Trouble ahead over small plane fees

[AJ]

>From the Cushing (OK) Daily Citizen:

Trouble ahead over small plane fees
By Randall Turk
THE NORMAN TRANSCRIPT (NORMAN, Okla.)

NORMAN, Okla. - A political dogfight is looming over Washington, D.C.
skies this summer as a financially troubled airline industry attempts
to shift some of its financial burden to smaller aircraft.

Essentially, the National Air Transportation Association representing
the airlines is seeking about $2 billion a year in federal tax relief.
To accomplish that, NATA wants general aviation - all aircraft except
commercial airliners and military - to take up the slack. That would
reduce the 7.5 percent "user fees" airline passengers pay.

To compensate for that, an unprecedented user fee would be slapped on
general aviation. Such fees would be in lieu of a 21.9-cent per gallon
federal excise tax on jet fuel and the 19.4-cent federal tax on
aviation gas presently paid at the pump when general aviation planes
refuel. Federal taxes on aviation go into the Federal Aviation
Administration Trust Fund that subsidizes air traffic control and other
improvements at major airports.

Private aviation's case for maintaining the status quo was voiced
recently, when an executive from the National Business Aviation
Association visited Norman. NBAA Operations Director Jay Evans spoke to
University of Oklahoma aviation students about careers in business
aviation.

Earlier, Evans said the user tax proposal for general aviation "comes
up in Congress every year," but appears more ominous this year, in
light of FAA warnings of an impending shortage of operating funds.

"Our concern is that the FAA hasn't put the kibosh on it," he
said. "The Administration and the FAA are looking at this and
everything else on the table."

The NBAA defines business aircraft as planes used for conducting
business. An exception is air cargo planes such as those operated by
UPS and FedEx, which are classified as commercial air carriers.

Business aircraft, considered a segment of the general aviation
industry, can be anything from corporate jets to single-engine,
piston-powered planes. In 2003, the NBAA says, more than 10,000
companies operated nearly 16,000 aircraft for business purposes.

The official NBAA view is that user fees could not be fair nor easily
levied on business aircraft.

"It would mean taking a large part of the financial burden of air
traffic operations and putting it on general aviation," Evans said.
"Right now, we pay our share through the fuel tax. If a business
aircraft's engine turns, that's paying for use of the system."

The general aviation industry already contributes about 20 percent of
taxes going into the FAA Trust Fund, more than compensating for its
limited use of the country's 558 commercial airports. NBAA statistics
indicate 70 percent of all commercial flight take-off and landing
operations occur at 30 hub airports throughout the country. Only 3 to 7
percent of such operations involve general aviation craft, the NBAA
maintains.

The Air Transport Association's position: Any aircraft in the air
traffic control system should pay the user fees. The airline
association holds that a blip on the radar screen is a blip, no matter
what size the craft. The NBAA says that is not the issue.

A 747 airliner, for instance, "requires a tremendous amount of work
to get off the ground," Evans said. "It has much more of a
weight-bearing effect on airports. That's where the biggest part of
the [airport] expense is."

NBAA President Ed Bolen is scheduled to testify before Congress in
early May to present business aviation's case against user fees. In
official statements, Bolen has viewed user fees for general aviation as
"costly, requiring a large bureaucracy to administer."

Such fees on small aircraft are also unfair, since most utilize the
approximately 5,000 public use airports throughout the country instead
of the major airports that require the most capital expenditure, the
NBAA says.

Flight statistics indicate air carriers account for more than half the
instrument flight rules operations (or take-offs and landings during
poor flight conditions) at major airports. Commuter planes and air
taxis constitute 21 percent of the instrument flights at the larger
airports, and about 9 percent are military flights.

Burdening general aviation with usage fees could affect safety and even
what consumers pay for goods and services, Evans said. "If there's
concern about user fees, some general aviation aircraft may avoid
flying through air traffic control areas [outside radar control]."

Another concern is that user fees would translate into business/general
aviation aircraft flying less. "To squelch general aviation would
affect a growth industry," Evans said. "It would affect consumers
indirectly."

Evans said the FAA has not delineated what costs are involved with a
shift in user fees. But Evans said the NBAA and the other aviation
associations agree that modernizing the country's air traffic control
system is a priority.

"The government has not budgeted as much as we would like for
improvements to air traffic control," Evans said. But assessing user
fees on general aviation is not the answer, he said: "A new
bureaucracy that requires would severely impact the Aviation Trust
Fund."

Randall Turk writes for The Norman (Okla.) Transcript.

[Ross Richardson]

I have already written a letter to my senators and representative
regarding this matter. Among other things, I stated that a whole new
govenrment bureaucracy would have to be set up to collect these user
fees. This bureaurcacy would take away from the taxes collected since it
would have to be funded. The tax on avgas and jet fuel is as easy to
collect taxes. It is already in place.

ross

AJ wrote:

>>From the Cushing (OK) Daily Citizen:
>
> Trouble ahead over small plane fees
> By Randall Turk
> THE NORMAN TRANSCRIPT (NORMAN, Okla.)
>
> NORMAN, Okla. - A political dogfight is looming over Washington, D.C.
> skies this summer as a financially troubled airline industry attempts
> to shift some of its financial burden to smaller aircraft.
>
> Essentially, the National Air Transportation Association representing
> the airlines is seeking about $2 billion a year in federal tax relief.
> To accomplish that, NATA wants general aviation - all aircraft except
> commercial airliners and military - to take up the slack. That would
> reduce the 7.5 percent "user fees" airline passengers pay.
>
> To compensate for that, an unprecedented user fee would be slapped on
> general aviation. Such fees would be in lieu of a 21.9-cent per gallon
> federal excise tax on jet fuel and the 19.4-cent federal tax on
> aviation gas presently paid at the pump when general aviation planes
> refuel. Federal taxes on aviation go into the Federal Aviation
> Administration Trust Fund that subsidizes air traffic control and other
> improvements at major airports.
>
> Private aviation's case for maintaining the status quo was voiced
> recently, when an executive from the National Business Aviation
> Association visited Norman. NBAA Operations Director Jay Evans spoke to
> University of Oklahoma aviation students about careers in business
> aviation.
>
> Earlier, Evans said the user tax proposal for general aviation "comes
> up in Congress every year," but appears more ominous this year, in
> light of FAA warnings of an impending shortage of operating funds.
>
> "Our concern is that the FAA hasn't put the kibosh on it," he
> said. "The Administration and the FAA are looking at this and
> everything else on the table."
>
> The NBAA defines business aircraft as planes used for conducting
> business. An exception is air cargo planes such as those operated by
> UPS and FedEx, which are classified as commercial air carriers.
>
> Business aircraft, considered a segment of the general aviation
> industry, can be anything from corporate jets to single-engine,
> piston-powered planes. In 2003, the NBAA says, more than 10,000
> companies operated nearly 16,000 aircraft for business purposes.
>
> The official NBAA view is that user fees could not be fair nor easily
> levied on business aircraft.
>
> "It would mean taking a large part of the financial burden of air
> traffic operations and putting it on general aviation," Evans said.
> "Right now, we pay our share through the fuel tax. If a business
> aircraft's engine turns, that's paying for use of the system."
>
> The general aviation industry already contributes about 20 percent of
> taxes going into the FAA Trust Fund, more than compensating for its
> limited use of the country's 558 commercial airports. NBAA statistics
> indicate 70 percent of all commercial flight take-off and landing
> operations occur at 30 hub airports throughout the country. Only 3 to 7
> percent of such operations involve general aviation craft, the NBAA
> maintains.
>
> The Air Transport Association's position: Any aircraft in the air
> traffic control system should pay the user fees. The airline
> association holds that a blip on the radar screen is a blip, no matter
> what size the craft. The NBAA says that is not the issue.
>
> A 747 airliner, for instance, "requires a tremendous amount of work
> to get off the ground," Evans said. "It has much more of a
> weight-bearing effect on airports. That's where the biggest part of
> the [airport] expense is."
>
> NBAA President Ed Bolen is scheduled to testify before Congress in
> early May to present business aviation's case against user fees. In
> official statements, Bolen has viewed user fees for general aviation as
> "costly, requiring a large bureaucracy to administer."
>
> Such fees on small aircraft are also unfair, since most utilize the
> approximately 5,000 public use airports throughout the country instead
> of the major airports that require the most capital expenditure, the
> NBAA says.
>
> Flight statistics indicate air carriers account for more than half the
> instrument flight rules operations (or take-offs and landings during
> poor flight conditions) at major airports. Commuter planes and air
> taxis constitute 21 percent of the instrument flights at the larger
> airports, and about 9 percent are military flights.
>
> Burdening general aviation with usage fees could affect safety and even
> what consumers pay for goods and services, Evans said. "If there's
> concern about user fees, some general aviation aircraft may avoid
> flying through air traffic control areas [outside radar control]."
>
> Another concern is that user fees would translate into business/general
> aviation aircraft flying less. "To squelch general aviation would
> affect a growth industry," Evans said. "It would affect consumers
> indirectly."
>
> Evans said the FAA has not delineated what costs are involved with a
> shift in user fees. But Evans said the NBAA and the other aviation
> associations agree that modernizing the country's air traffic control
> system is a priority.
>
> "The government has not budgeted as much as we would like for
> improvements to air traffic control," Evans said. But assessing user
> fees on general aviation is not the answer, he said: "A new
> bureaucracy that requires would severely impact the Aviation Trust
> Fund."
>
> Randall Turk writes for The Norman (Okla.) Transcript.
>

[Steve Foley]

I've heard that on a busy summer weekend, Nantucket Airport (ACK) has more
operations than Logan (BOS). If we go to an operation based fee, I hope
Nantucket gets the same level of funding as Boston does.


