Air Carriers and Biz-jets Target GA Recreational Fliers

[Larry Dighera]

Air Carriers and Biz-jets Target GA Recreational Fliers

The airline industry is terrified. They've got more aircraft than
they know what to do with, and even more on order. Passengers are
unhappy with the airline travel experience, and their numbers threaten
to dwindle as a result. High revenue travelers are increasingly
turning to part 135 biz-jet transport to escape the moronic security
measures imposed on airline travelers. Competition among air carriers
is fierce as market consolidation threatens to swallow them whole. Air
Traffic Control contractors are lobbying franticly to wrest FAA fiscal
oversight from Congress, so thy can sell their marginally engineered
products to our government. And anyone naive enough to believes light
GA won't be affected by the clash of these titanic combatants is not
paying attention.

Here's the latest news:

AIRLINES CONTINUE ANTI-GA LOBBYING
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1124-full.html#197924)
When the Air Transport Association, the lobbying group for the
airlines, sent out an e-mail
(http://web.nbaa.org/public/news/ata.php)
this week griping about all the private jets that cluttered up the
airways during Kentucky Derby weekend,

Here's an excerpt from the Air Transport Association e-mail:

How much are you paying to subsidize these luxury liners?
Airlines and their passengers paid more than 90 percent of the
costs of running the air traffic control system but accounted
for only 66 percent of system operations. Business jets,
however, underpaid for the air traffic control services they
used by nearly $1 billion. Does that sound fair to you? What
if you were told that during Derby weekend, the overwhelming
majority of the jets in the skies over Kentucky were private
jets? This means that while these private jets clogged the
airways, they paid barely anything to use or modernize our
nation’s air traffic control system.

This unfair practice is not just limited to the Kentucky Derby
–private luxury planes account for nearly two-thirds of all
jet aircraft in the United States. And it is not as though
these jet-setters cannot afford to pay their fair share.
Private jet operators do not seem to be affected by the tight
economy like the rest of us – orders for new private jets are
up 41 percent from early 2007 to early 2008. Over the next ten
years, more than 10,000 additional private jets are expected
to enter service. Needless to say, this will overwhelm the
current system and cost airline passengers billions of dollars
a year in delays.

Notice how the airline industry conveniently overlooks their predatory
scheduling practices as the prime cause of air carrier flight delays.
The airline strategy of over-scheduling flights is two fold: It
freezes out competitors, and it creates a false impression that the
National Airspace System is inadequate, overburdened, and needs to be
replaced with the products of airliner manufacturers, so that the
airline industry will be placed in control of our nation's skies. Bush
has already nominated a former airline employee, Bobby Sturgell, to
become FAA Administrator, so part of their plan is already slated to
become fact.

Don't take your eye off of the shell with the pea under it.


the National Business Aviation Association was quick to respond
(http://web.nbaa.org/public/news/pr/2008/20080521-032.php).

Here's an excerpt:

“The ATA’s suggestion that GA air traffic at a well-planned
weekend event in a single location was somehow problematic is
simply laughable,” Bolen said. “The fact is, delays are caused
by the airlines over-scheduling flights 365 days a year at big
city airports all across the country. An official with the
Department of Transportation recently provided a clear example
of the airlines’ over-scheduling practices to Congress by
pointing to one airline that scheduled ‘56 departures in a
15-minute window at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport, about
three times the number of planes that the airport has the
capacity to handle.’ ...

What isn't be mentioned here is the fact that Bush got Congress to
removed flight scheduling authority (slots) from FAA regulation at all
US airports (except the one used by Washington), thus enabling the
airline over-scheduling debacle.

“It’s unfortunate that the nation’s big airlines have chosen
to focus efforts on attacking general aviation, rather than
working toward solutions for modernizing our air
transportation system, so that it remains the world’s largest,
safest and most efficient.”

The Air Transport Association also took a shot at the rest of us,
who aren't flying in private jets but in our own piston airplanes.
"The recreational piston-engine (or 'general aviation') community
has been ginned up by the jet-setters to oppose the small fees
proposed, even though these fees would not be imposed on piston
aircraft under any proposal Congress is considering," ATA
President James May wrote.

What isn't mentioned by the airline lobbying association is the fact
that their divide-and-conquer strategy calls "recreational
piston-engine" stakeholders as allies in the airlines' bid to
introduce user fees as a funding source for NextGen ATC. They figure,
that if "recreational piston-engine" stakeholders see themselves as
being exempt from the initial imposition of user fees, our large
numbers will not pose an obstacle to the airline agenda. Then once
user fees are implemented, you can bet that the "recreational
piston-engine" segment will become the future target of the airlines'
campaign to reduce user fee prices. What is ironic is the fact that
the vast majority of ATC services are only in existence because of the
needs of the airline industry.



This is the way I see it. Opposing views are welcome.

[Andrew Sarangan]

No argument here. ATC was created primarily to increase the safety of
airline travel, after some spectacular mid-airs in the early years.

If all airspace is suddenly reclassified as "G", I can't think of any
GA pilot who would complain.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
...
>
> No argument here. ATC was created primarily to increase the safety of
> airline travel, after some spectacular mid-airs in the early years.
>

Such as? I can think of only one rather non-spectacular mid-air collision
of airliners prior to the creation of ATC.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On May 22, 6:00 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > No argument here. ATC was created primarily to increase the safety of
> > airline travel, after some spectacular mid-airs in the early years.
>
> Such as? I can think of only one rather non-spectacular mid-air collision
> of airliners prior to the creation of ATC.

Perhaps I should have said "ATC was expanded primarily to increase the
safety of airline travel". Notable accidents that created public
outcry to empower ATC were:
DC7 and Constellation in 1956 over Grand Canyon
DC8 and Constellation in 1960 over New York

I don't think it is a coincidence that every class B or C airspace is
located at airports that primarily serve airline traffic. Class D
tower is the highest I've seen at GA airports, and even there it
appears to be mostly due to historic reasons (ie it used to be a
military field or used to have airline traffic some time in the past).
Some airports operate their class D tower only when scheduled airlines
are expected to arrive and depart.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 22 May 2008 13:32:47 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Sarangan
> wrote in
>:

>
>If all airspace is suddenly reclassified as "G", I can't think of any
>GA pilot who would complain.

I read somewhere that ICAO is considering dropping Class A and B
airspace. I know that sounds like it's reversed, but that's the way I
remember it.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> No argument here. ATC was created primarily to increase the safety
>>> of airline travel, after some spectacular mid-airs in the early
>>> years.
>>>
>>
>> Such as? I can think of only one rather non-spectacular mid-air
>> collision of airliners prior to the creation of ATC.
>>
>
> Perhaps I should have said "ATC was expanded primarily to increase the
> safety of airline travel". Notable accidents that created public
> outcry to empower ATC were:
> DC7 and Constellation in 1956 over Grand Canyon
> DC8 and Constellation in 1960 over New York
>

ATC was created primarily to increase the safety of airline travel, but it
was created some twenty years before the Grand Canyon midair.


>
> I don't think it is a coincidence that every class B or C airspace is
> located at airports that primarily serve airline traffic.
>

There is Class C airspace at fields that serve exclusively military traffic.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Fri, 23 May 2008 01:27:18 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Thu, 22 May 2008 13:32:47 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Sarangan
> wrote in
>:
>
>>
>>If all airspace is suddenly reclassified as "G", I can't think of any
>>GA pilot who would complain.
>
>I read somewhere that ICAO is considering dropping Class A and B
>airspace. I know that sounds like it's reversed, but that's the way I
>remember it.

you really only need C, D and G.

c - full time atc above 10,000ft with mandatory radio
d - part time atc with mandatory radio even when the d is shut
down(ctaf)
g - free airspace to 10,000ft

Stealth Pilot

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
> you really only need C, D and G.
>
> c - full time atc above 10,000ft with mandatory radio
> d - part time atc with mandatory radio even when the d is shut
> down(ctaf)
> g - free airspace to 10,000ft
>

So no full-time ATC below 10,000 MSL? Why?


For reference, here are the ICAO airspace class descriptions:

ANNEX 11 TO THE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION


CHAPTER 2. GENERAL


2.6 Classification of airspaces


2.6.1 ATS airspaces shall be classified and designated in accordance
with the following:


Class A. IFR flights only are permitted, all flights are provided with
air traffic control service and are separated from each other.


Class B. IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all flights are provided
with air traffic control service and are separated from each other.


