Airline passengers subsidizing private aviation [Archive]

hummingbird

April 17th 07, 11:45 AM

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:30:42 GMT 'William Black'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

>"hummingbird" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:37:04 +0200 'Mxsmanic'
>> posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>>
>>>Apologies if someone else has already posted this:
>>>
>>>http://us.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/04/16/ticket.taxes.ap/index.html
>>>
>>>Somebody really hates GA.
>>
>> Perhaps one reason that money is being fed to the smaller airports is
>> to make them more attractive to commercial airlines to start up direct
>> point-to-point services instead of using big hubs and big jets. That
>> would be exactly in line with Boeing's strategy in the light of Airbus
>> A380 competition.
>
>Certainly the very low cost airlines in Europe use smaller provincial
>airports because the fees are much lower.
>
>Are there very low cost airlines in the USA who use smaller fields?

Can't say for sure but I would think the US has plenty of low-cost
carriers like Ryanair et al using smaller airports.

Underlying my previous comment was the possibility that the US
fed govt are quietly feeding taxpayers money into smaller airports
to develop them, thereby helping Boeing who want to encourage
point-to-point flying in its 787 Dreamliner instead of airlines using
the A380 in/out of large hubs. I think it's called protectionism.

But of course we know that the US is all in favour of free trade
and doesn't indulge in such tactics. ho ho.

William Black[_1_]

April 17th 07, 12:20 PM

"hummingbird" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:30:42 GMT 'William Black'
> posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>
>>"hummingbird" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:37:04 +0200 'Mxsmanic'
>>> posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>>>
>>>>Apologies if someone else has already posted this:
>>>>
>>>>http://us.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/04/16/ticket.taxes.ap/index.html
>>>>
>>>>Somebody really hates GA.
>>>
>>> Perhaps one reason that money is being fed to the smaller airports is
>>> to make them more attractive to commercial airlines to start up direct
>>> point-to-point services instead of using big hubs and big jets. That
>>> would be exactly in line with Boeing's strategy in the light of Airbus
>>> A380 competition.
>>
>>Certainly the very low cost airlines in Europe use smaller provincial
>>airports because the fees are much lower.
>>
>>Are there very low cost airlines in the USA who use smaller fields?
>
> Can't say for sure but I would think the US has plenty of low-cost
> carriers like Ryanair et al using smaller airports.
>
> Underlying my previous comment was the possibility that the US
> fed govt are quietly feeding taxpayers money into smaller airports
> to develop them, thereby helping Boeing who want to encourage
> point-to-point flying in its 787 Dreamliner instead of airlines using
> the A380 in/out of large hubs. I think it's called protectionism.
>
> But of course we know that the US is all in favour of free trade
> and doesn't indulge in such tactics. ho ho.

It's the same strategy as detailed in the Brabazon report conclusions.
Small fields all over the place, small fast aircraft linking them. It was
used by the British aircraft industry as a blueprint, and they promptly
built the Bristol Brabazon and the DeHaviland Comet...

It's a strategy that requires lots of rich people who want to fly short
distances.

The Boeing 707 killed that idea. People wanted big cheap aircraft that took
them quickly to somewhere within about five hundred miles of where they were
going, after that they can use local transport, flying or not...

The Airbus A320 series is a hard act to beat for a short haul 200+ seater
'local bus service' type aircraft. What advantage does the 787 have over
it?

<Well, apart from having 'not made in the USA' stamped on it>

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Louis Krupp

April 17th 07, 12:49 PM

hummingbird wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:30:42 GMT 'William Black'
> posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>
>> "hummingbird" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:37:04 +0200 'Mxsmanic'
>>> posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>>>
>>>> Apologies if someone else has already posted this:
>>>>
>>>> http://us.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/04/16/ticket.taxes.ap/index.html
>>>>
>>>> Somebody really hates GA.
>>> Perhaps one reason that money is being fed to the smaller airports is
>>> to make them more attractive to commercial airlines to start up direct
>>> point-to-point services instead of using big hubs and big jets. That
>>> would be exactly in line with Boeing's strategy in the light of Airbus
>>> A380 competition.
>> Certainly the very low cost airlines in Europe use smaller provincial
>> airports because the fees are much lower.
>>
>> Are there very low cost airlines in the USA who use smaller fields?
>
> Can't say for sure but I would think the US has plenty of low-cost
> carriers like Ryanair et al using smaller airports.
>
> Underlying my previous comment was the possibility that the US
> fed govt are quietly feeding taxpayers money into smaller airports
> to develop them, thereby helping Boeing who want to encourage
> point-to-point flying in its 787 Dreamliner instead of airlines using
> the A380 in/out of large hubs. I think it's called protectionism.
>
> But of course we know that the US is all in favour of free trade
> and doesn't indulge in such tactics. ho ho.

I wouldn't expect the airports mentioned in the article to see overseas
travel anytime soon. I'm not sure how many of them even have commercial
service. And if they do attract low-cost domestic carriers, what do
those airlines fly? Frontier has Airbus A318s and 319s. Jet Blue?
Airbus, and Embraer. Southwest flies Boeing 737s, but I don't think the
subsidies are aimed at them in particular.

The B787 is likely to let airports like Denver add routes. And as
traffic grows, airlines will put on bigger jets. For some airlines,
that will mean a B747, and for others, an A340. This rising tide lifts
all boats.

Louis

me[_2_]

April 17th 07, 01:02 PM

On Apr 17, 6:45 am, hummingbird > wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:30:42 GMT 'William Black'
> posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"hummingbird" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:37:04 +0200 'Mxsmanic'
> >> posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>
> >>>Apologies if someone else has already posted this:
>
> >>>http://us.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/04/16/ticket.taxes.ap/index.html
>
> >>>Somebody really hates GA.
>
> >> Perhaps one reason that money is being fed to the smaller airports is
> >> to make them more attractive to commercial airlines to start up direct
> >> point-to-point services instead of using big hubs and big jets. That
> >> would be exactly in line with Boeing's strategy in the light of Airbus
> >> A380 competition.
>
> >Certainly the very low cost airlines in Europe use smaller provincial
> >airports because the fees are much lower.
>
> >Are there very low cost airlines in the USA who use smaller fields?
>
> Can't say for sure but I would think the US has plenty of low-cost
> carriers like Ryanair et al using smaller airports.
>
> Underlying my previous comment was the possibility that the US
> fed govt are quietly feeding taxpayers money into smaller airports
> to develop them, thereby helping Boeing who want to encourage
> point-to-point flying in its 787 Dreamliner instead of airlines using
> the A380 in/out of large hubs. I think it's called protectionism.
>
> But of course we know that the US is all in favour of free trade
> and doesn't indulge in such tactics. ho ho

Never blame on cunning, that which can be explained by stupidity.
The US fed govt. has been "feeding" money to smaller local
governments in all manner for decades. We call it "pork" over here.
Airports are just one of many ways. In ye olde days LBJ refered to
it as "revenue sharing". These days the mother of all methods is
through HSA. There is money to "secure" smaller airports. This
can be used to install new monitoring and communciation equipment,
erect fences with "security" gates, build new "secure" hangers, etc.
Frequently these are new facilities the local community had been
trying to build for years anyway. Or regular maintance that needed
doing anyway. But now the feds are there to help!

Trust me, when the feds want to "help" Boeing, they pay the money
directly to Boeing.

Bert Hyman

April 17th 07, 02:06 PM

(Mxsmanic) wrote in
:

> Apologies if someone else has already posted this:

Do the fees paid by the commercial airlines completely cover the
costs of building and operating airports and the air traffic control
system?

If not, then passengers are also subsidizing commercial aviation.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

Sancho Panza

April 17th 07, 02:28 PM

"Bert Hyman" > wrote in message
...
> (Mxsmanic) wrote in
> :
>
>> Apologies if someone else has already posted this:
>
> Do the fees paid by the commercial airlines completely cover the
> costs of building and operating airports and the air traffic control
> system?
>
> If not, then passengers are also subsidizing commercial aviation.

For the most part, that is called fares.

Bert Hyman

April 17th 07, 02:32 PM

(Sancho Panza) wrote in
:

>
> "Bert Hyman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> (Mxsmanic) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Apologies if someone else has already posted this:
>>
>> Do the fees paid by the commercial airlines completely cover the
>> costs of building and operating airports and the air traffic
>> control system?
>>
>> If not, then passengers are also subsidizing commercial aviation.
>
> For the most part, that is called fares.

How do fares cover the cost of building and operating the airports
and air traffic control system other than through fees that are
included in those fares?

So, do the fees collected by the commercial airlines through their
fares and then paid to various agencies completely cover the costs of
building and operating airports and the air traffic control system?

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

Kingfish

April 17th 07, 02:40 PM

On Apr 17, 7:20 am, "William Black" >
wrote:
>
> The Airbus A320 series is a hard act to beat for a short haul 200+ seater
> 'local bus service' type aircraft. What advantage does the 787 have over
> it?
>

Apples and oranges. The A320 is a single-aisle transport whereas the
787 is a widebody. Higher capacity and longer range. 787 isn't meant
for short segments. 737 is a much better comparison as it competes
directly with the A320 series (and quite well too, judging by Boeing's
backlog)

Sancho Panza

April 17th 07, 03:21 PM

"Bert Hyman" > wrote in message
...
> (Sancho Panza) wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bert Hyman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> (Mxsmanic) wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Apologies if someone else has already posted this:
>>>
>>> Do the fees paid by the commercial airlines completely cover the
>>> costs of building and operating airports and the air traffic
>>> control system?
>>>
>>> If not, then passengers are also subsidizing commercial aviation.
>>
>> For the most part, that is called fares.
>
> How do fares cover the cost of building and operating the airports
> and air traffic control system other than through fees that are
> included in those fares?

Significants parts of the fares go to expenses like landing fees and leases.

Bert Hyman

April 17th 07, 03:47 PM

(Sancho Panza) wrote in
:

>
> "Bert Hyman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> (Sancho Panza) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Bert Hyman" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> (Mxsmanic) wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Apologies if someone else has already posted this:
>>>>
>>>> Do the fees paid by the commercial airlines completely cover the
>>>> costs of building and operating airports and the air traffic
>>>> control system?
>>>>
>>>> If not, then passengers are also subsidizing commercial
>>>> aviation.
>>>
>>> For the most part, that is called fares.
>>
>> How do fares cover the cost of building and operating the airports
>> and air traffic control system other than through fees that are
>> included in those fares?
>
> Significants parts of the fares go to expenses like landing fees
> and leases.

