GA User fees

[Jose]

Skylune, in a different, way OT thread, intones...
> It kinda reminds me of AOPA logic. For example, user fees: they argue
> simultaneously that (1) GA uses very few FAA services and therefore user
> fees are not necessary and (2) user fees would impose a ruinous financial
> burden on the GA industry and reduce safety (because pilots might be less
> inclined to use ATC, flight following, etc.) This is weird and
> disingenous reasoning.

Why is this disingenuous reasoning? (specifically I ask about the
reasoning part, not whether either of the premises are independently
true or false). It is quite possible for (1) and (2) to be both true at
the same time.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Skylune]

>>Jose: Why is this disingenuous reasoning? (specifically I ask about
the

reasoning part, not whether either of the premises are independently
true or false). It is quite possible for (1) and (2) to be both true at
the same time.

Jose<<

If there is a charge for a specific service, and that service is not
used,
you will not be subject to the charge.

However, since GA is in reality a heavy user of FAA capital
infrastructure
( such as towers, runways, Belfort systems, etc.) as well as operating
infrastructure (FSDOs, tower personnel, etc.) the charges would in
reality
be higher than the pittance(*) paid in AV gas taxes.

*See the FAA website for info on the aviation trust fund, and what
sources
contribute how much.

[Tom Conner]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> >>Jose: Why is this disingenuous reasoning? (specifically I ask about
> the
>
> reasoning part, not whether either of the premises are independently
> true or false). It is quite possible for (1) and (2) to be both true
> at the same time.
>
> Jose<<

> -------------------Begin Skylune text ----------------------------
> Skylune continues to show he is internet illiterate and does not
> know how to post, or operate a newsreader.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> If there is a charge for a specific service, and that service is not
> used, you will not be subject to the charge.
>
> However, since GA is in reality a heavy user of FAA capital
> infrastructure ( such as towers, runways, Belfort systems, etc.) as
> well as operating infrastructure (FSDOs, tower personnel, etc.) the
> charges would in reality be higher than the pittance(*) paid in AV
> gas taxes.
>
> *See the FAA website for info on the aviation trust fund, and what
> sources contribute how much.
>

If you are going to say "See the FAA website" as an argumentative support
point you need to provide the specific link, and explanation as to how that
link supports your view.

[Jose]

> If there is a charge for a specific service, and that service is not
> used, you will not be subject to the charge.
>
> However, since GA is in reality a heavy user of FAA capital
> infrastructure...

First, I asked about your =reasoning=, not about the premises
themselves. You responded with the premises. First, to deal with that:

The flaw is:
1: the use that GA makes of some of the services is because they are
mandated, not because they are needed.
2: the infrastructure does not really benefit the GA aircraft that are
using it - at least not to the extent that it benefits other parties.

Consider Bogus Internal Airport (BIA). It's a small field, GA has been
using it for years with no tower, and no real services. So, I should
not pay (much) in user fees to land my Archer there. However,
Humongougs Airlines Incorporated decides that it would make the perfect
gateway to Lesser Paradise, a little island that is growing in
popularity. To do so, the runway is lengthened and a tower is added.
None of this benefits me. Now the airspace is class D and communication
is required. I have to buy a radio with my own money, but the reason is
to accomodate Humongous Airlines, not to accomodate me. Every time I
take off, I would pay a user fee for this new long concrete runway and
the spanking new tower, and the fees for transmitting on the radio, and
I'd use more gas because my flight path has changed to keep me out of
the way of the approaching jets which don't interest me in the
slightest, except that I would be a bug splat on their windshield.

I fly out of there and do touch and goes. They have five flights a day
and are in discussions with three another airline for connecting flights.

I'm a "heavy user" of this infrastructure because I use the concrete and
the tower and the radio EVERY TIME I go around the pattern, but I'm not
really a beneficiary of it. It wasn't put there for me. The airlines
are benefitting from the infrastructure, and from the procedures
designed to keep me away from their windshield. Now, while I also
benefit by not becoming a bug splat, that benefit is more like the
benefit of stopping hitting my head with a hammer.

Granted, the airport is ficticious, but the principle is valid.

Now, on to my original question, which related to your =reasoning=, not
the truth (or falsity) of the premises.

You posted words to the effect that iit is disengenuous to think that both
(1) GA uses few services...
and
(2) user fees would be prohibitively expensive.
could be true at the same time.

They can certainly both be true at the same time, depending on how "uses
services" is defined, and how user fees are allocated.

It is disingenuous to think that, given the political clout of GA vs the
airlines, these definitions would not be skewed in their favor, in the
same way that flying was restored to the harmless airliners shortly
after 9-11 while spam cans were still banned from the skys (and are even
today virtually banished from the capitol, where, granted, there is so
much hot air you don't really need an airplane to fly!)