"Ross Richardson" > wrote in message
...
> I have already written a letter to my senators and representative
> regarding this matter. Among other things, I stated that a whole new
> govenrment bureaucracy would have to be set up to collect these user
> fees. This bureaurcacy would take away from the taxes collected since it
> would have to be funded. The tax on avgas and jet fuel is as easy to
> collect taxes. It is already in place.
>
> ross
>
> AJ wrote:
>
> >>From the Cushing (OK) Daily Citizen:
> >
> > Trouble ahead over small plane fees
> > By Randall Turk
> > THE NORMAN TRANSCRIPT (NORMAN, Okla.)
> >
> > NORMAN, Okla. - A political dogfight is looming over Washington, D.C.
> > skies this summer as a financially troubled airline industry attempts
> > to shift some of its financial burden to smaller aircraft.
> >
> > Essentially, the National Air Transportation Association representing
> > the airlines is seeking about $2 billion a year in federal tax relief.
> > To accomplish that, NATA wants general aviation - all aircraft except
> > commercial airliners and military - to take up the slack. That would
> > reduce the 7.5 percent "user fees" airline passengers pay.
> >
> > To compensate for that, an unprecedented user fee would be slapped on
> > general aviation. Such fees would be in lieu of a 21.9-cent per gallon
> > federal excise tax on jet fuel and the 19.4-cent federal tax on
> > aviation gas presently paid at the pump when general aviation planes
> > refuel. Federal taxes on aviation go into the Federal Aviation
> > Administration Trust Fund that subsidizes air traffic control and other
> > improvements at major airports.
> >
> > Private aviation's case for maintaining the status quo was voiced
> > recently, when an executive from the National Business Aviation
> > Association visited Norman. NBAA Operations Director Jay Evans spoke to
> > University of Oklahoma aviation students about careers in business
> > aviation.
> >
> > Earlier, Evans said the user tax proposal for general aviation "comes
> > up in Congress every year," but appears more ominous this year, in
> > light of FAA warnings of an impending shortage of operating funds.
> >
> > "Our concern is that the FAA hasn't put the kibosh on it," he
> > said. "The Administration and the FAA are looking at this and
> > everything else on the table."
> >
> > The NBAA defines business aircraft as planes used for conducting
> > business. An exception is air cargo planes such as those operated by
> > UPS and FedEx, which are classified as commercial air carriers.
> >
> > Business aircraft, considered a segment of the general aviation
> > industry, can be anything from corporate jets to single-engine,
> > piston-powered planes. In 2003, the NBAA says, more than 10,000
> > companies operated nearly 16,000 aircraft for business purposes.
> >
> > The official NBAA view is that user fees could not be fair nor easily
> > levied on business aircraft.
> >
> > "It would mean taking a large part of the financial burden of air
> > traffic operations and putting it on general aviation," Evans said.
> > "Right now, we pay our share through the fuel tax. If a business
> > aircraft's engine turns, that's paying for use of the system."
> >
> > The general aviation industry already contributes about 20 percent of
> > taxes going into the FAA Trust Fund, more than compensating for its
> > limited use of the country's 558 commercial airports. NBAA statistics
> > indicate 70 percent of all commercial flight take-off and landing
> > operations occur at 30 hub airports throughout the country. Only 3 to 7
> > percent of such operations involve general aviation craft, the NBAA
> > maintains.
> >
> > The Air Transport Association's position: Any aircraft in the air
> > traffic control system should pay the user fees. The airline
> > association holds that a blip on the radar screen is a blip, no matter
> > what size the craft. The NBAA says that is not the issue.
> >
> > A 747 airliner, for instance, "requires a tremendous amount of work
> > to get off the ground," Evans said. "It has much more of a
> > weight-bearing effect on airports. That's where the biggest part of
> > the [airport] expense is."
> >
> > NBAA President Ed Bolen is scheduled to testify before Congress in
> > early May to present business aviation's case against user fees. In
> > official statements, Bolen has viewed user fees for general aviation as
> > "costly, requiring a large bureaucracy to administer."
> >
> > Such fees on small aircraft are also unfair, since most utilize the
> > approximately 5,000 public use airports throughout the country instead
> > of the major airports that require the most capital expenditure, the
> > NBAA says.
> >
> > Flight statistics indicate air carriers account for more than half the
> > instrument flight rules operations (or take-offs and landings during
> > poor flight conditions) at major airports. Commuter planes and air
> > taxis constitute 21 percent of the instrument flights at the larger
> > airports, and about 9 percent are military flights.
> >
> > Burdening general aviation with usage fees could affect safety and even
> > what consumers pay for goods and services, Evans said. "If there's
> > concern about user fees, some general aviation aircraft may avoid
> > flying through air traffic control areas [outside radar control]."
> >
> > Another concern is that user fees would translate into business/general
> > aviation aircraft flying less. "To squelch general aviation would
> > affect a growth industry," Evans said. "It would affect consumers
> > indirectly."
> >
> > Evans said the FAA has not delineated what costs are involved with a
> > shift in user fees. But Evans said the NBAA and the other aviation
> > associations agree that modernizing the country's air traffic control
> > system is a priority.
> >
> > "The government has not budgeted as much as we would like for
> > improvements to air traffic control," Evans said. But assessing user
> > fees on general aviation is not the answer, he said: "A new
> > bureaucracy that requires would severely impact the Aviation Trust
> > Fund."
> >
> > Randall Turk writes for The Norman (Okla.) Transcript.
> >

[Jim Logajan]

"AJ" > wrote:
> Essentially, the National Air Transportation Association representing
> the airlines is seeking about $2 billion a year in federal tax relief.
> To accomplish that, NATA wants general aviation - all aircraft except
> commercial airliners and military - to take up the slack. That would
> reduce the 7.5 percent "user fees" airline passengers pay.
>
> To compensate for that, an unprecedented user fee would be slapped on
> general aviation. Such fees would be in lieu of a 21.9-cent per gallon
> federal excise tax on jet fuel and the 19.4-cent federal tax on
> aviation gas presently paid at the pump when general aviation planes
> refuel.

Does anyone have information on what this "user fee" is going to be based
on? A fixed price on per-aircraft-year (e.g. $10,000/year per aircraft,
whether it's a Boeing 747 or Cessna 172, irrespective of time in the air),
per-aircraft-mile, per-aircraft-seat-year, per-aircraft-seat-mile-year, or
what?

[Tom Conner]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
...
> I've heard that on a busy summer weekend, Nantucket Airport
> (ACK) has more operations than Logan (BOS). If we go to an
> operation based fee, I hope Nantucket gets the same level of
> funding as Boston does.
>

This might very well be true. However, you need to find out how many
operations are "local" (pattern practice), and how many are "transient"
(actually go someplace). Many GA airports have high numbers of operations,
but once you subtract the student pilot pattern practice flights there is
very little activity left.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Conner" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> This might very well be true. However, you need to find out how many
> operations are "local" (pattern practice), and how many are "transient"
> (actually go someplace). Many GA airports have high numbers of
> operations,
> but once you subtract the student pilot pattern practice flights there is
> very little activity left.
>

Why would you subtract the student pilot pattern practice flights?

[Jose]

> Many GA airports have high numbers of operations,
> but once you subtract the student pilot pattern practice flights there is
> very little activity left.

Does it matter? Fly the pattern for an hour at Teterboro and you get
ten landing fees. It's more expensive than the plane.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dave Stadt]

"Ross Richardson" > wrote in message
...
>I have already written a letter to my senators and representative regarding
>this matter. Among other things, I stated that a whole new govenrment
>bureaucracy would have to be set up to collect these user fees. This
>bureaurcacy would take away from the taxes collected since it would have to
>be funded. The tax on avgas and jet fuel is as easy to collect taxes. It is
>already in place.

Trouble is politicians love bureaucracy. If it costs $2.00 to collect $1.00
that's just fine by them. Just means they can create a bureaucracy to
determine how to create another bureaucracy to raise the $1.00 the first
bureaucracy came up short.

[Skywise]

"AJ" > wrote in news:1144704355.085254.309920
@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:

>>From the Cushing (OK) Daily Citizen:
>
> Trouble ahead over small plane fees
> By Randall Turk
> THE NORMAN TRANSCRIPT (NORMAN, Okla.)
>
> NORMAN, Okla. - A political dogfight is looming over Washington, D.C.
> skies this summer as a financially troubled airline industry attempts
> to shift some of its financial burden to smaller aircraft.
>
> Essentially, the National Air Transportation Association representing
> the airlines is seeking about $2 billion a year in federal tax relief.
> To accomplish that, NATA wants general aviation - all aircraft except
> commercial airliners and military - to take up the slack. That would
> reduce the 7.5 percent "user fees" airline passengers pay.

I only needed to get this far to go "HUH?!?!"

The airlines don't know how to run their business. So instead of
changing their business model, or passing the costs on to their
customers, they want the gov't to stick it to a third party?

As Penn & Teller would say....BULL****!

Think about it. Say I have a business selling crayons. I can't make
my company solvent. So what do I do? Beg the government to tax
those who use pencils and give me the money! What the airlines
propose is just as ludicrous.

<Snipola of rest>

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Dylan Smith > wrote:

> No, but I suspect they will model it on the European way:
> - airports will have their FAA funding cut, and will charge landing fees
> to make up the shortfall
> - enroute charges from ATC
> - charges per approach
> - increased fuel tax
> - increased fees for interacting with the FAA: for example, pilots will
> have to pay a higher fee ($100s) for pilot certificates instead of the
> two or three bucks it is now. Aircraft owners will have to file
> paperwork for the annual inspection with the FAA - and will be charged
> a fee of $200 for doing so.

