FAA On User Fees: "The piston thing is not going to happen." Divide And Conquer?

[Larry Dighera]

Don't be fooled by the Divide And Conquer strategy of the pro ATC
privatization crowed. How long do you think piston aircraft will
remain exempt? Is there going to be a non-negotiable guarantee, that
once ATC is privatized, piston aircraft will REMAIN exempt from user
fees? I have heard no mention of such a guarantee.

It is definitely what is not mentioned by the FAA that is most
troubling. Funding this privatized NextGen ATC user fee system will
require both the NextGen and current ATC systems to be funded
simultaneously for years (decades?) until the existing ATC system is
deactivated. That's bad enough, but the privatization proponents are
demanding that the current Congressional oversight of FAA spending be
removed, so they'll have a blank check to fill their bank accounts!

Don't be fooled. Privatized ATC is a big corporate aircraft
manufacturer and airline boondoggle, make no mistake.

Currently airliners are lined-up nightly for over a thousand miles
nose-to-tail (within separation standards) all the way from Oklahoma
on their way to KLAX. How many more airliners can the NAS truly
accommodate? It is setting this limit, that should be the focus of
this discussion.



Read all about the FAA's double-speak:

FAA MYTHBUSTING -- SHOULD GA WORRY ABOUT USER FEES?
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/851-full.html#195009)
Would the FAA's proposed new funding structure force general aviation
to pay more than its fair share of the FAA's costs? According to the
FAA, that's a "myth." At an "Ask The FAA" session at the Sun 'n Fun
Fly-In in Lakeland, Fla., on Friday, the FAA answered questions about
user fees and distributed a "fact sheet" that explains the effects of
its proposed financing changes on general aviation. The "facts,"
according to the FAA, are that GA currently drives about 16 percent of
the expense of the air traffic system, but pays only 3 percent of the
cost. The proposed changes would raise that percentage to 11 percent,
with only 1 percent coming from piston-aircraft users. It's also a
myth, says the FAA, that the airlines drive the cost of the
infrastructure, while GA is only a marginal user. The FAA says it has
taken those factors into account in its cost analyses. Will the
proposed tax increases "ruin" GA in the U.S.? No, says the FAA. The
increased cost would work out to about $500 per year for most piston
fliers, according to the fact sheet.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/851-full.html#195009

USER FEE COMPROMISE IN THE WORKS
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/851-full.html#195007)
Capitol Hill pundits are predicting the compromise on general aviation
user fees that will be sent to Congress will spare the piston crowd
any increases, but sock business aviation with charges for their use
of the airspace. (Hear what Cessna chairman, CEO and president Jack
Pelton has to say about aviation user fees
(/other/JackPelton_UserFees_2007-04-20.mp3). [3.3MB mp3]) A story in
The Hill earlier this week quoted unnamed sources as presenting this
scenario. "The piston thing is not going to happen," the source told
The Hill. "I do think there's significant traction on the whole issue
of corporate aircraft." The story also quotes an internal Air
Transport Association memo as conceding that the statistics it has
widely used to support the airlines' position on user fees are
somewhat skewed. The ATA, the strongest proponent of user fees, has
publicly claimed that U.S. airlines pay 95 percent of non-general-fund
contributions to the FAA's trust fund through ticket taxes, but The
Hill says the internal memo admits that the airline portion is more
like 74 percent, with cargo companies and foreign airlines picking up
the difference. Meanwhile, there's a furor north of the border as Nav
Canada has singled out very light jets for inclusion in its second
tier (more than 6,600 pounds mtow) of charges.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/851-full.html#195007

[Borat]

Yawn!

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Don't be fooled by the Divide And Conquer strategy of the pro ATC
> privatization crowed. How long do you think piston aircraft will
> remain exempt? Is there going to be a non-negotiable guarantee, that
> once ATC is privatized, piston aircraft will REMAIN exempt from user
> fees? I have heard no mention of such a guarantee.
>
> It is definitely what is not mentioned by the FAA that is most
> troubling. Funding this privatized NextGen ATC user fee system will
> require both the NextGen and current ATC systems to be funded
> simultaneously for years (decades?) until the existing ATC system is
> deactivated. That's bad enough, but the privatization proponents are
> demanding that the current Congressional oversight of FAA spending be
> removed, so they'll have a blank check to fill their bank accounts!
>
> Don't be fooled. Privatized ATC is a big corporate aircraft
> manufacturer and airline boondoggle, make no mistake.
>
> Currently airliners are lined-up nightly for over a thousand miles
> nose-to-tail (within separation standards) all the way from Oklahoma
> on their way to KLAX. How many more airliners can the NAS truly
> accommodate? It is setting this limit, that should be the focus of
> this discussion.
>
>
>
> Read all about the FAA's double-speak:
>
> FAA MYTHBUSTING -- SHOULD GA WORRY ABOUT USER FEES?
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/851-full.html#195009)
> Would the FAA's proposed new funding structure force general aviation
> to pay more than its fair share of the FAA's costs? According to the
> FAA, that's a "myth." At an "Ask The FAA" session at the Sun 'n Fun
> Fly-In in Lakeland, Fla., on Friday, the FAA answered questions about
> user fees and distributed a "fact sheet" that explains the effects of
> its proposed financing changes on general aviation. The "facts,"
> according to the FAA, are that GA currently drives about 16 percent of
> the expense of the air traffic system, but pays only 3 percent of the
> cost. The proposed changes would raise that percentage to 11 percent,
> with only 1 percent coming from piston-aircraft users. It's also a
> myth, says the FAA, that the airlines drive the cost of the
> infrastructure, while GA is only a marginal user. The FAA says it has
> taken those factors into account in its cost analyses. Will the
> proposed tax increases "ruin" GA in the U.S.? No, says the FAA. The
> increased cost would work out to about $500 per year for most piston
> fliers, according to the fact sheet.
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/851-full.html#195009
>
> USER FEE COMPROMISE IN THE WORKS
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/851-full.html#195007)
> Capitol Hill pundits are predicting the compromise on general aviation
> user fees that will be sent to Congress will spare the piston crowd
> any increases, but sock business aviation with charges for their use
> of the airspace. (Hear what Cessna chairman, CEO and president Jack
> Pelton has to say about aviation user fees
> (/other/JackPelton_UserFees_2007-04-20.mp3). [3.3MB mp3]) A story in
> The Hill earlier this week quoted unnamed sources as presenting this
> scenario. "The piston thing is not going to happen," the source told
> The Hill. "I do think there's significant traction on the whole issue
> of corporate aircraft." The story also quotes an internal Air
> Transport Association memo as conceding that the statistics it has
> widely used to support the airlines' position on user fees are
> somewhat skewed. The ATA, the strongest proponent of user fees, has
> publicly claimed that U.S. airlines pay 95 percent of non-general-fund
> contributions to the FAA's trust fund through ticket taxes, but The
> Hill says the internal memo admits that the airline portion is more
> like 74 percent, with cargo companies and foreign airlines picking up
> the difference. Meanwhile, there's a furor north of the border as Nav
> Canada has singled out very light jets for inclusion in its second
> tier (more than 6,600 pounds mtow) of charges.
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/851-full.html#195007

[Larry Dighera]

ANTI-USER FEE CHORUS GROWS DOWN ON THE FARM
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/857-full.html#195081)
The National Farmers' Union (NFU) has joined () the juggernaut of
opposition to the FAA's funding proposal, saying it's nothing more
than a bailout of airlines on the backs of small-town America. In a
news release, NFU President Pat Buis said the plan to more than triple
the existing general aviation fuel tax will have a direct impact on
rural residents. "Local airfields often provide the fastest and most
efficient means of transportation because the big corporate airlines
concentrate most of their service at only the nation's largest
airports," Buis said. "The FAA proposal to impose user fees and tax
increases will deal a heavy blow to farmers and rural communities who
depend on general aviation--for this reason we are strongly opposing
user fees and new taxes in any form." Also joining the chorus is the
Alaska State legislature.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/857-full.html#195081


On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:45:17 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in >:

>
>Don't be fooled by the Divide And Conquer strategy of the pro ATC
>privatization crowed. How long do you think piston aircraft will
>remain exempt? Is there going to be a non-negotiable guarantee, that
>once ATC is privatized, piston aircraft will REMAIN exempt from user
>fees? I have heard no mention of such a guarantee.
>
>It is definitely what is not mentioned by the FAA that is most
>troubling. Funding this privatized NextGen ATC user fee system will
>require both the NextGen and current ATC systems to be funded
>simultaneously for years (decades?) until the existing ATC system is
>deactivated. That's bad enough, but the privatization proponents are
>demanding that the current Congressional oversight of FAA spending be
>removed, so they'll have a blank check to fill their bank accounts!
>
>Don't be fooled. Privatized ATC is a big corporate aircraft
>manufacturer and airline boondoggle, make no mistake.
>
>Currently airliners are lined-up nightly for over a thousand miles
>nose-to-tail (within separation standards) all the way from Oklahoma
>on their way to KLAX. How many more airliners can the NAS truly
>accommodate? It is setting this limit, that should be the focus of
>this discussion.
>
>
>
>Read all about the FAA's double-speak:
>
>FAA MYTHBUSTING -- SHOULD GA WORRY ABOUT USER FEES?
>(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/851-full.html#195009)
>Would the FAA's proposed new funding structure force general aviation
>to pay more than its fair share of the FAA's costs? According to the
>FAA, that's a "myth." At an "Ask The FAA" session at the Sun 'n Fun
>Fly-In in Lakeland, Fla., on Friday, the FAA answered questions about
>user fees and distributed a "fact sheet" that explains the effects of
>its proposed financing changes on general aviation. The "facts,"
>according to the FAA, are that GA currently drives about 16 percent of
>the expense of the air traffic system, but pays only 3 percent of the
>cost. The proposed changes would raise that percentage to 11 percent,
>with only 1 percent coming from piston-aircraft users. It's also a
>myth, says the FAA, that the airlines drive the cost of the
>infrastructure, while GA is only a marginal user. The FAA says it has
>taken those factors into account in its cost analyses. Will the
>proposed tax increases "ruin" GA in the U.S.? No, says the FAA. The
>increased cost would work out to about $500 per year for most piston
>fliers, according to the fact sheet.
>http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/851-full.html#195009
>
>USER FEE COMPROMISE IN THE WORKS
>(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/851-full.html#195007)
>Capitol Hill pundits are predicting the compromise on general aviation
>user fees that will be sent to Congress will spare the piston crowd
>any increases, but sock business aviation with charges for their use
>of the airspace. (Hear what Cessna chairman, CEO and president Jack
>Pelton has to say about aviation user fees
>(/other/JackPelton_UserFees_2007-04-20.mp3). [3.3MB mp3]) A story in
>The Hill earlier this week quoted unnamed sources as presenting this
>scenario. "The piston thing is not going to happen," the source told
>The Hill. "I do think there's significant traction on the whole issue
>of corporate aircraft." The story also quotes an internal Air
>Transport Association memo as conceding that the statistics it has
>widely used to support the airlines' position on user fees are
>somewhat skewed. The ATA, the strongest proponent of user fees, has
>publicly claimed that U.S. airlines pay 95 percent of non-general-fund
>contributions to the FAA's trust fund through ticket taxes, but The
>Hill says the internal memo admits that the airline portion is more
>like 74 percent, with cargo companies and foreign airlines picking up
>the difference. Meanwhile, there's a furor north of the border as Nav
>Canada has singled out very light jets for inclusion in its second
>tier (more than 6,600 pounds mtow) of charges.
>http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/851-full.html#195007

[Paul Dow (Remove Caps in mail address)]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> Don't be fooled by the Divide And Conquer strategy of the pro ATC
> privatization crowed. How long do you think piston aircraft will
> remain exempt? Is there going to be a non-negotiable guarantee, that
> once ATC is privatized, piston aircraft will REMAIN exempt from user
> fees? I have heard no mention of such a guarantee.
>

Not only that, but what would happen a few years down the road when
100LL could go away and someone comes up with a reasonably priced
turboprop for a C-172? Since it's not piston powered, the user fees
would apply. I realize "reasonably priced" and "aviation" are mutually
exclusive, but we shouldn't let the rules be made based on a particular
technology.

It's like California wanting to ban incandescent bulbs because they're
inefficient, but then GE comes out and says they're coming out with ones
twice as efficient as current versions.
http://www.geconsumerproducts.com/pressroom/press_releases/lighting/new_products/HE_lamps_07.htm

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 01 May 2007 21:03:18 -0400, "Paul Dow (Remove Caps in mail
address)" > wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> Don't be fooled by the Divide And Conquer strategy of the pro ATC
>> privatization crowd. How long do you think piston aircraft will
>> remain exempt? Is there going to be a non-negotiable guarantee, that
>> once ATC is privatized, piston aircraft will REMAIN exempt from user
>> fees? I have heard no mention of such a guarantee.
>>
>
>Not only that, but what would happen a few years down the road when
>100LL could go away and someone comes up with a reasonably priced
>turboprop for a C-172? Since it's not piston powered, the user fees
>would apply. I realize "reasonably priced" and "aviation" are mutually
>exclusive, but we shouldn't let the rules be made based on a particular
>technology.

Agreed.

However once in place, imposing NextGen user fees on ALL airspace
users would be a simple matter, and it would be possible because GA's
voice opposing the implementation of ATC user fees was stifled through
the tactic of saying user fees won't apply to GA. Once the user fee
beachhead is established, the user fee war can be waged from much more
secure ground from that point on.

>It's like California wanting to ban incandescent bulbs because they're
>inefficient, but then GE comes out and says they're coming out with ones
>twice as efficient as current versions.
>http://www.geconsumerproducts.com/pressroom/press_releases/lighting/new_products/HE_lamps_07.htm

Interesting. It sort of makes you wonder why this new technology was
finally deployed after over a hundred years of incandescent lamp
production and on-going development.

The target for these bulbs at initial production is to be nearly
twice as efficient, at 30 lumens–per–watt, as current incandescent
bulbs. Ultimately the high efficiency lamp (HEI) technology is
expected to be about four times as efficient as current
incandescent bulbs and comparable to CFL bulbs.

Incandescent lamps will never be as efficient as LED based lighting.
That's where the industry is headed:

http://www.leditbe.com/
LEDs lamps are 10 to 50 times more energy-efficient than conventional
lights, which can reduce operating costs by up to 90%. LEDs are even
more efficient than fluorescent lamps!

http://www.prime-light.com/products.htm
http://www.ledtronics.com/
http://www.ledtronics.com/markets/25mm_med_index.htm
http://www.ledlighting.net.au/
Even in hostile conditions, the typical working life of an LED can be
several tens of thousands of hours. Most incandescent bulbs expire
after just a couple of thousand hours,...
http://www.aerco.co.uk/Lamps_Lighting_LEDs__CML+Innovative+Technologies+L TD+GI+VCH+SLI+Miniature_Fillament+replacement+LEDs .htm
Based LEDs are shock and vibration proof ...
http://chinaleder.en.alibaba.com/product/50336127/51515699/LED_Lamps/GU10_LED_Lamp.html

[Jose]

> Interesting. It sort of makes you wonder why this new technology was
> finally deployed after over a hundred years of incandescent lamp
> production and on-going development.

There are tradeoffs. For example, cost, bulb life, color, stuff like that.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Don Tuite]

On Wed, 02 May 2007 14:53:09 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> Interesting. It sort of makes you wonder why this new technology was
>> finally deployed after over a hundred years of incandescent lamp
>> production and on-going development.
>
>There are tradeoffs. For example, cost, bulb life, color, stuff like that.
>
Including providing an omnidirectional source in the way an Edison
bulb does. Also, "daylight" color in both LEDs and CFLs means a color
temperature around 3000 Kelvin, rather than 5-6000 K, like you'd get
from the sun or a halogen.