And do those "significant parts" cover the cost of building and
operating the airports and air traffic control system?

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

Mxsmanic

April 17th 07, 03:52 PM

hummingbird writes:

> Perhaps one reason that money is being fed to the smaller airports is
> to make them more attractive to commercial airlines to start up direct
> point-to-point services instead of using big hubs and big jets. That
> would be exactly in line with Boeing's strategy in the light of Airbus
> A380 competition.

Whatever the reason, I don't see why it's so objectionable.

The government spends untold billions to build and maintain a national highway
system and endless motor vehicle infrastructure around the country, and nobody
objects to that, even though almost all of this is designed to serve private
drivers driving their own cars. They _could_ use public transportation
instead (just a people use commercial airlines to fly). Perhaps people who
drive their own cars instead of taking the bus should be called "hobby
drivers," if GA pilots are "hobby pilots."

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

April 17th 07, 03:57 PM

hummingbird writes:

> Underlying my previous comment was the possibility that the US
> fed govt are quietly feeding taxpayers money into smaller airports
> to develop them, thereby helping Boeing who want to encourage
> point-to-point flying in its 787 Dreamliner instead of airlines using
> the A380 in/out of large hubs. I think it's called protectionism.

Hardly. The United States isn't like Europe. Practically every European
company with more than 100 employees is in bed with one or more governments,
and may even be wholly or partially owned by governments. You don't see that
kind of incest in the U.S., which is one reason why the U.S. has a healthier
economy.

Your speculation above sounds like a rather farfetched conspiracy theory.
Building an entire infrastructure to please a single private company? I don't
think so. My guess is that the two notions are completely independent.

Besides, Airbus is so poorly managed that it can self-destruct all by itself,
and the market for the A380 in the U.S. is likely to be extremely limited,
anyway, as the current modest fleet of 747s demonstrates.

> But of course we know that the US is all in favour of free trade
> and doesn't indulge in such tactics.

It's a lot better than Europe, where major contracts are won by bribes,
governments spy on foreign competitors, every sound business decision is
overruled by a Eurocrat, and no company of significant size can be operated
without government interference.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

TMOliver

April 17th 07, 04:04 PM

"William Black" > wrote ...
>
>
> It's the same strategy as detailed in the Brabazon report conclusions.
> Small fields all over the place, small fast aircraft linking them. It was
> used by the British aircraft industry as a blueprint, and they promptly
> built the Bristol Brabazon and the DeHaviland Comet...
>
While the Comet deserves its brief entry in the avaiation history books, the
poor Brabazon was an absolute non-starter, no matter the conditions. It
barely matched the performance and load capacity of several series of a/c
already in service.
>
> The Airbus A320 series is a hard act to beat for a short haul 200+ seater
> 'local bus service' type aircraft. What advantage does the 787 have over
> it?
>
> <Well, apart from having 'not made in the USA' stamped on it>
>
The 787 is large a/c designed for long stages, entirely unsuitable for
service into small airports in the US, almost all of which share the common
bond of too little population density to fill the seats in 200-250 pax a/c.
Even the short 737s are too "big" for most of them (other than regional
centers of population like Lubbock or the two airports in the Rio Grande
Valley).

A. The federal government currently vastly subsidizes (along with financial
support by the "legacy" airlines) commuter service into dozens of small
airports across the land (of which in the US there are so many as to
actually make Great Britain look virtually airportless - check a chart
someday, Willum). The ones served by these small and/or subsidiary air
carriers exist in a world foreign to England, vast expanses of thinly
populated territory. Where I live, Waco, 120,000 folks plus 80K or so in
the suburbs, there are 5 working airports plus a couple of paved private
strips within 15 minutes driving. Waco is served by two commuter lines,
AmEagle and CO, with 40 seat a/c (Saab 340s), 110 miles to DFW, 160 to IAH,
110 to AUS. While able to fill a dozen flights (in that size a/c) a day,
the odds are better than good, that AB320s or B-737s would come and go half
empty.

One of the phenoms in the US large metro areas are airports completely
devoted to general aviation, and serving large numbers of corporate and
"executive charter) a/c, many of them small jets. That's where a big chunk
of federal subsidy goes, of little benefit to the traveling public.

Because of the need for full facilities, few "big" airlines serve small
airports, with WN's service to West Islip, LI, NY being an exception. On
the other hand, there are any number of US airports - AUS comes to mind -
currently unserved by international flights that could certainly support
"occasional" (up to 3-4 a week) direct international service to Europe and
Mexico. The problem, money, establishing and paying for port of entry
status and immigration facilities in only sporadic use. After all, MCO and
Sanford handle European skeds and charters, serving as vacation destinations
alone.

In my case, I regularly pay the extra tariff, usually modest (but not by
European cheap airline standards) to fly to DFW to connect. Counting
security, it's not much quicker to fly, but parking here is free and close
to the terminal. Were there a comfortable ground shuttle, something more
than a van not operating late at night, I might use it, but US antitrust
laws prevent the airlines from operating shuttles, arranging for them or
even selling tickets to ride.

"TUSIAVBAHDP" The US is a very big and highly diverse place." With a state
or two larger than the Scuttled H'aisles, on close examination the US better
resembles the vast reaches of Russia than the close quarters in which you
live. For all the loud complaints regarding "hub and spoke" operations,
they are probably the most efficient and effective business model for
traditional airline service here, as larger population "centers" develop
across the country (and some traditional ones decline). WN's an exception,
having chosen a route and grabbed a toehold in a new market based on that
route being self-supporting, then expanding to "fit" only predictable
economically productive expansion. Whether Jet Blue or similar new arrivals
can make that model work still remains unclear. The capital requirements
have grown so , since WN came along more than 30 years ago.

TMO

Paul kgyy

April 17th 07, 04:09 PM

>
> One of the phenoms in the US large metro areas are airports completely
> devoted to general aviation, and serving large numbers of corporate and
> "executive charter) a/c, many of them small jets. That's where a big chunk
> of federal subsidy goes, of little benefit to the traveling public.

There's a substantial benefit to the traveling public. If every GA
flight that landed within 100 miles of LAX would start landing at LAX,
you'd have gridlock at the airport and on the ground (as if they don't
already).

I get really tired of hearing people beat up on the corporate jet
set. These are people who create jobs for the rest of us.

Mxsmanic

April 17th 07, 04:29 PM

Paul kgyy writes:

> There's a substantial benefit to the traveling public. If every GA
> flight that landed within 100 miles of LAX would start landing at LAX,
> you'd have gridlock at the airport and on the ground (as if they don't
> already).

If all non-commercial flights were forbidden, you wouldn't need any other
airport and LAX would not be any more crowded.

> I get really tired of hearing people beat up on the corporate jet
> set. These are people who create jobs for the rest of us.

Well, nowadays they are more likely to move the jobs to the Third World.

There are lots of people flying jets. Some of them help society, some of them
hurt. It's difficult to generalize.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Larry Dighera

April 17th 07, 05:05 PM

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 11:20:12 GMT, "William Black"
> wrote in
>:

>It's a strategy that requires lots of rich people who want to fly short
>distances.
>
>The Boeing 707 killed that idea. People wanted big cheap aircraft that took
>them quickly to somewhere within about five hundred miles of where they were
>going, after that they can use local transport, flying or not...

NASA's and FAA's vision of the future for air travel, Small
Aviation Transportation System (SATS), is based on small airport
infrastructure as an alternative to short-range automotive trips
for both private and business transportation needs.

That's why Robert Poole's duplicitous assertion about it being
inappropriate for FAA to fund improvements at smaller, non airline,
airports is a deliberate, sensationalized, sound-bite attempt to
mislead the lay public. That arrogant, propaganda spewing, jerk needs
to be exposed for the fraud he and his Reason Foundation are.
http://www.reason.org/airtraffic/

http://www.reason.org/poole.shtml
Poole was among the first to propose the commercialization of the U.S.
air traffic control system, and his work in this field has helped
shape proposals for a U.S. air traffic control corporation. A version
of his corporation concept was implemented in Canada in 1996 and was
more recently endorsed by several former top FAA administrators.

Poole's studies also launched a national debate on airport
privatization in the United States. He advised both the FAA and local
officials during the 1989-90 controversy over the proposed
privatization of Albany (NY) Airport. His policy research on this
issue helped inspire Congress' 1996 enactment of the Airport
Privatization Pilot Program and the privatization of Indianapolis'
airport management under Mayor Steve Goldsmith.

Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]

April 17th 07, 05:23 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> That's why Robert Poole's duplicitous assertion about it being
> inappropriate for FAA to fund improvements at smaller, non airline,
> airports is a deliberate, sensationalized, sound-bite attempt to
> mislead the lay public. That arrogant, propaganda spewing, jerk needs
> to be exposed for the fraud he and his Reason Foundation are.
> http://www.reason.org/airtraffic/

It might be tasteless of me to make the comment but I can't help but think that
the campaign to impugn general aviation in the press just got superceded by
yesterday's tragic events in Blacksburg. I further would be willing to bet that
it will be difficult for them to get this particular train back on the track. I
can't say I was sorry (about the campaign; not Blacksburg).

I was greeted with a front page headline yesterday in the Charlotte Observer
whining about how general aviation leeches off airline passengers. Now, rather
than respond to it in the editorial pages, I think I'll just let it die a
natural death.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/122/story/87007.html

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Morgans[_2_]

April 17th 07, 05:47 PM

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote

> I was greeted with a front page headline yesterday in the Charlotte
> Observer whining about how general aviation leeches off airline
> passengers. Now, rather than respond to it in the editorial pages, I
> think I'll just let it die a natural death.
>
> http://www.charlotteobserver.com/122/story/87007.html

That has to be one of the most bogus pieces of tripe I have ever read. It
even contradicts itself several times.

Amazing.
--
Jim in NC

Mxsmanic

April 17th 07, 06:02 PM

Mortimer Schnerd, RN writes:

> It might be tasteless of me to make the comment but I can't help but think that
> the campaign to impugn general aviation in the press just got superceded by
> yesterday's tragic events in Blacksburg. I further would be willing to bet that
> it will be difficult for them to get this particular train back on the track. I
> can't say I was sorry (about the campaign; not Blacksburg).