Which will work just about as well as the luxury tax on yachts attempted
here awhile ago.

>
> Of course, this is speculation, but I get the feeling the FAA will just
> look east to see how European countries treat GA.

Is GA a big source of funds for European countries?

How big a source relative to the airlines?

Thanks

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-04-11, Bob Noel > wrote:
>> Of course, this is speculation, but I get the feeling the FAA will just
>> look east to see how European countries treat GA.
>
> Is GA a big source of funds for European countries?
> How big a source relative to the airlines?

No it isn't - that's why it's utterly crap (and of course, they DON'T
count the fuel tax, which is already very high). So airlines have
bleated they are cross subsidising GA (and completely ignored the high
tax on avgas, and almost total lack of tax on Jet-A) and since the CAA
only listens to the airlines, GA gets shafted to make it 'fairer'.

Meanwhile, when airlines need to use GA (for things like training) they
send their students abroad to dodge the fees they lobbied for.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[B A R R Y]

Dave Stadt wrote:
>
> Trouble is politicians love bureaucracy. If it costs $2.00 to collect $1.00
> that's just fine by them.

We just got a bill for $6 for a landing @ BDR, back in January.

I can't believe the $6 covers the cost of collecting the money.

EZ-Pass for aircraft? As you fly over the threshhold, your account is
debited? <G>

[Peter R.]

Skywise > wrote:

> I only needed to get this far to go "HUH?!?!"
>
> The airlines don't know how to run their business. So instead of
> changing their business model, or passing the costs on to their
> customers, they want the gov't to stick it to a third party?
>
> As Penn & Teller would say....BULL****!

And if the unsuspecting public actually believes that airline ticket prices
will immediately drop 7.5% the day this tax goes away, they are wise to
send their toy list to Santa Clause.

--
Peter

[Skylune]

by "Dave Stadt" > Apr 10, 2006 at 11:49 PM


>already in place.

Trouble is politicians love bureaucracy. If it costs $2.00 to collect
$1.00
that's just fine by them. Just means they can create a bureaucracy to
determine how to create another bureaucracy to raise the $1.00 the first
bureaucracy came up short.

<<

Solution is simple. Raise AV gas taxes to a level that covers the expense
associated with subsidizing thousands of GA airports. (Capital and
operating subsidies).

I can post the contribution of various revenue sources to the AIP (again).
As has already been demonstrated, AV gas taxes represent a tiny fraction.
Of course this FACT is not mentioned by the Destroyer or other advocates of
taxpayer subsidies for rec flying.

[Jose]

> Solution is simple. Raise AV gas taxes to a level that covers the expense
> associated with subsidizing thousands of GA airports.

So, do GA pilots then get a cut of the extra business we bring to the city?

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Skylune]

by Jose > Apr 11, 2006 at 02:13 PM



So, do GA pilots then get a cut of the extra business we bring to the
city?

Jose

<<

C'mon Jose, rhetorical questions are not your style. ;-)

Of course, the subsidies are not limited to federal subsidies. Off the
top of my head, state subsidies goto Worcester, Mass, and the Minneapolis
area GA airports are subsidized by the commercial airport.

As you know, a tax subsidy reduces the true price of a good, and
artificially increases demand. Econ 101.

[B A R R Y]

Skylune wrote:
>
> Solution is simple. Raise AV gas taxes to a level that covers the expense
> associated with subsidizing thousands of GA airports. (Capital and
> operating subsidies).

Where does that leave planes that use Mogas? How about jet fuel?

How do privately owned or municipal airports get a cut of the fuel tax?

What about joint-use civil / military fields?

[Jose]

>> So, do GA pilots then get a cut of the extra
>> business we bring to the city?
> Of course, the subsidies are not limited to federal subsidies. Off the
> top of my head, state subsidies goto

So, do GA pilots then get a cut of the extra business we bring to the state?

(See, I can do stuff that's not my style. :)

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:34:50 +0000, B A R R Y wrote:

> EZ-Pass for aircraft? As you fly over the threshhold, your account is
> debited? <G>


No <G>. Mode S.

- Andrew

[Skylune]

by B A R R Y > Apr 11, 2006 at 02:25 PM


Skylune wrote:
>
> Solution is simple. Raise AV gas taxes to a level that covers the
expense
> associated with subsidizing thousands of GA airports. (Capital and
> operating subsidies).

Where does that leave planes that use Mogas? How about jet fuel?

How do privately owned or municipal airports get a cut of the fuel tax?

What about joint-use civil / military fields?

<<

Municipal airports would get their slice if existing grant stucture is
maintained. They would just be paying their share.

Military is and should be taxpayer funded.

I think a better solution would be to zero out the federal subsidies to GA
airports, and let the airports compete in the marketplace, or let the
states or sponsoring municipalities provide the subsidies if there is
justification. Since GA is such an economic powerhouse, according to
Boyer, there should not be a problem.

[B A R R Y]

Skylune wrote:
>
> Military is and should be taxpayer funded.

Do you fly? Do you know what joint-use is?

[Skylune]

by Jose > Apr 11, 2006 at 02:33 PM



So, do GA pilots then get a cut of the extra business we bring to the
state?

(See, I can do stuff that's not my style. :)


<<

That is another reason (after the old safety/statistics discussion) that
I
would hop in the right seat of your plane anytime. You are not a cowboy.


Seriously, though, your "cut" would be availabilty of GA airports and
airspace that is funded by the users.

I think subsidies make alot of sense for some states, esp remote rural
airstrips in AK or WY. But in the Northeast, Calif, and other built up
areas?? No way. There is no compelling economic/social need to provide
general tax subsidies to what is largely recreational/training usage.
Users should bear the full brunt of the costs.

Some will argue, "that will increase the cost of your fed ex" deliveries.
I think that is true, and I would say that users of Fed Ex should bear the
true delivery costs. Why should I be subsidized if I order a package that
arrives via GA?

BTW: here is a link to an article on the local subsidies the Minneapolis
GA airports get, at Northwest's expense.

http://www.flyidaho.org/nwsltrs/2004/jun04/crusade.html

[Skylune]

by B A R R Y > Apr 11, 2006 at 02:50 PM


Skylune wrote:
>
> Military is and should be taxpayer funded.

Do you fly? Do you know what joint-use is?

<<

Uh, Uh, uh. Joint-use refers to potheads, right? They fly after
smoking?

[roncachamp]

Skylune wrote:
>
> Solution is simple. Raise AV gas taxes to a level that covers the expense
> associated with subsidizing thousands of GA airports. (Capital and
> operating subsidies).
>

What is your evidence that thousands of GA airports are being
subsidized?


>
> I can post the contribution of various revenue sources to the AIP (again).
> As has already been demonstrated, AV gas taxes represent a tiny fraction.
> Of course this FACT is not mentioned by the Destroyer or other advocates of
> taxpayer subsidies for rec flying.
>

Who advocates subsidies for rec flying?

[Skylune]

>>by "roncachamp" > Apr 11, 2006 at 08:16 AM




What is your evidence that thousands of GA airports are being
subsidized?



Who advocates subsidies for rec flying?

<<

You gotta be kidding me. Do you know how the AIP is funded, by source.
Do you know if your local airport does a project, it is usually 90% funded
by FAA grants, 5% state, and 5% local???

Do you know about the $150k annual operating subsidies that many GA
airports receive??

Do you know about the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, that determine
tax expenditures for various transportation categories??

I guess not. Just listen to Boyer, and his hyperbole and rhetorical
arguments.

(Why am I starting to see an analogy between the Boyer-types and the
French student protestors?)

[Orval Fairbairn]

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

> by Jose > Apr 11, 2006 at 02:33 PM
>
>
>
> So, do GA pilots then get a cut of the extra business we bring to the
> state?
>
> (See, I can do stuff that's not my style. :)
>
>
> <<
>
> That is another reason (after the old safety/statistics discussion) that
> I
> would hop in the right seat of your plane anytime. You are not a cowboy.
>
>
> Seriously, though, your "cut" would be availabilty of GA airports and
> airspace that is funded by the users.
>
> I think subsidies make alot of sense for some states, esp remote rural
> airstrips in AK or WY. But in the Northeast, Calif, and other built up
> areas?? No way. There is no compelling economic/social need to provide
> general tax subsidies to what is largely recreational/training usage.
> Users should bear the full brunt of the costs. \

> http://www.flyidaho.org/nwsltrs/2004/jun04/crusade.html

Pure sophistry! Northwest doesn't want to share "their" airports, but
doesn't want to share in the solution to their desires.

The problem with "Skyloon's" "solution" is that those airports in highly
populated areas are the link with those in the less-densely-populated
areas. The airports are part of a *system* -- not just a bunch of loose
parts.

[Skylune]

Pure sophistry! Northwest doesn't want to share "their" airports, but
doesn't want to share in the solution to their desires.

The problem with "Skyloon's" "solution" is that those airports in highly
populated areas are the link with those in the less-densely-populated
areas. The airports are part of a *system* -- not just a bunch of loose
parts.

<<

Its pretty clear that objectivity goes out the window for many when self
interests are concerned....

Sure the airport network is linked. That has nothing, zero, Nada, to do
with the appropriate ways of funding the system, and who pays. The
Heritage Foundation among others has long argued for user fees based for
private activities, which clearly includes GA. I agree with their
viewpoint, and oppose governement subsidies for private goods. Now, if
states or localities choose to support a GA airport, a local ski area or a
shooting range, with taxes, that is fine with me.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skyloon" > wrote:
>
> I think subsidies make alot of sense for some states, esp remote rural
> airstrips in AK or WY.
>

What is the cost of remote rural airstrips in AK or WY?