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Skylune]

>>by "Tom Conner" > Dec 21, 2005 at 03:09 PM



> -------------------Begin Skylune text ----------------------------
> Skylune continues to show he is internet illiterate and does not
> know how to post, or operate a newsreader.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

>
> *See the FAA website for info on the aviation trust fund, and what
> sources contribute how much.
>

If you are going to say "See the FAA website" as an argumentative support
point you need to provide the specific link, and explanation as to how
that
link supports your view.<<

1. Internet illiterate? Not really, though I wouldn't consider myself a
webmaster type. I choose to use talkabout.net rather than Outlook Express
or other newsreaders. When you use this site and hit the "reply" button,
it doesn't automatically copy the original post.

2. Since you are apparently too internet illiterate to find the relevant
FAA data, I will post it AGAIN, just for your edification.

Now, when you get to the website, you will need to open the excel
spreadsheet showing historical funding trends for the aviation trust fund.
Assuming you get this far, you will see that in fiscal 2004, the Trust
Fund received a total of $9.6 billion. Of that total, $0.04 billion came
from "noncommercial aviation gas taxes."

I revise my opinion that GA AV gases provide a "pittance." It is much
less than a pittance. I stand by my OPINION (shared by the Reason
Foundation, the ATA, and others) that GA is a very heavily subsidized
industry. AOPA knows this, but chooses to make absurd and disingenous
arguments to contend otherwise.

An honest assessment would begin with the expenses GA requires (capital as
well as operating), and compare that to the fees/taxes paid in by the
users. Of course they can't do this, because it would show the obvious.


Skylune out.

[Skylune]

>>by Jose > Dec 21, 2005 at 04:36 PM


> If there is a charge for a specific service, and that service is not
> used, you will not be subject to the charge.
>
> However, since GA is in reality a heavy user of FAA capital
> infrastructure...

First, I asked about your =reasoning=, not about the premises
themselves. You responded with the premises. First, to deal with that:

The flaw is:
1: the use that GA makes of some of the services is because they are
mandated, not because they are needed.
2: the infrastructure does not really benefit the GA aircraft that are
using it - at least not to the extent that it benefits other parties.

Consider Bogus Internal Airport (BIA). It's a small field, GA has been
using it for years with no tower, and no real services. So, I should
not pay (much) in user fees to land my Archer there. However,
Humongougs Airlines Incorporated decides that it would make the perfect
gateway to Lesser Paradise, a little island that is growing in
popularity. To do so, the runway is lengthened and a tower is added.
None of this benefits me. Now the airspace is class D and communication
is required. I have to buy a radio with my own money, but the reason is
to accomodate Humongous Airlines, not to accomodate me. Every time I
take off, I would pay a user fee for this new long concrete runway and
the spanking new tower, and the fees for transmitting on the radio, and
I'd use more gas because my flight path has changed to keep me out of
the way of the approaching jets which don't interest me in the
slightest, except that I would be a bug splat on their windshield.

I fly out of there and do touch and goes. They have five flights a day
and are in discussions with three another airline for connecting flights.

I'm a "heavy user" of this infrastructure because I use the concrete and
the tower and the radio EVERY TIME I go around the pattern, but I'm not
really a beneficiary of it. It wasn't put there for me. The airlines
are benefitting from the infrastructure, and from the procedures
designed to keep me away from their windshield. Now, while I also
benefit by not becoming a bug splat, that benefit is more like the
benefit of stopping hitting my head with a hammer.

Granted, the airport is ficticious, but the principle is valid.

Now, on to my original question, which related to your =reasoning=, not
the truth (or falsity) of the premises.

You posted words to the effect that iit is disengenuous to think that
both
(1) GA uses few services...
and
(2) user fees would be prohibitively expensive.
could be true at the same time.

They can certainly both be true at the same time, depending on how "uses
services" is defined, and how user fees are allocated.

It is disingenuous to think that, given the political clout of GA vs the
airlines, these definitions would not be skewed in their favor, in the
same way that flying was restored to the harmless airliners shortly
after 9-11 while spam cans were still banned from the skys (and are even
today virtually banished from the capitol, where, granted, there is so
much hot air you don't really need an airplane to fly!)

Jose<<

Jose: You are a reasonable guy. I understand your fictious example.

Here's a real case: Lets pick a GA airport that has 100,000 plus
operations per year. It has a tower with about 7 controllers (contract).
No commercial service. It receives a 95% grant from the FAA for all its
capital improvements, plus it receives the $150K per year FAA operating
subsidy, plus various state funds. There are no landing fees. The vast
majority of the flights are for training or recreation. Tie down fees are
less than $10/night.

Who is paying the tab? The flyers?

[Skylune]

Jose: Here's the beef. I expect Tom can't find this stuff, and relies on
the AOPA to think for him.....

See especially page 17 for amount GA pays in av gas taxes.....

BTW, I'll be flying in the right seat of the 172 next week from ISP to
Danbury. Is ground (car rental) transportation pretty easy to get there?

[Steve A]

Tom Conner wrote:
> If you are going to say "See the FAA website" as an argumentative support
> point you need to provide the specific link, and explanation as to how that
> link supports your view.