Class C. IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all flights are provided
with air traffic control service and IFR flights are separated from other
IFR flights and from VFR flights. VFR flights are separated from IFR flights
and receive traffic information in respect of other VFR flights.


Class D. IFR and VFR flights are permitted and all flights are provided
with air traffic control service, IFR flights are separated from other IFR
flights and receive traffic information in respect of VFR flights, VFR
flights receive traffic information in respect of all other flights.


Class E. IFR and VFR flights are permitted, IFR flights are provided
with air traffic control service and are separated from other IFR flights.
All flights receive traffic information as far as is practical. Class E
shall not be used for control zones.


Class F. IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all participating IFR
flights receive an air traffic advisory service and all flights receive
flight information service if requested.


Note.-- Where air traffic advisory service is implemented, this is
considered normally as a temporary measure only until such time as it can be
replaced by air traffic control. (See also PANS-RAC, Part VII, 1.4.1.2.)


Class G. IFR and VFR flights are permitted and receive flight
information service if requested.

[F. Baum]

On May 22, 9:14*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> This is the way I see it. *Opposing views are welcome.

WOW, thats some pretty one sided stuff. I get a chukle when you ask
posters (On other threads) to provide the results of their research to
support their opinoin. Why dont you provide some reseach for your
baseless assumptions ? Dont take any of this personally, but you kinda
remind me of Phil Boyer or Bower (Sorry, dont recall the name), over
at AOPA when he gave his testimony to congress that was fraught with
(baseless) assumptions and factual errors. In this posters opinion he
made GA look bad.
Have you any idea what airlines actually pay in fees taxes and
leases ?

[F. Baum]

On May 23, 6:19*am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
>
> you really only need C, D and G.
>
Actually you need A & B. The A for RVSM and to keep the transition
level consistent with other countries and B to expidite traffic at
busy terminal areas (Think WX and separation mins).
Frank

[F. Baum]

On May 22, 5:27*pm, Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>
>Class D
> tower is the highest I've seen at GA airports, and even there it
> appears to be mostly due to historic reasons (ie it used to be a
> military field or used to have airline traffic some time in the past).
> Some airports operate their class D tower only when scheduled airlines
> are expected to arrive and depart.

The need for a tower is based on the number or volume of A/C
movements. Also, keep in mind that it takes special authorization for
a 121 carrier to operate IFR in uncontroller airspace.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Robert Moore wrote:
>
> Steven, what constitutes "air traffic control service"?
>

"Air traffic control service" is defined in ICAO Annex 11 as "a service
provided for the purpose of:

a) preventing collisions:

1) between aircraft, and

2) on the manoeuvring area between aircraft and obstructions; and

b) expediting and maintaining an orderly flow of air traffic."

[Andrew Sarangan]

On May 23, 12:32 pm, "F. Baum" > wrote:
> On May 22, 5:27 pm, Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>
>
>
> >Class D
> > tower is the highest I've seen at GA airports, and even there it
> > appears to be mostly due to historic reasons (ie it used to be a
> > military field or used to have airline traffic some time in the past).
> > Some airports operate their class D tower only when scheduled airlines
> > are expected to arrive and depart.
>
> The need for a tower is based on the number or volume of A/C
> movements. Also, keep in mind that it takes special authorization for
> a 121 carrier to operate IFR in uncontroller airspace.

I would be interested to know how many ATC towers have been built for
reasons other than serving 121 carriers or military. Oshkosh is one
example, but are there more?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>
> I would be interested to know how many ATC towers have been built for
> reasons other than serving 121 carriers or military. Oshkosh is one
> example, but are there more?
>

Oshkosh is NOT one of them. Oshkosh tower was established about eight years
before the EAA moved it's convention from Rockford, North Central Airlines
was providing scheduled service.

[F. Baum]

On May 23, 3:36*pm, Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>
> I would be interested to know how many ATC towers have been built for
> reasons other than serving 121 carriers or military. *Oshkosh is one
> example, but are there more?


There is a whole bunch of them out west at busy GA airports.

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article
>,
Andrew Sarangan > wrote:

> On May 23, 12:32 pm, "F. Baum" > wrote:
> > On May 22, 5:27 pm, Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >Class D
> > > tower is the highest I've seen at GA airports, and even there it
> > > appears to be mostly due to historic reasons (ie it used to be a
> > > military field or used to have airline traffic some time in the past).
> > > Some airports operate their class D tower only when scheduled airlines
> > > are expected to arrive and depart.
> >
> > The need for a tower is based on the number or volume of A/C
> > movements. Also, keep in mind that it takes special authorization for
> > a 121 carrier to operate IFR in uncontroller airspace.
>
> I would be interested to know how many ATC towers have been built for
> reasons other than serving 121 carriers or military. Oshkosh is one
> example, but are there more?

New Smyrna Beach (EVB), Ormond Beach (ORM) to serve Embry-Riddle
University. Also talk abour one at DeLand (DED), too.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 23 May 2008 09:13:59 -0700 (PDT), "F. Baum" >
wrote in
>:

>On May 22, 9:14*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>
>>The airline industry is terrified. They've got more aircraft than
>>they know what to do with, and even more on order. Passengers are
>>unhappy with the airline travel experience, and their numbers threaten
>>to dwindle as a result. High revenue travelers are increasingly
>>turning to part 135 biz-jet transport to escape the moronic security
>>measures imposed on airline travelers. Competition among air carriers
>>is fierce as market consolidation threatens to swallow them whole. Air
>>Traffic Control contractors are lobbying franticly to wrest FAA fiscal
>>oversight from Congress, so thy can sell their marginally engineered
>>products to our government. And anyone naive enough to believes light
>>GA won't be affected by the clash of these titanic combatants is not
>>paying attention.
>
>> This is the way I see it. *Opposing views are welcome.
>
>WOW, thats some pretty one sided stuff. I get a chukle when you ask
>posters (On other threads) to provide the results of their research to
>support their opinoin.

I'm happy to attempt to support my views with as objective research as
I'm able to find if you are able to provide specific views I have
stated above with which you disagree.

>Why dont you provide some reseach for your baseless assumptions ?

To which particular alleged "baseless assumptions" are you referring?

>Dont take any of this personally,

I won't as long as you don't attempt to make it personal, and address
the subject and not me. I realize it's difficult to do that with an
opinion piece like this, but we can try.

>but you kinda remind me of Phil Boyer or Bower (Sorry, dont recall the name), over
>at AOPA when he gave his testimony to congress that was fraught with
>(baseless) assumptions and factual errors.

Perhaps you would be good enough to quote the utterances of AOPA
president, Boyer that you believe were baseless assumptions. Here's
the transcript:

http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/106s/80849.pdf
NOMINATIONS TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL
HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND
TRANSPORTATION

UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
MAY 4, 2000
JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman


>In this posters opinion he made GA look bad.

I hope you are incorrect, and welcome being enlightened in this
matter.

>Have you any idea what airlines actually pay in fees taxes and
>leases ?


In my opinion, the airlines have caused to be created this wonderful
ATC system by virtue of their need to safely serve the public with
their business ventures. An ATC system as fine as that which operates
the NAS would surely not have been created by the US government solely
for the use of single-engine recips, and we both know it.

For that reason, I see no reason that air carriers should not fund
that which they mandated. GA clearly benefits from the ATC system,
but it is not so dependent on it, that it would cease to exist without
it as are the air carriers.

[F. Baum]

On May 24, 10:33*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> In my opinion, the airlines have caused to be created this wonderful
> ATC system by virtue of their need to safely serve the public with
> their business ventures. *An ATC system as fine as that which operates
> the NAS would surely not have been created by the US government solely
> for the use of single-engine recips, and we both know it.