[Larry Dighera]

On 10 Apr 2006 14:25:55 -0700, "AJ" > wrote in
. com>::

>Essentially, the National Air Transportation Association representing
>the airlines is seeking about $2 billion a year in federal tax relief.
>To accomplish that, NATA wants general aviation - all aircraft except
>commercial airliners and military - to take up the slack. That would
>reduce the 7.5 percent "user fees" airline passengers pay.

The airlines and FAA are embarking on a divide and conquer mission.
Once the proposed precedent is established, it's going to be easier
for the government to move to a fee based ATC system for all flights.

If the airline passengers are paying the 7.5% ticket tax, please
explain how shifting that tax to GA is going to provide financial
relief to the airline industry. The airlines only collect the tax;
they don't pay it; the passengers do.

Will a 7.5% decrease in ticket prices make US airlines more
competitive globally? Domestically? Doubtful. And There is no doubt
shifting airline passengers' responsibility for ATC services and
airport improvements on to GA will have a large, and inequitable,
negative impact on GA.

[Skylune]

by "Steven P. McNicoll" > Apr 11, 2006 at 04:09
PM


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


What is the cost of remote rural airstrips in AK or WY?

<<

Capital costs would obviously depend upon the length of the runway, number
of runways, equipment, etc. Operating costs would depend on towered vs.
nontowered, number of maintenance personnel, etc. So it would vary.

The point is that very remote areas depend on GA for access, but traffic
volume would likely be insufficient to support the financial operations of
the airport. If important to access to the outside world (AK and some MT
airports), some sort of subsidy would be required.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:25:39 GMT, B A R R Y > wrote in
>::

>Where does that leave planes that use Mogas?

That is a difficult issue to resolve. Fortunately Mogas usage, as a
percentage of all aviation fuels consumed in the US, is only a
miniscule fraction.

>How about jet fuel?

Perhaps it would be more equitable to levy a per-gallon tax on jet
fuel than to have the current airline ticket tax. That is the counter
proposal the National Business Aviation Association should be
proposing.

How many gallons (not pounds/tons) of fuel does a B-747 hold? :-)

[Skylune]

by Dylan Smith > Apr 11, 2006 at 10:58 AM



Meanwhile, when airlines need to use GA (for things like training) they
send their students abroad to dodge the fees they lobbied for

<<

I.e. like outsourcing to India, the commercials ship training to where it
is cheapest. In this case, the USA, because of the artificially low cost
created by the subsidies. See below BTS study, esp pp. 10-13.


http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/pdf/entire.pdf

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Where does that leave planes that use Mogas?

Paying taxes for roads that they won't be operating their aircraft on?

[Chris]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
. com...
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>>
>> Trouble is politicians love bureaucracy. If it costs $2.00 to collect
>> $1.00 that's just fine by them.
>
> We just got a bill for $6 for a landing @ BDR, back in January.
>
> I can't believe the $6 covers the cost of collecting the money.

In the UK a based plane will pay a flat amount for unlimited landing at the
base airfield. One invoice $300 and you use it or lose it.

At other fields, I pay cash which is cheaper than anything else £5 cash or
£10 if you are invoiced.

[ET]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:

>
> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message
> m...
>>
>> Where does that leave planes that use Mogas?
>
> Paying taxes for roads that they won't be operating their aircraft on?
>
>
In some states you can at least get back the state portion of the road
tax for aviation and boating and most other "off road" uses. The federal
portion goes right into the federal coffers.

I know in Michigan and Texas you can get it back for sure (20 cents per
gallon in Texas). it's fill out a simple form with how many gallons your
bought for the plane & send it in no later than 1year after purchased,
then keep on file reciepts showing the fuel purchased.

California keeps it for aviation and boating, but allows a refund for
many other uses.


--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Chris]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On 10 Apr 2006 14:25:55 -0700, "AJ" > wrote in
> . com>::
>
>>Essentially, the National Air Transportation Association representing
>>the airlines is seeking about $2 billion a year in federal tax relief.
>>To accomplish that, NATA wants general aviation - all aircraft except
>>commercial airliners and military - to take up the slack. That would
>>reduce the 7.5 percent "user fees" airline passengers pay.
>
> The airlines and FAA are embarking on a divide and conquer mission.
> Once the proposed precedent is established, it's going to be easier
> for the government to move to a fee based ATC system for all flights.
>
> If the airline passengers are paying the 7.5% ticket tax, please
> explain how shifting that tax to GA is going to provide financial
> relief to the airline industry. The airlines only collect the tax;
> they don't pay it; the passengers do.
>
> Will a 7.5% decrease in ticket prices make US airlines more
> competitive globally? Domestically? Doubtful. And There is no doubt
> shifting airline passengers' responsibility for ATC services and
> airport improvements on to GA will have a large, and inequitable,
> negative impact on GA.

There is the problem the 7.5% ticket tax. A movement costs the same whatever
the price of the ticket so the tax should be a flat rate charge. Then the
tax is not as ticket price dependent just dependent on their being a ticket.

Then you get the situation we have in the UK where I can buy a ticket from
Luton to Paris for $10 and the taxes come to $25. If I booked late and the
ticket price was $30 the taxes are still $25. If I bought the last ticket on
the plane and the ticket was now $200 the tax is still $25.

cb

[Doug]

Gross weight is what Canada uses.

[Jose]

> The point is that very remote areas depend on GA for access, but traffic
> volume would likely be insufficient to support the financial operations of
> the airport. If important to access to the outside world (AK and some MT
> airports), some sort of subsidy would be required.

Why should I pay to keep some remote airstrip open if you won't pay to
keep my less-remote airstrip open? People who live far out there
shouldn't depend on me for support. Right?

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Skylune]

by Jose > Apr 11, 2006 at 05:52 PM


> The point is that very remote areas depend on GA for access, but
traffic
> volume would likely be insufficient to support the financial operations
of
> the airport. If important to access to the outside world (AK and some
MT
> airports), some sort of subsidy would be required.

Why should I pay to keep some remote airstrip open if you won't pay to
keep my less-remote airstrip open? People who live far out there
shouldn't depend on me for support. Right?

Jose


<<

Back to form! I think those are legitimate questions. As I mentioned
though, I think if those towns want access THEY should provide local tax
(or state tax) subsidies, not you or I. On the other hand, I do think
there is some national interest in being able to get stuff (people or
supplies) to remote areas of the country that are otherwise inaccessible.


The Reason Foundation (libertarian leanings, in sync with my own political
philosophy) has interesting publications on their view of subsidies
(generally against) that you might be interested in.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>
> Why should I pay to keep some remote airstrip open if you won't pay to
> keep my less-remote airstrip open? People who live far out there
> shouldn't depend on me for support. Right?
>

Right, and they're probably not. Remote airstrips tend to need very little
funding to keep open.

[Jose]

> On the other hand, I do think
> there is some national interest in being able to get stuff (people or
> supplies) to remote areas of the country that are otherwise inaccessible.

What if I never go there, or order stuff from there? Why should I pay?

I am of course being contrarian (though the questions have merit). The
libertarian view would also eliminate libraries and the space program.
It is fatally flawed when applied as a panacea.

You are taking two completely disparate views and conflating them,
making arguments for one from the other. ON the one hand, you don't
like airplane noise (but don't seem to mind leafblower noise). On the
other hand you don't like GA "subsidies" but don't mind automotive
subsidies. This leads to arguments that are inconsistant, and an excuse
for inconsistancy that does not wash.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Logajan]

"Skylune" > wrote:
> Dylan Smith > wrote:
> > Meanwhile, when airlines need to use GA (for things like training)
> > they send their students abroad to dodge the fees they lobbied for
>
> I.e. like outsourcing to India, the commercials ship training to
> where it is cheapest. In this case, the USA, because of the
> artificially low cost created by the subsidies. See below BTS study,
> esp pp. 10-13.
>
>
> http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/pdf/entire.pdf

It uses passenger-miles as the normalizing factor, and on page 14 it states
the following:

"Comparing modes that have dramatically different average trip lengths,
subsidy per passenger-mile may overstate the subsidy for modes with short
trip lengths and understate subsidy for modes with long trip lengths."

Take a look at the source material for the aviation information:
http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/cost_allocation/media/GRA_FY95_Cost_Allocation_Study%2097.03.19.pdf

Tables 1-2 and 2-1 show that the complete elimination of GA flights would
reduce FAA expenditures by only about 12%. That's right - support of non-GA
flights eat up about 88% of the FAAs fiscal resources. That study made
clear that "In general, the air carrier share of FAA program costs has been
increasing over time, while general aviation (GA) and the public sector
shares have been decreasing."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>
> I am of course being contrarian (though the questions have merit). The
> libertarian view would also eliminate libraries and the space program. It
> is fatally flawed when applied as a panacea.
>

The libertarian view would eliminate libraries and the space program? I
don't think so. It would certainly eliminate taxpayer support of libraries,
but I don't think libertarians are opposed to the funding of libraries by
the Andrew Carnegies of the world or by user fees. I also do not believe
libertarians are opposed to the portion of the space program that serves a
valid defense need, but they would certainly eliminate that portion that
serves pure science.

[Jose]

> It would certainly eliminate taxpayer support of libraries,
> but I don't think libertarians are opposed to the funding of libraries by
> the Andrew Carnegies of the world or by user fees...

You are correct, I was imprecise. However the result would be quite
similar. It would eliminate the public libraries we all (or most of us)
know and love. It would eliminate support for pure science (and the
part of the space program that generates results accessible to the public)

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Skylune]

by Jose > Apr 11, 2006 at 06:20 PM


What if I never go there, or order stuff from there? Why should I pay?