Just hope that the gunman was not also a student pilot.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Denny

April 17th 07, 06:04 PM

>
> So, do the fees collected by the commercial airlines through their
> fares and then paid to various agencies completely cover the costs of
> building and operating airports and the air traffic control system?

Nope..

denny

Binyamin Dissen

April 17th 07, 06:12 PM

On 17 Apr 2007 08:09:29 -0700 Paul kgyy > wrote:

:>> One of the phenoms in the US large metro areas are airports completely
:>> devoted to general aviation, and serving large numbers of corporate and
:>> "executive charter) a/c, many of them small jets. That's where a big chunk
:>> of federal subsidy goes, of little benefit to the traveling public.

:>There's a substantial benefit to the traveling public. If every GA
:>flight that landed within 100 miles of LAX would start landing at LAX,
:>you'd have gridlock at the airport and on the ground (as if they don't
:>already).

I would bet that the number of GA flights would be reduced since the LAX
landing fees are much higher.

Also, there are a few real airports within 100 miles.

:>I get really tired of hearing people beat up on the corporate jet
:>set. These are people who create jobs for the rest of us.

As long as they pay their true cost.

--
Binyamin Dissen >
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.

I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.

Barney Rubble

April 17th 07, 06:19 PM

Just get to the point rather than repeatedly asking arsine rhetorical
questions.

"Bert Hyman" > wrote in message
...
> (Sancho Panza) wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bert Hyman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> (Sancho Panza) wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Bert Hyman" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> (Mxsmanic) wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Apologies if someone else has already posted this:
>>>>>
>>>>> Do the fees paid by the commercial airlines completely cover the
>>>>> costs of building and operating airports and the air traffic
>>>>> control system?
>>>>>
>>>>> If not, then passengers are also subsidizing commercial
>>>>> aviation.
>>>>
>>>> For the most part, that is called fares.
>>>
>>> How do fares cover the cost of building and operating the airports
>>> and air traffic control system other than through fees that are
>>> included in those fares?
>>
>> Significants parts of the fares go to expenses like landing fees
>> and leases.
>
> And do those "significant parts" cover the cost of building and
> operating the airports and air traffic control system?
>
> --
> Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

William Black[_1_]

April 17th 07, 06:24 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> Hardly. The United States isn't like Europe. Practically every European
> company with more than 100 employees is in bed with one or more
> governments,
> and may even be wholly or partially owned by governments.

I think that you may have exagerated that slightly.

> Besides, Airbus is so poorly managed that it can self-destruct all by
> itself,

And Boeing and its hidden subsidies isn't?

> and the market for the A380 in the U.S. is likely to be extremely limited,
> anyway, as the current modest fleet of 747s demonstrates.

I don't think anyone doubts that at all.

The big maarket for the A380 will almost certainly be the Far East where
very large numbers of people want to fly reasonably large distances and
economic expantion will allow them to do so very soon.

We live in a world where 20% of the world's population lives in two
countries and those two countries are experiencing economic growth at
phenominal rates.

> It's a lot better than Europe, where major contracts are won by bribes,
> governments spy on foreign competitors, every sound business decision is
> overruled by a Eurocrat, and no company of significant size can be
> operated
> without government interference.

What US company operates without government interference?

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Bert Hyman

April 17th 07, 06:29 PM

(Barney Rubble) wrote in
:

> Just get to the point rather than repeatedly asking arsine
> rhetorical questions.

What makes you think my question was rhetorical?

If the OP had simply answered the question directly, the thread would
have stopped at one.

> "Bert Hyman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> (Sancho Panza) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Bert Hyman" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> (Sancho Panza) wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bert Hyman" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> (Mxsmanic) wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apologies if someone else has already posted this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do the fees paid by the commercial airlines completely cover
>>>>>> the costs of building and operating airports and the air
>>>>>> traffic control system?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If not, then passengers are also subsidizing commercial
>>>>>> aviation.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the most part, that is called fares.
>>>>
>>>> How do fares cover the cost of building and operating the
>>>> airports and air traffic control system other than through fees
>>>> that are included in those fares?
>>>
>>> Significants parts of the fares go to expenses like landing fees
>>> and leases.
>>
>> And do those "significant parts" cover the cost of building and
>> operating the airports and air traffic control system?

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

hummingbird

April 17th 07, 06:45 PM

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:57:48 +0200 'Mxsmanic'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

>hummingbird writes:
>
>> Underlying my previous comment was the possibility that the US
>> fed govt are quietly feeding taxpayers money into smaller airports
>> to develop them, thereby helping Boeing who want to encourage
>> point-to-point flying in its 787 Dreamliner instead of airlines using
>> the A380 in/out of large hubs. I think it's called protectionism.
>
>Hardly. The United States isn't like Europe. Practically every European
>company with more than 100 employees is in bed with one or more governments,
>and may even be wholly or partially owned by governments. You don't see that
>kind of incest in the U.S., which is one reason why the U.S. has a healthier
>economy.

That is entirely untrue. Remind me of how many of Bush's first cabinet
had direct links to big oil and/or the Jewish Lobby and/or Israel. I
often wonder why the American people have handed over their govt
to Israel.

I am no advocate of Euro business because it does co-operate with govt
far too much IMHO, especially the banks. The EU Tax Directive was
one very good example which effectively killed off private offshore
banking without so much as a whimper.

But for sure, big money and govt are much closer in bed in the US
than in Europe or any other part of the world. American foreign policy
is known to have a huge commercial element behind it. Then of course
there's the Jewish Lobby...and MS's new found friendship with the
music/film industry reflected in Vista DRM controls.

By the original definition of fascism, the US is much closer to it
than any other major western nation.

>Your speculation above sounds like a rather farfetched conspiracy theory.
>Building an entire infrastructure to please a single private company? I don't
>think so. My guess is that the two notions are completely independent.

That may be so. But it's been long alleged that the US fed govt
overpays Boeing for its military planes as an indirect subsidy to
Boeing's commercial plane business. Long ago, it was the fed govt
who helped to kill off Concorde to protect US aircraft plane makers
using the lame excuse of noise etc.
The US fed govt also heavily subsidies American agricultural industry
despite its frequent claims to want free markets and free competiton.
Ask the rice farmers of Ghana.

>Besides, Airbus is so poorly managed that it can self-destruct all by itself,
>and the market for the A380 in the U.S. is likely to be extremely limited,
>anyway, as the current modest fleet of 747s demonstrates.

ISTR that Boeing's Execs have had their fair share of chaos and
corruption in recent times.

Clearly there is a strong difference between Boeing and Airbus as to
how they see the plane market developing and I would expect the fed
govt to do whatever it can to support Boeing's direction.

I don't think the A380 was intended for the US domestic market.
Those two big economies in Asia are where the growing market is...

>> But of course we know that the US is all in favour of free trade
>> and doesn't indulge in such tactics.
>
>It's a lot better than Europe, where major contracts are won by bribes,
>governments spy on foreign competitors,

ISTR that it was Boeing who used the fed's Echelon satellite spy
system to spy on Airbus contract negotiations some while ago.
Apart from that, industrial espionage goes on by all countries.

>every sound business decision is
>overruled by a Eurocrat, and no company of significant size can be operated
>without government interference.

You have an unreal view of Europe. Yes, it is becoming a totalitarian
nightmare of Orwellian proportions but the US is also not far behind.
American people have surrendered freedom in return for security -
but will get neither.

I make these comments not because I am anti-American but because
America used to be the only place where freedom and liberty still
existed and there was still hope for mankind.....

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 17th 07, 07:31 PM

Chris

April 17th 07, 07:55 PM

"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>>
>> So, do the fees collected by the commercial airlines through their
>> fares and then paid to various agencies completely cover the costs of
>> building and operating airports and the air traffic control system?
>
> Nope..

They don't even cover the costs of running the airlines - that's why they
are all in Chapter 11.

Mxsmanic

April 17th 07, 08:19 PM

William Black writes:

> I think that you may have exagerated that slightly.

Unfortunately, I don't think I have. I'm regularly amazed by the extent to
which government interferes with everything in most of Europe.

Does the President of the United States appear at the launch of a new civilian
aircraft in the U.S.?

> And Boeing and its hidden subsidies isn't?

No, it isn't. That's why it has been around for so long. What "hidden"
subsidies do you have in mind?

> The big maarket for the A380 will almost certainly be the Far East where
> very large numbers of people want to fly reasonably large distances and
> economic expantion will allow them to do so very soon.

In which case an emphasis on developing smaller airports in the U.S. isn't
likely to be a conspiracy to help Boeing, contrary to the original assertion
that I addressed.

> We live in a world where 20% of the world's population lives in two
> countries and those two countries are experiencing economic growth at
> phenominal rates.

And they are exhausting resources at phenomenal rates. Unless they control
their populations, the bubble will eventually burst, and it won't be that far
in the future.

> What US company operates without government interference?

Essentially all of them. The President of France intervened to choose the
color of the roof of a building at Disneyland Paris. Can you imagine the
President of the United States intervening to select a color for a building at
Walt Disney World?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

William Black[_1_]

April 17th 07, 08:28 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> William Black writes:
>

>> And Boeing and its hidden subsidies isn't?
>
> No, it isn't. That's why it has been around for so long. What "hidden"
> subsidies do you have in mind?

The ones the US pays on its huge military research contracts that are really
a way of subsidising civil aircraft development.

>> We live in a world where 20% of the world's population lives in two
>> countries and those two countries are experiencing economic growth at
>> phenominal rates.
>
> And they are exhausting resources at phenomenal rates. Unless they
> control
> their populations, the bubble will eventually burst, and it won't be that
> far
> in the future.

What resources?

India's economic turnaround is almost all based around its huge English
speaking population working in telecommunications based service industries.

China is making manufactured goods for the West to Western patterns in
factories designed ijn the West.

Neither country has any serious resources that they're selling, the
resource making the money is cheap people.

An Indian graduate with a higher degree will work, in India, for $10,000 a
year and think they've got a very good job.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

>
>> What US company operates without government interference?
>
> Essentially all of them.

So there's no regulation of industry there.

And here's me thinking environmental legislation was taking some sort of
hold, not to mention the banning of the 'company store'...