My point exactly. GA would not exist if it werent for the airlines.
Set aside the us against them mentality for a minute and think about
where the money to fund all of this comes from. Unfortunatly, the FAA
has to go to congress and fight for a budget every year. User fees
(Which originated within the Bush administration ) were just one
funding alternative . The airlines , contrary to AOPA and Avnet, are
not anti GA . I think they would like to see other users pay their
share.
Take a look at airports for a minute. Airlines pay to lease gates,
landing fees, per pax handling fees, and in many metripolitan areas,
like LAX, a dispraportionate amount of the budget goes to fund
releiver or satalite airports that the airlines dont use.
I am not a big fan of user fees but many if not most GA airports do
not make money, also the sooner the better for things like Next Gen
NAS and other tech advances. I think this will save way more $$$$ than
it will cost in the short term.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On May 24, 1:49 pm, "F. Baum" > wrote:
> On May 24, 10:33 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>
>
> > In my opinion, the airlines have caused to be created this wonderful
> > ATC system by virtue of their need to safely serve the public with
> > their business ventures. An ATC system as fine as that which operates
> > the NAS would surely not have been created by the US government solely
> > for the use of single-engine recips, and we both know it.
>
> My point exactly. GA would not exist if it werent for the airlines.
> Set aside the us against them mentality for a minute and think about
> where the money to fund all of this comes from. Unfortunatly, the FAA
> has to go to congress and fight for a budget every year. User fees
> (Which originated within the Bush administration ) were just one
> funding alternative . The airlines , contrary to AOPA and Avnet, are
> not anti GA . I think they would like to see other users pay their
> share.
> Take a look at airports for a minute. Airlines pay to lease gates,
> landing fees, per pax handling fees, and in many metripolitan areas,
> like LAX, a dispraportionate amount of the budget goes to fund
> releiver or satalite airports that the airlines dont use.
> I am not a big fan of user fees but many if not most GA airports do
> not make money, also the sooner the better for things like Next Gen
> NAS and other tech advances. I think this will save way more $$$$ than
> it will cost in the short term.

The terms "reliever" and "satellite" begs the question what are they
relieving, and what are they satellites of?

[Larry Dighera]

I must confess, that I am a bit disappointed by your response. I saw
in the articles you authored, a reasonable person, employed in the
airline industry, with the potential to bring a fresh point of view to
this argument. I was hoping to be made more deeply aware of the air
carriers' point of view, so that I could better understand the basis
upon which it rests. I'm still hopeful, but ...

On Sat, 24 May 2008 10:49:24 -0700 (PDT), "F. Baum" >
wrote in
>:

>On May 24, 10:33*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>

As you failed to mention the assertion you made on Fri, 23 May 2008
09:13:59 -0700 (PDT) in Message-ID:
>,
that Phil Boyer made GA look bad during the Congressional MAC hearings
presided over by McCain, I'll assume you have reversed your opinion on
that matter.

>> In my opinion, the airlines have caused to be created this wonderful
>> ATC system by virtue of their need to safely serve the public with
>> their business ventures. *An ATC system as fine as that which operates
>> the NAS would surely not have been created by the US government solely
>> for the use of single-engine recips, and we both know it.
>
>My point exactly. GA would not exist if it werent for the airlines.

That's an interesting, if outrageous, assumption. Are you able to
cite any credible source that supports the notion that GA would not
exist without ATC or the airlines?

Because I can go out to an uncontrolled field, and depart, fly to
another such airport, and never avail myself of _ANY_ ATC facilities,
I believe that if ATC (and/or the airlines) were to disappear
tomorrow, GA would do fine, and air carriers would be out of business.
Air carriers demand ATC, or they would be falling out of the sky like
hail in Arkansas; GA does not.

It appears that we are at opposite ends of the spectrum on this
subject.

>Set aside the us against them mentality for a minute and think about
>where the money to fund all of this comes from.

The money to fund private aviation comes out of the owners' pockets,
or wasn't that the 'this' to which you were referring?

>Unfortunatly, the FAA has to go to congress and fight for a budget every year.

What makes the FAA having to justify their budget to Congress
unfortunate in your opinion?

>User fees (Which originated within the Bush administration ) were just one
>funding alternative . The airlines , contrary to AOPA and Avnet, are
>not anti GA . I think they would like to see other users pay their
>share.

If you believe the air carriers aren't anti-GA, you haven't been
listening to the anti-GA diatribe emanating from Northwest Airlines
former CEO, Richard Anderson, now Delta's CEO. Here's some
information about one instance.

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/nwa_editorial.pdf
... Private aircraft operators also do not pay ticket taxes to
fund the FAA. Last year the FAA spent $6 billion operating the
Air Traffic Control system in the U.S. This service is free of
charge for private aircraft operators. Why? Because the
commercial airlines pay taxes collected from you to pay for the
operation of a system that all air travelers use.

Private aviation operators do pay fuel excise tax, as do all
commercial airlines--but that is about the extent of private
aviation's funding for airports. At NWA, We believe an airport's
operating costs should be borne by all who use them, including
those who travel by private aircraft.



http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/04-2-025x.html
Apr. 15, 2004 — AOPA on Thursday defended general aviation against
a USA Today editorial that claims airline passengers "subsidize"
general aviation. In an opposing view piece published alongside
the paper's editorial, AOPA President Phil Boyer explained to USA
Today readers that the current system is a single structure,
designed for the airlines.

"Our elected representatives in Congress wisely created a national
air transportation system," Boyer wrote. And just as trucks —
which place a greater strain on the national highway system — pay
higher taxes and fees than family cars, the airlines must carry a
greater portion of the financial burden for the nation's air
traffic control system.

The USA Today editorial was prompted by and uses much of the same
rhetoric as an editorial that Northwest Airlines CEO Richard
Anderson wrote for his airline's in-flight magazine.

Virtually all of the problems with the air traffic control system
cited in the USA Today editorial are problems of the airlines' own
making. The delays that the FAA and the airlines are already
forecasting for this summer are largely due to the hub-and-spoke
system that the major airlines rely on. The hub-and-spoke system
creates unrealistic arrival and departure schedules at the major
hub airports. Summertime storms only compound the problem.

The USA Today editorial claims incorrectly that most GA flights
use air traffic control separation services. In fact, the vast
majority of GA flights are conducted under visual flight rules,
requiring only minimal contact with controllers and placing almost
no direct burden on the system.

"The air traffic control system is designed to serve the
airlines," wrote Boyer in USA Today. "Most small planes use few,
if any, of these services.

"The airlines pay a modest federal fuel tax of four cents a
gallon. Conversely, general aviation flights fund their use of the
system through a fuel tax five times what the airlines pay."


http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/04-1-140.html
... "Mr. Anderson's editorial contains numerous misleading or
seriously flawed statements about GA's financial contributions to
the national air transportation system," said Boyer. "It has
angered GA pilots and aviation enthusiasts. But AOPA has
deliberately withheld its rebuttal to the editorial, working
instead for constructive discussions with Northwest."

Since first learning of the editorial, AOPA has focused on setting
up a meeting between Boyer and Anderson in order to clear the air.
AOPA refrained from calling for a public letter-writing campaign
while efforts to set up the meeting were under way. Pilots and
aviation enthusiasts wrote anyway. They spontaneously began
besieging Northwest Airlines with letters and e-mails protesting
the tone and the misstatements in the editorial.

Anderson has now agreed to a meeting on April 2 to explain his
concerns.

"That's fine," replied Boyer, "I plan to discuss our concerns and
find some common ground in our respective views."

This all stems from a dispute between Northwest and the airport
authority at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The
Metropolitan Airport Commission also runs six reliever airports
that improve efficiency for Northwest at MSP by moving most GA
traffic elsewhere, and uses some of the funds collected at MSP for
improvements at the relievers.

"Mr. Anderson's attack on general aviation is unfair, unwarranted,
and, for the most part, untrue," said Boyer. "And by publishing
his attack in so public a forum, he has raised what should have
remained a regional skirmish into a nationwide battle. ...


Do you still believe the air carriers aren't anti-GA?

Perhaps the real problem in this airline v. GA argument stems from the
ambiguity of the term GA. Airlines see GA as Part 135 operations. But
the vast majority of GA operations are private reciprocating-engine
aircraft. The airlines continue to fail to differentiate Part 135
operations from Part 91 operations. Part 135 operations are a small
subset of GA operations, and the air carriers' failure to use the
correct terminology is causing them to meet significant resistance to
their proposals. Somebody needs to tell the Air Transport Association
to substitute 'air-taxi' for GA in their press releases and lobbying.


>Take a look at airports for a minute. Airlines pay to lease gates,
>landing fees, per pax handling fees, and in many metripolitan areas,
>like LAX, a dispraportionate amount of the budget goes to fund
>releiver or satalite airports that the airlines dont use.

The air carrier costs you mention seem equitable to me.

With regard to "reliever or satellite airports," what do you believe
they are designed to relieve? Has it occurred to you, that they are
necessary because of air carrier operations?

>I am not a big fan of user fees but many if not most GA airports do
>not make money,

That is poised to change. Metropolitan/GA airports are about to
become a much more vital part of our nation's air travel
infrastructure, just ask Cirrus co-founder, COB, and CEO Alan
Klapmeier. His company is the parent of air-taxi startup SATSair.*
They and DayJet are serving what amounts to a new air-travel market in
the SE. A vital part of serving that market are metropolitan
airports. The anticipated increased use of metropolitan airports
should provide additional revenue generation opportunities for airport
operators as well as local businesses in those cities.

