Senators still demand user fees

[Peter Clark]

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070712senate.html

[kontiki]

The United States Senate is a disgrace. The vast majority of
them are career politicians... old _farts_ that haven't ever
held a real job in their life.

It's disgusting that such a once great country is so often
held hostage by this treasonous bunch of wothrless blowhards.
They should be all terminated. Lets get some qualified honets
Americans in there make some good statesman-like decisions
for a change.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:56:15 -0400, Peter Clark
> wrote in
>:

>http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070712senate.html


Bloody hypocrites:

"Commercial airline passengers shouldn't continue to subsidize
corporate jets," said aviation subcommittee Chairman John D.
Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) during a Senate Finance Committee hearing.
"If we don't restore equity, then as chairman of this aviation
subcommittee, I will address the equity issue by looking for ways
to limit general aviation access to congested airspace."

And while neither Rockefeller nor Lott mentioned that S.1300 would
eliminate the 4.3 cents per gallon fuel tax the airlines currently
pay, it didn't slip past Roberts or Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.)

"I don't think that giving the airlines a tax break is the best
way to start modernization," said Roberts.

Sen. Bingaman questioned, with all that the FAA was trying to
accomplish, "why would you eliminate the fuel tax on the
airlines?"

And while Sen. Lott chastised most of the aviation community for
being unwilling to pay more, Sen. Roberts said that wasn't the
case for GA.

"The general aviation community is not unreceptive to an increase
in the gas tax," said Roberts. "They're for modernization as
well."

[Blueskies]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:56:15 -0400, Peter Clark
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070712senate.html
>
>
> Bloody hypocrites:
>
> "Commercial airline passengers shouldn't continue to subsidize
> corporate jets," said aviation subcommittee Chairman John D.
> Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) during a Senate Finance Committee hearing.
> "If we don't restore equity, then as chairman of this aviation
> subcommittee, I will address the equity issue by looking for ways
> to limit general aviation access to congested airspace."
>
> And while neither Rockefeller nor Lott mentioned that S.1300 would
> eliminate the 4.3 cents per gallon fuel tax the airlines currently
> pay, it didn't slip past Roberts or Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.)
>
> "I don't think that giving the airlines a tax break is the best
> way to start modernization," said Roberts.
>
> Sen. Bingaman questioned, with all that the FAA was trying to
> accomplish, "why would you eliminate the fuel tax on the
> airlines?"
>
> And while Sen. Lott chastised most of the aviation community for
> being unwilling to pay more, Sen. Roberts said that wasn't the
> case for GA.
>
> "The general aviation community is not unreceptive to an increase
> in the gas tax," said Roberts. "They're for modernization as
> well."
>
>


UPS has paid for ADS-B setups in many of their planes and they are already reaping the benefits of the reduced fuel
consumption, etc. There is no reason the other majors cannot do their own modernization also.

Most of the ADS-B requires very little FAA ATC and puts control with the flight crew. I for one am NOT willing to give
more taxes to the bureaucracy to they can blow it all on some boondoggle 'modernization' system. We do not need more
traffic controllers, we need more airports in more cities to relieve the congestion at the major hubs. ABS-B should be
implemented now, not later, and except for the equipment cost in the airplane, it can be basically cost free...

[TheSmokingGnu]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> Bloody hypocrites:
>
> "Commercial airline passengers shouldn't continue to subsidize
> corporate jets,"

Given that commercial passengers are now paying less, equivalently
speaking, than they ever have before, yes, yes they should continue to
subsidize corporate jets.

> "If we don't restore equity, then as chairman of this aviation
> subcommittee, I will address the equity issue by looking for ways
> to limit general aviation access to congested airspace."

"If we can't make sure that the dinosaurs maintain their monopolies on
the routes and airports, then we will have to look for other ways of
eliminating our fertile tax base".

Do these guys even listen to themselves when they're speaking?

> S.1300 would
> eliminate the 4.3 cents per gallon fuel tax the airlines currently
> pay,

Oh yes, I must have forgotten that day in economics where eliminating
the tax on your LARGEST consumers, and placing the burgeoning debt on
the SMALLEST contingent fixes all of your budget concerns.

> "The general aviation community is not unreceptive to an increase
> in the gas tax," said Roberts. "They're for modernization as
> well."

If by "modernization" they mean "pay more and fly less", then ****
modernization. The system works now. Just because the big airlines find
themselves consistently outpaced by smaller and newer competitors
doesn't make the best solution taxation of a community admittedly unable
or unwilling to pay. Southwest and the other regionals continue to
happily do business while the government spends millions bailing out the
dinosaurs, and the whole absurd ruckus rolls on.

Ridiculous, it is.

TheSmokingGnu

[ktbr]

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, kontiki > posted:
>
>
>>The United States Senate is a disgrace. The vast majority of
>>them are career politicians... old _farts_ that haven't ever
>>held a real job in their life.
>>
>>It's disgusting that such a once great country is so often
>>held hostage by this treasonous bunch of wothrless blowhards.
>>They should be all terminated. Lets get some qualified honets
>>Americans in there make some good statesman-like decisions
>>for a change.
>>
>
> Don't you find it at least curious that the straight-talking, honest
> politicians are those considered non-contenders for higher office?
>
> Neil
>

Yup... you have to a slick talking panderer who never answers a
direct question. I think that characteristic is mandatory entrance
requirement for the Senate.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, kontiki > posted:

> The United States Senate is a disgrace. The vast majority of
> them are career politicians... old _farts_ that haven't ever
> held a real job in their life.
>
> It's disgusting that such a once great country is so often
> held hostage by this treasonous bunch of wothrless blowhards.
> They should be all terminated. Lets get some qualified honets
> Americans in there make some good statesman-like decisions
> for a change.
>
Don't you find it at least curious that the straight-talking, honest
politicians are those considered non-contenders for higher office?