On the other hand, having an omnidirectional source is a mixed
blessing at best. I had an intereting briefing with Cree the other
week where the fellow I was talking to was pointing out the advantages
of full-spectrum LED lighting in parking garages and outdoor lighting,
and I asked him about response from the astronomy community, which
tends to prefer sodium vapor, with it's easy-to-filter narrow spectrum
lines. He said Cree works with the Dark Sky folks and that IDA is
actually pretty cool with directional outdoor lighting. There may be a
lighting paradigm shift on the way.

Don

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-05-02, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> LEDs lamps are 10 to 50 times more energy-efficient than conventional
> lights, which can reduce operating costs by up to 90%. LEDs are even
> more efficient than fluorescent lamps!

They aren't really quite there yet - I bought a few LED lamps to swap
out for halogen downlighters. The current crop is nowhere near bright
enough for general room lighting (they are fine for supplimental
lighting) unless you covered the ceiling with a huge array of them. They
are also a slightly odd colour - the white ones are really very pale
violet rather than white.

They will get there in the end though, but we're still a few years off
general purpose LED house lighting.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 2 May 2007 16:17:54 +0000 (UTC), Dylan Smith
> wrote in
>:

>On 2007-05-02, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> LEDs lamps are 10 to 50 times more energy-efficient than conventional
>> lights, which can reduce operating costs by up to 90%. LEDs are even
>> more efficient than fluorescent lamps!
>
>They aren't really quite there yet - I bought a few LED lamps to swap
>out for halogen downlighters. The current crop is nowhere near bright
>enough for general room lighting (they are fine for supplimental
>lighting) unless you covered the ceiling with a huge array of them. They
>are also a slightly odd colour - the white ones are really very pale
>violet rather than white.

There's a good article here
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19325975.600-its-lights-out-for-classic-household-bulb.html
that explains the reason for the color.

The most significant changes to the way we light our homes are
likely to come when LEDs become cheap and reliable enough to
provide ordinary diffuse white light. This is because CFLs, while
much more efficient than incandescent bulbs, still only emit
around 15 per cent of the electrical energy fed into them as
light, or up to 30 per cent in "tube" form. This compares with 30
per cent for existing white LEDs, with a target of up to 70 per
cent. "It will be CFLs first, but LEDs may eventually bypass
them," says Colin Humphreys, a pioneer of LEDs at the University
of Cambridge.

LEDs are semiconductor devices that emit light when a voltage is
applied across them. Each LED is typically a stack of five very
thin layers of the semiconductor indium-gallium-nitride, separated
by gallium nitride layers, and measures just 1 millimetre square.
By varying the amounts of indium, engineers can alter the colours
produced. For example, 10 per cent indium gives blue light, and 20
per cent gives green. To produce white light, blue LEDs are coated
with phosphor, which generates yellow light. This merges with the
blue light from the LED to create a somewhat harsh white light.

Already, some LED-based domestic light sources are appearing. Last
month Philips unveiled a globe-like lamp based on four LEDs - two
red, one blue and one green. By varying the intensity of the LEDs
it's possible to create mood lighting in up to 16 million
different colours. Launched in the Netherlands, the lamp, called
LivingColors, is operated with a simple remote control. Philips
stresses that this is a long way from the LED-based "bulb" that
people can simply screw into existing sockets. But it's a start.

Most white LEDs for the home are likely to appear first in sharp,
functional lighting such as desk lamps. Earlier this month
Siemens's subsidiary Osram unveiled an LED spotlight called Ostar,
which the company says can easily illuminate desks from a height
of 2 metres. The lights should also last 50 times longer than
incandescent lamps, and five times as long as CFLs.

To produce LEDs that can replace incandescent bulbs, the challenge
is to develop devices that create a warmer white light.
Humphreys's team and others around the world are tackling this by
coating individual LEDs with red, blue and green phosphors. "In
principle, we can mimic the quality of sunlight," says Humphreys.
"We're not there yet, but we're getting close," he says.

If white LEDs are ever going to be used as light bulbs, they will
also have to get much cheaper. Nowadays, a single LED lamp costs
up to $60, mostly because indium-gallium-nitride wafers have to be
grown on expensive sapphire crystals. Humphreys is confident LEDs
can be grown on silicon instead. This would cut the cost
drastically, as a 5-centimetre sapphire substrate costs $40,
compared to just $5 for silicon. His team has already grown blue
LED structures on 5-centimetre silicon wafers in the laboratory.

Humphreys and his collaborators have also banished a gremlin that
was causing LEDs to fail early. The units stopped working after
just 400 to 500 hours of use because of heat trapped by the
transparent epoxy resin dome that caps and protects the chip. By
exchanging epoxy for a type of silicone, Humphreys stopped the
LEDs overheating, vastly prolonging their working lives. Once
they're cheap enough, LEDs could last the entire life of a
lighting unit, he says.

Whenever LEDs are ready to take over, one thing is certain: the
incandescent light bulb is finally on its way out. "It's amazing
it's lasted this long," says Humphreys.


From issue 2597 of New Scientist magazine, 02 March 2007, page
26-27



>They will get there in the end though, but we're still a few years off
>general purpose LED house lighting.

[[email protected]]

> Including providing an omnidirectional source in the way an Edison
> bulb does. Also, "daylight" color in both LEDs and CFLs means a color
> temperature around 3000 Kelvin, rather than 5-6000 K, like you'd get
> from the sun or a halogen.
>
Say what? I can get high power white LEDs from Lumileds in
6500Kelvin, 4100Kelvin, or 3000Kelvin, pretty much any white point
you'd want (cool, neutral, and warm). Your statement above is
incorrect for LEDs.

[Larry Dighera]

It looks like the airlines are getting panicky over the threat of
smaller air carriers' ability to provide good service to smaller
airports:


FAA REAUTHORIZATION: NEW BILL IN PLAY

With the FAA's proposal to restructure the way it's financed facing a
broad array of opposition, Sens. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and Trent
Lott, R-Miss., have come up with their own solution, The Hill
(http://thehill.com/business--lobby/rockefeller-lott-bill-seeks-to-lighten-burden-on-airlines-2007-05-01.html)
reported on Tuesday. Their bill is expected to be introduced in the
Senate later this week. It exempts piston-driven aircraft from user
fees and new taxes, but would shift a considerable share of costs off
the airlines and onto smaller turbine aircraft. The Alliance for
Aviation Across America (http://aviationacrossamerica.org/), a
recently formed alliance of groups opposed to user fees, has already
expressed "grave concerns" about the new bill.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/859-full.html#195121


On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:45:17 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in >:

>
>
>Don't be fooled by the Divide And Conquer strategy of the pro ATC
>privatization crowed. How long do you think piston aircraft will
>remain exempt? Is there going to be a non-negotiable guarantee, that
>once ATC is privatized, piston aircraft will REMAIN exempt from user
>fees? I have heard no mention of such a guarantee.
>
>It is definitely what is not mentioned by the FAA that is most
>troubling. Funding this privatized NextGen ATC user fee system will
>require both the NextGen and current ATC systems to be funded
>simultaneously for years (decades?) until the existing ATC system is
>deactivated. That's bad enough, but the privatization proponents are
>demanding that the current Congressional oversight of FAA spending be
>removed, so they'll have a blank check to fill their bank accounts!
>
>Don't be fooled. Privatized ATC is a big corporate aircraft
>manufacturer and airline boondoggle, make no mistake.
>
>Currently airliners are lined-up nightly for over a thousand miles
>nose-to-tail (within separation standards) all the way from Oklahoma
>on their way to KLAX. How many more airliners can the NAS truly
>accommodate? It is setting this limit, that should be the focus of
>this discussion.

[Paul Dow (Remove Caps in mail address)]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> It looks like the airlines are getting panicky over the threat of
> smaller air carriers' ability to provide good service to smaller
> airports:
>
I think they're more afraid of the VLJ's taking away their lucrative
first class, business class, and full-fare coach passengers.

Paul

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 04 May 2007 14:05:24 -0400, "Paul Dow (Remove Caps in mail
address)" > wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> It looks like the airlines are getting panicky over the threat of
>> smaller air carriers' ability to provide good service to smaller
>> airports:
>>
>I think they're more afraid of the VLJ's taking away their lucrative
>first class, business class, and full-fare coach passengers.
>
>Paul

Wouldn't it be nice if the airlines and airline manufacturers worked
to overcome the objections to airline travel (long security lines,
degrading inspections, hub-and-spoke limitations, leg room, delays,
etc.) instead of attempting to restrict more attractive modes of air
travel? Such a sincere approach to marketing runs against the grain
of marketeers I suppose.