>also the sooner the better for things like Next Gen NAS and other tech
>advances.

NextGen is predicated on satellite communications. That is a
potentially fatal flaw. In any event, GA doesn't need NextGen, and
shouldn't have to pay for it.

>I think this will save way more $$$$ than it will cost in the short term.

Please provide the reasoning behind that statement. Have you any idea
of the cost to fund NextGen development, implementation, and
operation?

Now I'm a forward-thinking person who embraces new technology long
before (some might argue prematurely) the general public, and I see
NextGen, as I currently understand it from FAA information, to be a
boondoggle imposed on our government, and hyped by the airline
industry and their lobbyists.





*
http://www.aero-news.net/news/commbus.cfm?ContentBlockID=4b15ce41-92be-4e33-8785-a04937b4d2a4&Dynamic=1
Cirrus Acquires SATSair Air Taxi

Sat, 05 Nov '05
Greenville, SC Firm Operates SR-22s Under Part 135

One of the most innovative air charter operators of the new
century, SATSair Air Taxi of Greenville, SC, is going forward under a
new banner.

It's been acquired by one of the most innovative airframe
manufacturers of the new century, Cirrus Design Corporation. SATSAir
was a Cirrus customer beforehand, but now that it's reforming as a
Cirrus subsidiary, it will be adding an additional 100 Cirrus SR22s.

"SATSair" stands for Smart Air Travel Solutions Air, while at the
same time making a nod towards NASA's SATS -- Small Aircraft
Transportation System, the well-publicized research program into the
future of light aircraft transportation.

Cirrus President and CEO Alan Klapmeier said, "This acquisition
follows Cirrus philosophy to engage in pursuits that ultimately grow
the industry." Klapmeier has spoken passionately to us before about
the need to bring the benefits of general aviation to new markets and
new people -- people who aren't yet thinking of what GA can bring to
their lives. An example of his attitude is the evident pride that
Klapmeier takes in that subset of Cirrus customers who bought a Cirrus
and learned to fly in it, with no prior aviation experience.

"[W]e will focus on the continued expansion of the air taxi
operation and development of a personal transportation network -- to
include air-taxi service, leased aircraft and other areas in
development," Klapmeier said. The other areas, Klapmeier hinted, may
include expanding the SATSAir model with non-Cirrus aircraft, more
likely as a complement to than a replacement for the SR-22. ...




http://www.airportjournals.com/Display.cfm?varID=0701026
Alan founded Cirrus with his brother, Dale, company vice chairman.
After building a Glasair kit aircraft in the early 1980s, the brothers
built a kit aircraft of their own design, the VK-30, in their parents'
barn. In 1984, they formed their company. Today, the siblings
manufacture FAA-certified, composite, four-place, single-engine piston
and turbo-powered aircraft.

When Cirrus Design's first FAA-certified SR20 airplane appeared on
the scene in 1998, it was described as futuristic—a sleek-looking
design that had a parachute. No one knew what to make of the aircraft.
From the start, Cirrus had designed its aircraft around technology
that didn't yet exist within the general aviation industry. Behind the
scenes, for the most part, Cirrus funded the R&D for a glass cockpit,
working closely with avionics manufacturer Avidyne. In July 2002,
Cirrus announced its all-glass cockpit, which first became available
in its second model, the SR22. In 2003, the all-glass cockpit became
standard on all its airplanes.

The GA industry has largely adopted the Klapmeiers' all-glass
cockpit design, which captures buyers from around the world. Other
manufacturers today are starting to contemplate the idea of installing
life-saving parachute recovery systems.

TIME Magazine credited the Klapmeiers with "giving lift to the
small-plane industry with an easy-to-fly design." Forbes Magazine has
said Cirrus sells "meaning."

Today, as one of the world's largest manufacturers of aircraft in
its class, Cirrus is one of the great success stories of modern
aviation. What the company has been able to pull off since its first
aircraft delivery eight years ago is an incredible feat.

Before the SR20 became certified, few in the industry believed the
brothers could design, certify and produce technically advanced
aircraft. In fact, many scoffed at their ideas.

For their intense spirit of exploration and sheer devotion to
making the GA industry safer and a more interesting and thrilling
place for all of us, Airport Journals is proud to honor Alan and Dale
Klapmeier as our 2006 Michael A. Chowdry Aviation Entrepreneur of the
Year Award recipients. ...



http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto052220070711177126&page=2
...

[F. Baum]

On May 24, 3:12*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>*I saw
> in the articles you authored, a reasonable person, employed in the
> airline industry, with the potential to bring a fresh point of view to
> this argument. *I was hoping to be made more deeply aware of the air
> carriers' point of view, so that I could better understand the basis
> upon which it rests. *I'm still hopeful, but ...

Dont get your hopes up <G>. My main point was that the airlines would
like to see the operators who use the system help fund it. You can
take this as anti GA if you like .
>
> Because I can go out to an uncontrolled field, and depart, fly to
> another such airport, and never avail myself of _ANY_ ATC facilities,
> I believe that if ATC (and/or the airlines) were to disappear
> tomorrow, GA would do fine, and air carriers would be out of business.
> Air carriers demand ATC, or they would be falling out of the sky like
> hail in Arkansas; GA does not.

Are you kidding ? Every airport in the LA basin, including all but one
of the privately owned airports has benefited from federal funding. If
ATC were to vanish, how would anyone fly IFR without major delays ?
Considering the fact that modernizing NAS will result in less ATC your
last statement is kinda ironic .
>
> The money to fund private aviation comes out of the owners' pockets,
> or wasn't that the 'this' to which you were referring? *

Virtually all of GA is subsidized . This is what I was refering to.
>
>
> * *http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/nwa_editorial.pdf
> * * ... Private aircraft operators also do not pay ticket taxes to
> * * fund the FAA. * Last year the FAA spent $6 billion operating the
> * * Air Traffic Control system in the U.S. *This service is free of
> * * charge for private aircraft operators. *Why? *Because the
> * * commercial airlines pay taxes collected from you to pay for the
> * * operation of a system that all air travelers use.

Now honestly Lar, what is it about RA's statement here that is
ditribe ? Are you going MX on me ?
>
> * * Private aviation operators do pay fuel excise tax, as do all
> * * commercial airlines--but that is about the extent of private
> * * aviation's funding for airports. *At NWA, We believe an airport's
> * * operating costs should be borne by all who use them, including
> * * those who travel by private aircraft. *

Here again, you are supporting my side. This is something that Boyer
chooses to ignore. I dont think RA wants to mess with the guy who is
flying his Cub out of a rural airport under VFR. We can argue till the
cows come home but if you look at it from a per use standpoint, Biz Av
is getting a free ride in this country.
>
> * *http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/04-2-025x.html
> * * Apr. 15, 2004 — AOPA on Thursday defended general aviation against
> * * a USA Today editorial that claims airline passengers "subsidize"
> * * general aviation. In an opposing view piece published alongside
> * * the paper's editorial, AOPA President Phil Boyer explained to USA
> * * Today readers that the current system is a single structure,
> * * designed for the airlines.

Phil is a bit off here. I guess he wants to ignore how much of the
system has been put in place to suport GA. Also, I wouldnt put much
stock in Useless Today.
>
> * * "Our elected representatives in Congress wisely created a national
> * * air transportation system," Boyer wrote. And just as trucks —
> * * which place a greater strain on the national highway system — pay
> * * higher taxes and fees than family cars, the airlines must carry a
> * * greater portion of the financial burden for the nation's air
> * * traffic control system.

This is a good point but it fails to address the main argument. This
is where Phil just makes himself look silly IMHO.
>
> * * The USA Today editorial was prompted by and uses much of the same
> * * rhetoric as an editorial that Northwest Airlines CEO Richard
> * * Anderson wrote for his airline's in-flight magazine.

Blurring a serious distinction here.

> * * The USA Today editorial claims incorrectly that most GA flights
> * * use air traffic control separation services. In fact, the vast
> * * majority of GA flights are conducted under visual flight rules,
> * * requiring only minimal contact with controllers and placing almost
> * * no direct burden on the system.

Doing it again.
>
> * * "The air traffic control system is designed to serve the
> * * airlines," wrote Boyer in USA Today. "Most small planes use few,
> * * if any, of these services.