Neil

[Jay Honeck]

> Don't you find it at least curious that the straight-talking, honest
> politicians are those considered non-contenders for higher office?

I'm trying to remember the last straight-talker in the Presidency.
Was it:

Kennedy? Nope
Johnson? Nope
Nixon? Nope
Ford? Yep - but he was appointed.
Carter? Yep -- but no one liked what he said.
Reagan? Yep -- but only if it was good news.
Bush I? Yep -- but booted after one term.
Clinton? Nope
Bush II? Yep -- but no one likes what he says.

As you can see, the straight talkers aren't very popular with the
unwashed masses. Perhaps it's because no one wants to hear the truth
from their leaders, preferring the smoothly reassuring upbeat tones of
Reagan over the lectures of Jimmy Carter?

I dunno -- but this is shaping up to be the first election in my
lifetime that I will sit on my hands rather than vote for any of
them. I've never seen a more conniving bunch of slick salespeople
running for office in my life.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

> I dunno -- but this is shaping up to be the first election in my
> lifetime that I will sit on my hands rather than vote for any of
> them. I've never seen a more conniving bunch of slick salespeople
> running for office in my life.

Montblack for President!

He's being coy, but I know he'll run if he finds out he can sit up front in
Air Force One.

--
Dan

"Did you just have a stroke and not tell me?"
-Jiminy Glick

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

>> Don't you find it at least curious that the straight-talking, honest
>> politicians are those considered non-contenders for higher office?
>
> I'm trying to remember the last straight-talker in the Presidency.
> Was it:
>
I recall Ike, and liked his no-BS, direct approach. Of course, most folks
didn't get it, which contributed strongly to where we are now w/r/t
military involvements in inappropriate ways.

> Kennedy? Nope
> Johnson? Nope
> Nixon? Nope
> Ford? Yep - but he was appointed.
> Carter? Yep -- but no one liked what he said.
> Reagan? Yep -- but only if it was good news.
> Bush I? Yep -- but booted after one term.
> Clinton? Nope
> Bush II? Yep -- but no one likes what he says.
>
> As you can see, the straight talkers aren't very popular with the
> unwashed masses.
>
Oh? And the "washed masses" feel differently? I don't think so.

> I dunno -- but this is shaping up to be the first election in my
> lifetime that I will sit on my hands rather than vote for any of
> them. I've never seen a more conniving bunch of slick salespeople
> running for office in my life.
>
Well, it seems that even you are discounting the few candidates that are
straight-talkers. If you really want such a person, then there are a few
to choose from; on the Democratic side there's Dennis Kucinich, and on the
Republican side there's Ron Paul. Both are pretty much dismissed by the
masses, washed or otherwise.

Neil

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 05:55:27 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote in om>:

>> Don't you find it at least curious that the straight-talking, honest
>> politicians are those considered non-contenders for higher office?
>
>I'm trying to remember the last straight-talker in the Presidency.
>Was it:
>
>Bush II? Yep -- but no one likes what he says.
>

Perhaps people don't like what baby Bush has to say, because of his
mendacity and bias toward big pharmaceutical companies, big oil
companies, and non-competitive contractors, not to mention his
irrational religious bias.

--


"There ought to be limits to freedom."
- George W. Bush, May, 1999


According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to
strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to
strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the
problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the
elections will come and I will have to focus on them."


"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.


"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country
and our people, and neither do we." - George W. Bush

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"TheSmokingGnu" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ridiculous, it is.

http://www.avgroup.com/propilot_atc.pdf

http://www.reason.org/ps358.pdf

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

http://www.reason.org/ps347_business_jets_atc.pdf

It's certainly more fun, though, to listen to all the alphabet groups with a
vested interest.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Don't you find it at least curious that the straight-talking, honest
>> politicians are those considered non-contenders for higher office?
>
> I'm trying to remember the last straight-talker in the Presidency.
> Was it:
>
> Kennedy? Nope
> Johnson? Nope
> Nixon? Nope
> Ford? Yep - but he was appointed.
> Carter? Yep -- but no one liked what he said.
> Reagan? Yep -- but only if it was good news.
> Bush I? Yep -- but booted after one term.
> Clinton? Nope
> Bush II? Yep -- but no one likes what he says.
>
> As you can see, the straight talkers aren't very popular with the
> unwashed masses. Perhaps it's because no one wants to hear the truth
> from their leaders, preferring the smoothly reassuring upbeat tones of
> Reagan over the lectures of Jimmy Carter?
>
> I dunno -- but this is shaping up to be the first election in my
> lifetime that I will sit on my hands rather than vote for any of
> them. I've never seen a more conniving bunch of slick salespeople
> running for office in my life.