The numbers are from here:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/aep/aatf/

Scroll down to "Status of AATF (from FAA’s Budget in Brief)" and open
"2006 Budget (MS Excel) (2004 Actual)". The numbers quoted are from
the 2004 column.

It would have been nice if the 'lune posted the link, but then he has
not done it before. Why start now.

As for using Outlook or Thunderbird.......save your breath (or typing).




Thunderbird user who understands message filtering and "Ignore Thread"
setting.

[Jose]

> 1. Internet illiterate? Not really

You've gotten better, but a two easy steps would go a long way towards
making your posts easier to read. First is to properly surround your
quote so that it is easy to identify. What you need to be readable is
that after the quote, ON A SEPARATE LINE, put two "less than" signs.
You already have it but it's not on a separate line, so it's hard to
tell at a glance from the rest of the post. Put it on its own line, and
the eye can just travel down the margin and find where you end.

Second is to be selective in what you quote, for two reasons - first is
clarity, and second is to avoid selecting a signature (because anything
after a signature is hidden in some readers, and that will hide the
point you are trying to make afterwards!)

It still won't be internet standard, but it will at least be legible.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Skylune]

>>by Steve A > Dec 21, 2005 at 11:05 AM

It would have been nice if the 'lune posted the link, but then he has
not done it before. Why start now.<<

In fact, I have posted the link several times in the past. Since you
already did the work for the person that chooses to just go with the AOPA
company line, rather than looking at the other data, I'll point to another
FAA report that also contains GA usage data, as well as the micro-pittance
(0.4%) of GA AV gas taxes relative to total taxes. Here it is, see esp.
p. 17.



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


Again, the John Adams quote: "Facts are stubborn things..."

[Jose]

> Jose: You are a reasonable guy. I understand your fictious example.
>
> Here's a real case: Lets pick a GA airport that has 100,000 plus
> operations per year. It has a tower with about 7 controllers (contract).
> No commercial service. It receives a 95% grant from the FAA for all its
> capital improvements, plus it receives the $150K per year FAA operating
> subsidy, plus various state funds. There are no landing fees. The vast
> majority of the flights are for training or recreation. Tie down fees are
> less than $10/night.
>
> Who is paying the tab? The flyers?

Who is benefitting? Not just the flyers. The airport you describe is
probably close to a metropolitan area, which has an even larger airport
nearby, which does have commercial service. That larger airport may
even be more convenient for many GA operations, but the airlines do not
want us mixing up in there. We get in their way. So, instead of having
us land on their concrete (and putting hardly any wear and tear on it at
all), they would prefer we land, well, "elsewhere" and just stay out of
their hair. This is what a reliever airport is. It's a way to keep
spam cans out of the way of big aluminum tubes. The primary beneficary
is the airlines, who can now schedule more flights and have fewer delays
(just imagine what American Airlines would think of a 152 doing pattern
work at JFK).

So, who benefits from this reliever airport? The airlines. And as the
airport gets bigger (think Westchester), the airlines start moving in
there too, demanding concrete and ether that spam cans usually can do
without, but would have to pay for under your plan.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Tom Conner]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> >>by Steve A > Dec 21, 2005 at 11:05 AM
>
> It would have been nice if the 'lune posted the link, but then he has
> not done it before. Why start now.<<
>
> In fact, I have posted the link several times in the past. Since you
> already did the work for the person that chooses to just go with the AOPA
> company line, rather than looking at the other data, I'll point to another
> FAA report that also contains GA usage data, as well as the micro-pittance
> (0.4%) of GA AV gas taxes relative to total taxes. Here it is, see esp.
> p. 17.
>
>
>
>
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/aep/aatf/media/Revised_ATO_Data_Package.pdf
>

Thanks. You should post a reference link every time you use it to support a
point, if you want to have at least some credibility. Expecting people to
review all your past posts to find a link is not very reasonable.

[BDS]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
> Skylune, in a different, way OT thread, intones...
> > It kinda reminds me of AOPA logic. For example, user fees: they argue
> > simultaneously that (1) GA uses very few FAA services and therefore user
> > fees are not necessary and (2) user fees would impose a ruinous
financial
> > burden on the GA industry and reduce safety (because pilots might be
less
> > inclined to use ATC, flight following, etc.) This is weird and
> > disingenous reasoning.

There was a very good article on GA user fees in the latest Flying magazine
(I think that's where I saw it).

What it boils down to is that GA is basically using the excess capability of
a system that has to be in place for the airlines anyway. If GA goes away
the cost of providing the services to the airlines will hardly be affected,
and the system would not see much, if any, downsizing. The end result is
that GA is not really adding much to the cost of the services it uses - they
would be there with or without GA.

[Jimbob]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:55:03 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>Skylune, in a different, way OT thread, intones...
>> It kinda reminds me of AOPA logic. For example, user fees: they argue
>> simultaneously that (1) GA uses very few FAA services and therefore user
>> fees are not necessary and (2) user fees would impose a ruinous financial
>> burden on the GA industry and reduce safety (because pilots might be less
>> inclined to use ATC, flight following, etc.) This is weird and
>> disingenous reasoning.