And some more.
>
> * * "The airlines pay a modest federal fuel tax of four cents a
> * * gallon. Conversely, general aviation flights fund their use of the
> * * system through a fuel tax five times what the airlines pay."

Simply untrue.
>
> * * This all stems from a dispute between Northwest and the airport
> * * authority at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The
> * * Metropolitan Airport Commission also runs six reliever airports
> * * that improve efficiency for Northwest at MSP by moving most GA
> * * traffic elsewhere, and uses some of the funds collected at MSP for
> * * improvements at the relievers.

Exactly what I was pointing out with LAX.
>
> * * "Mr. Anderson's attack on general aviation is unfair, unwarranted,
> * * and, for the most part, untrue," said Boyer. "And by publishing
> * * his attack in so public a forum, he has raised what should have
> * * remained a regional skirmish into a nationwide battle. ...

Bla Bla Bla. The aviation trust fund is used nationwide. Biz Av
operates nationwide. What region is Boyer refering to ?

>
>
> Perhaps the real problem in this airline v. GA argument stems from the
> ambiguity of the term GA. *Airlines see GA as Part 135 operations. But
> the vast majority of GA operations are private reciprocating-engine
> aircraft. *The airlines continue to fail to differentiate Part 135
> operations from Part 91 operations. *Part 135 operations are a small
> subset of GA operations, and the air carriers' failure to use the
> correct terminology is causing them to meet significant resistance to
> their proposals. *Somebody needs to tell the Air Transport Association
> to substitute 'air-taxi' for GA in their press releases and lobbying.

Totally baseless. You can operate a biz jet 91 right along with 135
operators and 121 operators into the same airports. What does this
have to do with carrying the ATC burden?

>
> The air carrier costs you mention seem equitable to me.

Dont miss the point. These costs go to subsidize GA airports.

>
> With regard to "reliever or satellite airports," what do you believe
> they are designed to relieve? *Has it occurred to you, that they are
> necessary because of air carrier operations?

Now there is an MX style argument. Would you like to pay the landing
fee at LAX ?
>
>
> That is poised to change. *Metropolitan/GA airports are about to
> become a much more vital part of our nation's air travel
> infrastructure, just ask Cirrus co-founder, COB, and CEO Alan
> Klapmeier. *His company is the parent of air-taxi startup SATSair.*
> They and DayJet are serving what amounts to a new air-travel market in
> the SE. *A vital part of serving that market are metropolitan
> airports. *The anticipated increased use of metropolitan airports
> should provide additional revenue generation opportunities for airport
> operators as well as local businesses in those cities.

Have you seen how dayJet is doing ?
>
>
> Please provide the reasoning behind that statement. *Have you any idea
> of the cost to fund NextGen development, implementation, and
> operation?
You are missing the point. If it works as advertized NEXGEN is
supposed to be safer and more efficent. It is too bad that with all
the other spending that is going on, the FAA has to compete for the $$
$ to get advances for aviation in this country.
Frank

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Fri, 23 May 2008 10:20:02 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>>
>> you really only need C, D and G.
>>
>> c - full time atc above 10,000ft with mandatory radio
>> d - part time atc with mandatory radio even when the d is shut
>> down(ctaf)
>> g - free airspace to 10,000ft
>>
>
>So no full-time ATC below 10,000 MSL? Why?
>

of course there is C around the major airports.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Stealth Pilot wrote:
> On Fri, 23 May 2008 10:20:02 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>> Stealth Pilot wrote:
>>>
>>> you really only need C, D and G.
>>>
>>> c - full time atc above 10,000ft with mandatory radio
>>> d - part time atc with mandatory radio even when the d is shut
>>> down(ctaf)
>>> g - free airspace to 10,000ft
>>>
>>
>> So no full-time ATC below 10,000 MSL? Why?
>>
>
> of course there is C around the major airports.
>

What's the criteria for a "major airport??

[Larry Dighera]

This is a useful discussion on this hot topic. Thank you for your
contribution. I know it can be tedious, but to the extent that
information is brought to light it is worth it. I welcome your
continued thoughtful input.

On Sat, 24 May 2008 18:33:29 -0700 (PDT), "F. Baum" >
wrote in
>:

>On May 24, 3:12*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>*I saw
>> in the articles you authored, a reasonable person, employed in the
>> airline industry, with the potential to bring a fresh point of view to
>> this argument. *I was hoping to be made more deeply aware of the air
>> carriers' point of view, so that I could better understand the basis
>> upon which it rests. *I'm still hopeful, but ...
>
>Dont get your hopes up <G>. My main point was that the airlines would
>like to see the operators who use the system help fund it. You can
>take this as anti GA if you like .

I believe the 'free ride' you imply isn't occurring. If you are able
to provide supporting statistics for your position, please trot them
out here into the light of day, so we can examine the facts, not
innuendo.

>>
>> Because I can go out to an uncontrolled field, and depart, fly to
>> another such airport, and never avail myself of _ANY_ ATC facilities,
>> I believe that if ATC (and/or the airlines) were to disappear
>> tomorrow, GA would do fine, and air carriers would be out of business.
>> Air carriers demand ATC, or they would be falling out of the sky like
>> hail in Arkansas; GA does not.
>
>Are you kidding ?

No. Do you believe the airlines can function without ATC? Do you
believe GA will die without ATC?

>Every airport in the LA basin, including all but one
>of the privately owned airports has benefited from federal funding.

Are you attempting to imply, that GA does not contribute to AIP
funding?

>If ATC were to vanish, how would anyone fly IFR without major delays ?

IFR operation isn't critical to the vast majority of GA operations, so
the point you raise is a red herring. IFR operations are critical to
air carriers, and they should fund it, and any upgrades to ATC that
they require. Simple.

>Considering the fact that modernizing NAS will result in less ATC your
>last statement is kinda ironic .

No.

I presume you are referring to NextGen providing computerized ATC in
lieu of meat-based controllers. But, ATC it is none the less, and it
the airlines who would be out of business without it, not the vast
majority of GA.

Further, your blind acceptance of NextGen's benefits despite it's
flaws, reveals a certain naïveté; you've bought Boeing's duplicitous
bilge without doing any research or thinking for yourself, and if find
it telling that there has been on mention of the total cost of
NextGen. It's another large corporate attempt to provide an inferior
product at an exorbitant cost similar to the USAF tanker lease
proposal that was exposed for the boondoggle it was, not to mention
the criminal offences involved.

>>
>> The money to fund private aviation comes out of the owners' pockets,
>> or wasn't that the 'this' to which you were referring? *
>
>Virtually all of GA is subsidized . This is what I was refering to.

Can you please provide some credible evidence to support that
allegation, as I have done with the majority of my assertions?

I hope you're not trying to equate GA with the airline bailouts
provided by tax payers. If you want to discuss subsidies:


http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/03/05/8401274/index.htm
The airline bailout bounty
February 21 2007: 7:52 AM EST
(Fortune Magazine)-- Four major airline bankruptcies and thousands
of layoffs later, 2001's $15 billion airline-bailout bill hardly
looks like taxpayer money brilliantly spent.

The bailout bill authorized $5 billion in direct grants and up to
$10 billion in loan guarantees for airlines.



http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_41/b3752735.htm
Congress opened up the Treasury to the airline industry. Lawmakers
coughed up $5 billion in emergency aid and agreed to guarantee up
to $10 billion in borrowings.


>>
>>
>> * *http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/nwa_editorial.pdf
>> * * ... Private aircraft operators also do not pay ticket taxes to
>> * * fund the FAA. * Last year the FAA spent $6 billion operating the
>> * * Air Traffic Control system in the U.S. *This service is free of
>> * * charge for private aircraft operators. *Why? *Because the
>> * * commercial airlines pay taxes collected from you to pay for the
>> * * operation of a system that all air travelers use.
>
>Now honestly Lar, what is it about RA's statement here that is
>ditribe ?

Nothing, as 'ditribe' is not a word. Even if you meant 'diatribe,'
it's not that either. It's just profoundly misleading.

There is no ticket tax on GA flights, because there are no tickets
issued for the vast majority of GA operations. Clearly Richard
Anderson's statement is meant to incite public furor against GA by
deceptive rhetoric. Shameful.

>Are you going MX on me ?

I have no idea what that means.

>
>>
>> * * Private aviation operators do pay fuel excise tax, as do all
>> * * commercial airlines--but that is about the extent of private
>> * * aviation's funding for airports. *At NWA, We believe an airport's
>> * * operating costs should be borne by all who use them, including
>> * * those who travel by private aircraft. *
>
>Here again, you are supporting my side.