You should do some digging into the presidential elections in the late
1800's.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Neil Gould" wrote:

> Well, it seems that even you are discounting the few candidates that are
> straight-talkers. If you really want such a person, then there are a few
> to choose from; on the Democratic side there's Dennis Kucinich, and on the
> Republican side there's Ron Paul. Both are pretty much dismissed by the
> masses, washed or otherwise.

Both good guys, as politicians go.

Their biggest problem is that they don't toe their parties' lines. That
makes them outsiders as far as their parties are concerned, so the masses
don't hear much from them.

--
Dan

"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
-Chief Inspector Dreyfus

[Scott[_5_]]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:49:15 -0700, in rec.aviation.piloting, TheSmokingGnu
> wrote:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> Bloody hypocrites:
>> "The general aviation community is not unreceptive to an increase
>> in the gas tax," said Roberts. "They're for modernization as
>> well."
>
>If by "modernization" they mean "pay more and fly less", then ****
>modernization. The system works now. Just because the big airlines find
>themselves consistently outpaced by smaller and newer competitors
>doesn't make the best solution taxation of a community admittedly unable
>or unwilling to pay.

I've been thinking that user fees might not be a bad idea, just make sure
that those who are paying for the system are the ones who get the most
benefit from it. A flat per-gallon fuel tax that everybody pays the same
regardless of flight intent. Add an ATC/IFR fee based on souls onboard
times miles flown[1]. And all non-commercial flights are exempt.

Or have I got it all wrong again?

-Scott

[1] Any spin doctor should be able to make a hell of a case in support of
this...after all, if the airlines *really* wanted to keep their passengers
safe from harm, why wouldn't they be willing to pay for use of the system
that keeps them from crashing into each other in the air?

[Andrew Gideon]

> It's certainly more fun, though, to listen to all the alphabet groups with
> a vested interest.

You don't think those links are written by someone with a vested interest
or bias of some sort? Why else would the first article start with citing
the problem of congested airports but call that an ATC issue? That's
misdirection; simple literary dishonesty.

The second simply says essentially "there's evidence that we're right" w/o
citing any.

The third speaks to a funding problem. Yet the GAO disagrees, according
to testimony by Gerald Dillingham. Calvin Scovel of the DOT agrees with
that testimony.

The forth, in part 3, commits the same act (though admittedly it is merely
citing FAA staffers with their own biases and vested interests).

More, the fact that the airlines are apparently able to exploit this
process to try to achieve yet another tax break (despite the claimed
issue being an FAA cash shortfall) makes it clear that the process is
biased and therefore flawed (and pretty much congressional business as
usual).

- Andrew

[Jon]

On Jul 12, 8:40 pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in messagenews:9bhd93ls26d94v5llhh5ghh81jhtkg1op7@4ax .com...
> > On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:56:15 -0400, Peter Clark
> > > wrote in
> > >:
>
> >>http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070712senate.html
>
> > Bloody hypocrites:
>
> > "Commercial airline passengers shouldn't continue to subsidize
> > corporate jets," said aviation subcommittee Chairman John D.
> > Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) during a Senate Finance Committee hearing.
> > "If we don't restore equity, then as chairman of this aviation
> > subcommittee, I will address the equity issue by looking for ways
> > to limit general aviation access to congested airspace."
>
> > And while neither Rockefeller nor Lott mentioned that S.1300 would
> > eliminate the 4.3 cents per gallon fuel tax the airlines currently
> > pay, it didn't slip past Roberts or Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.)
>
> > "I don't think that giving the airlines a tax break is the best
> > way to start modernization," said Roberts.
>
> > Sen. Bingaman questioned, with all that the FAA was trying to
> > accomplish, "why would you eliminate the fuel tax on the
> > airlines?"
>
> > And while Sen. Lott chastised most of the aviation community for
> > being unwilling to pay more, Sen. Roberts said that wasn't the
> > case for GA.
>
> > "The general aviation community is not unreceptive to an increase
> > in the gas tax," said Roberts. "They're for modernization as
> > well."
>
> UPS has paid for ADS-B setups in many of their planes and they are already reaping the benefits of the reduced fuel
> consumption, etc. There is no reason the other majors cannot do their own modernization also.
>
> Most of the ADS-B requires very little FAA ATC and puts control with the flight crew. I for one am NOT willing to give
> more taxes to the bureaucracy to they can blow it all on some boondoggle 'modernization' system. We do not need more
> traffic controllers, we need more airports in more cities to relieve the congestion at the major hubs. ABS-B should be
> implemented now, not later, and except for the equipment cost in the airplane, it can be basically cost free...

My understanding is that UPS' equipage is 1090 (extended squitter)
which requires comms with the ground segment. I believe there are
still some implementations in use (East Coast) that use UAT which
supports air-to-air comms.

Regards,
Jon

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Dan Luke > posted:

> "Neil Gould" wrote:
>
>> Well, it seems that even you are discounting the few candidates that
>> are straight-talkers. If you really want such a person, then there
>> are a few to choose from; on the Democratic side there's Dennis
>> Kucinich, and on the Republican side there's Ron Paul. Both are
>> pretty much dismissed by the masses, washed or otherwise.
>
> Both good guys, as politicians go.
>
> Their biggest problem is that they don't toe their parties' lines.
> That makes them outsiders as far as their parties are concerned, so
> the masses don't hear much from them.
>
As I see it, "their biggest problem" is OUR biggest problem. Both parties
are warped beyond any practical use as far as tackling the most pertinent
issues of our time. Anyone that toes their parties' line, whether it be
Republican catering to religious radicals or Democratic notions of walking
away from the messes we created, should be rejected out of hand.