Serveral things need to examined.

1) If user fees are implemented, then there will a large majority of
users that will avoid them by flying to places where they are
non-existant or decline services. If these fees can't be avoided,
then people will stop flying. Either way, the funding will not be
raised. Private pilots will be taxed out of the sky. Should I be
squeezed out of airspace in favor of commercial operations? No.

2) Commercial operators should pay a larger share because businesses
exploit resources for profit and are very efficient at it. I don't
mean this in a negative way, it is just the purpose of business.
Highway use taxes are much higher for commercial operators because
they consume percentage wise more of the highway infrastructure. I
don't know about you, but I've never used a weigh station or an escape
ramp. The weigh stations are there because companies were overloading
the roads. Should I be penalized because businesses are require more
overhead? No.

3) Left unchecked, business entities will consume all of a given
resource. SPAM is a wonderful example of this. Email is free and
most of it is commercial. Eventually, email will not be free and why
is that? Because of commercial abuse of the resource. Fees balance
social cost. Airlines pack in flights and require increased
infrastructure to support their schedule. If they spaced their
flights over a 24 hour period, congestion would be less of a problem.
I as a private individual can choose to fly during non-peak hours and
I do. The ATC infrstructure is not designed for me. Should I pay for
large percentage of it? No.


Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org

[TaxSrv]

"Jose" wrote:
> ...
> This is what a reliever airport is. It's a way to keep
> spam cans out of the way of big aluminum tubes. The
> primary beneficary is the airlines, who can now
> schedule more flights and have fewer delays...


Exactly, and the issue is not just small GA planes. Our City goes
further by charging the $1 million annual operating deficit of the
reliever directly to the air carriers in the user fees they pay to the
port authority. If the reliever field closed, corporate aviation and
the fleet of medevac helicopters would have to move to the big airport,
causing serious delays. Peak times for bizjets are the same as for air
carrier.

Fred F.

[Skylune]

>>by Jose <teacherjh@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Dec 21, 2005 at 07:38 PM


Who is benefitting? Not just the flyers. The airport you describe is
probably close to a metropolitan area, which has an even larger airport
nearby, which does have commercial service. That larger airport may
even be more convenient for many GA operations, but the airlines do not
want us mixing up in there. We get in their way. So, instead of having
us land on their concrete (and putting hardly any wear and tear on it at
all), they would prefer we land, well, "elsewhere" and just stay out of
their hair. This is what a reliever airport is. It's a way to keep
spam cans out of the way of big aluminum tubes. The primary beneficary
is the airlines, who can now schedule more flights and have fewer delays
(just imagine what American Airlines would think of a 152 doing pattern
work at JFK).

So, who benefits from this reliever airport? The airlines. And as the
airport gets bigger (think Westchester), the airlines start moving in
there too, demanding concrete and ether that spam cans usually can do
without, but would have to pay for under your plan.

Jose<<

Jose: I don't have a plan. I'm simply trying to debunk the AOPA nonsense
about AV gas taxes being an efficient and fair funding mechanism that
covers the cost of the GA subsidies.

Seems like, from your new argument about GA reliever airports providing
indirect benefit to commercial airports, you agree that GA airports are
subsidized.

I obviously disagree with this most recent argument. But, next week, I
will enjoy the tax subsidies when we are soaring above CT in the 172.

Happy Holidays, Skylune out.

[Steve Foley]

The AV gas taxes more than cover the incremental cost that GA adds to the
equation. It does not cover the excessive amounts that the FAA wastes.


"Skylune" > wrote in message

> Jose: I don't have a plan. I'm simply trying to debunk the AOPA nonsense
> about AV gas taxes being an efficient and fair funding mechanism that
> covers the cost of the GA subsidies.

[Jose]

> Jose: I don't have a plan. I'm simply trying to debunk the AOPA nonsense
> about AV gas taxes being an efficient and fair funding mechanism that
> covers the cost of the GA subsidies.

Well, you are doing so from erronious premises.

> Seems like, from your new argument about GA reliever airports providing
> indirect benefit to commercial airports, you agree that GA airports are
> subsidized.

No, I don't know whether they are or not; my point is that it doesn't
matter. Airports do not exist in a vacuum; they are part of a national
system, serving the group with the most political clout. A cost here
generates a savings there; you cannot reasonably separate the two.

> But, next week, I
> will enjoy the tax subsidies when we are soaring above CT in the 172.

Whatchadoing up this way? I'll have some taxi info soon; meanwhile
consider which FBO you will arrive at - they are on opposite sides of
the field. Reliant is on one side, and Arrow and Executive Air are on
the other.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

I believe you are right on this point. But let's look at the numbers.

The avgas tax is $0.193/gallon. If my plane burns 10 gph I am paying a tax
of $1.93/hour. If I fly 50 hours per year I pay $96.50 per year to use the
system. If I stop flying altogether is the FAA going to be able to reduce
it's expenses $96.50/year? If I double the amount I fly is the FAA going to
have to increase their annual budget $96.50 to cover the cost?