Mxsmanic

April 17th 07, 08:36 PM

hummingbird writes:

> That is entirely untrue.

I've lived in both countries, and unfortunately it's true.

> Remind me of how many of Bush's first cabinet
> had direct links to big oil and/or the Jewish Lobby and/or Israel.

Only a small fraction of business in the U.S. as a whole. Europeans, on the
other hand, have their fingers in everything. No large business has much room
to make its own decisions.

> I often wonder why the American people have handed over their govt
> to Israel.

Because Zionists in the U.S. have spent decades presenting a one-sided,
extremely favorable view of Israel to the American people, and it has worked.

They haven't exactly handed the government over to Israel, but no one in the
United States government can take any public position unfavorable to Israel,
and no one can be elected unless he favors Israel unconditionally.

However, this is remarkable precisely because it is the _exception_ to the
rule.

> But for sure, big money and govt are much closer in bed in the US
> than in Europe or any other part of the world.

Big business and government are often at odds with each other in the U.S. The
opposite is true in Europe; indeed, it's hard to tell the difference between
European business and European government, outside of cottage industries.

> American foreign policy is known to have a huge commercial element
> behind it.

What other element should it have behind it?

> Then of course
> there's the Jewish Lobby...and MS's new found friendship with the
> music/film industry reflected in Vista DRM controls.

I don't see what this has to do with the government.

> That may be so. But it's been long alleged that the US fed govt
> overpays Boeing for its military planes as an indirect subsidy to
> Boeing's commercial plane business.

No, it just does what every government does, paying too much for military
contracts. It's hardly a subsidy. European governments pay too much for
their purchases of aircraft from European manufacturers too, but it's less
obvious because Europe simply doesn't have any manufacturers that amount to a
blip on the radar, except for Airbus, and we know how badly they are doing.

> Long ago, it was the fed govt
> who helped to kill off Concorde to protect US aircraft plane makers
> using the lame excuse of noise etc.

If the Concorde were such a good idea, it would have been successful even if
nobody in the U.S. bought it.

As it is, BA and Air France were forced to buy them, just as they are forced
to buy Airbus planes.

> The US fed govt also heavily subsidies American agricultural industry
> despite its frequent claims to want free markets and free competiton.
> Ask the rice farmers of Ghana.

Europeans heavily subsidize their farmers, too.

> ISTR that Boeing's Execs have had their fair share of chaos and
> corruption in recent times.

They've survived for decades, and they are doing better than Airbus now. And
the U.S. government isn't a shareholder.

> Clearly there is a strong difference between Boeing and Airbus as to
> how they see the plane market developing and I would expect the fed
> govt to do whatever it can to support Boeing's direction.

I would expect Boeing to do whatever it can to follow the Fed's direction.

> I don't think the A380 was intended for the US domestic market.

I don't think the A380 was intended for anything, except as another attempt to
try to measure up to Boeing.

> Those two big economies in Asia are where the growing market is...

Until they start building their own.

> ISTR that it was Boeing who used the fed's Echelon satellite spy
> system to spy on Airbus contract negotiations some while ago.

Yes, that's how it found out that Airbus used bribes to win contracts, instead
of merit. The Europeans were furious about this being brought out into the
open.

> Apart from that, industrial espionage goes on by all countries.

To a limited extent, but some Europeans make an institution of it. The really
amusing thing is that even after they spy on others, they still can't compete.

> You have an unreal view of Europe.

I wish that were true. Where would Airbus be if it were truly a private
corporation free of government interference? Then again, it probably wouldn't
exist, as nobody would organize a company that way except for political
reasons.

> Yes, it is becoming a totalitarian
> nightmare of Orwellian proportions but the US is also not far behind.
> American people have surrendered freedom in return for security -
> but will get neither.

Whereas Europeans never had it and don't miss it in consequence.

> I make these comments not because I am anti-American but because
> America used to be the only place where freedom and liberty still
> existed and there was still hope for mankind.....

Neither Europe nor the U.S. is that way any more. All democracies tend to
self-destruct in time.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

April 17th 07, 08:43 PM

William Black writes:

> The ones the US pays on its huge military research contracts that are really
> a way of subsidising civil aircraft development.

Those aren't subsidies, they are margins, which contribute to the profit of
the contractor. All government contractors pad their contracts, especially
military contracts.

> What resources?

Water, arable land, fossil fuels, clean air, etc.

> India's economic turnaround is almost all based around its huge English
> speaking population working in telecommunications based service industries.

I hope it is looking at more long-term prospects.

> Neither country has any serious resources that they're selling, ...

They are consuming resources, not selling them.

> An Indian graduate with a higher degree will work, in India, for $10,000 a
> year and think they've got a very good job.

Compared to the cost of living, he may be right. But that will change (is
changing, in fact).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Maxwell

April 17th 07, 08:57 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> I've lived in both countries, and unfortunately it's true.
>

No you haven't. It's clear from your attitude and experience, you have never
lived at all.

William Black[_1_]

April 17th 07, 08:57 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> William Black writes:
>
>> The ones the US pays on its huge military research contracts that are
>> really
>> a way of subsidising civil aircraft development.
>
> Those aren't subsidies, they are margins, which contribute to the profit
> of
> the contractor. All government contractors pad their contracts,
> especially
> military contracts.
>
>> What resources?
>
> Water, arable land, fossil fuels, clean air, etc.

India and China have very few fosil fuels, they both import them. They
have both managed to become self sufficient in food and their agricultural
land utilisation is rather good. Clean air isn't of any great interest in
societies where drinking water is a scarce resource.

>> India's economic turnaround is almost all based around its huge English
>> speaking population working in telecommunications based service
>> industries.
>
> I hope it is looking at more long-term prospects.

Well they're busy buying up large amounts of European industry.
Interestingly neither of them are investing in the USA despite having huge
amounts of dollars.

What do you suggest as an alternative to telecommunications in the long
term?

>> Neither country has any serious resources that they're selling, ...
>
> They are consuming resources, not selling them.

So?

They can afford to pay for them.

Welcome to the globalised world...

>> An Indian graduate with a higher degree will work, in India, for
>> $10,000 a
>> year and think they've got a very good job.
>
> Compared to the cost of living, he may be right. But that will change (is
> changing, in fact).

Inflation in India runs at about 6% per year.

Last year I took four people out for dinner in a fashionable restaurant
there for less than $25, including cocktails, and I do mean fashionable...

Next year it may be $26:50...

When's it going to be $100 each?

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[email protected]

April 17th 07, 09:48 PM

On Apr 17, 8:06 am, Bert Hyman > wrote:
> (Mxsmanic) wrote :
>
> > Apologies if someone else has already posted this:
>
> Do the fees paid by the commercial airlines completely cover the
> costs of building and operating airports and the air traffic control
> system?
>
> If not, then passengers are also subsidizing commercial aviation.
>
> --
> Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

Not to mention the extra fire hydrants required along streets of the
crash zones for those private communities.. you know who you are...JG

hummingbird

April 17th 07, 10:08 PM

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:36:05 +0200 'Mxsmanic'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

>hummingbird writes:
>
>> That is entirely untrue.
>
>I've lived in both countries, and unfortunately it's true.

Not.

>> Remind me of how many of Bush's first cabinet
>> had direct links to big oil and/or the Jewish Lobby and/or Israel.
>
>Only a small fraction of business in the U.S. as a whole.

That's not the question I asked is it.
Evasion will get you nowhere with me.

>Europeans, on the
>other hand, have their fingers in everything. No large business has much room
>to make its own decisions.

Nonsense. We're talking 2007, not 1945.

>> I often wonder why the American people have handed over their govt
>> to Israel.
>
>Because Zionists in the U.S. have spent decades presenting a one-sided,
>extremely favorable view of Israel to the American people, and it has worked.

In that I tend to agree. More fool Americans for buying the crap.

>They haven't exactly handed the government over to Israel, but no one in the
>United States government can take any public position unfavorable to Israel,
>and no one can be elected unless he favors Israel unconditionally.

Indeed.

>However, this is remarkable precisely because it is the _exception_ to the
>rule.

Are you contradicting yourself?

>> But for sure, big money and govt are much closer in bed in the US
>> than in Europe or any other part of the world.
>
>Big business and government are often at odds with each other in the U.S. The
>opposite is true in Europe; indeed, it's hard to tell the difference between
>European business and European government, outside of cottage industries.

Nonsense.

>> American foreign policy is known to have a huge commercial element
>> behind it.
>
>What other element should it have behind it?

Offering help to other countries to develop?

>> Then of course
>> there's the Jewish Lobby...and MS's new found friendship with the
>> music/film industry reflected in Vista DRM controls.
>
>I don't see what this has to do with the government.

That big US corps either are in bed with the govt or in bed with each
other ...but not in bed with their customers. See MS.

>> That may be so. But it's been long alleged that the US fed govt
>> overpays Boeing for its military planes as an indirect subsidy to
>> Boeing's commercial plane business.
>
>No, it just does what every government does, paying too much for military
>contracts. It's hardly a subsidy. European governments pay too much for
>their purchases of aircraft from European manufacturers too, but it's less
>obvious because Europe simply doesn't have any manufacturers that amount to a
>blip on the radar, except for Airbus, and we know how badly they are doing.

That's one view of military contracts.

On other European industry ...ISTM that every time I watch a US TV
movie nowadays the good guys and bad guys are driving BMWs or Mercs.
The poor guys and trailor trash are driving American junk.

Sorry to say it but German cars are probably the best in the world
and employ higher technology. Even the Japs can't keep up.

>> Long ago, it was the fed govt
>> who helped to kill off Concorde to protect US aircraft plane makers
>> using the lame excuse of noise etc.
>
>If the Concorde were such a good idea, it would have been successful even if
>nobody in the U.S. bought it.

That's disingenuous. Many US airports barred it from landing.

>As it is, BA and Air France were forced to buy them, just as they are forced
>to buy Airbus planes.

BA don't buy Airbus planes. But many others do. They're everywhere.
Watch out for the SIA A380 maiden flight later this year.
Then watch Emirates and their A380s.....

>> The US fed govt also heavily subsidies American agricultural industry
>> despite its frequent claims to want free markets and free competiton.
>> Ask the rice farmers of Ghana.
>
>Europeans heavily subsidize their farmers, too.