The discussion of user fees reflects an effort to maintain the status-quo,
where corporate interests trump those of the general public. The rhetoric
supporting fees exposes the disdain that politicians hold for us, as they
presume that we are too stupid to see through their ploys. Yet, the
"opposition" is too weak to force the real issues onto the table for an
honest discussion. And, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that these
same folks get re-elected.

Neil
"I've seen the enemy, and they is US" - Pogo

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
>
>> It's certainly more fun, though, to listen to all the alphabet groups
>> with
>> a vested interest.
>
> You don't think those links are written by someone with a vested interest
> or bias of some sort?

What in\terest would that be?


> Why else would the first article start with citing
> the problem of congested airports but call that an ATC issue? That's
> misdirection; simple literary dishonesty.

Maybe the fact there's no fees for landing during peak timeslots has
something to do with that? Maybe if you dig a bit you find that's a mjor
tenent of his proposal?


> The second simply says essentially "there's evidence that we're right" w/o
> citing any.

Could you poin that one out?

>
> The third speaks to a funding problem. Yet the GAO disagrees, according
> to testimony by Gerald Dillingham. Calvin Scovel of the DOT agrees with
> that testimony.


The FAA Funding Crunch--One More Time

Is there or isn't there a looming budget shortfall that could impede timely
implementation of the $20 billion NextGen system? Advocates of the status
quo-both in Congress and among the general aviation alphabet groups-say
there isn't. The FAA and others, such as your editor, maintain that there
is. The most recent round in this back and forth was a letter from the
Government Accountability Office, in response to a question from the House
Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee (www.gao.gov/new.items/d07918r.pdf).
GAO's Gerald Dillingham told the members that "the current FAA funding
structure can provide sufficient funding for NextGen-with some caveats."
Dillingham relied mostly on a projection made last fall by the Congressional
Budget Office, which projected future aviation excise tax revenues through
2016.



That, unfortunately, is an incomplete and misleading picture. I wrote about
that CBO projection last fall (issue #38), after talking with the CBO
analysts who prepared it. As I'd suspected, they did a simple projection of
the aviation tax revenues, assuming that they grow slightly faster than
inflation and GDP, based on historic relations between air travel and
economic growth. What that ignores is structural changes in air
transportation, discussed in last fall's GAO report on the same subject
(GAO-06-1114T) and in FAA's justification for its funding reform proposal. A
fundamental disconnect exists between the drivers of aviation tax revenue
(the number of passengers carried and the average ticket price) and the ATC
system's annual cost (driven by workload, based on the growth in air
traffic). As the same total number of people gets carried in more, smaller
units (RJs instead of 737s, air taxis and fractionals instead of airliners,
etc.), traffic grows faster than passengers, and therefore costs grow faster
than revenue. It is this structural disconnect that threatens the ability to
afford NextGen.



The Congressional Research Service pointed this out last fall in their
background report, "Reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration:
Background and Issues for Congress," Oct. 18, 2006. In the section on
Airport and Airway Trust Fund Issues (p. 13), CRS points out that the "FAA
sees little prospect of a major increase in revenue from the trust fund's
existing tax and fee system," and that "The FAA position is supported by the
Department of Treasury estimates that suggest that annual revenue increases
to the trust fund in the years ahead will be modest." (U.S. Treasury, Office
of Tax Analysis, "Airport and Airway Trust Fund: FY2007 Mid-Session Review,
Current Law Baseline," Summer 2006).



Status-quo defenders also like to claim that the existing aviation excise
tax structure has provided stable and predictable funding. Guess again.
What's most relevant in looking at NextGen funding is FAA's capital budget,
called "Facilities and Equipment." I went back and got F&E figures from
FY1992 through 2006 and adjusted them for inflation. Over that time period,
the real value has bounced around from a low of $2.4 billion (1998) to a
high of $3.5 billion (1992). We're also told not to worry because Congress
can always supplement FAA's budget by adding general funding. CRS looked at
that, over the period FY1997-FY2006, finding that the general fund
contribution varied enormously, from as high as 38% (1997) to as low as 0%
(2000) and 8% (2002)-not exactly stable and predictable. The DOT Office of
Inspector General has seconded this point. In a report last fall on FAA
management questions, it said that it's "extremely difficult, if not
impossible" to predict future government appropriations and general fund
contributions.



Unfortunately, although both GAO and FAA have done a good job of explaining
the "fundamental disconnect" between revenues and costs, neither has
produced a budget projection based on that disconnect. That leaves the naïve
CBO projection as the baseline for discussion-and a handy rack for defenders
of the status quo to hang their hats on.


>
> The forth, in part 3, commits the same act (though admittedly it is merely
> citing FAA staffers with their own biases and vested interests).
>
> More, the fact that the airlines are apparently able to exploit this
> process to try to achieve yet another tax break (despite the claimed
> issue being an FAA cash shortfall) makes it clear that the process is
> biased and therefore flawed (and pretty much congressional business as
> usual).