"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:CfAqf.856$dh2.160@trndny08...
> The AV gas taxes more than cover the incremental cost that GA adds to the
> equation. It does not cover the excessive amounts that the FAA wastes.
>
>
> "Skylune" > wrote in message
>
>> Jose: I don't have a plan. I'm simply trying to debunk the AOPA
>> nonsense
>> about AV gas taxes being an efficient and fair funding mechanism that
>> covers the cost of the GA subsidies.
>
>

[Skylune]

>>Whatchadoing up this way? I'll have some taxi info soon; meanwhile
consider which FBO you will arrive at - they are on opposite sides of
the field. Reliant is on one side, and Arrow and Executive Air are on
the other.

Jose<<

The plan is to fly from ISP (near my old Lawn Guyland stomping grounds),
stop at Danbury to pick up a friend/eat/fuel up, and then head up to
Bethel Maine to ski at Sunday River.

Hopefully the weather holds up, cuz my bud is a VFR pilot. He pushes the
envelope a bit too far for my taste, so I do my own weather briefing
(using Intellicast) before I hop into the C-172.

[RK Henry]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:33:48 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:

>I believe you are right on this point. But let's look at the numbers.
>
>The avgas tax is $0.193/gallon. If my plane burns 10 gph I am paying a tax
>of $1.93/hour. If I fly 50 hours per year I pay $96.50 per year to use the
>system. If I stop flying altogether is the FAA going to be able to reduce
>it's expenses $96.50/year? If I double the amount I fly is the FAA going to
>have to increase their annual budget $96.50 to cover the cost?

If there's a recession and everyone is forced to cut back on flying or
a national emergency forces shutting down GA flying, how would FAA
cope with the loss of revenue? Would they lay off controllers, as
might be done with a private enterrprise?

RK Henry

[Steve A]

Skylune wrote:
> In fact, I have posted the link several times in the past.

I stand corrected on link posting. Still, it would be helpful to some.
OK, it would have been helpful to me. I suspect others would have found
it useful too.

> Since you already did the work for the person that chooses to just go with the AOPA
> company line, rather than looking at the other data.......

Not sure how you take Tom's post as choosing to "just go with the AOPA
party line" since he was asking where the information was, and how it
supported your opinion. Both seem like a reasonable questions to me.

> Again, the John Adams quote: "Facts are stubborn things..."

If by facts you mean the budget and expense numbers from FAA data, the
debate is not over the those. It is over whether the FAA funding
mechanism is fair.....and everyone involved defines fair in their own way.


"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you
please." Mark Twain

[TaxSrv]

"Steve A" wrote:
> ...
> If by facts you mean the budget and expense numbers from
> FAA data, the debate is not over the those. It is over
> whether the FAA funding mechanism is fair.....and everyone
> involved defines fair in their own way.
>

I don't think the debate really is over fairness, as I read recent
Congressional testimony on this. Ever since Congress let FAA dip into
the improvement fund for, in effect, FAA operating money, the air
carriers' position is that fund is "broken" and is now inadequately
funded for capital improvements to big airports. The amount of money
which could realistically come from GA in user fees has to be petty cash
to the airline industry. Probably around 90% of GA would avoid using
any services where possible. Another aspect is much of the money now
comes from the airline ticket tax, and under user fees that's gone, so
the airlines would have to pay their user fees as a pure expense item.

Fred F.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <CfAqf.856$dh2.160@trndny08>,
"Steve Foley" > wrote:

> The AV gas taxes more than cover the incremental cost that GA adds to the
> equation. It does not cover the excessive amounts that the FAA wastes.
>
>
> "Skylune" > wrote in message
>
> > Jose: I don't have a plan. I'm simply trying to debunk the AOPA nonsense
> > about AV gas taxes being an efficient and fair funding mechanism that
> > covers the cost of the GA subsidies.

The whole issue is irrelevant, as "Skyloon" is pushing *ONLY* GA user
fees. He doesn't object to subsidies for bike lanes, backpackers,
skiiers, boaters and a myriad of other activities.

He is, therefore, nothing but a hypocritical troll, and should be
treated as such.

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

[Skylune]

Orville writes:

...He doesn't object to subsidies for bike lanes, backpackers,
skiiers, boaters and a myriad of other activities..<<

Of course I don't object to things which exist only in your feculent
imagination. Subsidies for skiers: LOL.

[Jose]

>> ..He doesn't object to subsidies for bike lanes, backpackers,
>> skiiers, boaters and a myriad of other activities..
>
> Of course I don't object to things which exist only in your feculent
> imagination.

Bike lanes are most assuredly subsidized. There are no tolls on bicycle
lanes, there are no "user fees" for bikes, and people can ride on them
free even if they were specially constructed for bicycles. The concrete
doesn't come for nothing - guess who is paying.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Skylune]

>>by Jose > Dec 22, 2005 at 07:47 PM


Bike lanes are most assuredly subsidized. There are no tolls on bicycle
lanes, there are no "user fees" for bikes, and people can ride on them
free even if they were specially constructed for bicycles. The concrete
doesn't come for nothing - guess who is paying<<

Jose: Here's the scoop on subsidies. True that the recently passed
TEA-21 had some capital funding for bike lanes and other forms of pork.

