pose such a question.... My theory meshes with your thoughts: It
seems to me that the FBOs want more repair work, more fuel fees, etc.

The airport doesn't care about noise abatement, city taxes, and maybe,
just maybe, doesn't even care about the current users. They just want the
Net Jets and other fractionals for the benefit of the FBOs.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" (a pathetic excuse for a human being)
> tried (and failed) to make a point:

> Orville: What percentage of boaters use Coast Guard Services vs.
> percentage of flyers using FAA funded services (including the airports
> themselves, controllers, etc.)? How much of an operating subsidy and
> capital subsidy do private marinas receive?

Plenty -- The Corps of Engineers keeps the harbors dredged; bridges have
to be raised/lowered for yachtsmen (such as "Skyloon") (or is he a
stinkpot driver?). They also require police to kep security, fire
services -- all paid by the taxpayers.

Don't come whining to ME about "subsidies"!


>
> Why does the AOPA cry about "privatization" and "user fees" while the Boat
> US has no such issues?

Because the boaters haven't been threatened (yet).


> By the way, your red plane is butt ugly.

I can tell that "Skyloon" probably have far better taste than your wife
(or girlfriend/boyfriend), but have absolutely NO appreciation for good
airplanes. (The fool doesn't know how to spell my name, either.)

[Steve Foley]

I think your travel time was more than one hour. Cow Hampshire to Lon
Gisland is a heck of a drive. You should take up flying :)


"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Given the clear weather and the (odd) northeasterly wind, I travelled a
bit
> farther out of the Peconic than I normally would have. Got some shelter
> around Southhold bay, about 8 nm from the marina. Total travel time, each
> way, about 25 minutes. So, say about an hour of travel time, at about 15
> gph. We spent about 6 hours on the water, and several more at the dock.
>

[john smith]

"Skylune" > wrote:

> Orville: What percentage of boaters use Coast Guard Services vs.
> percentage of flyers using FAA funded services (including the airports
> themselves, controllers, etc.)? How much of an operating subsidy and
> capital subsidy do private marinas receive?

How many lakes, rivers, reservoirs, other bodies of water were created,
altered, maintained by the Corp of Engineers for the purpose of
recreational boating as a primary or tertiary reasons? How much does the
Corp spend each year to maintain those bodies of water?

[Newps]

john smith wrote:

> "Skylune" > wrote:
>
>
>>Orville: What percentage of boaters use Coast Guard Services vs.
>>percentage of flyers using FAA funded services (including the airports
>>themselves, controllers, etc.)? How much of an operating subsidy and
>>capital subsidy do private marinas receive?
>
>
> How many lakes, rivers, reservoirs, other bodies of water were created,
> altered, maintained by the Corp of Engineers for the purpose of
> recreational boating as a primary or tertiary reasons? How much does the
> Corp spend each year to maintain those bodies of water?

The Corp steals water from us here in Montana every year to keep the
Missouri navigable for you folks farther downstream.

[Skylune]

LOL. I actually thought about restarting my flight training, now that I
have more time to do so and split time between Cow Hampshire and Lawn Guy
Land. But I think not....

The once a week lesson (then once a month due to time constraints) that
the damned flight school at FRG sold me on years back just wasn't gonna
work out. (That, plus my experiences flying with my buddy out of ISP who
still can't figure out how to use the new-fangled GPS is why I know that
there are many GA flyers who just are not that skilled.) Of course, the
flight school was more than willing to take my $$ before I realized you
can't get competent by training sporatically, so I pulled the plug and
stuck with my other time consuming hobbies.

But, I can easily drive to New London (and take a few minutes to protest
the illegal taking of private property there), hop on the ferry, and be
home in about 4 hours. Flying, with the pre-flight, weather, car rental,
etc. wouldn't save that much time, and I'd constantly be keeping my eye
on the weather.

Personally, I would never again take up flying again unless I had the time
to get instrument rated. Of course, I would be more than willing to pay my
own way, and would obey all noise abatement procedures (safety allowing),
unlike the dolts who just don't give a s____t.

Thank you for not buzzing my house on your trip to Maine.

[Skylune]

That's a good question. I think the answer is "none", it's done for
commercial reasons, not to support recreational boating. But I'm not
sure.

If there are subsidies for recreational boating, they should be
eliminated, and user fees substituted.

[Maule Driver]

W P Dixon wrote:
> I know what you are saying,
> I have alot of friends here that will not fly to a airport with fees,
> they hate them like I do. I wonder if it's just a southern thing? ;)
>
Since I'm merely a visiting Yankee with long term privileges, I am
sometimes ignorant of such things. So I just go, land, say Hi, and
leave... usually without fees.