[Larry Dighera]

So the FAA wants to remove Congressional oversight as a condition of
implementing NextGen ATC privatization. Given the current poor
performance of LocMart's AFSS privatization, hopefully Congress will
see the light.

CONGRESS TOLD FAA LACKS ROAD MAP FOR NEXTGEN

The FAA says that the current national airspace system won't be
able to handle the expected tripling of air traffic by 2025, and
there's generally no disagreement among stakeholders about the
need for ATC modernization. But it is how we get there that is the
big problem. In opening statements before a hearing Wednesday
morning on ATC modernization, House Subcommittee on Aviation
Chairman Jerry Costello, D-Ill., brought up the FAA's poor track
record of previous ATC modernization projects and promptly added
that "vigorous congressional oversight" will be needed for
NextGen. DOT Inspector General Calvin Scovel testified

(http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/Actions_Needed_to_Reduce_Risk_with__NextGen_w-508_FINAL.pdf)
that NextGen is a "high-risk effort" that will "involve
billion-dollar investments by both the government and airspace
users." During questioning, he submitted that the FAA and Joint
Planning Development Office (JPDO) need to have a detailed R&D
plan developed before Congress can properly appropriate funding
for ATC modernization.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/863-full.html#195171

On Fri, 04 May 2007 17:12:04 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in >:

>
>
>It looks like the airlines are getting panicky over the threat of
>smaller air carriers' ability to provide good service to smaller
>airports:
>
>
>FAA REAUTHORIZATION: NEW BILL IN PLAY
>
>With the FAA's proposal to restructure the way it's financed facing a
>broad array of opposition, Sens. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and Trent
>Lott, R-Miss., have come up with their own solution, The Hill
>(http://thehill.com/business--lobby/rockefeller-lott-bill-seeks-to-lighten-burden-on-airlines-2007-05-01.html)
>reported on Tuesday. Their bill is expected to be introduced in the
>Senate later this week. It exempts piston-driven aircraft from user
>fees and new taxes, but would shift a considerable share of costs off
>the airlines and onto smaller turbine aircraft. The Alliance for
>Aviation Across America (http://aviationacrossamerica.org/), a
>recently formed alliance of groups opposed to user fees, has already
>expressed "grave concerns" about the new bill.
>http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/859-full.html#195121
>
>
>On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:45:17 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote in >:
>
>>
>>
>>Don't be fooled by the Divide And Conquer strategy of the pro ATC
>>privatization crowed. How long do you think piston aircraft will
>>remain exempt? Is there going to be a non-negotiable guarantee, that
>>once ATC is privatized, piston aircraft will REMAIN exempt from user
>>fees? I have heard no mention of such a guarantee.
>>
>>It is definitely what is not mentioned by the FAA that is most
>>troubling. Funding this privatized NextGen ATC user fee system will
>>require both the NextGen and current ATC systems to be funded
>>simultaneously for years (decades?) until the existing ATC system is
>>deactivated. That's bad enough, but the privatization proponents are
>>demanding that the current Congressional oversight of FAA spending be
>>removed, so they'll have a blank check to fill their bank accounts!
>>
>>Don't be fooled. Privatized ATC is a big corporate aircraft
>>manufacturer and airline boondoggle, make no mistake.
>>
>>Currently airliners are lined-up nightly for over a thousand miles
>>nose-to-tail (within separation standards) all the way from Oklahoma
>>on their way to KLAX. How many more airliners can the NAS truly
>>accommodate? It is setting this limit, that should be the focus of
>>this discussion.

[Larry Dighera]

Eight years until grid lock:


FAA FACT SHEET PROMOTES AVIATION USER FEES

The FAA is painting a dismal picture of its own performance in an
unvarnished attempt to gather support for its controversial
proposed aviation user-fee funding system. In a fact sheet
(http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=8807)
released last week, the agency ties the funding package directly
to modernization of airspace management, which has been nicknamed
NextGen. "The Administration's NextGen Financing Reform Act, sent
to Congress in February, will provide a stable, cost-based revenue
stream to fund the transition to NextGen," the fact sheet reads.
"The current tax system expires Sept. 30, so Congress must act
now." Without airspace modernization, the fact sheet warns, the
system "will reach gridlock by 2015."
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/865-full.html#195188
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


So it would appear that NextGen ATC privatization is necessary for the
airlines:


http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=8807
Fact Sheet
For Immediate Release
May 10, 2007


A System Under Stress: Aviation Congestion
The Problem:
Snapshot of Aviation Delays
The air transportation system is stretched thin. Currently, the
system handles 750 million passengers each year. We expect this
number to reach one billion by 2015 and forecasts indicate
increases in demand ranging from a factor of two to three by 2025.
The current system is already straining and will reach gridlock by
2015 if we fail to act. Passengers will experience ever-increasing
levels of congestion unless the air transportation system is
fundamentally transformed.

The percentage of on-time arrivals at the nation’s busiest
airports has steadily declined each year since 2002, when 82
percent of flights arrived on-time at the 35 busiest airports. In
2006 the on-time arrival rate at those airports fell to 75
percent.

Delays in 2006 were the worst in history. Passengers at the three
most delayed airports in the nation — Newark, JFK and LaGuardia —
experienced on-time arrivals roughly 65 percent of the time and
delays averaged one hour. That is unacceptable.

The National Vision: Reduce Delays, Eliminate Congestion
The FAA works to reduce delays and eliminate congestion every day,
starting literally from the ground up. The President’s goal is
simple and direct: get people and goods where they need to go as
quickly and efficiently as possible.

We are building new runways, installing new technology, and
putting new procedures in place to facilitate capacity and
efficiency enhancements.

To combat aviation congestion, the Department’s strategy calls for
major technology upgrades and capacity improvement projects at
major airports, all while managing congestion at key hot spots,
such as New York’s LaGuardia Airport.

We're Making Progress. Here’s How:
On the Ground: Enhanced Airport Capacity
Since 2001, we have built 10 miles of new runways at 10 of our
busiest airports.1 Together these accommodate over 1.6 million
more operations per year and decrease average delay per operation
at these airports by approximately 5 minutes.

By 2010, new projects will be completed at Boston, Philadelphia,
Los Angeles, Seattle-Tacoma, O’Hare, Dulles and Charlotte.

In the Air: The Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen)

As air travel demand continues to rise, and it will, simply adding
pavement to the existing airports will not be enough.

The current air traffic system was built on 1960’s technology and
has reached the limits of its ability to handle more traffic. It
cannot be expanded. NextGen is a revolutionary approach that will
enable us to handle up to three times today’s traffic levels.

NextGen is a long-term transformation of our nation’s air
transportation system. It will use technologies such as
satellite-based navigation, surveillance, and networking. We are
setting the stage to develop an air transportation system that
will be safe, able to meet growing demand, and responsive to
evolving business models.

Aviation’s ability to continue to play its traditionally dynamic
role in our economy will be substantially diminished unless new
NextGen technology and procedures are put in to place now.

NextGen is not only necessary to accommodate increased levels of
commercial travel, but also to meet the growth in new types of air
travel that are taking the skies. We are expecting a surge in
traffic from a new generation aircraft called Very Light Jets
(VLJs). These high-performance jets are inexpensive and will be
able to land just about anywhere. Commercial Space is another new
market well under way that the must be accommodated in our air
transportation system.

The Administration’s NextGen Financing Reform Act, sent to
Congress in February, will provide a stable, cost-based revenue
stream to fund the transition to NextGen.

The current tax system expires September 30, however, so Congress
must act now.
---------------

1 Detroit, Cleveland, Denver, Miami, Houston, Orlando
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky, St. Louis and
Atlanta.