If you want to check out the various forms of federal tax subsidies by
mode of transportation, this link has some of the raw data. Note that
highways are actually NEGATIVELY subsidized (i.e. federal gasoline taxes
provide more revenues than federal highway funding).

Heaviest subsidies are for aviation as well as public transportation
systems and AMTRAK.

http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/html/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation.html

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>>>by Jose > Dec 22, 2005 at 07:47 PM
>
>
> Bike lanes are most assuredly subsidized. There are no tolls on bicycle
> lanes, there are no "user fees" for bikes, and people can ride on them
> free even if they were specially constructed for bicycles. The concrete
> doesn't come for nothing - guess who is paying<<
>
> Jose: Here's the scoop on subsidies. True that the recently passed
> TEA-21 had some capital funding for bike lanes and other forms of pork.
>
> If you want to check out the various forms of federal tax subsidies by
> mode of transportation, this link has some of the raw data. Note that
> highways are actually NEGATIVELY subsidized (i.e. federal gasoline taxes
> provide more revenues than federal highway funding).
>
> Heaviest subsidies are for aviation as well as public transportation
> systems and AMTRAK.
>
> http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/html/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation.html
>
>
>




Yeah Loon, you've posted that before and the question remains how the hell
do they even know how many pax miles GA has flown? If they don't know that
how can they possibly come up with a legitimate $/mile figure?

[TaxSrv]

"Skylune" wrote:
>
> Heaviest subsidies are for aviation as well as public transportation
> systems and AMTRAK.
>
http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/html/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation.html
>

That site is not maintained by an unbiased organization. The DOT is
trying to get more funding for a wasteful FAA, from a Congress who
insists Amtrak is necessary. Rather odd also for a gov't agency to
criticize its own programs. You're not even presenting DOT's data
fairly, as that site shows per passenger mile funding for rail and
transit is huge; for all of aviation a peanut. Unfavorable per/mile
comparisons for GA and air carrier is phony too, as GA flys shorter
hops. NY to LA in even a T210 is an excellent adventure. By any chance,
is your name "Ned?" Well, we don't get French benefits.

Fred F.

[Jose]

> Note that
> highways are actually NEGATIVELY subsidized (i.e. federal gasoline taxes
> provide more revenues than federal highway funding).

Yes, AAA makes a point of that all the time. The argument (and it's not
unreasonable) is that by subsidizing public transport, drivers benefit
by having fewer other cars on the road. This is, in fact, a very real
benefit to drivers. It also happens to be a benefit to subway riders.

All transportation is linked like this. No piece can be fairly
considered in isolation.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Skylune]

>>That site is not maintained by an unbiased organization. The DOT is
trying to get more funding for a wasteful FAA, from a Congress who
insists Amtrak is necessary. Rather odd also for a gov't agency to
criticize its own programs. You're not even presenting DOT's data
fairly, as that site shows per passenger mile funding for rail and
transit is huge; for all of aviation a peanut. Unfavorable per/mile
comparisons for GA and air carrier is phony too, as GA flys shorter
hops. NY to LA in even a T210 is an excellent adventure. By any chance,
is your name "Ned?" Well, we don't get French benefits.

Fred F.<<

The dollar amount of the federal funding is known with certainty. How
they estimate passenger miles, I don't know.

Why is this biased? Does AOPA publish its data detailing why FAA funding
problems are false?

[George Patterson]

TaxSrv wrote:

> Another aspect is much of the money now
> comes from the airline ticket tax, and under user fees that's gone, so
> the airlines would have to pay their user fees as a pure expense item.

Most of the push for user fees comes from the larger airlines. As it is, their
tickets are the most expensive, so they're paying more in taxes than short haul
providers. Put user fees in and the short haulers pay more. They're making more
takeoffs and landings, so they use more ATC services. The big carriers would pay
less because their flights tend to be longer with fewer T/Os and Ls.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:E0Jqf.50535$CL.1678@trnddc04...
>
> Most of the push for user fees comes from the larger airlines. As it is,
> their tickets are the most expensive, so they're paying more in taxes than
> short haul providers. Put user fees in and the short haulers pay more.
> They're making more takeoffs and landings, so they use more ATC services.
> The big carriers would pay less because their flights tend to be longer
> with fewer T/Os and Ls.
>

I don't see how that follows. How does more takeoffs and landings mean more
ATC services?

[Bob Noel]

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

> I don't see how that follows. How does more takeoffs and landings mean more
> ATC services?

More operations

More time in the terminal area

More time transitioning altitudes.

That *wouldn't* result in more ATC services?

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> More operations
>

So?


>
> More time in the terminal area
>

So?


>
> More time transitioning altitudes.
>

So?