I am of course being contrarian (though the questions have merit). The
libertarian view would also eliminate libraries and the space program.
It is fatally flawed when applied as a panacea.

You are taking two completely disparate views and conflating them,
making arguments for one from the other. ON the one hand, you don't
like airplane noise (but don't seem to mind leafblower noise). On the
other hand you don't like GA "subsidies" but don't mind automotive
subsidies. This leads to arguments that are inconsistant, and an excuse
for inconsistancy that does not wash.


<<

I agree that libertarianism taken to an extreme would result in no roads,
libraries, health care, etc. I don't want to live in a society that is
like the wild west, nor would most others I think.

Leafblower noise?? That is apples and oranges. You can knock on your
neighbor's door, and you have common interests with your neighbors.
Aircraft noise is an externality that has no cost to the aviator. The
victims cannot even identify the fliers, and if they do, no one is
responsible. A classic catch-22: the FAA says the airport is
responsible, the airport says the FAA is responsible, and most of the
fliers simply say "F- You: Its my right to make noise" or silly variants
like the airport was there first. The cost of noise pollution is borne
100% by those on the ground, and they have little to no political recourse
(in most places). As I said before, there are laws on the books in most
communities that target noise pollution: Only plane noise is exempt.


There are no automotive subsidies at the federal level. Federal gasoline
taxes exceed subsidies provided for road projects. So there are in fact
negative subsidies. See the BTS study I posted for info.

You might find the Reason Foundation study interesting, and you'll see its
not that harsh on nonbusiness GA (see pp. 31- from below link). They
propose keeping the current GA avgas tax as the preferred funding method,
even though correctly stating that it generates only 3% of Trust Fund $$.
(They also debunk some absurd Boyerisms, but then come down largely on his
side for funding of FSS, for e.g.).

http://www.reason.org/ps332.pdf

[Jose]

> Leafblower noise?? That is apples and oranges. You can knock on your
> neighbor's door, and you have common interests with your neighbors.

Huh? That doesn't stop the noise. And usually the noise is coming from
whoever they hired, who aren't going to stop either. And it drones on
hour after hour, when one neighbor stops, the other starts. And it's a
whine that is very piercing (all the energy is located in a narrow band
of the spectrum) so a mile away even at low volume it is annoying.
Neighbors who blow leaves basically have the attitude "Its my right to
make noise" coupled with the "need" to blow the leaves instead of raking.

> There are no automotive subsidies at the federal level. Federal gasoline
> taxes exceed subsidies provided for road projects.

The gas tax subsidizes the trains. Why shouldn't the subway riders pay
the full cost of the subway, even if it means ten dollars a ticket?
(There are reasons, and they are similar in nature to the GA arguments)

My point in any case is not that GA is or is not subsidized (or should
or should not be). It is that you are inconsistant in your reasoning,
and your choice of target.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Skylune]

by "Steven P. McNicoll" > Apr 11, 2006 at 06:31
PM


The libertarian view would eliminate libraries and the space program? I
don't think so. It would certainly eliminate taxpayer support of
libraries,
but I don't think libertarians are opposed to the funding of libraries by

the Andrew Carnegies of the world or by user fees. I also do not believe

libertarians are opposed to the portion of the space program that serves
a

valid defense need, but they would certainly eliminate that portion that
serves pure science.


<<

Yes. In general, user fees that do not distort economic behaviour are
favored over general tax support. If I provide a subsidy for something,
more of it will be created than the economics justify. For that reason,
taxes should only be levied for things that are purely in the interest of
the public at large.

Recreational flying does not serve the public at large, and should
therefore be 100% funded by the participants. At a local airport, they
charge no landing fees, charge only about $600 per year for a tie down,
and thats it. Overnight tie-down is $5. Yet, they receive millions of
dollars in AIP grants (derived from general taxpayer dollars and
commercial airline ticket taxes), $150K annual operating subsidy, state
subsidies, etc. They even wanted the city to kick in some $$ so as not to
"burden" airport users. Hey, who subsidizes my boating: It costs $3500
per year for the slip; transient slips will cost upwards of $75 per
night, etc. Yet, a marina has minimal infrastructure compared to an
active GA airport. Tax subsidies make GA flying artificially cheap.

[ET]

"Skylune" > wrote in
lkaboutaviation.com:

> by "Steven P. McNicoll" > Apr 11, 2006 at
> 06:31 PM
>
>
> The libertarian view would eliminate libraries and the space program?
> I don't think so. It would certainly eliminate taxpayer support of
> libraries,
> but I don't think libertarians are opposed to the funding of libraries
> by
>
> the Andrew Carnegies of the world or by user fees. I also do not
> believe
>
> libertarians are opposed to the portion of the space program that
> serves a
>
> valid defense need, but they would certainly eliminate that portion
> that serves pure science.
>
>
> <<
>
> Yes. In general, user fees that do not distort economic behaviour are
> favored over general tax support. If I provide a subsidy for
> something, more of it will be created than the economics justify. For
> that reason, taxes should only be levied for things that are purely in
> the interest of the public at large.
>
> Recreational flying does not serve the public at large, and should
> therefore be 100% funded by the participants. At a local airport,
> they charge no landing fees, charge only about $600 per year for a tie
> down, and thats it. Overnight tie-down is $5. Yet, they receive
> millions of dollars in AIP grants (derived from general taxpayer
> dollars and commercial airline ticket taxes), $150K annual operating
> subsidy, state subsidies, etc. They even wanted the city to kick in
> some $$ so as not to "burden" airport users. Hey, who subsidizes my
> boating: It costs $3500 per year for the slip; transient slips will
> cost upwards of $75 per night, etc. Yet, a marina has minimal
> infrastructure compared to an active GA airport. Tax subsidies make
> GA flying artificially cheap.
>
>
>
>
>

So you pay for the dredging, the shorline maintainence, and in many
cases the gazillion dollars for the dam and land costs that created that
lake??

Public funding of small city/county airport by local govt especially
makes sense because of the economic activity it generates. its a simple
$- in $$$- out equation.

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Jose]

> If I provide a subsidy for something,
> more of it will be created than the economics justify.

And sometimes that is a Good Thing. Economics is not the be-all and
end-all of life, something libertarians do not see.

> Recreational flying does not serve the public at large

That is another area where you are incorrect.

> and should therefore be 100% funded by the participants.

No gray in your vision?

> Hey, who subsidizes my boating...

The coast guard is not funded by user fees, neither is harbor dredging.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steve Foley]

Nantucket is an island off the coast of Massachusetts - right next to
Martha's Vinyard. Very little training activity. I'd guess it's close to
100% transients.

"Tom Conner" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I've heard that on a busy summer weekend, Nantucket Airport
> > (ACK) has more operations than Logan (BOS). If we go to an
> > operation based fee, I hope Nantucket gets the same level of
> > funding as Boston does.
> >
>
> This might very well be true. However, you need to find out how many
> operations are "local" (pattern practice), and how many are "transient"
> (actually go someplace). Many GA airports have high numbers of
operations,
> but once you subtract the student pilot pattern practice flights there is
> very little activity left.
>
>

[Skylune]

by Jose > Apr 11, 2006 at 06:47 PM


> Leafblower noise?? That is apples and oranges. You can knock on your
> neighbor's door, and you have common interests with your neighbors.

Huh? That doesn't stop the noise. And usually the noise is coming from
whoever they hired, who aren't going to stop either. And it drones on
hour after hour, when one neighbor stops, the other starts. And it's a
whine that is very piercing (all the energy is located in a narrow band
of the spectrum) so a mile away even at low volume it is annoying.
Neighbors who blow leaves basically have the attitude "Its my right to
make noise" coupled with the "need" to blow the leaves instead of raking


<<

Jose: Many communities have noise ordinances that target boom boxes,
harleys with straight pipes, leaf blowers etc. If there is noise that
exceeds the community thresholds, you can call the cops. If you started
blowing leaves in a suburb at 2 am, I'll bet the cops would show up. If
you circle in a Mooney at 1000 feet at 2 am, generating even more noise,
there is no penalty. And, the noise maker is completely anonymous.

As far as transportation cross subsidies: Yes, every time you cross a NYC
bridge in a car, you are subsidizing the subways. They get direct taxpayer
subsidies also. But I was talking about direct federal subsidies by
transporation mode: roadways are not subsidized measured by federal
income (gas taxes) vs outlays.

So, I don't think I am being inconsistent. And, I think some modes of
transportation should receive tax subsidies as they create a general
public good. IMO, GA should not fall into that category because the
subsidies are huge, it benefits an extremely small segment of society
(unlike most forms of mass transit that virtually everybody has used at
some point, and some use regularly), and much of it is not even for
transportation, but for recreation.

[Skylune]

So you pay for the dredging, the shorline maintainence, and in many
cases the gazillion dollars for the dam and land costs that created that
lake??

Public funding of small city/county airport by local govt especially
makes sense because of the economic activity it generates. its a simple
$- in $$$- out equation.

<<

The economic benefit studies are bogus. They simply tally the payrolls,
then add a multiplier. If the airport ceased to exist entirely, the
discretionary entertainment $$ would be spent elsewhere and have some
economic value as well.

I don't know of any govt. dredging for private marinas (none that I have
ever visited), only for public ports that import/export cargo ships use.
I never really looked into it, but if public $$ go to a private marina, I
would definitely be opposed on principal: Why should you pay for what I
use if it provides no benefit to society??

Dams: built to generate power, primarily. Low cost hydro power. Not for
boaters.