###






On Sat, 12 May 2007 15:15:18 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in >:

>So the FAA wants to remove Congressional oversight as a condition of
>implementing NextGen ATC privatization. Given the current poor
>performance of LocMart's AFSS privatization, hopefully Congress will
>see the light.
>
> CONGRESS TOLD FAA LACKS ROAD MAP FOR NEXTGEN
>
> The FAA says that the current national airspace system won't be
> able to handle the expected tripling of air traffic by 2025, and
> there's generally no disagreement among stakeholders about the
> need for ATC modernization. But it is how we get there that is the
> big problem. In opening statements before a hearing Wednesday
> morning on ATC modernization, House Subcommittee on Aviation
> Chairman Jerry Costello, D-Ill., brought up the FAA's poor track
> record of previous ATC modernization projects and promptly added
> that "vigorous congressional oversight" will be needed for
> NextGen. DOT Inspector General Calvin Scovel testified
>
>(http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/Actions_Needed_to_Reduce_Risk_with__NextGen_w-508_FINAL.pdf)
>that NextGen is a "high-risk effort" that will "involve
> billion-dollar investments by both the government and airspace
> users." During questioning, he submitted that the FAA and Joint
> Planning Development Office (JPDO) need to have a detailed R&D
> plan developed before Congress can properly appropriate funding
> for ATC modernization.
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/863-full.html#195171
>
>On Fri, 04 May 2007 17:12:04 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote in >:
>
>>
>>
>>It looks like the airlines are getting panicky over the threat of
>>smaller air carriers' ability to provide good service to smaller
>>airports:
>>
>>
>>FAA REAUTHORIZATION: NEW BILL IN PLAY
>>
>>With the FAA's proposal to restructure the way it's financed facing a
>>broad array of opposition, Sens. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and Trent
>>Lott, R-Miss., have come up with their own solution, The Hill
>>(http://thehill.com/business--lobby/rockefeller-lott-bill-seeks-to-lighten-burden-on-airlines-2007-05-01.html)
>>reported on Tuesday. Their bill is expected to be introduced in the
>>Senate later this week. It exempts piston-driven aircraft from user
>>fees and new taxes, but would shift a considerable share of costs off
>>the airlines and onto smaller turbine aircraft. The Alliance for
>>Aviation Across America (http://aviationacrossamerica.org/), a
>>recently formed alliance of groups opposed to user fees, has already
>>expressed "grave concerns" about the new bill.
>>http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/859-full.html#195121
>>
>>
>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:45:17 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>>wrote in >:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Don't be fooled by the Divide And Conquer strategy of the pro ATC
>>>privatization crowed. How long do you think piston aircraft will
>>>remain exempt? Is there going to be a non-negotiable guarantee, that
>>>once ATC is privatized, piston aircraft will REMAIN exempt from user
>>>fees? I have heard no mention of such a guarantee.
>>>
>>>It is definitely what is not mentioned by the FAA that is most
>>>troubling. Funding this privatized NextGen ATC user fee system will
>>>require both the NextGen and current ATC systems to be funded
>>>simultaneously for years (decades?) until the existing ATC system is
>>>deactivated. That's bad enough, but the privatization proponents are
>>>demanding that the current Congressional oversight of FAA spending be
>>>removed, so they'll have a blank check to fill their bank accounts!
>>>
>>>Don't be fooled. Privatized ATC is a big corporate aircraft
>>>manufacturer and airline boondoggle, make no mistake.
>>>
>>>Currently airliners are lined-up nightly for over a thousand miles
>>>nose-to-tail (within separation standards) all the way from Oklahoma
>>>on their way to KLAX. How many more airliners can the NAS truly
>>>accommodate? It is setting this limit, that should be the focus of
>>>this discussion.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> Eight years until grid lock:
>
>
> FAA FACT SHEET PROMOTES AVIATION USER FEES
>
> The FAA is painting a dismal picture of its own performance in an
> unvarnished attempt to gather support for its controversial
> proposed aviation user-fee funding system. In a fact sheet
> (http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=8807)
> released last week, the agency ties the funding package directly
> to modernization of airspace management, which has been nicknamed
> NextGen. "The Administration's NextGen Financing Reform Act, sent
> to Congress in February, will provide a stable, cost-based revenue
> stream to fund the transition to NextGen," the fact sheet reads.
> "The current tax system expires Sept. 30, so Congress must act
> now." Without airspace modernization, the fact sheet warns, the
> system "will reach gridlock by 2015."
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/865-full.html#195188
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their "fact sheet" doesn't mention the $150 million they are spending on
a new control tower at La Guardia! What are they making it from?
Gold=plated unobtanium?

They also don't mention that FAA Administrator Marian Blakey doesn't
even know about widespread use of GPS in aviation!

Nor do they mention that several vendors already offer systems that
perform the same functions as NEXRAD -- at a fraction of the cost and no
cost to FAA!

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> Eight years until grid lock:


Perfect. I'm six years from being eligible to bail.

[Larry Dighera]

Given this FAA justification for implementing NextGen ATC
privatization:

NextGen is not only necessary to accommodate increased levels of
commercial travel, but also to meet the growth in new types of air
travel that are taking the skies. We are expecting a surge in
traffic from a new generation aircraft called Very Light Jets
(VLJs). These high-performance jets are inexpensive and will be
able to land just about anywhere. Commercial Space is another new
market well under way that the must be accommodated in our air
transportation system.

I fail to see how VLJs specifically are an issue. Isn't it a
projected increase in the number of aircraft concurrently in the NAS
that is the perceived problem? Hell, if the thousands of BD-5s that
that charlatan-Jim had sold had actually been built, the NAS would
have reached grid lock conditions back in the '70s.

VLJs are just airplanes. What is the FAA afraid of, a massive
increase in Part 135 ops?

[Jim Stewart]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> Given this FAA justification for implementing NextGen ATC
> privatization:
>
> NextGen is not only necessary to accommodate increased levels of
> commercial travel, but also to meet the growth in new types of air
> travel that are taking the skies. We are expecting a surge in
> traffic from a new generation aircraft called Very Light Jets
> (VLJs). These high-performance jets are inexpensive and will be
> able to land just about anywhere. Commercial Space is another new
> market well under way that the must be accommodated in our air
> transportation system.
>
> I fail to see how VLJs specifically are an issue. Isn't it a
> projected increase in the number of aircraft concurrently in the NAS
> that is the perceived problem? Hell, if the thousands of BD-5s that
> that charlatan-Jim had sold had actually been built, the NAS would
> have reached grid lock conditions back in the '70s.
>
> VLJs are just airplanes. What is the FAA afraid of, a massive
> increase in Part 135 ops?

They aren't afraid of anything. They are just
using a free-market success story to justify their
spending plan. If someone paid me to write their
propaganda, I'd say the same thing. That is, if
I could stand writing propaganda....

[Larry Dighera]

More news:


SENATORS INTRODUCE ANTI-USER-FEE AMENDMENT

An amendment striking user fees from the Senate's FAA
reauthorization bill (S. 1300, introduced May 3) has yesterday
been introduced by Senators Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and John Sununu,
R-N.H. Currently, the funding bill seeks to establish a $25
per-flight user fee for turbine operations, according to NBAA.
Language in the proposed amendment would remove the call for a
per-flight user fee as part of the funding bill, and received
praise from NBAA President Ed Bolen. "The amendment introduced
today by Senators Nelson and Sununu is great news for
businesses and towns across the country," Bolen said, "The general
aviation community is deeply grateful." Bolen's organization in
particular finds the proposal of equally applied fees regressive,
citing that an international flight with 300 people aboard would
be charged equally when compared to a single turboprop flight with
four aboard serving a small rural community.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/bizav/866-full.html#195197



On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:45:17 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in >:

>
>Don't be fooled by the Divide And Conquer strategy of the pro ATC
>privatization crowed. How long do you think piston aircraft will
>remain exempt? Is there going to be a non-negotiable guarantee, that
>once ATC is privatized, piston aircraft will REMAIN exempt from user
>fees? I have heard no mention of such a guarantee.
>
>It is definitely what is not mentioned by the FAA that is most
>troubling. Funding this privatized NextGen ATC user fee system will
>require both the NextGen and current ATC systems to be funded
>simultaneously for years (decades?) until the existing ATC system is
>deactivated. That's bad enough, but the privatization proponents are
>demanding that the current Congressional oversight of FAA spending be
>removed, so they'll have a blank check to fill their bank accounts!
>
>Don't be fooled. Privatized ATC is a big corporate aircraft
>manufacturer and airline boondoggle, make no mistake.
>
>Currently airliners are lined-up nightly for over a thousand miles
>nose-to-tail (within separation standards) all the way from Oklahoma
>on their way to KLAX. How many more airliners can the NAS truly
>accommodate? It is setting this limit, that should be the focus of
>this discussion.
>
>
>
>Read all about the FAA's double-speak:
>
>FAA MYTHBUSTING -- SHOULD GA WORRY ABOUT USER FEES?
>(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/851-full.html#195009)
>Would the FAA's proposed new funding structure force general aviation
>to pay more than its fair share of the FAA's costs? According to the
>FAA, that's a "myth." At an "Ask The FAA" session at the Sun 'n Fun
>Fly-In in Lakeland, Fla., on Friday, the FAA answered questions about
>user fees and distributed a "fact sheet" that explains the effects of
>its proposed financing changes on general aviation. The "facts,"
>according to the FAA, are that GA currently drives about 16 percent of
>the expense of the air traffic system, but pays only 3 percent of the
>cost. The proposed changes would raise that percentage to 11 percent,
>with only 1 percent coming from piston-aircraft users. It's also a
>myth, says the FAA, that the airlines drive the cost of the
>infrastructure, while GA is only a marginal user. The FAA says it has
>taken those factors into account in its cost analyses. Will the
>proposed tax increases "ruin" GA in the U.S.? No, says the FAA. The
>increased cost would work out to about $500 per year for most piston
>fliers, according to the fact sheet.
>http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/851-full.html#195009
>
>USER FEE COMPROMISE IN THE WORKS
>(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/851-full.html#195007)
>Capitol Hill pundits are predicting the compromise on general aviation
>user fees that will be sent to Congress will spare the piston crowd
>any increases, but sock business aviation with charges for their use
>of the airspace. (Hear what Cessna chairman, CEO and president Jack
>Pelton has to say about aviation user fees
>(/other/JackPelton_UserFees_2007-04-20.mp3). [3.3MB mp3]) A story in
>The Hill earlier this week quoted unnamed sources as presenting this
>scenario. "The piston thing is not going to happen," the source told
>The Hill. "I do think there's significant traction on the whole issue
>of corporate aircraft." The story also quotes an internal Air
>Transport Association memo as conceding that the statistics it has
>widely used to support the airlines' position on user fees are
>somewhat skewed. The ATA, the strongest proponent of user fees, has
>publicly claimed that U.S. airlines pay 95 percent of non-general-fund
>contributions to the FAA's trust fund through ticket taxes, but The
>Hill says the internal memo admits that the airline portion is more
>like 74 percent, with cargo companies and foreign airlines picking up
>the difference. Meanwhile, there's a furor north of the border as Nav
>Canada has singled out very light jets for inclusion in its second
>tier (more than 6,600 pounds mtow) of charges.
>http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/851-full.html#195007

[Jose]

I'd like to see a user fee system for car travel. See how that flies.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 18 May 2007 04:04:01 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>I'd like to see a user fee system for car travel. See how that flies.

Highway privatization is on the rise:

http://www.slate.com/id/2138950/
Lost Highway
The foolish plan to sell American toll roads to foreign companies.
By Daniel Gross
Posted Wednesday, March 29, 2006, at 4:56 PM ET
For rent: U.S. toll booths

If a governor told you there were a way to spread pork, raise
funds for infrastructure investment, promote jobs, avoid raising
taxes, and put a dent in the trade deficit—all in one fell
swoop—you might think he had a bridge to sell you. And you'd be
right. Only in this case, it's a toll road. And instead of a sale,
how about a long-term lease?
...
What's in it for the foreign companies? Huge potential profits.
Gigantic, steady profits. Toll roads are an incredible asset
class. They're often monopolies. They can support debt, since they
provide a recurring guaranteed revenue stream that is likely to
rise over time, as more people take to the roads and tolls
increase. According to Cintra, the Indiana Toll Road generated $96
million in revenues in 2005, and Cintra expects a 12.5 percent
internal rate of return on its investment. The heavy lifting has
already been done: The state or federal governments have acquired
the land and rights of way, built the roads and maintained them
for years, and enacted toll increases. All the private companies
have to do is deliver cash upfront, maintain the roads, and
collect the windfall. The buyers can also increase their profits
by making toll roads run more efficiently with technology. After
assuming control of the Chicago Skyway, the Cintra-Macquarie
consortium installed electronic toll equipment on some lanes. And
by refinancing nimbly, companies can cash out. Last year—just
seven months into its 99-year lease—Cintra announced that it had
recovered 44 percent of its initial investment in the Chicago road
through refinancing.






http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/135
House Committee chairs Oberstar & DeFazio warn states against bad
toll concessions
Posted Mon, 2007-05-14 21:52
concessions politics
James Oberstar and Pete DeFazio (Ob & Faz) chairmen of the House
of Representatives transport committee and a subcommittee
respectively don't want the states entering into bad toll
concessions. The committee chairmen begin a letter they say is
going to state governors, legislators, and transportation
officials: "We write to strongly discourage you from entering into
public-private partnership ("PPP") agreements that are not in the
long-term public interest in a safe, integrated national
transportation system that can meet the needs of the 21st
Century."

Proposed arrangements don't adequately protect public interest

The letter, says Bush officials "have lauded PPPs at every turn"
but the house transport committee "believes that many of the
arrangements that have been proposed do not adequately protect the
public interest."

"Shortsighted and unbalanced PPPs that mortgage our nation's
surface transportation structure for generations to come may favor
parochial and private interests to the detriment of an improved
21st century national transportation system," they say.



http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/about/toll/status.htm

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:
> I'd like to see a user fee system for car travel. See how that flies.
>
> Jose

We've had that for decades already. It is called a toll road. We have
several here in the northeast and more on the way. Also, cities like
London are already charging "congestion" fees for driving a car in
certain areas of the city at certain times. It is expected to spread to
the USA soon. Also, there is a move underway to sell public
infrastructure such as roads and bridges to private concerns where these
would become toll based.

So, it is already happening and is picking up steam.

Matt

[Jose]

>>I'd like to see a user fee system for car travel. See how that flies.
> Highway privatization is on the rise:
> http://www.slate.com/id/2138950/

Gee, maybe I ought to get in on this! I say let's get the r.a.p people
together and buy the DC Beltway.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[gatt]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Jose wrote:
>> I'd like to see a user fee system for car travel. See how that flies.

> We've had that for decades already. It is called a toll road. We have
> several here in the northeast and more on the way. Also, cities like
> London are already charging "congestion" fees for driving a car in certain
> areas of the city at certain times. It is expected to spread to the USA
> soon. Also, there is a move underway to sell public infrastructure such
> as roads and bridges to private concerns where these would become toll
> based.


If you criticize it, you're likely to be called a socialist.

-c

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 18 May 2007 07:42:53 -0700, "gatt"
> wrote in
>:

>
>If you criticize it, you're likely to be called a socialist.

If you don't, you're likely to see US infrastructure owned by a Dubai
corporation.

[gatt]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 18 May 2007 07:42:53 -0700, "gatt"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>
>>If you criticize it, you're likely to be called a socialist.
>
> If you don't, you're likely to see US infrastructure owned by a Dubai
> corporation.

I agree. What bothers me about the idea of privately-owned toll roads,
bridges, etc is that the emphasis switches from optimum traffic flow to
optimum revenue flow. There's not a whole lot of room for competition:
IE, Burger King can't build a bridge and exchange right next to McDonald's
Bridge and offer a lower price. If there's gridlock, so what? The owner
still gets his toll and still wants as much traffic density as possible.
Potholes? Too bad. More wrecks, slower traffic... caveat emptor, but what
else are you going to do if there's a monopoly on the I-5 bridge between
Oregon and Washington?