>
> That *wouldn't* result in more ATC services?
>

I don't see how. Do you?

[Morgans]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote

> I don't see how that follows. How does more takeoffs and landings mean
more
> ATC services?

How many transmissions per hour would be involved for an airliner cruising
at altitude, and how many would be required for one that is landing and
taking off again, and also how many different people are involved for one
taking off and landing?
--
Jim in NC

[Bob Noel]

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

> >
> > That *wouldn't* result in more ATC services?
> >
>
> I don't see how. Do you?

yep.

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> yep.
>

Explain.

[Orval Fairbairn]

Here's the latest on GA user fees (from AOPA) -- yes -- I know that
Skyloon" will howl and bark at the moon about this one:



"USER FEES COULD HURT THOSE WHO WANT THEM THE MOST
Many of the nation's biggest airlines are the strongest advocates for
user fees. But a new white paper, "Turbulence ahead: How user fees
could ground the FAA," prepared by aviation industry expert Darryl
Jenkins,
shows that user fees could hurt both consumers and the airlines."
Jenkins' research adds to the evidence that AOPA has been presenting
against user fees," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "A user-fee funded
aviation system is bad public policy, strongly opposed by general
aviation pilots and, ironically, potentially harmful to the very people
that it is supposed to benefit." Jenkins reiterated AOPA's position that
the current FAA funding system works just fine. "There is no evidence
to justify radical changes in the aviation tax and fee system," Jenkins
wrote in the white paper prepared for the National Air Traffic
Controllers
Association. "Every available industry indicator relating to the FAA--
including passenger volume and yield--is on the rise." (Boyer said the
same thing before Congress last May.) Jenkins says user fees would be
"financial disaster" for U.S. airlines, because when revenue from user
fees decreases for any reason (typically, a soft economy), airlines and
other stakeholders would have to make up the shortfall. "Airlines in
financial difficulty could avoid paying millions of dollars in user fees
by filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The resulting shortfall
would have to be made up by other users," Jenkins said. "Do we really
want air traffic control or other FAA services subject to the same
economic vagaries that have ravaged the airlines?" See AOPA Online
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/051222user.html )."

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> How many transmissions per hour would be involved for an airliner cruising
> at altitude, and how many would be required for one that is landing and
> taking off again, and also how many different people are involved for one
> taking off and landing?
>

Location, location, location. An airliner cruising at altitude may have to
be placed in sequence hundreds of miles from the destination. A short
hauler might be doing a visual approach to a nontowered field.

What constitutes an "ATC service" in your mind?

[Skylune]

>>by Orval Fairbairn > Dec 23, 2005 at 01:49
PM


Here's the latest on GA user fees (from AOPA) -- yes -- I know that
Skyloon" will howl and bark at the moon about this one:.....<<

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, Orval! (In reality, I think your
Johnson is a really cool looking machine...).

We can resume arguing after the new year, but next week I am going flying,
and skiing.

[Jose]

> BTW, I'll be flying in the right seat of the 172 next week from ISP to
> Danbury. Is ground (car rental) transportation pretty easy to get there?

Yes, if you stop at Reliant (where I'm based) you can get a taxi into
town for something like $6-10. At least that's what Reliant tells me -
I didn't think you could get anything for $6 these days. They can also
arrange a car rental from Hertz or Avis to be waiting for you,
especially if you have a card number ("wizard number"?) to give them.
They can also do Enterprise, but might not be able to get it on the
field. Reliant is at (203) 743-5100. Call ahead. They don't have a
courtesy car, but if it's quiet and a short distance one of the line
people might be able to give you a ride. There is a restaurant/bar
right in the same building; the food is good but the nonsmoking area
isn't always open and the restaurant ("McNalley's") is usually closed
for lunch. A short walk takes you to the Marcus Dairy. It's a lunch
counter type place with good food and wonderful ice cream. The mall is
also nearby (you fly over it on the approach to 17) and there's good
pizza and the regular mall food court stuff.

If you get a car, all of Ridgefield and Danbury is open to you.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Doug]

In the Middle Ages all roads were toll roads. As one travelled, one had
to pay the tolls to whoever controlled the road. As society progressed,
it became evident that it was better public policy for the government
to build the roads with money collected through taxes. We still have
toll roads, and I believe a STRONG argument can be made that they are
not as efficient. But the fact is, both systems work. I personally am
in favor of taxes paying for toll roads. As a pilot, I mostly fly VFR,
and land at airports with no control towers so if I have to pay for FAA
services, I will simply avoid using them as much as possible. It is now
possible to get full preflight weather briefings on the internet or
local computer feed, so there will be little need for me, personally to
use ATC services. I think it would be a mistake to completely privatize
ATC, but I will admit there is a lot of pork in ATC and the FAA, so a
good remaking of the service probably is in order. There are numerous
towered airports that really have no need for a tower whatsoever.
Usually if there is a tower, it is only the commercial airline service
that NEEDS it, general aviation gets along just find without any tower
whatsoever. The Unicom frequency system works well as do the automated
AWOSs.