Agreed. I wasn't supporting European subsidies. It's just that Europe
doesn't tend to shout about free trade and practice subsidies. I think
it's called hypocrisy and double standards.

>> ISTR that Boeing's Execs have had their fair share of chaos and
>> corruption in recent times.
>
>They've survived for decades, and they are doing better than Airbus now. And
>the U.S. government isn't a shareholder.

Doing better *now*. What happens next year?
And let's remember, foreign govts don't get threatened or bombed by
Europe if they choose Boeing. Not so the other way round.

Look what happened to Saddam when he dumped the dollar...

>> Clearly there is a strong difference between Boeing and Airbus as to
>> how they see the plane market developing and I would expect the fed
>> govt to do whatever it can to support Boeing's direction.
>
>I would expect Boeing to do whatever it can to follow the Fed's direction.
>
>> I don't think the A380 was intended for the US domestic market.
>
>I don't think the A380 was intended for anything, except as another attempt to
>try to measure up to Boeing.

Speculation.

>> Those two big economies in Asia are where the growing market is...
>
>Until they start building their own.

It'll be years before they can build A380 type planes.

>> ISTR that it was Boeing who used the fed's Echelon satellite spy
>> system to spy on Airbus contract negotiations some while ago.
>
>Yes, that's how it found out that Airbus used bribes to win contracts, instead
>of merit. The Europeans were furious about this being brought out into the
>open.

Yawn.

>> Apart from that, industrial espionage goes on by all countries.
>
>To a limited extent, but some Europeans make an institution of it. The really
>amusing thing is that even after they spy on others, they still can't compete.

Evidence?

>> You have an unreal view of Europe.
>
>I wish that were true. Where would Airbus be if it were truly a private
>corporation free of government interference? Then again, it probably wouldn't
>exist, as nobody would organize a company that way except for political
>reasons.

Govts part-funded it to start up but today Airbus is essentially a
self-determined corporation making its own investment decisions.

>> Yes, it is becoming a totalitarian
>> nightmare of Orwellian proportions but the US is also not far behind.
>> American people have surrendered freedom in return for security -
>> but will get neither.
>
>Whereas Europeans never had it and don't miss it in consequence.

Some truth in that.

>> I make these comments not because I am anti-American but because
>> America used to be the only place where freedom and liberty still
>> existed and there was still hope for mankind.....
>
>Neither Europe nor the U.S. is that way any more. All democracies tend to
>self-destruct in time.

At last we agree on something.

Andrew Gideon

April 17th 07, 10:09 PM

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:48:18 -0700, Kev wrote:

> The factory owner dropped his
> efforts at closing the airport.

I was going to ask for a cite about this, as it's a story I'd missed (I'm
also in NJ) and I wanted to share it with others.

But it was pretty easy to find:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/briefs/189584-1.html
http://www.rotor.com/membership/rotorgram110.htm

Apparently, this didn't keep Joerger from fighting to keep the air
ambulance away. He owns a farm that he's wanted to subdivide according
to one article I've read...and it was just recently approved for
subdivision.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18197809&BRD=1918&PAG=461&dept_id=506414&rfi=6

- Andrew

Hatunen

April 17th 07, 11:10 PM

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:28:26 GMT, "William Black"
> wrote:

>
>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>> William Black writes:
>>
>
>>> And Boeing and its hidden subsidies isn't?
>>
>> No, it isn't. That's why it has been around for so long. What "hidden"
>> subsidies do you have in mind?
>
>The ones the US pays on its huge military research contracts that are really
>a way of subsidising civil aircraft development.

Hmm. Boeing built the 747 "on spec". Which aircraft are you
thinking of?.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Tchiowa

April 18th 07, 05:37 AM

On Apr 17, 11:37 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Apologies if someone else has already posted this:
>
> http://us.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/04/16/ticket.taxes.ap/index.html
>
> Somebody really hates GA.

When I read the article it didn't sound at all like someone who hates
General Aviation. It sounded like a standard CNN attack on business.
("globe trotting corporate executive")

I wasn't sure if I was reading CNN or the Worker's World Daily. No
that there is that much difference any more.

C J Campbell[_1_]

April 18th 07, 08:39 AM

On 2007-04-17 21:37:31 -0700, Tchiowa > said:

> On Apr 17, 11:37 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Apologies if someone else has already posted this:
>>
>> http://us.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/04/16/ticket.taxes.ap/index.html
>>
>> Somebody really hates GA.
>
> When I read the article it didn't sound at all like someone who hates
> General Aviation. It sounded like a standard CNN attack on business.
> ("globe trotting corporate executive")
>
> I wasn't sure if I was reading CNN or the Worker's World Daily. No
> that there is that much difference any more.

Don't you just love revolutionary rhetoric? And yet CNN is using it
more and more. I expect to hear "running dogs of capitalism" any day
now.

I can see it now:

"Once again we see that globe-trotting corporate bandits and their
lackey pilots are stealing bread from the mouths of the oppressed
masses of air travelers. The running dogs of capitalism must be brought
to heel. For an unbiased report, we turn to Comrade Barbara Boxer, who
has joined CNN after retiring from the oppressive establishment
patriarchy. Comrade Boxer, can the entrenched pigs at Congress do
anything to stop this theft, or are they too corrupt to do anything
about even this?"

"I am sad to say that Congress and the Administration are still
controlled by capitalist gangsters, Comrade Anderson Cooper. But of
course, you know this, being a part of the white male oppressive
patriarchy, not to mention a deluded religious fanatic ever since your
conversion to Islam. And what are these so-called 'general aviation'
planes doing? Hauling their fat cat bosses around in unparalleled
luxury as they flit from one smoke-filled room to another, planning
their next nefarious assault on the poor working slaves of the world."

"What about Comrade Gore? Doesn't he also fly a private jet?"

"Of course not. Comrade Gore's jet belongs to the people, as does our
beloved Gore. Therefore they gratefully support his travels in his
never-ending fight against capitalist gangsters by using the pigs' own
tools against them."

"Thank you, Comrade Boxer. Now, for an alternate point of view, we have
Comrade Patty Murray, a Senator from the State of Washington. Tell us
how your views differ from those of Comrade Boxer, Comrade Murray."

"Comrade Boxer is a Trotskyite revisionist pig, but otherwise she is
right on target with this one, Brother."

"And so, despite overwhelming unanimity that the captalist bosses and
their corporate tools should no longer be allowed to use the airways
for free, President Clinton refuses to budge from the promise made by
her corrupt husband when he was President -- that there will be no user
fees for these robber barons or their lackeys."
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

William Black[_1_]

April 18th 07, 09:10 AM

"Hatunen" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:28:26 GMT, "William Black"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>>> William Black writes:
>>>
>>
>>>> And Boeing and its hidden subsidies isn't?
>>>
>>> No, it isn't. That's why it has been around for so long. What "hidden"
>>> subsidies do you have in mind?
>>
>>The ones the US pays on its huge military research contracts that are
>>really
>>a way of subsidising civil aircraft development.
>
> Hmm. Boeing built the 747 "on spec". Which aircraft are you
> thinking of?.

Try and look at something about a complaint by Airbus Industry to the WTO
about Boeing and the US government in 1992, revived in 2005.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Hatunen

April 18th 07, 09:18 AM

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:10:00 GMT, "William Black"
> wrote:

>
>"Hatunen" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:28:26 GMT, "William Black"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>>>> William Black writes:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> And Boeing and its hidden subsidies isn't?
>>>>
>>>> No, it isn't. That's why it has been around for so long. What "hidden"
>>>> subsidies do you have in mind?
>>>
>>>The ones the US pays on its huge military research contracts that are
>>>really
>>>a way of subsidising civil aircraft development.
>>
>> Hmm. Boeing built the 747 "on spec". Which aircraft are you
>> thinking of?.
>
>Try and look at something about a complaint by Airbus Industry to the WTO
>about Boeing and the US government in 1992, revived in 2005.

You're going to ave to be more specific. What I found involves
government subsidies but not military subsidies.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Tchiowa

April 18th 07, 09:23 AM

On Apr 18, 3:10 pm, "William Black" >
wrote:
> "Hatunen" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:28:26 GMT, "William Black"
> > > wrote:
>
> >>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> William Black writes:
>
> >>>> And Boeing and its hidden subsidies isn't?
>
> >>> No, it isn't. That's why it has been around for so long. What "hidden"
> >>> subsidies do you have in mind?
>
> >>The ones the US pays on its huge military research contracts that are
> >>really a way of subsidising civil aircraft development.

The US government buys planes. That's a whole lot different than the
French government shelling out billions in grants and loans to EADS so
that Airbus doesn't collapse under the weight of its own
inefficiencies.

> > Hmm. Boeing built the 747 "on spec". Which aircraft are you
> > thinking of?.
>
> Try and look at something about a complaint by Airbus Industry to the WTO
> about Boeing and the US government in 1992, revived in 2005.

You mean the one that didn't get anywhere but Airbus was using to try
to justify the enormous and constant subsidies they get from European
governments?

William Black[_1_]

April 18th 07, 10:05 AM

"Hatunen" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:10:00 GMT, "William Black"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Hatunen" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:28:26 GMT, "William Black"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> William Black writes:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> And Boeing and its hidden subsidies isn't?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it isn't. That's why it has been around for so long. What
>>>>> "hidden"
>>>>> subsidies do you have in mind?
>>>>
>>>>The ones the US pays on its huge military research contracts that are
>>>>really
>>>>a way of subsidising civil aircraft development.
>>>
>>> Hmm. Boeing built the 747 "on spec". Which aircraft are you
>>> thinking of?.
>>
>>Try and look at something about a complaint by Airbus Industry to the WTO
>>about Boeing and the US government in 1992, revived in 2005.
>
> You're going to ave to be more specific. What I found involves
> government subsidies but not military subsidies.

The Airbus case is that the US government gives Boeing large sums of money
for research into military projects and Boeing uses the technology developed
in its civilian products.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

William Black[_1_]

April 18th 07, 10:07 AM

"Tchiowa" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 18, 3:10 pm, "William Black" >

>> Try and look at something about a complaint by Airbus Industry to the WTO
>> about Boeing and the US government in 1992, revived in 2005.
>
> You mean the one that didn't get anywhere but Airbus was using to try
> to justify the enormous and constant subsidies they get from European
> governments?

No.