I am attempting to be fair and balanced by quoting Richard Anderson.

What is the proportion in dollars of AIP funding granted airline hub
airports compared to GA airports? I suspect, that airline hub
airports receive the lion's share of AIP funding. Again, Richard
Anderson is implying that GA receives a disproportionate subsidy to
what it contributes. I have seen no evidence to support that notion.

>This is something that Boyer chooses to ignore.

Perhaps Boyer was being tactful by not outing Richard Anderson's
blatant attempt to obfuscate the issue.

>I dont think RA wants to mess with the guy who is flying his Cub out
>of a rural airport under VFR.

Because those types of GA operations rival air carrier operations in
number, that distinction should be publicly voiced by the airline
industry, and those GA stakeholders shouldn't be financially impacted
in the proposed NextGen implementation.


>We can argue till the cows come home but if you look at it from a
>per use standpoint, Biz Av is getting a free ride in this country.

Is Biz Av receiving government bail out funding? Now that's a free
ride worth examining. How many GA operators received bail out grants?

In any event, the vast majority of GA operations are not Biz AV, but
the airline industry fails to acknowledge the distinction.

>
>>
>> * *http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/04-2-025x.html
>> * * Apr. 15, 2004 — AOPA on Thursday defended general aviation against
>> * * a USA Today editorial that claims airline passengers "subsidize"
>> * * general aviation. In an opposing view piece published alongside
>> * * the paper's editorial, AOPA President Phil Boyer explained to USA
>> * * Today readers that the current system is a single structure,
>> * * designed for the airlines.
>
>Phil is a bit off here. I guess he wants to ignore how much of the
>system has been put in place to suport GA.

If you believe that a significant proportion of the system has been
put in place to support GA, perhaps you'll be good enough to cite some
credible figures. Otherwise, I'll just ignore such unsupported
claims, as it's not possible to debate such nebulous assertions.

>Also, I wouldnt put much stock in Useless Today.

Agreed. But appropriately, they were the newspaper that saw fit to
carry Richard Anderson's BS.

>>
>> * * "Our elected representatives in Congress wisely created a national
>> * * air transportation system," Boyer wrote. And just as trucks —
>> * * which place a greater strain on the national highway system — pay
>> * * higher taxes and fees than family cars, the airlines must carry a
>> * * greater portion of the financial burden for the nation's air
>> * * traffic control system.
>
>This is a good point but it fails to address the main argument. This
>is where Phil just makes himself look silly IMHO.

Without your specific clarification of your objection to Mr. Boyer's
statement, it's not possible to debate your assertion.

>>
>> * * The USA Today editorial was prompted by and uses much of the same
>> * * rhetoric as an editorial that Northwest Airlines CEO Richard
>> * * Anderson wrote for his airline's in-flight magazine.
>
>Blurring a serious distinction here.

What implied distinction are you making here?

>
>> * * The USA Today editorial claims incorrectly that most GA flights
>> * * use air traffic control separation services. In fact, the vast
>> * * majority of GA flights are conducted under visual flight rules,
>> * * requiring only minimal contact with controllers and placing almost
>> * * no direct burden on the system.
>
>Doing it again.

Well stop doing it. :-)

If you've got something to say, state it succinctly. Innuendo isn't
going to persuade anyone to your view.

>>
>> * * "The air traffic control system is designed to serve the
>> * * airlines," wrote Boyer in USA Today. "Most small planes use few,
>> * * if any, of these services.
>
>And some more.

So you are unable to refute Mr. Boyer's assertions?

>>
>> * * "The airlines pay a modest federal fuel tax of four cents a
>> * * gallon. Conversely, general aviation flights fund their use of the
>> * * system through a fuel tax five times what the airlines pay."
>
>Simply untrue.

Specifically what do you believe would be more correct?

>>
>> * * This all stems from a dispute between Northwest and the airport
>> * * authority at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The
>> * * Metropolitan Airport Commission also runs six reliever airports
>> * * that improve efficiency for Northwest at MSP by moving most GA
>> * * traffic elsewhere, and uses some of the funds collected at MSP for
>> * * improvements at the relievers.
>
>Exactly what I was pointing out with LAX.
>>

What do you believe is important about that?

>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps the real problem in this airline v. GA argument stems from the
>> ambiguity of the term GA. *Airlines see GA as Part 135 operations. But
>> the vast majority of GA operations are private reciprocating-engine
>> aircraft. *The airlines continue to fail to differentiate Part 135
>> operations from Part 91 operations. *Part 135 operations are a small
>> subset of GA operations, and the air carriers' failure to use the
>> correct terminology is causing them to meet significant resistance to
>> their proposals. *Somebody needs to tell the Air Transport Association
>> to substitute 'air-taxi' for GA in their press releases and lobbying.
>
>Totally baseless.

Totally? Don't you believe that the vast majority of GA operations
are conducted with private reciprocating-engine aircraft operating
VFR? Don't you believe that there should be a distinction drawn
between those operations and Biz Av?

>You can operate a biz jet 91 right along with 135
>operators and 121 operators into the same airports. What does this
>have to do with carrying the ATC burden?
>

I was attempting to justify the air carriers' adversarial position
toward light, recip-engine GA, but it's clear there is none warranted.

>>
>> The air carrier costs you mention seem equitable to me.
>
>Dont miss the point. These costs go to subsidize GA airports.
>

Not exclusively.

You're not trying to assert that there is no contribution from GA
toward AIP grants, are you?

What percentage of the AIP funds are used for GA airports as opposed
to airline hubs? You make it sound like the air carriers are
necessary to GA. That is ludicrous.

>>
>> With regard to "reliever or satellite airports," what do you believe
>> they are designed to relieve? *Has it occurred to you, that they are
>> necessary because of air carrier operations?
>
>Now there is an MX style argument.

Rather than implying that there is some flaw in my rhetoric, perhaps
you'll be good enough to concretely explain your specific disagreement
with it.

>Would you like to pay the landing fee at LAX ?

I would prefer that airline hub airports were located in rural areas
instead of the center of the city, and were fed from municipal
airports. It's inevitable.

Prior to deregulation there was no landing fee at LAX, at least I was
never charged one.

>>
>>
>> That is poised to change. *Metropolitan/GA airports are about to
>> become a much more vital part of our nation's air travel
>> infrastructure, just ask Cirrus co-founder, COB, and CEO Alan
>> Klapmeier. *His company is the parent of air-taxi startup SATSair.*
>> They and DayJet are serving what amounts to a new air-travel market in
>> the SE. *A vital part of serving that market are metropolitan
>> airports. *The anticipated increased use of metropolitan airports
>> should provide additional revenue generation opportunities for airport
>> operators as well as local businesses in those cities.
>
>Have you seen how dayJet is doing ?
>>

The fact that DayJet has not found the additional funding it requires,
given the current state of the economy, is frustrating, but DayJet
just added additional airports to its service area:


(http://www.avweb.com/avwebbiz/news/BizAv_DayJet_CutsJets_CutsStaff_197799-1.html),
DayJet on Tuesday said it will expand its network

(http://www.dayjet.com/News/PressReleases/Jacksonville_Sarasota_05202008.pdf)
of DayPorts, adding two more Florida cities, for a total of nine
sites. With the addition of Jacksonville and Sarasota, 62 percent
of Florida's population now lives within 35 miles of a DayPort
airport, the company said in a statement on Tuesday.

SATSair seems to be doing fine.

>>
>> Please provide the reasoning behind that statement. *Have you any idea
>> of the cost to fund NextGen development, implementation, and
>> operation?
>You are missing the point.

I believe it is you who is missing the point. The cost to develop,
implement and operate NextGen ATC will be several orders of magnitude
greater than the present system, that's the reason those with NextGen
products to sell are attempting to abolish Congressional oversight of
FAA. They know Congress will not approve such a giveaway.

As a GA pilot, I don't really need the present ATC system, let alone
NextGen ATC, so imagine how jamming the NextGen boondoggle down my
throat feels. If the Airlines need NextGen, the Airlines should fund
it. But NextGen is irrevocably flawed.

>If it works as advertized NEXGEN is supposed to be safer and more efficent.

Even the FAA acknowledges the vulnerability dependence on satellite
communications introduces into the system:

http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=56353
May 22 — Galactic cosmic rays, solar flares and protons may sound
like something out of Star Trek. But space weather could have a
major impact on the way the FAA moves airplanes. Often driven by
changing conditions on the sun, space weather is expected to have
an increasing impact on flight planning and operations on the
Earth, Air Traffic Organization Chief Operating Officer Hank
Krakowski said at a conference on the issue in
Washington, DC, on May 21.