It's the airlines funding model that he explicitly rejects.

Try again.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Neil Gould" wrote:
>
>> Well, it seems that even you are discounting the few candidates that are
>> straight-talkers. If you really want such a person, then there are a few
>> to choose from; on the Democratic side there's Dennis Kucinich, and on
>> the
>> Republican side there's Ron Paul. Both are pretty much dismissed by the
>> masses, washed or otherwise.
>
> Both good guys, as politicians go.
>
> Their biggest problem is that they don't toe their parties' lines. That
> makes them outsiders as far as their parties are concerned, so the masses
> don't hear much from them.

The most Coummunistic guy in Congress and a borderline anarchist: hooo boy,
you're tastes are incredible.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:31:48 -0500, Neil Gould wrote:

> Both parties
> are warped beyond any practical use as far as tackling the most pertinent
> issues of our time.

They exist only to continue to exist.

- Andrew

[S Green]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> The United States Senate is a disgrace. The vast majority of
> them are career politicians... old _farts_ that haven't ever
> held a real job in their life.
>
> It's disgusting that such a once great country is so often
> held hostage by this treasonous bunch of wothrless blowhards.
> They should be all terminated. Lets get some qualified honets
> Americans in there make some good statesman-like decisions
> for a change.

You mean people who agree with you?

[S Green]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Don't you find it at least curious that the straight-talking, honest
>> politicians are those considered non-contenders for higher office?
>
> I'm trying to remember the last straight-talker in the Presidency.
> Was it:
>
> Kennedy? Nope
> Johnson? Nope
> Nixon? Nope
> Ford? Yep - but he was appointed.
> Carter? Yep -- but no one liked what he said.
> Reagan? Yep -- but only if it was good news.
> Bush I? Yep -- but booted after one term.
> Clinton? Nope
> Bush II? Yep -- but no one likes what he says.
Bush II a straight talker - who the hell understands what he is saying - he
is incomprehensible.

[Jim Logajan]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> I'm trying to remember the last straight-talker in the Presidency.

William Henry Harrison!

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Neil Gould" wrote:

> they presume that we are too stupid to see through their ploys.

Alas, they must presume correctly WRT the majority of "us," otherwise the
current sorry crowd would not be in office.

--
Dan

"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
-Chief Inspector Dreyfus

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:33:04 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

>> You don't think those links are written by someone with a vested
>> interest or bias of some sort?
>
> What in\terest would that be?

I've no idea. I don't care enough to learn. Willful distortion, though,
makes it clear that there's something motivating the authors away from
truth.

>
>> Why else would the first article start with citing the problem of
>> congested airports but call that an ATC issue? That's misdirection;
>> simple literary dishonesty.
>
> Maybe the fact there's no fees for landing during peak timeslots has
> something to do with that? Maybe if you dig a bit you find that's a mjor
> tenent of his proposal?

That's fine. And if he were to use that argument to push for something
like congestion pricing for landing slots, I'd have no problem with the
logic. That's not where that paper took the reasoning, however.

>
>> The second simply says essentially "there's evidence that we're right"
>> w/o citing any.
>
> Could you poin that one out?

Point out a lack of citation?

But I should have been more precise: I was referring specifically to the
claim that the lack of funding is an obstacle to ATC upgrading. The
closest thing to a citation is the claim that Blakey and Mineta have
claimed that the FAA's funding base has been "devastated". Evidence from
testimony suggests otherwise.

>
>> The third speaks to a funding problem. Yet the GAO disagrees,
>> according to testimony by Gerald Dillingham. Calvin Scovel of the DOT
>> agrees with that testimony.

[...]

It's worth reading GAO-06-1114T itself. For example, I note on page 12
that the FAA is apparently ignoring the fact that - regardless of the
services GA receives from the ATC system - the system as it exists today
exists because of commercial aviation. Did commercial aviation not exist,
the cost of GA's consumed services would be quite a bit lower.

It's easy to distort the truth as the FAA is apparently doing, simply by
speaking of that "cost of services received". It's quite similar, in
fact, to a game being played out in my local township. To fudge some
numbers, the town is pushing some services (ie. parking and sewage) onto
separate agencies. The agencies hire additional people (that weren't
needed when the town provided these services directly), and then call
these hires "costs of running the agency" that get passed on to the users.

Perhaps there are spreadsheets that can justify the cost given that the
agencies exist, but the agencies were imposed upon the users. It was a
constituent other than the users that caused this addition cost, even
those the users are getting parking and sewage services.

Put another way, the users could (and did) get those same services at
lower cost but for the decisions made for someone else's benefit. Why
should the users shoulder the additional cost?

The report does touch upon this issue again - not merely citing FAA
claims, but actually pointing them out - on pages 14 and 15.

Another issue raised by this report is equity. An example cited is that
a 767 flight contributes more than a 737 flight. From the FAA's
perspective, I see the issue. But ATC service cost is just one possible
metric for a given flight. Another is the value provided by that flight.
Assuming that there's some value in getting a person from point A to point
B, then that 767 flight does contribute more value as well. A VAT on that
value would yield more than on a 737 flight.

On a lighter note (at least I hope the authors saw the humor here; I sure
do), page 16 speaks to the "problem" that a fuel tax might encourage fuel
efficiency.