The one where Boeing gets a huge wadge of cash from Uncle Sugar for military
research and does research into civilian or dual use applications that it
then marks 'classified'.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Dan Luke

April 18th 07, 12:49 PM

"Tchiowa" wrote:

>>
>> Somebody really hates GA.
>
> When I read the article it didn't sound at all like someone who hates
> General Aviation. It sounded like a standard CNN attack on business.
> ("globe trotting corporate executive")
>

It is useful to remember that the haters are the airlines and the ones they
hate are the bizjets, who are taking an ever-larger share of their most
profitable passengers away from them. The prospect of hundreds of VLJ air
taxis terrifies them. They really don't give a rat's butt about pipsqueaks
like us. If we are "collateral damage" in their campaign, well, too bad.

Any time you hear a phrase like "globe trotting corporate executive" on TV,
you may rightly suspect it came straight from the airlines' P. R. and lobbying
apparatus. TV networks, ever in search of superficial, sensational sound
bites and too lazy to do any research, will open wide for this kind of stuff.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

me[_2_]

April 18th 07, 01:03 PM

On Apr 18, 5:07 am, "William Black" >
wrote:
> "Tchiowa" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > On Apr 18, 3:10 pm, "William Black" >
> >> Try and look at something about a complaint by Airbus Industry to the WTO
> >> about Boeing and the US government in 1992, revived in 2005.
>
> > You mean the one that didn't get anywhere but Airbus was using to try
> > to justify the enormous and constant subsidies they get from European
> > governments?
>
> No.
>
> The one where Boeing gets a huge wadge of cash from Uncle Sugar for military
> research and does research into civilian or dual use applications that it
> then marks 'classified'.

Probably what is being alluded to is known as "independent research
and
developement" or IRAD's for short. There was a time, long gone, that
the government would refund research dollars on "approved" programs
anywhere from about 50% to 95%. That doesn't really exist anymore.
We are allowed to "expense" our research as part of our "overhead"
charge, but that charge is a competetive feature of our bids so it
can alter the ability to win contracts in the first place. As such,
there
is a disincentive to "bill" too much research to the government.

FWIW, there is no great attraction to having something marked as
classified. It hinders the ability to use the technology outside of
military contracts. (To some extent even within them). There are
methodologies for getting the "exported" to commercial contacts,
but it is hard and leaves one in a position of having to ask
permission
of the government. The answer is not unfrequently "no".

I understand the complaint about the military contract effect upon
the commercial nature of the airliner business. But there is
no fiscal comparison to the huge loan guarentees that Airbus
got and the contracts that Boeing gets. Boeing has to use
all of the money for the military contract (less profit, which
is generally negotiated up front). SOME of the technology
assuredly is transferrable, but not as much as one might think
since military specs are often well in excess of commercial specs.
The singular largest advantage is the facilities and manufacturing
equipment. Unfortunately for Boeing, more and more of this is
being done outside of Boeing and so they lose that advantage.

Gig 601XL Builder

April 18th 07, 02:18 PM

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Tchiowa" wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Somebody really hates GA.
>>
>> When I read the article it didn't sound at all like someone who hates
>> General Aviation. It sounded like a standard CNN attack on business.
>> ("globe trotting corporate executive")
>>
>
> It is useful to remember that the haters are the airlines and the
> ones they hate are the bizjets, who are taking an ever-larger share
> of their most profitable passengers away from them. The prospect of
> hundreds of VLJ air taxis terrifies them. They really don't give a
> rat's butt about pipsqueaks like us. If we are "collateral damage"
> in their campaign, well, too bad.

You are 100% right and the really bad part is that it is another example of
the airline industry not keeping up with the times. There is nothing
stopping UA, AA, and the others from jumping into the VLJ air taxi market
other than their own inertia. They missed the boat when SW and JetBlue came
along and they are going to miss it again.

Kev

April 18th 07, 03:31 PM

On Apr 17, 5:09 pm, Andrew Gideon > wrote:
> Apparently, this didn't keep Joerger from fighting to keep the air
> ambulance away. He owns a farm that he's wanted to subdivide according
> to one article I've read...and it was just recently approved for
> subdivision.
>
> http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18197809&BRD=1918&PAG=461&d...

Thanks for looking that up. I had wondered what ever happened. Of
course he'd get approved... after all it's in New Jersey, the most
corrupt place in the nation when it comes to development. Next to
Daley's little Chicago fiefdom, that is ;-)

Kev

C J Campbell[_1_]

April 18th 07, 04:11 PM

On 2007-04-18 06:18:31 -0700, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> said:

> Dan Luke wrote:
>> "Tchiowa" wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Somebody really hates GA.
>>>
>>> When I read the article it didn't sound at all like someone who hates
>>> General Aviation. It sounded like a standard CNN attack on business.
>>> ("globe trotting corporate executive")
>>>
>>
>> It is useful to remember that the haters are the airlines and the
>> ones they hate are the bizjets, who are taking an ever-larger share
>> of their most profitable passengers away from them. The prospect of
>> hundreds of VLJ air taxis terrifies them. They really don't give a
>> rat's butt about pipsqueaks like us. If we are "collateral damage"
>> in their campaign, well, too bad.
>
>
> You are 100% right and the really bad part is that it is another example of
> the airline industry not keeping up with the times. There is nothing
> stopping UA, AA, and the others from jumping into the VLJ air taxi market
> other than their own inertia. They missed the boat when SW and JetBlue came
> along and they are going to miss it again.

Indeed. United or Southwest could easily have been the big buyers for
the Eclipse or the Maverick, forming a new subsidiary to handle the
taxi flights. But, no.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell[_1_]

April 18th 07, 04:19 PM

On 2007-04-18 08:11:53 -0700, C J Campbell
> said:

> On 2007-04-18 06:18:31 -0700, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> said:
>
>> Dan Luke wrote:
>>> "Tchiowa" wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Somebody really hates GA.
>>>>
>>>> When I read the article it didn't sound at all like someone who hates
>>>> General Aviation. It sounded like a standard CNN attack on business.
>>>> ("globe trotting corporate executive")
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is useful to remember that the haters are the airlines and the
>>> ones they hate are the bizjets, who are taking an ever-larger share
>>> of their most profitable passengers away from them. The prospect of
>>> hundreds of VLJ air taxis terrifies them. They really don't give a
>>> rat's butt about pipsqueaks like us. If we are "collateral damage"
>>> in their campaign, well, too bad.
>>
>>
>> You are 100% right and the really bad part is that it is another example of
>> the airline industry not keeping up with the times. There is nothing
>> stopping UA, AA, and the others from jumping into the VLJ air taxi market
>> other than their own inertia. They missed the boat when SW and JetBlue came
>> along and they are going to miss it again.
>
> Indeed. United or Southwest could easily have been the big buyers for
> the Eclipse or the Maverick, forming a new subsidiary to handle the
> taxi flights. But, no.

Ha. I said 'Maverick,' when I was thinking of the Cessna Mustang.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

TMOliver

April 18th 07, 04:44 PM

"William Black" > wrote ....
>
> Well they're busy buying up large amounts of European industry.
> Interestingly neither of them are investing in the USA despite having huge
> amounts of dollars.
>

Individual (and family) Indian investors represent among the largest
"repatriators" of US Dollars for investment in the US, with undeveloped real
estate, commercial buildings and hotel/motel properties among the most
popular investments.

The fastest area of investment growth by Chinese nationals involves the
construction and ownership of residential rental properties, of which the
"industry standard" seems to be four and eight plexes for student rentals
close to universities in smaller US cities. The reverse dollar flow for
such investing is slim, with most of the funds coming from US mortgage
lenders with full coffers and low rates. Surveys of Chinese working in the
US indicate substantial dollars exported to China for family maintenance,
the classic flow of earnings by legal and illegal Mexican/Central American
immigrants. Because of their extremely low profiles and low
apprehension/deportation rates, accurate data is hard to find for illegal
Chinese, but given avenues for remitting funds, "Family maintenance"
payments rank up there with "Paying the coyote

Part of the background for this type of investment....

US immigration laws are heavily weighted in favor of applicants with
substantial "real property" in the US. Own a big enough piece of a motel,
even in Dime Box, and you can set up residence.

TMO

karl gruber[_1_]

April 18th 07, 05:30 PM

You're really a pro writer...........in disquise! Right?

Good post,
Karl
"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:200704180039008930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2007-04-17 21:37:31 -0700, Tchiowa > said:
>
>> On Apr 17, 11:37 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> Apologies if someone else has already posted this:
>>>
>>> http://us.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/04/16/ticket.taxes.ap/index.html
>>>
>>> Somebody really hates GA.
>>
>> When I read the article it didn't sound at all like someone who hates
>> General Aviation. It sounded like a standard CNN attack on business.
>> ("globe trotting corporate executive")
>>
>> I wasn't sure if I was reading CNN or the Worker's World Daily. No
>> that there is that much difference any more.
>
> Don't you just love revolutionary rhetoric? And yet CNN is using it more
> and more. I expect to hear "running dogs of capitalism" any day now.
>
> I can see it now:
>
> "Once again we see that globe-trotting corporate bandits and their lackey
> pilots are stealing bread from the mouths of the oppressed masses of air
> travelers. The running dogs of capitalism must be brought to heel. For an
> unbiased report, we turn to Comrade Barbara Boxer, who has joined CNN
> after retiring from the oppressive establishment patriarchy. Comrade
> Boxer, can the entrenched pigs at Congress do anything to stop this theft,
> or are they too corrupt to do anything about even this?"
>
> "I am sad to say that Congress and the Administration are still controlled
> by capitalist gangsters, Comrade Anderson Cooper. But of course, you know
> this, being a part of the white male oppressive patriarchy, not to mention
> a deluded religious fanatic ever since your conversion to Islam. And what
> are these so-called 'general aviation' planes doing? Hauling their fat cat
> bosses around in unparalleled luxury as they flit from one smoke-filled
> room to another, planning their next nefarious assault on the poor working
> slaves of the world."
>
> "What about Comrade Gore? Doesn't he also fly a private jet?"
>
> "Of course not. Comrade Gore's jet belongs to the people, as does our
> beloved Gore. Therefore they gratefully support his travels in his
> never-ending fight against capitalist gangsters by using the pigs' own
> tools against them."
>
> "Thank you, Comrade Boxer. Now, for an alternate point of view, we have
> Comrade Patty Murray, a Senator from the State of Washington. Tell us how
> your views differ from those of Comrade Boxer, Comrade Murray."
>
> "Comrade Boxer is a Trotskyite revisionist pig, but otherwise she is right
> on target with this one, Brother."
>
> "And so, despite overwhelming unanimity that the captalist bosses and
> their corporate tools should no longer be allowed to use the airways for
> free, President Clinton refuses to budge from the promise made by her
> corrupt husband when he was President -- that there will be no user fees
> for these robber barons or their lackeys."
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor
>

Mxsmanic

April 18th 07, 05:56 PM

William Black writes:

> The one where Boeing gets a huge wadge of cash from Uncle Sugar for military
> research and does research into civilian or dual use applications that it
> then marks 'classified'.