Shoreline maintenance: I agree with that. But it is mostly done to
protect housing built (stupidly, I think) along the coastline. Homeowners
should bear that risk (or pay an insurer to bear the risk), not taxpayers.
(Unless it supports a military base or Cape Canaveral, or something like
that.)

[Skylune]

by Jose > Apr 11, 2006 at 07:39 PM


> If I provide a subsidy for something,
> more of it will be created than the economics justify.

And sometimes that is a Good Thing. Economics is not the be-all and
end-all of life, something libertarians do not see.

> Recreational flying does not serve the public at large


<<

How does rec flying serve the greater public interest. Sure there is some
benefit to having a CAP, and some airline captains come from the ranks of
GA. But rec flying? Where is the benefit?

Economics is not the be-all, but allocation of scarce resources is
critical to all. Having special interest groups (whether it be GA,
agribusiness, boating, etc.) pulling the political strings is a shame,
though.

[Skylune]

The discussion is really moot anyway, as the battle has been fought and
decided. Now, all will have to wait for the outcome.

Prediction: Nonbusiness GA continues to pay only the gas tax (maybe it
goes up), but grant cuts to GA airports result in new or increased
landing, tie-down fees. Hangar lease rates, etc. go up.

Nothing dire for GA.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 17:52:29 +0000, Jose wrote:

> Why should I pay to keep some remote airstrip open if you won't pay to
> keep my less-remote airstrip open? People who live far out there
> shouldn't depend on me for support. Right?

Who is "you"?

Airports, like any kind of network node, gain/lose value by network
effects. The more airports exist, the more possible destinations for any
trip and therefore the more value there is in any one airport.

So airports need to be treated, economically, like a network. One
doesn't just price out an individual node as an individual node has little
benefit. But an incremental node does have benefit (the amount of which
is determined by a function on the number of nodes that already exist).

Unfortunately, the US has some very bad examples of this. For example,
consider any state road that leads, at the border, to another state's
road. If one state were to close their road, the value of the other
state's road would drop (albeit not to zero). Yet there's no cross
funding mechanism available.

Of course, this is also because that type of analysis is difficult to
accomplish and impossible to prove.

The Interstate road system avoids this problem by adopting a single-payer
model. That's part of the basis for FAA investments in airports, and it
is economically sound.

In other words, everyone should be paying to maintain the entire airport
network. I may never use (for example) LGA. But that it exists has value
for me (even if it's just to keep the crowds down a little at EWR {8^).
Similarly, I might never fly into 47N. But that it exists as a possible
destination makes my home airport that much more valuable.

ATC functions are, I think, different. My use of that service is often
forced upon me because of the requirements imposed to satisfy another
user. That is, I need to chat with TRACON to get home because "home" is
in class B and class B exists to satisfy the carrier crowd.

With airports, every new airport provides at least a little value for
everyone. With ATC, value is actually mostly accrued only to a small set
of users despite its impact upon many.

Yet, somehow, I feel like a single model could be built to cover both
cases.

I cannot believe that nobody has really studied this.

- Andrew

[Tom Conner]

"ET" > wrote in message
...
> "Skylune" > wrote in
> lkaboutaviation.com:
>
> >
> > Recreational flying does not serve the public at large, and
> > should therefore be 100% funded by the participants. At a
> > local airport, they charge no landing fees, charge only about
> > $600 per year for a tie down, and thats it. Overnight tie-down
> > is $5. Yet, they receive millions of dollars in AIP grants
> > (derived from general taxpayer dollars and commercial airline
> > ticket taxes), $150K annual operating subsidy, state subsidies,
> > etc. They even wanted the city to kick in some $$ so as not to
> > "burden" airport users. Hey, who subsidizes my boating: It
> > costs $3500 per year for the slip; transient slips will
> > cost upwards of $75 per night, etc. Yet, a marina has minimal
> > infrastructure compared to an active GA airport. Tax subsidies
> > make GA flying artificially cheap.
>
> So you pay for the dredging, the shorline maintainence, and in many
> cases the gazillion dollars for the dam and land costs that created that
> lake??
>
> Public funding of small city/county airport by local govt especially
> makes sense because of the economic activity it generates. its a simple
> $- in $$$- out equation.
>

We have to stop repeating this AOPA talking point, and stick with the facts.
Whenever we say this we just look like deer in the headlights; i.e. clueless
and dumbfounded. Yes, GA airports generate revenue, but measured as
dollar/acre GA revenue is abysmal. Virtually any other economic use of
airport land will produce a tremendous amount more of $$$ than GA.

[Bob Noel]

In article t>,
"Tom Conner" > wrote:

> Virtually any other economic use of
> airport land will produce a tremendous amount more of $$$ than GA.

based on ....?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 22:07:51 GMT, "Tom Conner" >
wrote in t>::

>GA airports generate revenue, but measured as
>dollar/acre GA revenue is abysmal. Virtually any other economic use of
>airport land will produce a tremendous amount more of $$$ than GA.

Agreed.

The airport's value lies in it's existence in the nation's/world's
infrastructure as a portal for aerial transport. Further, the value
of the real estate upon which the airport is sited is obviously not in
the revenue the airport generates for the municipality operating it.
And the value of the property tax on the real estate if it were zoned
for development would surely be several times more than the airport
pays. Both economic issues motivate airport closures as do noise
complaints and developer lobbying.

But consider the future. If the airport real estate is allowed to be
subdivided into residential lots, the municipality's reacquiring the
property in 2020, when a local airport is being demanded by the
citizens, may prove difficult and unpopular.

There are a lot of issues in life that require foresight to achieve
long term goals, rather than failing to plan ahead in the face of
immediate gratification.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 22:07:51 +0000, Tom Conner wrote:

> virtually any other economic use of
> airport land will produce a tremendous amount more of $$$ than GA.

This turns out to be false, much to my town's annoyance.

We're learning that new housing is *expensive*. Sure, it means taxes.
But in our town, a new home means kids. And schooling two or more kids
costs more than most houses pay in taxes.

Anything more dense than a house (ie. an apartment building) which is well
suited to children is worse. A couple of developers got projects past the
town by claiming that the resulting homes would be kid-unfriendly. This
was recent, with the projects still under construction, so it remains to
be seen if kid-unfriendly can actually work. I've my doubts.

High density commercial or industry might generate more cash than a GA
airport. But it might also have additional costs. More, an airport
nearby is an asset for corporate sites. Take the airport away, and large
corporations will be less willing to pay for the space.

- Andrew

[Orval Fairbairn]

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

> Pure sophistry! Northwest doesn't want to share "their" airports, but
> doesn't want to share in the solution to their desires.
>
> The problem with "Skyloon's" "solution" is that those airports in highly
> populated areas are the link with those in the less-densely-populated
> areas. The airports are part of a *system* -- not just a bunch of loose
> parts.
>
> <<
>
> Its pretty clear that objectivity goes out the window for many when self
> interests are concerned....
>
> Sure the airport network is linked. That has nothing, zero, Nada, to do
> with the appropriate ways of funding the system, and who pays. The
> Heritage Foundation among others has long argued for user fees based for
> private activities, which clearly includes GA. I agree with their
> viewpoint, and oppose governement subsidies for private goods. Now, if
> states or localities choose to support a GA airport, a local ski area or a
> shooting range, with taxes, that is fine with me.


The airport system is just as important as the Interstate Highway system
-- it helps to bind the nation together. The Heritage Foundation (esp.
Mr. Poole) is blinded by ideology and ignores the big picture!

How about Rural Electrification? postal service to outlying areas? roads?

he list goes on.

[Orval Fairbairn]

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

> by Jose > Apr 11, 2006 at 07:39 PM
>
>
> > If I provide a subsidy for something,
> > more of it will be created than the economics justify.
>
> And sometimes that is a Good Thing. Economics is not the be-all and
> end-all of life, something libertarians do not see.
>
> > Recreational flying does not serve the public at large
>
>
> <<
>
> How does rec flying serve the greater public interest. Sure there is some
> benefit to having a CAP, and some airline captains come from the ranks of
> GA. But rec flying? Where is the benefit?

How do parks, wildlife areas, wilderness aeas, marinas, golf courses,
tennis courts, etc. serve the public benefit?


> Economics is not the be-all, but allocation of scarce resources is
> critical to all. Having special interest groups (whether it be GA,
> agribusiness, boating, etc.) pulling the political strings is a shame,
> though.

They have to pull the strings just to survive in a hostile political
environment dominated by real estate developers.

[[email protected]]

Skylune wrote:
>How does rec flying serve the greater public interest. Sure there is some
>benefit to having a CAP, and some airline captains come from the ranks of
>GA. But rec flying? Where is the benefit?

Fine, if everything were looked at that way.
Does "public art" beneift the general public? Or does it just benefit
the arts community, whomever that is. Yet many communities
(unfortunately) have a "percent for the arts" or similar programs.
Aviation is an economic engine, and a transportation mode. It is a
general benefit in those areas, the same as having individual cars
instead of mass transportation (which should change, but that's a
different thread, and possibly ng.)

[[email protected]]

Tom Conner wrote:
>Virtually any other economic use of
>airport land will produce a tremendous amount more of $$$ than GA.

But when a community closes an airport, what happens to the value of
the infrastructure, not just the land.

If the community buys your house, they buy the house and the lot.
Maybe they bulldoze the house, but they have to buy that first.
I'm not aware of communities paying for the runways, towers, hangars,
etc. Those investments seem to just disappear, and the aviation
community is supposed to wander in the desert for 40 years looking for
a new. home.
The developers didn't tie up their money for decades, investing in the
land. They use commmunity government connections to get them condemned
or otherwise closed, and reap $$$$$$$$ on aviations investment. This
is doubly dammned because they build the houses next to the airport,
that got the residents, that complained about the noise, that was there
before they moved in, that was less than their kid's boombox cars.