All that said, there's something I've missed. Where in that report is the
claim that the FAA will be underfunded by the current system of fuel taxes?

> What that ignores is structural
> changes in air transportation, discussed in last fall's GAO report on
> the same subject (its) and in FAA's justification for its funding reform
> proposal. A fundamental disconnect exists between the drivers of
> aviation tax revenue (the number of passengers carried and the average
> ticket price) and the ATC system's annual cost (driven by workload,
> based on the growth in air traffic). As the same total number of people
> gets carried in more, smaller units (RJs instead of 737s, air taxis and
> fractionals instead of airliners, etc.), traffic grows faster than
> passengers, and therefore costs grow faster than revenue. It is this
> structural disconnect that threatens the ability to afford NextGen.

This ignores numerous issues, and the cited GAO report makes nothing like
this strong a claim. For example, air taxis are likely to avoid the
terminal areas most congested. The same is true, albeit presumably to a
reduced degree, for any increase in RJ traffic. This pushes traffic from
the more congested areas to the less congested areas.

[...]

>> More, the fact that the airlines are apparently able to exploit this
>> process to try to achieve yet another tax break (despite the claimed
>> issue being an FAA cash shortfall) makes it clear that the process is
>> biased and therefore flawed (and pretty much congressional business as
>> usual).
>
> It's the airlines funding model that he explicitly rejects.

I'm not sure what you mean. Did you mean "airlines' funding..."? And to
which "he" are you referring? The author of those four papers? Or one of
the Senators from the origins of this thread.

The latter is to what I was referring in my paragraph above. The process
in the Senate we're witnessing is corrupted (though in the fashion to
which we've become accustomed). That paragraph wasn't addressing those
four papers, but the process which threatens to impose these fees upon us
[merely because some Senator has a donation up his ... wallet].

- Andrew

[Ken Finney]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> I'm trying to remember the last straight-talker in the Presidency.
>
> William Henry Harrison!

No, Calvin Coolidge. He never said much, though.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:33:04 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>>> You don't think those links are written by someone with a vested
>>> interest or bias of some sort?
>>
>> What in\terest would that be?
>
> I've no idea. I don't care enough to learn.

Nuff' said.

> Willful distortion, though,
> makes it clear that there's something motivating the authors away from
> truth.

Bye.

Enjoy being grounded in a few years.

[Over and out]

[kontiki]

S Green wrote:
> "kontiki" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The United States Senate is a disgrace. The vast majority of
>>them are career politicians... old _farts_ that haven't ever
>>held a real job in their life.
>>
>>It's disgusting that such a once great country is so often
>>held hostage by this treasonous bunch of wothrless blowhards.
>>They should be all terminated. Lets get some qualified honets
>>Americans in there make some good statesman-like decisions
>>for a change.
>
>
> You mean people who agree with you?
>

Well Senator Kerry, I didn't realize that you read these
newsgroups (after all, its all a bunch of peons well below
your stature as a great senator, right?) but since you asked...
as a matter of fact yes.

Get a job.

[TheSmokingGnu]

Matt Barrow wrote:
<links>
> It's certainly more fun, though, to listen to all the alphabet groups with a
> vested interest.

I read the articles, and here's what I could glean from them:

Modernization has three issues:

1. No one will give us the money to do it.
2. The FAA isn't the giant, faceless soul-eating bureaucratic monster we
thought it was.
3. No one wants our system.

That said, the ideas about delays and system capacity were interesting.
They seem to predict a nearly quadratic expansion of delay times if we
throw in just a few more planes.

The proposals need about 16 hours a year in time savings for the light
category jets to break even, of approx. 450 hours a year. That equates
to about 2.5 minutes of time savings per day. We could achieve this kind
of time saving by simply whipping the controllers vigorously until they
begin to issue clearances faster, or perhaps just at a faster vocal clip.

The 'best-case' solution (Dist-Wt, as I saw it) means an approximate
doubling of flight costs per year for a corporate operator. What this
proposal fails to factor, I think, is that much of the corporate traffic
is not fundamental, but incidental to business; corporations choose to
own and maintain their own jet because it's convenient and
cost-effective over the airlines. What kinds of contingencies are
planned when corporate traffic drops to practically nothing, and the
airlines are sitting fat and happy on their tax-less fuel?

This proposal would seem to advocate throwing wads of cash at a problem
that doesn't yet exist, while simultaneously making it nearly impossible
for an individual or entity to own or operate a private aircraft. Is the
solution to the problem of capacity simply to make all the pilots
carpool, or trust a subsidized government pocket-boy to take up the
slack? Is the solution simply to drive private citizens back to the
airlines by making GA impossible to support?

The "let's be like Canada et al." argument is used for another popular
hot-button topic: NHS. There's a reason why "if it works for them, it'll
work for us" doesn't ring true to many people: it's a crap way of doing
things. Even in spite of ourselves, practically no-one in the US doesn't
have some kind of access to health insurance, and we maintain one of the
world's best healthcare systems anyway, without yet another public
private oversight sub-committee on the Committee for Sub-Oversight of
Administration. Now, why did we want to use a foreign nation's system as
a template, again?