If they are classified, how do you know what they are?

Some high-technology projects are expensive, and classified projects often
involve leading-edge technologies.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

William Black[_1_]

April 18th 07, 06:27 PM

"TMOliver" > wrote in message
...
>
> "William Black" > wrote ....
>>
>> Well they're busy buying up large amounts of European industry.
>> Interestingly neither of them are investing in the USA despite having
>> huge amounts of dollars.
>>
>
> Individual (and family) Indian investors represent among the largest
> "repatriators" of US Dollars for investment in the US, with undeveloped
> real estate, commercial buildings and hotel/motel properties among the
> most popular investments.

Oh come on.

Tata just bought British Steel.

Laxmi Mittal just bought Arcelor.

Let me know when an Indian buys US Steel...

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

William Black[_1_]

April 18th 07, 06:29 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> William Black writes:
>
>> The one where Boeing gets a huge wadge of cash from Uncle Sugar for
>> military
>> research and does research into civilian or dual use applications that it
>> then marks 'classified'.
>
> If they are classified, how do you know what they are?
>
> Some high-technology projects are expensive, and classified projects often
> involve leading-edge technologies.

Get a life.

It's a hidden subsidy.

Everybody knows it.

Airbus made a complaint and dropped it so as to make the US drop its
complaint.

Making civil aircraft is an expensive business that has a lot more to do
with maintaining high technology industries and hanging onto high paid jobs
than profits.

Stop trying to pretend Boeing are clean, they're just as crooked as
everyone else.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Mxsmanic

April 18th 07, 06:43 PM

William Black writes:

> Get a life.
>
> It's a hidden subsidy.
>
> Everybody knows it.

It's something that Europeans would desperately like to believe.

> Airbus made a complaint and dropped it so as to make the US drop its
> complaint.

Or because the U.S. found out about its own method of getting contracts
through bribes?

> Making civil aircraft is an expensive business that has a lot more to do
> with maintaining high technology industries and hanging onto high paid jobs
> than profits.

At Airbus, it's all politics, with aviation as a cover.

> Stop trying to pretend Boeing are clean, they're just as crooked as
> everyone else.

What makes you think that everyone is crooked? There are honest people in the
world, even if they aren't often in charge of European governments or
corporations.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Orval Fairbairn

April 18th 07, 06:48 PM

In article >,
Bert Hyman > wrote:

> (Mxsmanic) wrote in
> :
>
> > Apologies if someone else has already posted this:
>
> Do the fees paid by the commercial airlines completely cover the
> costs of building and operating airports and the air traffic control
> system?
>
> If not, then passengers are also subsidizing commercial aviation.

The only fees that commercial airlines pay are:

1. Landing fees (merged into ticket costs).

2. Gate rentals (again merged into ticket costs).

3. Fuel taxes only on non-revenue flights (ferrying, repositioning,
training)

They pay no fees for use of the ATC system (It comes from direct ticket
taxes)

The bottom line: Airlines are really non-players in the debate and are
pimping user fees as a means of inhibiting competition from high-end GA.

Orval Fairbairn

April 18th 07, 06:52 PM

In article . com>,
wrote:

> On Apr 17, 8:06 am, Bert Hyman > wrote:
> > (Mxsmanic) wrote
> > :
> >
> > > Apologies if someone else has already posted this:
> >
> > Do the fees paid by the commercial airlines completely cover the
> > costs of building and operating airports and the air traffic control
> > system?
> >
> > If not, then passengers are also subsidizing commercial aviation.
> >
> > --
> > Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |
>
> Not to mention the extra fire hydrants required along streets of the
> crash zones for those private communities.. you know who you are...JG

We all know who *YOU* are: an ignoranus!

There is no such thing as a "crash zone," nor are there any extra fire
hydrants in communities adjacent to small airports.

Go back and take a long walk off a short pier!

Gig 601XL Builder

April 18th 07, 07:19 PM

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article >,
> Bert Hyman > wrote:
>
>> (Mxsmanic) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Apologies if someone else has already posted this:
>>
>> Do the fees paid by the commercial airlines completely cover the
>> costs of building and operating airports and the air traffic control
>> system?
>>
>> If not, then passengers are also subsidizing commercial aviation.
>
> The only fees that commercial airlines pay are:
>
> 1. Landing fees (merged into ticket costs).
>
> 2. Gate rentals (again merged into ticket costs).
>
> 3. Fuel taxes only on non-revenue flights (ferrying, repositioning,
> training)
>
> They pay no fees for use of the ATC system (It comes from direct
> ticket taxes)
>
> The bottom line: Airlines are really non-players in the debate and are
> pimping user fees as a means of inhibiting competition from high-end
> GA.

Oh they are a player alright. They not only what to inhibit competition they
want to shift the cost.

William Black[_1_]

April 18th 07, 07:20 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> William Black writes:
>
>> Get a life.
>>
>> It's a hidden subsidy.
>>
>> Everybody knows it.
>
> It's something that Europeans would desperately like to believe.
>
>> Airbus made a complaint and dropped it so as to make the US drop its
>> complaint.
>
> Or because the U.S. found out about its own method of getting contracts
> through bribes?
>
>> Making civil aircraft is an expensive business that has a lot more to do
>> with maintaining high technology industries and hanging onto high paid
>> jobs
>> than profits.
>
> At Airbus, it's all politics, with aviation as a cover.
>
>> Stop trying to pretend Boeing are clean, they're just as crooked as
>> everyone else.
>
> What makes you think that everyone is crooked? There are honest people in
> the
> world, even if they aren't often in charge of European governments or
> corporations.

Oh dear.

In the past five years half the board of Boeing has had to resign because
they were crooks who got caught trying to cheat the US government.

A billion dollars of contracts was stripped from Boeing because they were
caught spying on Lockheed.

Now go and read

http://igeographer.lib.indstate.edu/pritchard.pdf

And get back to me...

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Don Tuite

April 18th 07, 08:07 PM

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:11:53 -0700, C J Campbell
> wrote:
>
>Indeed. United or Southwest could easily have been the big buyers for
>the Eclipse or the Maverick, forming a new subsidiary to handle the
>taxi flights. But, no.

You and Gig601 have hit the proverbial nail on the head, Chris.

The airlines (correctly) perceive a threat from VLJs.

NBAA is the organization in their crosshairs; we personal flyers are
merely collateral damage.

The positive response is to sell the golden future, when VLJs and RJs
provide on-demand point-to-point service for everybody and the
airlines operate cattle-cars between a few hubs. (Which is what
NASA's been planning for years.)

The negative response would be a knee-jerk rebuttal justifying the
status quo. That just opens the door to more claims and counterclaims,
which would only serve to call attention to and further disseminate
the original canards.

Don

Mxsmanic

April 18th 07, 08:08 PM

William Black writes:

> A billion dollars of contracts was stripped from Boeing because they were
> caught spying on Lockheed.

While some European governments spend nearly comparable amounts spying on the
competitors of their domestic manufacturers in the hope that providing the
latter with inside information will help business (but it usually doesn't).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

William Black[_1_]

April 18th 07, 08:13 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> William Black writes:
>
>> A billion dollars of contracts was stripped from Boeing because they were
>> caught spying on Lockheed.
>
> While some European governments spend nearly comparable amounts spying on
> the
> competitors of their domestic manufacturers in the hope that providing the
> latter with inside information will help business (but it usually
> doesn't).

Not only is that not proven, it is used by the government of the USA as a
justification for spying on European companies and giving the information to
US companies.

Do you admit now that Boeing is dirty?

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Mxsmanic

April 18th 07, 09:31 PM

William Black writes:

> Not only is that not proven ...

Interesting. I was speculating, and you immediately say that there is no
proof. Hmm.

> ... it is used by the government of the USA as a
> justification for spying on European companies and giving the information to
> US companies.

Do you object to the U.S. using the same methods as Europe? It's hard for the
honest guys to win if the other side is cheating.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Hatunen

April 18th 07, 09:54 PM

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:05:46 GMT, "William Black"
> wrote:

>
>"Hatunen" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:10:00 GMT, "William Black"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Hatunen" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:28:26 GMT, "William Black"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>> William Black writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> And Boeing and its hidden subsidies isn't?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it isn't. That's why it has been around for so long. What
>>>>>> "hidden"
>>>>>> subsidies do you have in mind?
>>>>>
>>>>>The ones the US pays on its huge military research contracts that are
>>>>>really
>>>>>a way of subsidising civil aircraft development.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm. Boeing built the 747 "on spec". Which aircraft are you
>>>> thinking of?.
>>>
>>>Try and look at something about a complaint by Airbus Industry to the WTO
>>>about Boeing and the US government in 1992, revived in 2005.
>>
>> You're going to ave to be more specific. What I found involves
>> government subsidies but not military subsidies.
>
>The Airbus case is that the US government gives Boeing large sums of money
>for research into military projects and Boeing uses the technology developed
>in its civilian products.

Somehow that doesn't sound so awful, so long as it is legitimate
military research. Or are they suposed to not use info they get
from military research, should it be some sort of secret?

