User Fees debate

[doylflier]

If someone really wanted to hit the issues on this, they would do a
detailed comparison among three similar countries with similar
challenges and traditions, i.e., the U.S., Canada and Australia.
Europe has multiple side issues, which make the comparison less
useful. On the main point, I don't have an ax to grind, except cheaper
is better, but I do know that Canada has a user fee system and I'm not
sure about Australia. I think you'll find that Canada has a robust GA
world, but like on other issues, they put up with higher taxes and
allow greater restrictions without much complaint. I think from a GA
standpoint, AOPA will turn out to be right. (As an aside, in fact, the
ability of a GA lobby group to affect the outcome, turn to its allies
in Congress, both the House and Senate, and otherwise attempt to set
aside, amend, adjust and redirect legislation and regulations of this
type is something that is consistent with a Republic and difficult to
achieve in a Parliamentary system, which is probably how the measure
got through largely unnoticed in Canada without the lobbying battle
which we expect to unfold here in the U.S.Of course, the irony is that
the democratically elected will take out the aviation infrastructure
by shoveling it sideways to the private sector just when the
cognoscenti are starting to look at GA as an alternative to gridlocked
airports and related problems partly caused by deregulating a
previously properly regulated industry).

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"doylflier" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> If someone really wanted to hit the issues on this, they would do a
> detailed comparison among three similar countries with similar
> challenges and traditions, i.e., the U.S., Canada and Australia.
> Europe has multiple side issues, which make the comparison less
> useful. On the main point, I don't have an ax to grind, except cheaper
> is better, but I do know that Canada has a user fee system and I'm not
> sure about Australia. I think you'll find that Canada has a robust GA
> world, but like on other issues, they put up with higher taxes and
> allow greater restrictions without much complaint. I think from a GA
> standpoint, AOPA will turn out to be right. (As an aside, in fact, the
> ability of a GA lobby group to affect the outcome, turn to its allies
> in Congress, both the House and Senate, and otherwise attempt to set
> aside, amend, adjust and redirect legislation and regulations of this
> type is something that is consistent with a Republic and difficult to
> achieve in a Parliamentary system, which is probably how the measure
> got through largely unnoticed in Canada without the lobbying battle
> which we expect to unfold here in the U.S.Of course, the irony is that
> the democratically elected will take out the aviation infrastructure
> by shoveling it sideways to the private sector just when the
> cognoscenti are starting to look at GA as an alternative to gridlocked
> airports and related problems partly caused by deregulating a
> previously properly regulated industry).
>

Why do you believe economic regulation of airlines was proper?

[doylflier]

>
> Why do you believe economic regulation of airlines was proper?

What we had was a group of large, successful, regulated carriers, or
in some countries national flag carriers, operating in the private
sector much like a utility. Airline tickets were higher, but not
prohibitive, people were paid well, service was good and confidence
was high among passengers, the public and staff. What we now have is a
complete shambles. Planes operated by Chapter 11 carriers and
underpaid crew competing with non-union Jet Blue type start-ups, poor
service, and hovering vulture capital firms looking for ways to buy
out and further strip muscle from the bone for the simple reason that
Wall Street requires not just higher earnings every year but an
increasing rate of return every year. Yet some industries really are
the proper province government. Think whether it really makes sense to
privatize sections of the military. Do we really think it's a good
idea to get rid of army cooks and have them replaced by Burger King
franchises.? We want the troops fed by people who aren't concerned by
an increasing rate of return on an annual basis. For the larger
countries mentioned, the idea was that regulation created a version of
subsidy, which in turn required them to provide service to
unprofitable routes, i.e., to operate in the public good. Ditto for
FAA services. They exist even where they are not profitable because
they are for the public generally. Once completely private, the profit
motive will result bare bones or discontinued service in a sector
where the watchword ought to be safety, not profit.