[George Patterson]

Skylune wrote:
> That's a good question. I think the answer is "none", it's done for
> commercial reasons, not to support recreational boating. But I'm not
> sure.

There are several in Tennessee. Tellico and Reelfoot were both primarily created
for recreation, though other spurious arguments were presented to Congress. Even
ex-senator Baker now feels that he bought a line of bull with regard to Tellico
and would never support it now.

In general, the older the project, the less recreation had to do with its
construction. Norris, for example, was intended mainly to put people to work
during the depression. Fontana was built to provide electricity for the
anticipated atomic bomb production line. Loudon was built for flood control, as
were several other TVA projects.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Skylune]

Well then, that's another example of outrageous pork spending for special
interests (recreational boaters) that serve no national interest, using a
pretext of serving some other national good. But, at least the feds don't
also pay annual operating subsidies to keep the marina dock fees
artificially low.


Its like the GA airport near me that receives $150K per year operating
subsidy from the FAA and will receive a 95% grant from the AIP for
"safety" improvements. The "safety" improvements include a proposal to
lengthen the runway by 500 feet (to 6000 feet!) and/or construct a second
parallel runway. Over 95% of the traffic at the airport is small GA, so
why do they need to extend for "safety?" Answer: they don't. They are
liars, and want to maximize the profits of the FBOs (by attracting larger
jets and increasing weather tolerances), who the airport board panders to.

[George Patterson]

Skylune wrote:
> Well then, that's another example of outrageous pork spending for special
> interests (recreational boaters) that serve no national interest, using a
> pretext of serving some other national good.

Well, Tellico doesn't meet my definition of pork barrel spending. To me, a
project that spends most of the money outside the building area isn't really
pork barrel. The primary driver for Tellico was basically to increase the size
and power of TVA. Like most dams, it was built in a sparsely populated area, so
all supplies had to be brought in from outside. Since the Feds were footing the
bill, most came from outside the State. As is the case with most (perhaps all)
Federal projects at that time, all workers were union members. Unions don't just
grab people off the street and hand them journeyman cards, so most of the
workers came from out of State.

Basically, with the vast majority of the materials and labor coming from
outside, Tennessee got very little out of the deal, which is why I wouldn't call
it a pork barrel project. The legislature, in fact, tried to stop the project.
Land for the impoundment was taken at the tax appraisal value (typically about
30% of market at that time). Huge areas of land surrounding the impoundment were
also taken by TVA. TVA is now selling the lakefront pieces off to developers and
leasing the remainder back to the original owners.

Tellico has basically turned out to be a massive real estate deal and little
else. Of the original claims for "improvement", the only thing that has happened
is that trout have been replaced by bass and canoes by bass boats.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Skylune]

I have to agree that that particular project is not classic pork-barrel
spending, especially since the locals/state opposed it. I'm obviously not
familiar with the particulars.

One question though: did the original project in fact increase the
generation capacity of the TVA?

[George Patterson]

Skylune wrote:
>
> One question though: did the original project in fact increase the
> generation capacity of the TVA?

A little. The dam is not at a good location for hydro. One of the facts
presented during the original proposal was that the dam would not generate
enough electricity over its lifespan to begin to repay the cost of construction.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Steve Foley]

The bureaucrats look at grants like businesspoeple look at sales. Bringing
in more money is always better. I don't think they're doing safety
improvements to bring in more business, or even to improve safety. They're
protecting their fifedom, and bringing in more dollars. I doubt it's even to
increast business for the FBOs.


"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

> Its like the GA airport near me that receives $150K per year operating
> subsidy from the FAA and will receive a 95% grant from the AIP for
> "safety" improvements. The "safety" improvements include a proposal to
> lengthen the runway by 500 feet (to 6000 feet!) and/or construct a second
> parallel runway. Over 95% of the traffic at the airport is small GA, so
> why do they need to extend for "safety?" Answer: they don't. They are
> liars, and want to maximize the profits of the FBOs (by attracting larger
> jets and increasing weather tolerances), who the airport board panders to.
>
>
>
>

[Skylune]

Well, it is totally insulting to portray runway extensions and second
runway options as necessary for safety, and that's what these guys are
doing. Absolutely insulting, and they are trying to pull a fast one on
the community. They think of the general public as stupid, and they are
arrogant: that will be their undoing.