Krakowski explained that weather in outer space can affect the
reliability of space-borne technological systems, such as
high-precision Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation. The FAA
is currently transforming the way it moves air traffic from a
ground-based radar system to a satellite-based navigation system,
using GPS, as part of the Next Generation Air Transportation
System, known as NextGen. ...

And I see no reason to believe that NextGen ATC is going to be any
better than the ADS-B implementation the FAA has suggested in their
NPRM that mandates GA aircraft be equipped with $17,000.00 ADS-B Out
equipment at owners' expense. That would provide none of the benefits
of ADS-B In such as weather or depiction of other participating
aircraft, and the cost would exceed the value of a significant segment
of the of GA aircraft. And in any event, the ADS-B NPRM completely
overlooks military operations. If that is also how FAA intends to
conduct its due diligence obligation to NextGen stakeholders, I am
completely opposed to it.

>It is too bad that with all the other spending that is going on,
>the FAA has to compete for the $$$ to get advances for aviation
>in this country.
>Frank

It's too bad that due to the $2.5 billion per week cost of the
needless Iraq war, that educational funding is being reduced, despite
the abysmal high school graduation rate in our nation. Compared to
that travesty, the importance of NextGen pales.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_baeo.htm
REVISED APRIL 2002
The report's main findings are the following:

* The national graduation rate for the class of 1998 was 71%.
For white students the rate was 78%, while it was 56% for
African-American students and 54% for Latino students.
* Georgia had the lowest overall graduation rate in the nation
with 54% of students graduating, followed by Nevada, Florida, and
Washington, D.C.
* Iowa had the highest overall graduation rate with 93%,
followed by North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Nebraska.
* Wisconsin had the lowest graduation rate among
African-American students with 40%, followed by Minnesota,
Georgia, and Tennessee. Georgia had the lowest graduation rate
among Latino students with 32%, followed by Alabama, Tennessee,
and North Carolina. Less than 50% of African-American students
graduated in seven states and less than 50% of Latino students
graduated in eight states for which data were available.



And the trend is not good:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344190,00.html
High School Graduation Rates Plummet Below 50 Percent in Some U.S.
Cities

Tuesday, April 01, 2008
WASHINGTON — Seventeen of the nation's 50 largest cities had high
school graduation rates lower than 50 percent, with the lowest
graduation rates reported in Detroit, Indianapolis and Cleveland,
according to a report released Tuesday.

The report, issued by America's Promise Alliance, found that about
half of the students served by public school systems in the
nation's largest cities receive diplomas. Students in suburban and
rural public high schools were more likely to graduate than their
counterparts in urban public high schools, the researchers said.

Nationally, about 70 percent of U.S. students graduate on time
with a regular diploma and about 1.2 million students drop out
annually.

"When more than 1 million students a year drop out of high school,
it's more than a problem, it's a catastrophe," said former
Secretary of State Colin Powell, founding chair of the alliance.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

F. Baum wrote:
>
> Dont get your hopes up <G>. My main point was that the airlines would
> like to see the operators who use the system help fund it. You can
> take this as anti GA if you like .
>

The operators who use the system DO help fund it.


>
> Are you kidding ? Every airport in the LA basin, including all but one
> of the privately owned airports has benefited from federal funding. If
> ATC were to vanish, how would anyone fly IFR without major delays ?
>

They'd have to trust the "big sky, little airplane" theory, just as they did
prior to ATC. Presumanly the major delays you refer to would be waiting for
good weather, which would not be flying IFR. That wouldn't eliminate delays
at major hubs, however. If an airport has a maximum capacity of X
operations per hour under ideal conditions and more than X hourly
operations are scheduled delays are unavoidable.


>
> Considering the fact that modernizing NAS will result in less ATC your
> last statement is kinda ironic .
>

Consider the fact that modernizing NAS will not reduce airline delays.


>
> Virtually all of GA is subsidized . This is what I was refering to.
>

Virtually all of GA is subsidized? What evidence do you have to support
that assertion?


>
> Here again, you are supporting my side. This is something that Boyer
> chooses to ignore. I dont think RA wants to mess with the guy who is
> flying his Cub out of a rural airport under VFR. We can argue till the
> cows come home but if you look at it from a per use standpoint, Biz Av
> is getting a free ride in this country.
>

What evidence do you have to support that assertion?


>
> Phil is a bit off here. I guess he wants to ignore how much of the
> system has been put in place to suport GA. Also, I wouldnt put much
> stock in Useless Today.
>

Well, how much of the system HAS been put in place to suport GA?


>>
>> "The airlines pay a modest federal fuel tax of four cents a
>> gallon. Conversely, general aviation flights fund their use of the
>> system through a fuel tax five times what the airlines pay."
>>
>
> Simply untrue.
>

What are the respective fuel tax rates?


>
> You are missing the point. If it works as advertized NEXGEN is
> supposed to be safer and more efficent. It is too bad that with all
> the other spending that is going on, the FAA has to compete for the $$
> $ to get advances for aviation in this country.
>

If it works as advertized NEXGEN will be safer and more efficient but it
will do nothing to reduce airline delays.

[F. Baum]

On May 25, 9:17*am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
>
> They'd have to trust the "big sky, little airplane" theory, just as they did
> prior to ATC. *Presumanly the major delays you refer to would be waiting for
> good weather, which would not be flying IFR. *That wouldn't eliminate delays
> at major hubs, however. *If an airport has a maximum capacity of X
> operations per hour under ideal conditions and *more than X hourly
> operations are scheduled delays are unavoidable.

Welcom to the discusion. You have taken alot of my post out of
context. I dont know how much IFR you do in uncontrolled airspace but
you gotta admit, things definatly move slower. This is part what I was
refering to. The other part is that reliever airports rely on the
major airports for funding. The FAA set it up that way, not the
airlines. My guess is that you dont own your own airport and the
airport you fly out of has benefited from fees and taxes from people
other than the pilots who use it. The OP posted links to press
releases or editorials that had a bit of overstatement on both sides.
Editorials are nice and interesting, but they are mostly one persons
opinion. I think much of the diaolouge here could probably be between
the NBAA and the FAA. I welcome Boyers opinion but I disagree with
alot of what he says and I think AOPA does GA a diservice in many
ways. Dont make assumptions about that, it is just my opinion AFTER
having been a member for a few years.
>
>
>
>
>
> Phil is a bit off here. I guess he wants to ignore how much of the
> > system has been put in place to suport GA. Also, I wouldnt put much
> > stock in Useless Today.
>
> Well, how much of the system HAS been put in place to suport GA?

This is a good question. As a percentage I would guess most of it. Ask
yourself this the next time you fly an approach into a field that is
not served by an airline. Another good example is WAAS which was
funded in no small part by the taxpayers and traveling public, and yet
it is of almost no use to the airlines.
>
>
>
>
> What are the respective fuel tax rates?

The last time I read about it, it was 38 cents a gallon.
>
>
>
>
> If it works as advertized NEXGEN will be safer and more efficient but it
> will do nothing to reduce airline delays.

OK Phil <G>

F Baum

[clint]

Anywhere Stelth Pitot is considerede an assholw!
It happens that Steven P. McNicoll formulated :
>>
>> of course there is C around the major airports.
>>

> What's the criteria for a "major airport??

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Oshkosh is NOT one of them. Oshkosh tower was established about eight
> years before the EAA moved it's convention from Rockford, North Central
> Airlines was providing scheduled service.

True, but it would certainly have been decommissioned by now, were it not
for Airventure.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:iRJ_j.127265$TT4.587@attbi_s22:

>> Oshkosh is NOT one of them. Oshkosh tower was established about
>> eight years before the EAA moved it's convention from Rockford, North
>> Central Airlines was providing scheduled service.
>
> True, but it would certainly have been decommissioned by now, were it
> not for Airventure.

Idiot


Bertie

[Blanche]

Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>On May 23, 12:32 pm, "F. Baum" > wrote:
>> On May 22, 5:27 pm, Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>>
>> >Class D
>> > tower is the highest I've seen at GA airports, and even there it
>> > appears to be mostly due to historic reasons (ie it used to be a
>> > military field or used to have airline traffic some time in the past).
>> > Some airports operate their class D tower only when scheduled airlines
>> > are expected to arrive and depart.
>>
>> The need for a tower is based on the number or volume of A/C
>> movements. Also, keep in mind that it takes special authorization for
>> a 121 carrier to operate IFR in uncontroller airspace.
>
>I would be interested to know how many ATC towers have been built for
>reasons other than serving 121 carriers or military. Oshkosh is one
>example, but are there more?