TheSmokingGnu

[Blueskies]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message . ..
> As I see it, "their biggest problem" is OUR biggest problem. Both parties
> are warped beyond any practical use as far as tackling the most pertinent
> issues of our time. Anyone that toes their parties' line, whether it be
> Republican catering to religious radicals or Democratic notions of walking
> away from the messes we created, should be rejected out of hand.
>
> The discussion of user fees reflects an effort to maintain the status-quo,
> where corporate interests trump those of the general public. The rhetoric
> supporting fees exposes the disdain that politicians hold for us, as they
> presume that we are too stupid to see through their ploys. Yet, the
> "opposition" is too weak to force the real issues onto the table for an
> honest discussion. And, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that these
> same folks get re-elected.
>
> Neil
> "I've seen the enemy, and they is US" - Pogo
>
>

Maybe we need to organize a big fly-in to DC somewhere, be sure it is 'advertised by the straight shooting media (gag),
and bring our point to them in person.

[kontiki]

Blueskies wrote:

>
>
> Maybe we need to organize a big fly-in to DC somewhere, be sure it is 'advertised by the straight shooting media (gag),
> and bring our point to them in person.
>
>
Now you are talking... I love the idea! Large and/or visible
dissent to their good-ol-boy, backroom wheeling and dealing
seems to be the onyt thing they listen to.

Take a look at the recent amnesty fiasco. It's been quite a
while since I sent so many emails and made so many phone calls
over that issue. They felt the pressure and could pull a fast
one on the vast majority of taxpayers on that slick deal.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:15:28 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

>
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:33:04 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>>> You don't think those links are written by someone with a vested
>>>> interest or bias of some sort?
>>>
>>> What in\terest would that be?
>>
>> I've no idea. I don't care enough to learn.
>
> Nuff' said.

Good. Take my lack of interest in why the authors distort and use it as
an excuse to leave unanswered that they do distort (and that you cite them
anyway).

How very USENET.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:19:34 -0700, TheSmokingGnu wrote:

> The proposals need about 16 hours a year in time savings for the light
> category jets to break even, of approx. 450 hours a year. That equates
> to about 2.5 minutes of time savings per day. We could achieve this kind
> of time saving by simply whipping the controllers vigorously until they
> begin to issue clearances faster, or perhaps just at a faster vocal
> clip.

Can you cite where in there you found this type of math; I've missed it.
I'm esp. curious whether the delays in question really are the result of
ATC throughput or if they're runway throughput.

[...]
> What kinds of contingencies are
> planned when corporate traffic drops to practically nothing, and the
> airlines are sitting fat and happy on their tax-less fuel?

They can't plan for that. It would show the folly/dishonesty of charging
GA the "cost of services provided". The costs would remain fixed, or
perhaps drop trivially w/o GA, while the airlines - with their new tax
breaks some Senators are trying to grant - kept the system in high use.

It would be useful, though, to show what it would take to reduce ATC
service costs. For example, how low would traffic have to drop before
(for example) NY TRACON would be able to reduce staff by merging sectors?

Admittedly, this could fall out to either side of the argument. For
example, around KCDW I rarely hear KEWR traffic (that I can recall); it's
usually just KTEB, KMMU, and the smaller fields. If GA disappeared, could
a few sectors be merged and seats be removed?

I'm not sure of my recollection, mind you. I may simply recall the KTEB
and KMMU traffic because their approaches are close to KCDW so I tend to
pay more attention to those flights on the frequency. I'd not really know
the source of a departure.

Immediately south of KCDW, come to think on it, I know I've been mixed in
with KEWR departures. So that seat/sector would remain unchanged.

I'll pay more attention next time I'm up. But this is the sort of study
that *someone* should do.

>
> This proposal would seem to advocate throwing wads of cash at a problem
> that doesn't yet exist, while simultaneously making it nearly impossible
> for an individual or entity to own or operate a private aircraft.

I continue to wonder if this isn't someone's goal. After all, all those
corporate flights are seats not sold by the airlines. I've difficulty
taking this seriously, though, as the number of GA seats just isn't
significant compared to the cattle cars currently run by the airlines.

<Heh> Perhaps this is not caused by the airlines, but by the telecoms
companies. Each GA flight is a teleconference not had <laugh>.

- Andrew

[TheSmokingGnu]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> Can you cite where in there you found this type of math; I've missed it.

In the last of the four links provided by Matt Barrow in his post,
reposted here for clarity:

http://www.reason.org/ps347_business_jets_atc.pdf

Table 5, Page 27.

To put the same math another way, the kind of savings required to break
even under the proposed costs is 1.33 hours per month. If a corporate
jet flew once every two weeks, it would have to save a combined 40
minutes a _flight_ in time under ATC just to remain at current cost levels.

> I'm esp. curious whether the delays in question really are the result of
> ATC throughput or if they're runway throughput.

The proposals thus far presented try to make the case that it is the
former, caused in large part by the wide margins necessary in a
human-controlled and administrated system. Earlier however, the
inference is made that the proposed system will prevent a hypothetical
"rationing" situation wherein flights will be given priority based on
need, indicating a problem with the latter.

In short, they have no idea where the problem actually exists, but look
over there! Shiny new technology!

> They can't plan for that. It would show the folly/dishonesty of charging
> GA the "cost of services provided".