Flying is all about freedom.

[Orval Fairbairn]

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

> >>by Orval Fairbairn > Dec 23, 2005 at 01:49
> PM
>
>
> Here's the latest on GA user fees (from AOPA) -- yes -- I know that
> Skyloon" will howl and bark at the moon about this one:.....<<
>
> Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, Orval! (In reality, I think your
> Johnson is a really cool looking machine...).
>
> We can resume arguing after the new year, but next week I am going flying,
> and skiing.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you, too! Judging from the weather
reports up there, you can use all the sticks and coal that Santa brings
you.

Well, make some sitzfalls for me! I haven't gone skiing in 30 years, but
it is really fun! It looks as if you will have some nice snow, too.

Favorite place was Crested Butte, in 1973.

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

[RK Henry]

On 23 Dec 2005 11:43:43 -0800, "Doug" >
wrote:

> As a pilot, I mostly fly VFR,
>and land at airports with no control towers so if I have to pay for FAA
>services, I will simply avoid using them as much as possible. It is now
>possible to get full preflight weather briefings on the internet or
>local computer feed, so there will be little need for me, personally to
>use ATC services.

Therein lies one potential problem, that people may be inclined to
attenpt VFR flight into IMC in order to save money. It's bad enough
now that people attempt VFR when they really shouldn't.

While alternative weather may be available online, one needs to
remember that a reason to check FSS or DUATS is so that they can have
an entry in their log for CYA purposes. If something happens, the
investigators check for briefing logs and if they don't see that you
got an FSS briefing they might consider that reckless operation.

> I think it would be a mistake to completely privatize
>ATC, but I will admit there is a lot of pork in ATC and the FAA, so a
>good remaking of the service probably is in order.

The whole idea of privatization of government services is to allow
market forces and competition to push service providers to improve
service and efficiency. So should ATC have competition? If I don't
like the clearance I get with one ATC service could I file with its
competitor and maybe get a better price? Or should ATC be a regulated
monopoly? People who like the phone company ought to love commercial
ATC.

What other government services might be supported by a user fee? I've
considered whether the IRS ought to be supported by a user fee. Maybe
about $25 to file a form 1040, in addition to your taxes. So if you're
filing for a refund of your witholding on that summer job selling ice
cream, you'd get the $10 tax refund and pay $25 to file the return.
Hey, that's fair. Everyone ought to pay the costs of government,
right?

RK Henry

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
RK Henry > wrote:

> On 23 Dec 2005 11:43:43 -0800, "Doug" >
> wrote:
>
> > As a pilot, I mostly fly VFR,
> >and land at airports with no control towers so if I have to pay for FAA
> >services, I will simply avoid using them as much as possible. It is now
> >possible to get full preflight weather briefings on the internet or
> >local computer feed, so there will be little need for me, personally to
> >use ATC services.
>
> Therein lies one potential problem, that people may be inclined to
> attenpt VFR flight into IMC in order to save money. It's bad enough
> now that people attempt VFR when they really shouldn't.
>

This kind of thing is one consideration in the determination of user fees
for NavCanada's fee structure. Visit their website and should be able
to locate at least one of the many documents that discuss the safety
aspects of having user fees (e.g., avoiding fees leading to unsafe actions).

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"RK Henry" > wrote in message
...
>
> The whole idea of privatization of government services is to allow
> market forces and competition to push service providers to improve
> service and efficiency. So should ATC have competition? If I don't
> like the clearance I get with one ATC service could I file with its
> competitor and maybe get a better price? Or should ATC be a regulated
> monopoly?
>

How would the competing ATC services separate their traffic from their
competitors' traffic? ATC must be a monopoly.

[Morgans]

>
> Location, location, location. An airliner cruising at altitude may have
to
> be placed in sequence hundreds of miles from the destination. A short
> hauler might be doing a visual approach to a nontowered field.
>
> What constitutes an "ATC service" in your mind?

Once he is in the system, who would need to talk to him? Nobody, until it
is time for him to come down.

The short haul commercial flights are normally being provided separation on
an IFR flight plan, no? Every time he departs, he has to be put into the
system, guided up to altitude, then talked to, for being let down, then
approach control to land. Every time, right? Sounds like one short haul
guy may be using nearly 3 times as much services, compared to the guy flying
3 times as far, with one flight plan.
--
Jim in NC

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> Once he is in the system, who would need to talk to him? Nobody, until it
> is time for him to come down.
>

Why wouldn't ATC need to talk to him?


>
> The short haul commercial flights are normally being provided separation
> on an IFR flight plan, no?
>

Yes. So are the long haul commercial flights.


>
> Every time he departs, he has to be put into the
> system, guided up to altitude, then talked to, for being let down, then
> approach control to land. Every time, right?
>

Right. As are the long haul flights.


>
> Sounds like one short haul guy may be using nearly 3 times as much
> services, compared to the guy flying 3 times as far, with one flight plan.
>

Sounds like you're unfamiliar with ATC.