No one wants to close the airport down. (Well, some of the Luddites from
Stop the Noise may want to, but not realistic people.) We just want them
to be responsible and not stick their hands in our wallets.

They do need to move the existing runway about 500 feet from the taxiway
to meet FAA regulations because of the increase in operations and
increased usage by private jets: thats the safety part. But they wrap
the expansion (which is what they REALLY want) into the safety language.
What BS. Its a total lie by an airport that has proven over and over
(whether it be concern for taxpayers, disregard of noise abatement, water
pollution regs, you name it...) that it just doesn't give a damn about the
community. And, as you can tell, some of us are really ****ed....

This airport is in total contrast to FRG: I lived about 4 nm from that
VERY busy airport until recently. Never made a single noise complaint.
Could hear the airplanes, but rarely if ever were we buzzed.

[Capt.Doug]

>"Ron Natalie" wrote in message > Not much. In the seventies and eighties
it was a >substantial
> proportion, but we don't use that many pilots in the military
> these days so there aren't that many transitioning into civil
> careers.

Additionally, most regional airlines now fly turbofan aircraft which negates
the advantage of jet time that the airlines favored in hiring military
pilots.

D.

[Steve Foley]

I wish I could believe your airport group was that dedicated to the airport.
From what I've seen around here, they see what grants are available, and
then try to figure out how to get some of the money. They will apply for
whatever projects they can come up with that in some way fit into the grant
program.

In your case, I would guess that they heard there was money available to
increase safety. They said to themselves "How can we get some of this? Maybe
we could extend the runways and call it a safety improvement"

They're calling it a safety improvement because that's where the money is.
It also makes them look good by bringing money into the local economy.




"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Well, it is totally insulting to portray runway extensions and second
> runway options as necessary for safety, and that's what these guys are
> doing. Absolutely insulting, and they are trying to pull a fast one on
> the community. They think of the general public as stupid, and they are
> arrogant: that will be their undoing.
>
> No one wants to close the airport down. (Well, some of the Luddites from
> Stop the Noise may want to, but not realistic people.) We just want them
> to be responsible and not stick their hands in our wallets.
>
> They do need to move the existing runway about 500 feet from the taxiway
> to meet FAA regulations because of the increase in operations and
> increased usage by private jets: thats the safety part. But they wrap
> the expansion (which is what they REALLY want) into the safety language.
> What BS. Its a total lie by an airport that has proven over and over
> (whether it be concern for taxpayers, disregard of noise abatement, water
> pollution regs, you name it...) that it just doesn't give a damn about the
> community. And, as you can tell, some of us are really ****ed....
>
> This airport is in total contrast to FRG: I lived about 4 nm from that
> VERY busy airport until recently. Never made a single noise complaint.
> Could hear the airplanes, but rarely if ever were we buzzed.
>

[Skylune]

Having had some experience with federal grants in the past, I agree with
all you've said, except the last sentence.

Misportraying the project as purely for safety rather than the expansion
that it obviously is just generates more distrust of the people running
the airport. They've lost all credibility with me and other locals I
know. That's why I've bypassed them and gone directly to the press and
politicians.

Many people are aware that the project is really an expansion now,
although one of the local pols admitted he had no idea what was going on
until I wrote him. Then he realized (hallelujah!), that the "safety
improvements" were in fact just a business plan; playing off the much
higher prices of BED (landing fees, higher fuel prices, etc.)

Anyway, they had to put the whole project on hold because of wetlands
impact. Originally, they had no intention of doing an environmental
impact study. Or an update to the nearly 20 year old part 150 study (not
that that means anything, they never implemented some of the requirements
anyway). At one of the public meetings, one resident actually stood up
and said something like: "If you're not going to study the noise, or the
groundwater, or the traffic (car traffic -- airport is in a largely
residential area), what ARE you going to study?'

The FAA person sat quietly in the audience writing something on a notepad,
while the consultant fumbled for an answer that would sound good.

Sad state of affairs. Basically the airport knows that if they call the
project what it is --expansion -- there would be a backlash. Thats y they
are trying to give us the bum rush. And what they've gotten is ........a
backlash. And lost credibility

[Morgans]

"Steve Foley" > wrote

> They're calling it a safety improvement because that's where the money is.
> It also makes them look good by bringing money into the local economy.

Not necessarily.

The FAA has long term plans for airport improvements. In Hickory NC, the
runway and over run area being extended is one thing that the FAA was "very"
much interested in seeing done. We had to relocate streets, to get the job
done.

Once again, the local people often have no say in these things. The FAA
gets its way, if you want it's money.
--
Jim in NC