One of the other arguments they use is the disparity between corporate
jet taxes and fractional ownership or charter taxi taxes. What they fail
to consider is that, especially under fractional ownership, the costs
are defrayed amongst several individuals, whereas corporate jet
operation is undertaken entirely by one. They only consider the
per-plane taxation as relevant, when it patently is not.

It is this kind of statistical manipulation with which they have
convinced some that implementing heavy taxation on a small segment of
the flying community while relaxing that on the largest segment is the
best solution for all the ails of modern aviation. That's just not true.

> It would be useful, though, to show what it would take to reduce ATC
> service costs. For example, how low would traffic have to drop before
> (for example) NY TRACON would be able to reduce staff by merging sectors?

Not very far, if their delay schema can be applied in reverse.

The problems that they are arguing against here are issues with the
hub-and-spoke system that the airlines implement to assuage their
logistics chains. It's a symptom of too many people concentrating their
usage on too few locations at the same time, not a problem of overall
inability of the system to compensate for global demand. They use
examples like peak time at O'Hare, without stopping to consider the
other 23 hours of the day, or alluding to flight distribution throughout
the day.

Their solution, then, is to use (very expensive) technology to cram more
flights in less space, so that the underlying problem of too many
flights trying to use the same airport at the same time can roll on, and
sneaking in a rather sizable bit of pork for their airline buddies to boot.

A real long-term solution is to:

A: Solicit Congress to get off their ass and fund the FAA properly.
B: Use those funds to build more airports or expand existing ones.
C: Provide financial incentives for the airlines to shift flights to
off-peak hours (distribute the load).
D: Update and maintain the underlying technology and facilities.
E: Provide tax incentives for using more "desirable" forms of aviation,
NOT by taxing operation, and NOT by taxing services, and NOT by
privatizing the whole system, but through point-of-sale and
registration. That way, the only ones discouraged are the intended
targets, not the whole community.

TheSmokingGnu

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:07:01 -0700, TheSmokingGnu wrote:


> The proposals thus far presented try to make the case that it is the
> former, caused in large part by the wide margins necessary in a
> human-controlled and administrated system. Earlier however, the inference
> is made that the proposed system will prevent a hypothetical "rationing"
> situation wherein flights will be given priority based on need, indicating
> a problem with the latter.

Right. That much I did see. I was wondering if you'd spotted something
different. But I'm going to go back and review exactly where you found
that math.

[...]

> One of the other arguments they use is the disparity between corporate
> jet taxes and fractional ownership or charter taxi taxes. What they fail
> to consider is that, especially under fractional ownership, the costs
> are defrayed amongst several individuals, whereas corporate jet
> operation is undertaken entirely by one. They only consider the
> per-plane taxation as relevant, when it patently is not.

Well, from an ATC service perspective they're right. However, there are
plenty of examples where pricing is dictated by more than just the
per-vehicle cost. As I read your paragraph above, for example, I
remembered that there's a high cost to registering a taxi in NYC. Still,
it's just another car. Why should it be charged differently?

[...]

>> It would be useful, though, to show what it would take to reduce ATC
>> service costs. For example, how low would traffic have to drop before
>> (for example) NY TRACON would be able to reduce staff by merging
>> sectors?
>
> Not very far, if their delay schema can be applied in reverse.

I suspect you're right. But nobody is bothering to actually answer the
question? Pity.

[...]

>
> Their solution, then, is to use (very expensive) technology to cram more
> flights in less space, so that the underlying problem of too many
> flights trying to use the same airport at the same time can roll on, and
> sneaking in a rather sizable bit of pork for their airline buddies to
> boot.

Well, yes, but they don't seem to be addressing the real limiting factor:
runway space (at those hubs).

[...]

> and NOT by privatizing the whole system, but

One of the congressional testimonies I read (and cited here, though I
don't recall which just now) included the statement that privatizing was
(my words) a red herring, unrelated to the real issue but being put into
the mix anyway.

I have to add, though, that I do see problems with agencies that need to
be run well handled by political appointees. We don't need an "Ataboy
Brownie" running the FAA, for example.

But there's nothing that limits incompetence and abuse to government
agencies. And awarding non-competitive contracts (ie. FSS) seems to
offer little improvement.

- Andrew

[LWG]

I like Fred Thompson. He's the straighest talker on the horizon.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Don't you find it at least curious that the straight-talking, honest
>> politicians are those considered non-contenders for higher office?
>
> I'm trying to remember the last straight-talker in the Presidency.
> Was it:
>
> Kennedy? Nope
> Johnson? Nope
> Nixon? Nope
> Ford? Yep - but he was appointed.
> Carter? Yep -- but no one liked what he said.
> Reagan? Yep -- but only if it was good news.
> Bush I? Yep -- but booted after one term.
> Clinton? Nope
> Bush II? Yep -- but no one likes what he says.
>
> As you can see, the straight talkers aren't very popular with the
> unwashed masses. Perhaps it's because no one wants to hear the truth
> from their leaders, preferring the smoothly reassuring upbeat tones of
> Reagan over the lectures of Jimmy Carter?
>
> I dunno -- but this is shaping up to be the first election in my
> lifetime that I will sit on my hands rather than vote for any of
> them. I've never seen a more conniving bunch of slick salespeople
> running for office in my life.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>