End of rant. Continue with your normal programming.

[Jose]

> Many communities have noise ordinances

.... that are totally ineffectual against leaf blowers. They don't blow
at 2 AM , that's not the problem. They blow all day, from 8AM to 8PM.

> If there is noise that
> exceeds the community thresholds...

Balderdash on the "community". They exceed =my= standards. Why should
a bunch of noise loving fastidious lawn zealots ruin my quiet so that
they can have pristine green?

> If
> you circle in a Mooney at 1000 feet at 2 am, generating even more noise...

A Mooney at 1000 feet doesw not generate more noise than a leafblower.

> ...there is no penalty. And, the noise maker is completely anonymous.

Hardly. Radar tracks are all over the place. You can even get them
yourself on the internet. It's going to get even more pervasive.

> Yes, every time you cross a NYC
> bridge in a car, you are subsidizing the subways. [...]
> But I was talking about direct federal subsidies by
> transporation mode:

A subsidy is a subsidy.

> And, I think some modes of
> transportation should receive tax subsidies as they create a general
> public good.

That's the first step.

> GA should not fall into that category because the
> subsidies are huge, it benefits an extremely small segment of society...

The size of the subsidy is irrelevant to whether it creates a public
good. GA creates a general public good.

> ...(unlike most forms of mass transit that virtually
> everybody has used at some point, and some use regularly)

If everybody uses it, then there is no need to subsidize it. Let 'em
pay for their subway rides. Ten bucks a pop, so be it. Why not?

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> I don't know of any govt. dredging for private marinas (none that I have
> ever visited), only for public ports that import/export cargo ships use.

> Dams: built to generate power, primarily. Low cost hydro power. Not for
> boaters.

You benefit from the dredging, you benefit from the dams. Are you
claiming that you shouldn't have to pay just because "they would be
there anyway"? That's a mighty familiar argument.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> Yes, GA airports generate revenue, but measured as
> dollar/acre GA revenue is abysmal. Virtually any other economic use of
> airport land will produce a tremendous amount more of $$$ than GA.

Well, not really. What happens is that the existance of DXR makes the
existance of BID more valuable. DXR is providing positive economic
impact to BID (and the rest of Block Island). Were DXR to be leveled
and replaced with condos or some such, the economic benefit would go to
the land developers, BUT IT WOULD COME OUT OF BID (and other places that
have no say in the matter).

It just =looks= like condos are a better deal, but that's because the
benefit of one airport is spread out over all the other airports.

It's the same argument against getting "corporate taxpayers" on the real
estate rolls. More business developement should mean more town taxes
coming from their corporate tax, and lessen the burden on homeowners.
But it doesn't work that way. Graph the mill rates of towns vs their
corporate development ratio, and you'll see (at least I've found in my
area) that the more corporate developement, the HIGHER the mill rate.

The EXPENSES to the town generated by businesses is diluted so it can't
be seen, but it is juts as real.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Jose > writes:

> > Many communities have noise ordinances
>
> ... that are totally ineffectual against leaf blowers. They don't
> blow at 2 AM , that's not the problem. They blow all day, from 8AM to
> 8PM.
>
> > If there is noise that
> > exceeds the community thresholds...
>
> Balderdash on the "community". They exceed =my= standards. Why
> should a bunch of noise loving fastidious lawn zealots ruin my quiet
> so that they can have pristine green?

For the same reason that a bunch of late-and-light-sleeping pilots, or
programmers, or photographers, or whatever should be able to prevent
people from working on their lawn before it gets hot outside.

Perfectly legitemate desires can conflict.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-04-11, Skylune > wrote:
> or silly variants
> like the airport was there first.

Why is it 'silly'? I agree pilots should be neigbourly and operate in a
manner not to cause undue noise, but really - if you don't like the
sound of aircraft, don't live close to an airport or under busy flight
paths. It's common sense to do at least that much due diligence when
buying a house (almost certainly the most expensive purchase you'll ever
make).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Skylune]

by Jose <teacherjh@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Apr 12, 2006 at 04:13 AM


You benefit from the dredging, you benefit from the dams. Are you
claiming that you shouldn't have to pay just because "they would be
there anyway"? That's a mighty familiar argument


<<

Wait: Dams directly benefit consumers of electricity, farmers and other
water users, lakefront property owners, and boaters. None would be built
if they had to be financed by private boat owners alone.

On the other hand, GA airports benefit only pilots. (No, I don't believe
the economic benefit studies. There are also studies that say taxpayer
subsidized sports stadiums are economic drivers: more nonsense.)

[Skylune]

>>by Dylan Smith > Apr 12, 2006 at 11:19 AM



Why is it 'silly'? I agree pilots should be neigbourly and operate in a
manner not to cause undue noise, but really - if you don't like the
sound of aircraft, don't live close to an airport or under busy flight
paths. It's common sense to do at least that much due diligence when
buying a house (almost certainly the most expensive purchase you'll ever
make).


<<

It is "silly" because it is a pseudo-fact, not an argument. It is
irrelevant, even if true. Lots of things existed that are no longer there
because they were deemed no longer in the best interest of the community
(mills, landfills, etc.).

And if that is the argument, Native Americans would have legitimate
grounds to throw all our asses back across the pond to Europe.

I don't think my opinions are radical: airports have a right to exist,
but they must co-exist with the surrounding townships. They must not rely
on taxpayer subsidies, but should be funded by the users unless the local
community finds it beneficial to subsidize the airstrip.

This FAA funding creates a huge mess, and a welfare state, which is what
GA is in this country.

[Jose]

> This FAA funding creates a huge mess, and a welfare state, which is what
> GA is in this country.

You seem to come from the POV that any shared expense system is a
welfare state. This is not so.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ron Lee]

"Skylune" > wrote:
>
>The point is that very remote areas depend on GA for access, but traffic
>volume would likely be insufficient to support the financial operations of
>the airport. If important to access to the outside world (AK and some MT
>airports), some sort of subsidy would be required.
>

Just as the USA highway system is subsidized such that rural highways
still are built and maintained even if the population/traffic flow is
less than in suburban areas.

Ron Lee

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-04-12, Skylune > wrote:
> It is "silly" because it is a pseudo-fact, not an argument.

A 'pseudo-fact'? What's so pseudo-factual about the numerous examples of
airfields that had been built in the 40s, then subsequently (say, as
late as the 80s or 90s), housing developments built all around the still
active airfield?

If you buy a house next to the interstate, expect road noise. If you buy
a house next to a railway line, expect the sound of trains (and shock
horror, train horns). If you buy a house next to a meat pie factory,
expect funny smells. Quite often, the value of a property takes into
account the (often pre-existing) surrounding infrastructure and
potential noise or other impacts. Is it that unreasonable to expect
people who hate aircraft noise to do their due diligence, and not buy a
house near an active airfield?

I agree that pilots should do everything in their power to reduce the
impact of what they do - that's just Doing The Right Thing and being
neigbourly (regardless of whether the airport was there first or not).
However, to buy a house near an airfield and kvetch about aircraft noise
seems to suggest that the complainer wasn't smart enough to do their due
diligence - and now expects aircraft operators to pay the price for
their own poor research. This is what seems 'silly'.

> I don't think my opinions are radical: airports have a right to exist,
> but they must co-exist with the surrounding townships.

It works both ways too - townships that get built around existing active
airfields also must co-exist with the airfield. House buyers must accept
some responsibility for doing due diligence and not buying a house near
an active airfield if they find aircraft noise bothersome.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Skylune]

by (Ron Lee) Apr 12, 2006 at 02:47 PM

Just as the USA highway system is subsidized such that rural highways
still are built and maintained even if the population/traffic flow is
less than in suburban areas.

Ron Lee

<<

The highway system is NOT subsidized. Federal fuel tax collections exceed
federal transporation outlays for roads/bridges/tunnels. The data is
available from US Govt. sources.

[Skylune]

by Dylan Smith > Apr 12, 2006 at 03:29 PM


On 2006-04-12, Skylune > wrote:
> It is "silly" because it is a pseudo-fact, not an argument.

A 'pseudo-fact'? What's so pseudo-factual about the numerous examples of
airfields that had been built in the 40s, then subsequently (say, as
late as the 80s or 90s), housing developments built all around the still
active airfield?

If you buy a house next to the interstate, expect road noise. If you buy
a house next to a railway line, expect the sound of trains (and shock
horror, train horns). If you buy a house next to a meat pie factory,
expect funny smells. Quite often, the value of a property takes into
account the (often pre-existing) surrounding infrastructure and
potential noise or other impacts. Is it that unreasonable to expect
people who hate aircraft noise to do their due diligence, and not buy a
house near an active airfield

<<

In that scenario, of course the new homeowners have no right to bitch.
But there are many other scenarios that are much different.


What about the long-term residents living next to (or in the vicinity of)
a small airport that grows into a noise spewing monster? Was not the
resident there before the expansion?

And, how on earth are nonpilots supposed to know where flight paths are
located? These can extend many miles from the airport. Should people
have to become experts in right and left traffic patterns, be able to read
sectionals, etc. when purchasing a home?

Lastly, a group that Boyer attacks as radicals, Stop the Noise, is not
located near any airport. Stunt planes have picked this bucolic (Groton,
Mass) area to practice over. The noise is horrific on sunny weekends. I
have heard it. But these homeowners have no rights under existing FARs.
So they sued in State Court, which AOPA tried to have moved to Federal
Court on pre-emption grounds. (AOPA likes FAA regs when it shields the
industry.) Much to the AOPA's dismay, the court in a remand order ruled
that state statutes do apply, and the case is currently awaiting trial.