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

TMOliver

April 18th 07, 09:55 PM

"William Black" > wrote ...
>
> Oh come on.
>
> Tata just bought British Steel.
>
> Laxmi Mittal just bought Arcelor.
>
> Let me know when an Indian buys US Steel...
>

Well, I suppose that as parlous a shape as they are in, US steel companies
sell at a far higher price than the rusting hulks of the once modest simply
deteriorated British steel industry. Just as the UK's automakers were sold
on the Sheriff's stoop to furriners, now you all are selling off the rest of
the patrimony

It's far easier to "make a bundle" in the US real estate market than by
purchasing US steel companies, and had you traveled in the US in recent
years to catch the smell of curry drifting from the owner's apartments in
all those small town motels, you might better appreciate the extent of
Indian investment

Hatunen

April 18th 07, 09:55 PM

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:07:43 GMT, "William Black"
> wrote:

>
>"Tchiowa" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> On Apr 18, 3:10 pm, "William Black" >
>
>>> Try and look at something about a complaint by Airbus Industry to the WTO
>>> about Boeing and the US government in 1992, revived in 2005.
>>
>> You mean the one that didn't get anywhere but Airbus was using to try
>> to justify the enormous and constant subsidies they get from European
>> governments?
>
>No.
>
>The one where Boeing gets a huge wadge of cash from Uncle Sugar for military
>research and does research into civilian or dual use applications that it
>then marks 'classified'.

Now you've taken it one step further. Are you saying Boeing
violates the "classified" notice by sharing the information with
unauthorized employees?

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

William Black[_1_]

April 18th 07, 09:58 PM

"Hatunen" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:07:43 GMT, "William Black"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tchiowa" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>> On Apr 18, 3:10 pm, "William Black" >
>>
>>>> Try and look at something about a complaint by Airbus Industry to the
>>>> WTO
>>>> about Boeing and the US government in 1992, revived in 2005.
>>>
>>> You mean the one that didn't get anywhere but Airbus was using to try
>>> to justify the enormous and constant subsidies they get from European
>>> governments?
>>
>>No.
>>
>>The one where Boeing gets a huge wadge of cash from Uncle Sugar for
>>military
>>research and does research into civilian or dual use applications that it
>>then marks 'classified'.
>
> Now you've taken it one step further. Are you saying Boeing
> violates the "classified" notice by sharing the information with
> unauthorized employees?

Goodness no.

That would be illegal.

I'm saying that the US government knowingly funds projects that have civil
applications by covert methods.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

William Black[_1_]

April 18th 07, 09:59 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> William Black writes:
>
>> Not only is that not proven ...
>
> Interesting. I was speculating, and you immediately say that there is no
> proof. Hmm.
>
>> ... it is used by the government of the USA as a
>> justification for spying on European companies and giving the information
>> to
>> US companies.
>
> Do you object to the U.S. using the same methods as Europe? It's hard for
> the
> honest guys to win if the other side is cheating.

I object to the US government using a supposition to drive its policy.

You know, spying on people because someone may just be spying on them,
invading people because they think they may have nuclear weapons...

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

William Black[_1_]

April 18th 07, 10:00 PM

"Hatunen" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:05:46 GMT, "William Black"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Hatunen" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:10:00 GMT, "William Black"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Hatunen" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:28:26 GMT, "William Black"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>> William Black writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And Boeing and its hidden subsidies isn't?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it isn't. That's why it has been around for so long. What
>>>>>>> "hidden"
>>>>>>> subsidies do you have in mind?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The ones the US pays on its huge military research contracts that are
>>>>>>really
>>>>>>a way of subsidising civil aircraft development.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm. Boeing built the 747 "on spec". Which aircraft are you
>>>>> thinking of?.
>>>>
>>>>Try and look at something about a complaint by Airbus Industry to the
>>>>WTO
>>>>about Boeing and the US government in 1992, revived in 2005.
>>>
>>> You're going to ave to be more specific. What I found involves
>>> government subsidies but not military subsidies.
>>
>>The Airbus case is that the US government gives Boeing large sums of money
>>for research into military projects and Boeing uses the technology
>>developed
>>in its civilian products.
>
> Somehow that doesn't sound so awful, so long as it is legitimate
> military research. Or are they suposed to not use info they get
> from military research, should it be some sort of secret?

The research is funded as 'military' but is really civil.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

William Black[_1_]

April 18th 07, 10:04 PM

"TMOliver" > wrote in message
...
>
> "William Black" > wrote ...
>>
>> Oh come on.
>>
>> Tata just bought British Steel.
>>
>> Laxmi Mittal just bought Arcelor.
>>
>> Let me know when an Indian buys US Steel...
>>
>
> Well, I suppose that as parlous a shape as they are in, US steel companies
> sell at a far higher price than the rusting hulks of the once modest
> simply deteriorated British steel industry. Just as the UK's automakers
> were sold on the Sheriff's stoop to furriners, now you all are selling off
> the rest of the patrimony

We've worked out that we don't care who owns the place, after all, we used
to own a third of the planet and it didn't make us rich.

What matters is where the jobs are...

Oh yes, and being able to have a really good party...

> It's far easier to "make a bundle" in the US real estate market than by
> purchasing US steel companies, and had you traveled in the US in recent
> years to catch the smell of curry drifting from the owner's apartments in
> all those small town motels, you might better appreciate the extent of
> Indian investment

The US currently has a far higher Indian population than the UK.

Indeed it's twice the size.

This is a recent phenomenon. The demographics of the US Indian population
is also radically different to that in the UK.

But London remains the biggest Indian city outside of India...

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

C J Campbell[_1_]

April 18th 07, 10:39 PM

On 2007-04-18 09:30:11 -0700, "karl gruber" > said:

> You're really a pro writer...........in disquise! Right?
>
> Good post,
> Karl

Thanks, but no. Having to write for a job would take all the fun out of
it. I think it would destroy what little is left of my imagination.

> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> news:200704180039008930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
>> On 2007-04-17 21:37:31 -0700, Tchiowa > said:
>>
>>> On Apr 17, 11:37 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>> Apologies if someone else has already posted this:
>>>>
>>>> http://us.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/04/16/ticket.taxes.ap/index.html
>>>>
>>>> Somebody really hates GA.
>>>
>>> When I read the article it didn't sound at all like someone who hates
>>> General Aviation. It sounded like a standard CNN attack on business.
>>> ("globe trotting corporate executive")
>>>
>>> I wasn't sure if I was reading CNN or the Worker's World Daily. No
>>> that there is that much difference any more.
>>
>> Don't you just love revolutionary rhetoric? And yet CNN is using it more
>> and more. I expect to hear "running dogs of capitalism" any day now.
>>
>> I can see it now:
>>
>> "Once again we see that globe-trotting corporate bandits and their lackey
>> pilots are stealing bread from the mouths of the oppressed masses of air
>> travelers. The running dogs of capitalism must be brought to heel. For an
>> unbiased report, we turn to Comrade Barbara Boxer, who has joined CNN
>> after retiring from the oppressive establishment patriarchy. Comrade
>> Boxer, can the entrenched pigs at Congress do anything to stop this theft,
>> or are they too corrupt to do anything about even this?"
>>
>> "I am sad to say that Congress and the Administration are still controlled
>> by capitalist gangsters, Comrade Anderson Cooper. But of course, you know
>> this, being a part of the white male oppressive patriarchy, not to mention
>> a deluded religious fanatic ever since your conversion to Islam. And what
>> are these so-called 'general aviation' planes doing? Hauling their fat cat
>> bosses around in unparalleled luxury as they flit from one smoke-filled
>> room to another, planning their next nefarious assault on the poor working
>> slaves of the world."
>>
>> "What about Comrade Gore? Doesn't he also fly a private jet?"
>>
>> "Of course not. Comrade Gore's jet belongs to the people, as does our
>> beloved Gore. Therefore they gratefully support his travels in his
>> never-ending fight against capitalist gangsters by using the pigs' own
>> tools against them."
>>
>> "Thank you, Comrade Boxer. Now, for an alternate point of view, we have
>> Comrade Patty Murray, a Senator from the State of Washington. Tell us how
>> your views differ from those of Comrade Boxer, Comrade Murray."
>>
>> "Comrade Boxer is a Trotskyite revisionist pig, but otherwise she is right
>> on target with this one, Brother."
>>
>> "And so, despite overwhelming unanimity that the captalist bosses and
>> their corporate tools should no longer be allowed to use the airways for
>> free, President Clinton refuses to budge from the promise made by her
>> corrupt husband when he was President -- that there will be no user fees
>> for these robber barons or their lackeys."
>> --
>> Waddling Eagle
>> World Famous Flight Instructor

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Hatunen

April 18th 07, 10:49 PM

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:59:55 GMT, "William Black"
> wrote:

>
>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>> William Black writes:
>>
>>> Not only is that not proven ...
>>
>> Interesting. I was speculating, and you immediately say that there is no
>> proof. Hmm.
>>
>>> ... it is used by the government of the USA as a
>>> justification for spying on European companies and giving the information
>>> to
>>> US companies.
>>
>> Do you object to the U.S. using the same methods as Europe? It's hard for
>> the
>> honest guys to win if the other side is cheating.
>
>I object to the US government using a supposition to drive its policy.
>
>You know, spying on people because someone may just be spying on them,
>invading people because they think they may have nuclear weapons...

The big problem was not that Bush invaded thinking Iraq had
nuclear weapons, the problem was that Irag didn't have nuclear
weapons and the President either did or should have known it.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

TMOliver

April 18th 07, 11:35 PM

"William Black" > wrote ....

>
> The US currently has a far higher Indian population than the UK.
>
> Indeed it's twice the size.

Interesting admission based on your earlier comments re: investments (and
most of the migration "employment oriented" are in the upper 50% of US
income earners). Of course , to paraphtrase, "migration is the sincereest
form of investment". On the other hand, visibly "rich" Indians residing in
the US are a Southern California thing, invisible except in Houston anda
handful of similar cities.
>
> This is a recent phenomenon. The demographics of the US Indian population
> is also radically different to that in the UK.

We do have more Patels I presume.....
>
> But London remains the biggest Indian city outside of India...
>

But hardly an "Indian" city, as San Antonio, the largest Mexican city
outside of Mexico is clearly far more Mexican than London is Indian.

One of the interesting demographic comparisons....

While Indians in the UK are concentrated in the cities (and in identifiable
neighborhoods/areas in most cases), in the US the largest number are found
dispersed in small towns and cities (and with no identifiable housing
patterns. While the high-techs are the best known and most recognizable,
medical/health professionals make up the largest group after
"individual/family business owners", all those pure capitalists, with
educators at the university level being another substantial segment of the
overall population.

Indian migration to the US is certainly a post 1960, maybe 1970, phenom.

TMO