After what Enron did to the west coast and Portland General Electric and its
customers, nope. I can't support it. We're still paying jacked-up energy
rates to unscrew the damage.

-c

[Jose]

> I agree. What bothers me about the idea of privately-owned toll roads,
> bridges, etc is that the emphasis switches from optimum traffic flow to
> optimum revenue flow.

Further, control of traffic flow can easily be used as a weapon.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jose wrote:
>> I agree. What bothers me about the idea of privately-owned toll
>> roads, bridges, etc is that the emphasis switches from optimum
>> traffic flow to optimum revenue flow.
>
> Further, control of traffic flow can easily be used as a weapon.
>
> Jose

And a real weapon can be used to remove the control on the traffic flow.

[Jose]

> And a real weapon can be used to remove the control on the traffic flow.

Well, maybe not. Suppose it's as simple as control over traffic lights
(with an EZPass type device to sense cars and extract payment)... the
computer system to control them is probably networked and spread out all
over Saudi Arabia, and the lights themselves are quite numerous. Take
out the lights and you have gridlock.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven Barnes]

Well, the automobile "gas tax" seems to be going well...

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> I'd like to see a user fee system for car travel. See how that flies.
>
> Jose
> --
> There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
> know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
> they push the button.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[gatt]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>> And a real weapon can be used to remove the control on the traffic flow.
>
> Well, maybe not. Suppose it's as simple as control over traffic lights
> (with an EZPass type device to sense cars and extract payment)... the
> computer system to control them is probably networked and spread out all
> over Saudi Arabia, and the lights themselves are quite numerous. Take out
> the lights and you have gridlock.

I'm trying desperately to keep that song "Convoy" out of my head...

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

Jose wrote:
>> I agree. What bothers me about the idea of privately-owned toll
>> roads, bridges, etc is that the emphasis switches from optimum
>> traffic flow to optimum revenue flow.
>
> Further, control of traffic flow can easily be used as a weapon.
>

If this clueless guy's a teacher, no wonder our kids are so f*cke*d in the
head.

[Jose]

>>Further, control of traffic flow can easily be used as a weapon.
> If this clueless guy's a teacher, no wonder our kids are so f*cke*d in the
> head.

You don't think control of traffic flow can be used to the detriment of
the country by those who control it? =That's= pretty clueless. Not all
weapons are weapons of destruction.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 18 May 2007 12:03:36 -0700, "gatt"
> wrote in
>:

>What bothers me about the idea of privately-owned toll roads,
>bridges, etc is that the emphasis switches from optimum traffic flow to
>optimum revenue flow.

What gives you the idea that the current emphasis of non-toll roads is
not revenue flow?

[Jose]

> What gives you the idea that the current emphasis of non-toll roads is
> not revenue flow?

The lack of a direct, or even a non-convoluted connection between
revenue flow =to= the controlling authority, and traffic conditions.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 19 May 2007 21:17:20 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>> What gives you the idea that the current emphasis of non-toll roads is
>> not revenue flow?
>
>The lack of a direct, or even a non-convoluted connection between
>revenue flow =to= the controlling authority, and traffic conditions.
>

Rest assured that traffic laws enable LEOs to generate quite a fat
revenue stream. If that weren't their intent, they'd show themselves
conspicuously on the highway, not hide behind "billboards" with there
invisible LIDAR guns.

[Matt Whiting]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2007 21:17:20 GMT, Jose >
> wrote in >:
>
>>> What gives you the idea that the current emphasis of non-toll roads is
>>> not revenue flow?
>> The lack of a direct, or even a non-convoluted connection between
>> revenue flow =to= the controlling authority, and traffic conditions.
>>
>
> Rest assured that traffic laws enable LEOs to generate quite a fat
> revenue stream. If that weren't their intent, they'd show themselves
> conspicuously on the highway, not hide behind "billboards" with there
> invisible LIDAR guns.

I don't think revenue generation is the main reason for this. The
reason is to try to get people to obey the law ALL of the time, not just
when the cops are visible. If you know they will always be visible,
then human nature generally is to only obey the law when you see the
cop. If you know that they may be hiding anywhere, there is much more
incentive to drive sanely and obey the law ALL of the time rather than
just when you see the cop car.


Matt

[Tri-Pacer]

>>>
>>
>> Rest assured that traffic laws enable LEOs to generate quite a fat
>> revenue stream. If that weren't their intent, they'd show themselves
>> conspicuously on the highway, not hide behind "billboards" with there
>> invisible LIDAR guns.




>
> I don't think revenue generation is the main reason for this. The reason
> is to try to get people to obey the law ALL of the time, not just when the
> cops are visible. If you know they will always be visible, then human
> nature generally is to only obey the law when you see the cop. If you
> know that they may be hiding anywhere, there is much more incentive to
> drive sanely and obey the law ALL of the time rather than just when you
> see the cop car.
>
>


Some years back I worked for a company that did sales and warranty work for
Kustom Signal, a major producers of high end traffic radars.

When the PD was told it would take a week or two to get their radar back I
was generally hit up for a loaner. The reason given for needing a loaner was
always revenue loss----NEVER traffic safety.

Cheers:

Paul
N1431A

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Tri-Pacer" > wrote

> When the PD was told it would take a week or two to get their radar back I
> was generally hit up for a loaner. The reason given for needing a loaner
> was always revenue loss----NEVER traffic safety.

In my town, there are two cars that only work traffic, as in tickets for
speeding and parking.

As long as the PD department does not lay them off, stop paying benefits,
and stop paying for the cars, the revenue is needed.

If they did not mind, and were able to stop paying for all of those things,
the revenue of having the working radar would not be needed.

The argument of whether there should be radars being run for public safety
is a different issue.
--
Jim in NC

[Jose]

> Rest assured that traffic laws enable LEOs to generate quite a fat
> revenue stream.

This may be true, but at least they are -our- laws. We can change them
if we want. If the traffic laws were written by Saudi Arabia, that
would be more difficult.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

Isn't it just a bit presumptuous for Blakey to rally support for
NextGen ATC privatization in the face of Congressional resistance to
it?


MEXICO, CANADA JOIN ATC NEXTGEN EFFORT

Mexico and Canada have agreed to implement the FAA's vision for
the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NGATS) in concert
with the U.S. to create a seamless continent-wide, space-based air
traffic management system. At a North American Aviation Trilateral
meeting in Quebec last week, all three nations agreed to proceed
with implementation of required navigation performance (RNP), RNAV
and ADS-B technologies in an integrated way so that procedures and
standards will be harmonized over North America. The primary goal
of the NextGen technology is to increase system capacity but, in a
speech
(http://www.faa.gov/news/speeches/news_story.cfm?newsId=8868)
during the meeting, FAA Administrator Marion Blakey said there are
also environmental and financial benefits attached.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/869-full.html#195229

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:45:17 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in >:

>
>Don't be fooled by the Divide And Conquer strategy of the pro ATC
>privatization crowed. How long do you think piston aircraft will
>remain exempt? Is there going to be a non-negotiable guarantee, that
>once ATC is privatized, piston aircraft will REMAIN exempt from user
>fees? I have heard no mention of such a guarantee.
>
>It is definitely what is not mentioned by the FAA that is most
>troubling. Funding this privatized NextGen ATC user fee system will
>require both the NextGen and current ATC systems to be funded
>simultaneously for years (decades?) until the existing ATC system is
>deactivated. That's bad enough, but the privatization proponents are
>demanding that the current Congressional oversight of FAA spending be
>removed, so they'll have a blank check to fill their bank accounts!
>
>Don't be fooled. Privatized ATC is a big corporate aircraft
>manufacturer and airline boondoggle, make no mistake.
>
>Currently airliners are lined-up nightly for over a thousand miles
>nose-to-tail (within separation standards) all the way from Oklahoma
>on their way to KLAX. How many more airliners can the NAS truly
>accommodate? It is setting this limit, that should be the focus of
>this discussion.
>
>
>
>Read all about the FAA's double-speak:
>
>FAA MYTHBUSTING -- SHOULD GA WORRY ABOUT USER FEES?
>(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/851-full.html#195009)
>Would the FAA's proposed new funding structure force general aviation
>to pay more than its fair share of the FAA's costs? According to the
>FAA, that's a "myth." At an "Ask The FAA" session at the Sun 'n Fun
>Fly-In in Lakeland, Fla., on Friday, the FAA answered questions about
>user fees and distributed a "fact sheet" that explains the effects of
>its proposed financing changes on general aviation. The "facts,"
>according to the FAA, are that GA currently drives about 16 percent of
>the expense of the air traffic system, but pays only 3 percent of the
>cost. The proposed changes would raise that percentage to 11 percent,
>with only 1 percent coming from piston-aircraft users. It's also a
>myth, says the FAA, that the airlines drive the cost of the
>infrastructure, while GA is only a marginal user. The FAA says it has
>taken those factors into account in its cost analyses. Will the
>proposed tax increases "ruin" GA in the U.S.? No, says the FAA. The
>increased cost would work out to about $500 per year for most piston
>fliers, according to the fact sheet.
>http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/851-full.html#195009
>
>USER FEE COMPROMISE IN THE WORKS
>(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/851-full.html#195007)
>Capitol Hill pundits are predicting the compromise on general aviation
>user fees that will be sent to Congress will spare the piston crowd
>any increases, but sock business aviation with charges for their use
>of the airspace. (Hear what Cessna chairman, CEO and president Jack
>Pelton has to say about aviation user fees
>(/other/JackPelton_UserFees_2007-04-20.mp3). [3.3MB mp3]) A story in
>The Hill earlier this week quoted unnamed sources as presenting this
>scenario. "The piston thing is not going to happen," the source told
>The Hill. "I do think there's significant traction on the whole issue
>of corporate aircraft." The story also quotes an internal Air
>Transport Association memo as conceding that the statistics it has
>widely used to support the airlines' position on user fees are
>somewhat skewed. The ATA, the strongest proponent of user fees, has
>publicly claimed that U.S. airlines pay 95 percent of non-general-fund
>contributions to the FAA's trust fund through ticket taxes, but The
>Hill says the internal memo admits that the airline portion is more
>like 74 percent, with cargo companies and foreign airlines picking up
>the difference. Meanwhile, there's a furor north of the border as Nav
>Canada has singled out very light jets for inclusion in its second
>tier (more than 6,600 pounds mtow) of charges.
>http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/851-full.html#195007

[Larry Dighera]

If the Senate bill imposes user fees without a guarantee of
perpetually exempting GA from them, it is surely a Trojan Horse that
paves the way for GA user fees:


GA VERSUS AIRLINES AT AERO CLUB USER-FEE DEBATE

AOPA President Phil Boyer faced off with James May of the Air
Transport Association (ATA) on Tuesday at the Washington, D.C.,
Aero Club in a debate about the pending FAA reauthorization
legislation. May questioned why Boyer was opposing the Senate bill
that would require a $25 user fee for turbine aircraft flying in
the IFR system and exempt piston aircraft. "Our only concern is
the introduction of a user fee to any segment of aviation, whether
it be $5 or $25," said Boyer. "Even if it were just the airlines
[paying user fees], to put that structure in place would be a
slippery slope." May said he is fine with exempting piston
aircraft. "My beef quite frankly is with the corporate jets. I'm
just trying to find a little balance from some folks who can
easily afford to pay their fair share."
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/872-full.html#195264

On Wed, 23 May 2007 16:45:08 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in >:

>
>Isn't it just a bit presumptuous for Blakey to rally support for
>NextGen ATC privatization in the face of Congressional resistance to
>it?
>
>
> MEXICO, CANADA JOIN ATC NEXTGEN EFFORT
>
> Mexico and Canada have agreed to implement the FAA's vision for
> the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NGATS) in concert
> with the U.S. to create a seamless continent-wide, space-based air
> traffic management system. At a North American Aviation Trilateral
> meeting in Quebec last week, all three nations agreed to proceed
> with implementation of required navigation performance (RNP), RNAV
> and ADS-B technologies in an integrated way so that procedures and
>standards will be harmonized over North America. The primary goal
> of the NextGen technology is to increase system capacity but, in a
> speech
> (http://www.faa.gov/news/speeches/news_story.cfm?newsId=8868)
> during the meeting, FAA Administrator Marion Blakey said there are
> also environmental and financial benefits attached.
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/869-full.html#195229
>
>On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:45:17 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote in >:
>
>>
>>Don't be fooled by the Divide And Conquer strategy of the pro ATC
>>privatization crowed. How long do you think piston aircraft will
>>remain exempt? Is there going to be a non-negotiable guarantee, that
>>once ATC is privatized, piston aircraft will REMAIN exempt from user
>>fees? I have heard no mention of such a guarantee.
>>
>>It is definitely what is not mentioned by the FAA that is most
>>troubling. Funding this privatized NextGen ATC user fee system will
>>require both the NextGen and current ATC systems to be funded
>>simultaneously for years (decades?) until the existing ATC system is
>>deactivated. That's bad enough, but the privatization proponents are
>>demanding that the current Congressional oversight of FAA spending be
>>removed, so they'll have a blank check to fill their bank accounts!
>>
>>Don't be fooled. Privatized ATC is a big corporate aircraft
>>manufacturer and airline boondoggle, make no mistake.
>>
>>Currently airliners are lined-up nightly for over a thousand miles
>>nose-to-tail (within separation standards) all the way from Oklahoma
>>on their way to KLAX. How many more airliners can the NAS truly
>>accommodate? It is setting this limit, that should be the focus of
>>this discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>>Read all about the FAA's double-speak:
>>
>>FAA MYTHBUSTING -- SHOULD GA WORRY ABOUT USER FEES?
>>(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/851-full.html#195009)
>>Would the FAA's proposed new funding structure force general aviation
>>to pay more than its fair share of the FAA's costs? According to the
>>FAA, that's a "myth." At an "Ask The FAA" session at the Sun 'n Fun
>>Fly-In in Lakeland, Fla., on Friday, the FAA answered questions about
>>user fees and distributed a "fact sheet" that explains the effects of
>>its proposed financing changes on general aviation. The "facts,"
>>according to the FAA, are that GA currently drives about 16 percent of
>>the expense of the air traffic system, but pays only 3 percent of the
>>cost. The proposed changes would raise that percentage to 11 percent,
>>with only 1 percent coming from piston-aircraft users. It's also a
>>myth, says the FAA, that the airlines drive the cost of the
>>infrastructure, while GA is only a marginal user. The FAA says it has
>>taken those factors into account in its cost analyses. Will the
>>proposed tax increases "ruin" GA in the U.S.? No, says the FAA. The
>>increased cost would work out to about $500 per year for most piston
>>fliers, according to the fact sheet.
>>http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/851-full.html#195009
>>
>>USER FEE COMPROMISE IN THE WORKS
>>(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/851-full.html#195007)
>>Capitol Hill pundits are predicting the compromise on general aviation
>>user fees that will be sent to Congress will spare the piston crowd
>>any increases, but sock business aviation with charges for their use
>>of the airspace. (Hear what Cessna chairman, CEO and president Jack
>>Pelton has to say about aviation user fees
>>(/other/JackPelton_UserFees_2007-04-20.mp3). [3.3MB mp3]) A story in
>>The Hill earlier this week quoted unnamed sources as presenting this
>>scenario. "The piston thing is not going to happen," the source told
>>The Hill. "I do think there's significant traction on the whole issue
>>of corporate aircraft." The story also quotes an internal Air
>>Transport Association memo as conceding that the statistics it has
>>widely used to support the airlines' position on user fees are
>>somewhat skewed. The ATA, the strongest proponent of user fees, has
>>publicly claimed that U.S. airlines pay 95 percent of non-general-fund
>>contributions to the FAA's trust fund through ticket taxes, but The
>>Hill says the internal memo admits that the airline portion is more
>>like 74 percent, with cargo companies and foreign airlines picking up
>>the difference. Meanwhile, there's a furor north of the border as Nav
>>Canada has singled out very light jets for inclusion in its second
>>tier (more than 6,600 pounds mtow) of charges.
>>http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/851-full.html#195007