[Jose]

> What about the long-term residents living next to (or in the vicinity of)
> a small airport that grows into a noise spewing monster? Was not the
> resident there before the expansion?

What about the airport that was there next to a small sympathetic town,
which grows into a condo-maniac mosnter? Was not the airport there
before the expansion?

Typically both things happen at once as population grows.

And to go back to the highway, traffic on the highway increases and more
trucks go by, turning =that= into a noise-spewing monster. Was not the
resident there before the traffic expansion? Why not close the highway?

> And, how on earth are nonpilots supposed to know where flight paths are
> located?

Stop and listen. Ask the homeowner. You're plunking down a sizable
fraction of a million dollars - do some research.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Orval Fairbairn]

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

> by (Ron Lee) Apr 12, 2006 at 02:47 PM
>
> Just as the USA highway system is subsidized such that rural highways
> still are built and maintained even if the population/traffic flow is
> less than in suburban areas.
>
> Ron Lee
>
> <<
>
> The highway system is NOT subsidized. Federal fuel tax collections exceed
> federal transporation outlays for roads/bridges/tunnels. The data is
> available from US Govt. sources.
>

This is also the case for airports. I don't know where "Skyloon" gets
the notion that airports get General Fund money.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Bob Noel > wrote:

> In article t>,
> "Tom Conner" > wrote:
>
> > Virtually any other economic use of
> > airport land will produce a tremendous amount more of $$$ than GA.
>
> based on ....?

still waiting for the source of your claim...

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[roncachamp]

Skylune wrote:
>
> Sure the airport network is linked. That has nothing, zero, Nada, to do
> with the appropriate ways of funding the system, and who pays. The
> Heritage Foundation among others has long argued for user fees based for
> private activities, which clearly includes GA.
>

It also includes air carriers.

[roncachamp]

Skylune wrote:
>
> Capital costs would obviously depend upon the length of the runway,
>

At remote rural airstrips they tend to be rather short.


>
> number of runways,
>

Remote rural airstrips tend to have one.


>
> equipment, etc.
>

Remote rural airstrips tend to have little, if any.


>
> Operating costs would depend on towered vs.
> nontowered, number of maintenance personnel, etc. So it would vary.
>

What remote rural airstrip has a tower?


>
> The point is that very remote areas depend on GA for access, but traffic
> volume would likely be insufficient to support the financial operations of
> the airport. If important to access to the outside world (AK and some MT
> airports), some sort of subsidy would be required.
>

The point is remote rural airstrips tend to be privately funded.

[roncachamp]

Skylune wrote:
>
> Recreational flying does not serve the public at large, and should
> therefore be 100% funded by the participants.
>

It is.

[roncachamp]

Skylune wrote:
>
> You gotta be kidding me.
>

I'm not.


>
> Do you know how the AIP is funded, by source.
> Do you know if your local airport does a project, it is usually 90% funded
> by FAA grants, 5% state, and 5% local???
>
> Do you know about the $150k annual operating subsidies that many GA
> airports receive??
>
> Do you know about the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, that determine
> tax expenditures for various transportation categories??
>

I asked first, I'll answer your questions after you answer mine.

What is your evidence that thousands of airports without air carrier or
military aircraft operations are being subsidized?

Who advocates subsidies for recreational flying?

[roncachamp]

Skylune wrote:
>
> You gotta be kidding me.
>

I'm not.


>
> Do you know how the AIP is funded, by source.
> Do you know if your local airport does a project, it is usually 90% funded
> by FAA grants, 5% state, and 5% local???
>
> Do you know about the $150k annual operating subsidies that many GA
> airports receive??
>
> Do you know about the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, that determine
> tax expenditures for various transportation categories??
>
> I guess not. Just listen to Boyer, and his hyperbole and rhetorical
> arguments.
>
> (Why am I starting to see an analogy between the Boyer-types and the
> French student protestors?)
>

I'll answer your questions after you answer mine. That's only fair,
mine were asked first. I'll repeat them for your convenience:

What is your evidence that thousands of GA airports, that is, airports
that have no air carrier or military operations, are being subsidized?

Who advocates subsidies for recreational flying?

[Matt Barrow]

"roncachamp" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Skylune wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> Operating costs would depend on towered vs.
>> nontowered, number of maintenance personnel, etc. So it would vary.
>>
>
> What remote rural airstrip has a tower?
>

This one!
http://boortz.com/more/funny/redneck_pics_controltower.html

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-04-12, Skylune > wrote:
> What about the long-term residents living next to (or in the vicinity of)
> a small airport that grows into a noise spewing monster? Was not the
> resident there before the expansion?

General aviation is in decline. If that happens it's because the
AIRLINES moved in. Noise spewing monster airports are generally not
caused by GA.

> And, how on earth are nonpilots supposed to know where flight paths are
> located? These can extend many miles from the airport. Should people
> have to become experts in right and left traffic patterns, be able to read
> sectionals, etc. when purchasing a home?

All they have to do is spend a little time in the neighbourhood and TALK
to the neighbours. I know it's totally unheard of to actually talk to
your neighbours these days - but really, when you're plunking down maybe
100 grand or more on a house you ought to at least meet the neighbours
and ask them what the neighbourhood is like. "Oh, I see there's an
airport on the local map - how noisy is it?". If you see an airport on
the map, spend some time in the street and find out whether the sounds
are annoying. But people don't even do this minor bit of easy research.
It doesn't take being an expert in aviation to ask your potential
neighbours what the traffic is like at the airport you spotted on the
map.

Of course, most people don't even bother buying a map when purchasing a
house to find out what's around. They wouldn't dream of buying a house
without doing a structural survey or checking for liens or other
problems - but when it comes to doing a minor bit of legwork to check
that the rest of the neighbourhood is acceptable to them, they don't
bother.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-04-12, roncachamp > wrote:
>
> Skylune wrote:
>>
>> Capital costs would obviously depend upon the length of the runway,
>
> At remote rural airstrips they tend to be rather short.

The remote rural airstrips that I've been to (in the United States) tend
to only be airstrips because someone stuck an airfield symbol on the
chart. All they are is a clearing in the trees and pretty much totally
unmaintained. The maintained ones are only maintained because they have
private owners who provide all the funding.

I've got some video online of three remote rural airstrips. The grass is
probably only short there because aircraft propellers have 'mowed' it
:-) - http://www.alioth.net/Video/BackCountry.mp4 (you may want VideoLAN
Client, which is free - http://www.videolan.org - if you don't have an
MPEG-4 player).

> The point is remote rural airstrips tend to be privately funded.

And the state funded ones (such as Lower Loon, which I suspect is state
funded) are only funded because they are primarily there for state use -
so that the forestry guys can get access to remote mountainous areas,
and rescue crews have somewhere to land to pick up hikers/mountain
climbers who have hurt themselves. They'd be there if private GA used
them or not because the state needs them.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> The remote rural airstrips that I've been to (in the United States) tend
> to only be airstrips because someone stuck an airfield symbol on the
> chart. All they are is a clearing in the trees and pretty much totally
> unmaintained. The maintained ones are only maintained because they have
> private owners who provide all the funding.
>

Zackly my point.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> This one!
> http://boortz.com/more/funny/redneck_pics_controltower.html
>

That outs the FAA tower at FLD to shame.

[Skylune]

by "roncachamp" > Apr 12, 2006 at 03:28 PM



I'll answer your questions after you answer mine. That's only fair,
mine were asked first. I'll repeat them for your convenience:

What is your evidence that thousands of GA airports, that is, airports
that have no air carrier or military operations, are being subsidized?

Who advocates subsidies for recreational flying?

<<

For your convenience, I will re-re-re post the United States Bureau of
Transporation Statistics data that shows GA as having massive subsidies.
That is only partial evidence; other data abounds.

http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/html/figure_06.html


For your additional edificiation, I suggest you look up how much your
beloved avgas taxes contribute to the entire AIP pot: you will find it to
be under 3%.

Your second question: Boyer, who wants fuel taxes left intact, who
advocates for state tax subsidies, etc.

Happy?

[Ron Lee]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote:

> "Skylune" > wrote:
>>
>> Just as the USA highway system is subsidized such that rural highways
>> still are built and maintained even if the population/traffic flow is
>> less than in suburban areas.
>>
>> Ron Lee
>>
>> The highway system is NOT subsidized. Federal fuel tax collections exceed
>> federal transporation outlays for roads/bridges/tunnels. The data is
>> available from US Govt. sources.
>>
>
>This is also the case for airports. I don't know where "Skyloon" gets
>the notion that airports get General Fund money.

Ok, my "subsidized" term was not the best. "Funded" would have been
better but Orval makes a salient point. GA pays its way.

Ron Lee

[roncachamp]

Skylune wrote:
>
> For your convenience, I will re-re-re post the United States Bureau of
> Transporation Statistics data that shows GA as having massive subsidies.
> That is only partial evidence; other data abounds.
>
> http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/html/figure_06.html
>

I see no information there on the number of airports without air
carrier or military operations that are being subsidized. Perhaps if
you actually answered the question that is being asked you wouldn't
have to re-re-re post.


>
> For your additional edificiation, I suggest you look up how much your
> beloved avgas taxes contribute to the entire AIP pot: you will find it to
> be under 3%.
>

What percentage of the AIP pot is spent for the sole benefit of those
that burn avgas?


>
> Your second question: Boyer, who wants fuel taxes left intact, who
> advocates for state tax subsidies, etc.
>

Please provide a verifiable quote of Mr. Boyer advocating subsidies for
recreational flying.


>
> Happy?
>

Happy that you couldn't answer my questions? I'm not happy or unhappy
about that, but it is what I expected.