KFTG. No scheduled airline, no scheduled charters. What charters
do come in usually just to refuel (5 nm from DEN and almost $2/gal
cheaper for JetA) and drop off a family.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

F. Baum wrote:
>
> There is a whole bunch of them out west at busy GA airports.
>

How many is a whole bunch?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

F. Baum wrote:
>
> WOW, thats some pretty one sided stuff. I get a chukle when you ask
> posters (On other threads) to provide the results of their research to
> support their opinoin. Why dont you provide some reseach for your
> baseless assumptions ? Dont take any of this personally, but you kinda
> remind me of Phil Boyer or Bower (Sorry, dont recall the name), over
> at AOPA when he gave his testimony to congress that was fraught with
> (baseless) assumptions and factual errors. In this posters opinion he
> made GA look bad.
>

What did Boyer say that you believe was in error?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

F. Baum wrote:
>
> My point exactly. GA would not exist if it werent for the airlines.
>

Why not?


>
> Set aside the us against them mentality for a minute and think about
> where the money to fund all of this comes from. Unfortunatly, the FAA
> has to go to congress and fight for a budget every year. User fees
> (Which originated within the Bush administration ) were just one
> funding alternative . The airlines , contrary to AOPA and Avnet, are
> not anti GA . I think they would like to see other users pay their
> share.
>

What is GA's fair share?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

F. Baum wrote:
> On May 25, 9:17 am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> wrote:
>>
>> They'd have to trust the "big sky, little airplane" theory, just as
>> they did prior to ATC. Presumably the major delays you refer to
>> would be waiting for good weather, which would not be flying IFR.
>> That wouldn't eliminate delays at major hubs, however. If an airport
>> has a maximum capacity of X operations per hour under ideal
>> conditions and more than X hourly operations are scheduled delays
>> are unavoidable.
>>
>
> Welcom to the discusion. You have taken alot of my post out of
> context.
>

What parts of your post do you believe I have taken out of context?


>
> I dont know how much IFR you do in uncontrolled airspace but
> you gotta admit, things definatly move slower. This is part what I was
> refering to.
>

I can't admit that because it isn't true. It's actually the opposite. If
you
have no ATC you have no ATC delays; no flow control, no gate holds, no
preferential routes, no waiting for a clearance, no waiting for a previous
aircraft to cancel IFR, no searching for a means to contact ATC, no time
spent filing an IFR flight plan, etc., etc., etc.

I take it you're not a pilot?


>
> The other part is that reliever airports rely on the
> major airports for funding. The FAA set it up that way, not the
> airlines.
>

What relievers are you referring to? Don't the airlines benefit from the
presence of the relievers?


>
> My guess is that you dont own your own airport and the
> airport you fly out of has benefited from fees and taxes from people
> other than the pilots who use it.
>

Your guess is wrong. I base my airplane at WI78, it has never received a
penny of support from anyone other than those that use it.


>
> The OP posted links to press
> releases or editorials that had a bit of overstatement on both sides.
> Editorials are nice and interesting, but they are mostly one persons
> opinion. I think much of the diaolouge here could probably be between
> the NBAA and the FAA. I welcome Boyers opinion but I disagree with
> alot of what he says and I think AOPA does GA a diservice in many
> ways. Dont make assumptions about that, it is just my opinion AFTER
> having been a member for a few years.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Phil is a bit off here. I guess he wants to ignore how much of the
>>> system has been put in place to suport GA. Also, I wouldnt put much
>>> stock in Useless Today.
>>
>> Well, how much of the system HAS been put in place to suport GA?
>>
>
> This is a good question. As a percentage I would guess most of it.
>

What do you base that on? As a percentage I would guess very little. How
many ARTCCs were established to serve GA? How many TRACONs and ATCTs? How
many NAVAIDs?


>
> Ask yourself this the next time you fly an approach into a field that is
> not served by an airline.
>

Ask myself what the next time I fly an approach into a field that is not
served by an airline? If the field or approach was put in place to support
GA? Interesting question, let's take a look at fields like that within 60
miles of my home, Green Bay, WI:

Carter Airport, Pulaski WI, 92C - It has a VOR or GPS-A approach off of
nearby Green Bay VORTAC. The airport is privately owned.

Douglas Bake Memorial Field, Oconto WI, KOCQ - NDB and GPS approaches. One
paved runway 3200' by 75', and one turf runway 1845' by 150'.

Shawano Municipal Airport, 3WO - GPS approach. Two paved runways, 3900' by
75' and 2225' by 60'. The airport was established before the Federal
Airport Act became law.

Clintonville Municipal Airport, KCLI - Four GPS approaches, an NDB approach
still appears in the TPP but the NDB has been decommissioned. The airport
was established before the Federal Airport Act became law and was formerly
served by Wisconsin Central Airlines.

Manitowoc County Airport, Manitowoc WI, KMTW - ILS, VOR, and GPS approaches.
Two paved runways, 5000' by 100' and 3345' by 100'. The airport was
established before WWII, the runways were paved in 1953 so that North
Central Airlines could begin operations. Airline service ceased in the
1980s.

New Holstein Municipal Airport, 8D1 - VOR/DME or GPS-A approach off of
Oshkosh VORTAC. One paved runway, 3600' by 75' and one turf runway 2970' by
250'.

Wittman Regional Airport, Oshkosh WI, KOSH - ILS, VOR, NDB, and GPS
approaches. Four paved runways, 8000' by 150', 6180' by 150', 3425' by 75',
and 3060' by 75'. The airport was established before the Federal Airport
Act became law and was formerly served by Wisconsin Central Airlines/North
Central Airlines/Republic Airlines.

Door County Cherryland Airport, Sturgeon Bay, WI - SDF and GPS approaches.
Two paved runways, 4600' by 75' and 3200' by 75'. The airport was
established before the Federal Airport Act became law and was formerly
served by Midstate Airlines.

Waupaca Municipal Airport, KPCZ - NDB and GPS approaches. Two paved
runways, 5200' by 100' and 3900' by 75'. The airport was established before
the Federal Airport Act became law.

Menominee-Marinette Twin County Airport, KMNM - ILS, VOR, NDB and GPS
approaches. Two paved runways, 6000' by 100' and 5100' by 100'. The
airport was established before the Federal Airport Act became law and was
formerly served by Wisconsin Central Airlines/North Central
Airlines/Republic Airlines.

Sheboygan County Memorial Airport, KSBM - ILS, VOR and GPS approaches. Two
paved runways, 6000' by 100' and 5000' by 75'. Formerly served by Air
Wisconsin and Midstate Airlines.

Fond du Lac County Airport, KFLD - LOV, VOR, and GPS approaches. Two paved
runways, 5940' by 100' and 3600' by 75'.

Ephraim-Fish Creek Airport, 3D2 - GPS approach. One paved runway 2700' by
60' and one turf runway 1980' by 80'.

Wautoma Municipal Airport, Y50 - GPS approach. One paved runway 3300' by
60' and one turf runway 2280' by 150'.

Langlade County Airport, Antigo WI - NDB and GPS approaches. Two paved
runways, 4000' by 75' and 3400' by 75'. The airport was established before
the Federal Airport Act became law.

Stevens Point Municipal Airport, KSTE - VOR and GPS approaches. Two paved
runways, 6030' by 120' and 3635' by 75'. The airport was established before
the Federal Airport Act became law and was formerly served by Wisconsin
Central Airlines/North Central Airlines and Midstate Airlines.


>
> Another good example is WAAS which was
> funded in no small part by the taxpayers and traveling public, and yet
> it is of almost no use to the airlines.
>

Why is it of almost no use to the airlines?


>>
>> What are the respective fuel tax rates?
>>
>
> The last time I read about it, it was 38 cents a gallon.
>

So he should have said, "The airlines pay a modest federal fuel tax of four
cents a gallon. Conversely, general aviation flights fund their use of the
system through a fuel tax nearly ten times what the airlines pay." Is that
why you said his statement was simply untrue?


>>
>> If it works as advertized NEXGEN will be safer and more efficient
>> but it will do nothing to reduce airline delays.
>>
>
> OK Phil <G>
>

You apparently disagree. How do you imagine NEXGEN will reduce airline
delays?