But again, the four hour Archer flight doesn't cover as many miles and all the
cost is passed on to the airpline passengers (100+, instead of 4 (max) in the
Archer).


(Andrew Sarangan) wrote:

Great article. However I do have one comment. A 4-hour flight in an
Archer serves four people and uses 4-hours of ATC services (assuming
IFR). A 4-hour flight in a 757 serves hundreds of people and uses the
same amount of ATC services. Unless I am mistaken, ATC treats an
airliner the same way as a GA aircraft under IFR. Not that I am
arguing with your point, but this comparison may actually point to the
opposite conclusion.





Judah wrote in message . ..
So I was flying on a biz trip across the country yesterday, and happened
to pick up an old USA Today, and I read the Editorial page, and what do I
see?

Apparently, the editors of USA Today are showing support for Richard
Anderson, CEO of Northwest Airlines.

Since it was a cross-country flight, I had a few hours to write a
response, which I sent today to the editors of USA Today, as well as to
the News department of AOPA.

Not that I really expect my voice to make a difference, but I attached it
here....

"Regarding your editorial columns on the Cost of Air Travel from
Thursday, April 15, 2004 (USA Today page 12A, columns 1&2).

As a Business Owner, and a Frequent Flyer, I can understand why Richard
Anderson, CEO of Northwest Airlines, would complain about monies that he
has to collect from his passengers and pass on to the government. After
all, air travel is down, costs are up, and airfare wars are brewing, all
making it very difficult to successfully compete in the airline business.
Who else to blame but the General Aviation pilot who "pays less".

However, to make the comparison equitable, one has to look at it in an
"apples-to-apples" manner. Mr. Anderson, because of his desire to cut
costs and increase profits clearly has not done this.

As a private pilot, I fly a grand total of about 150 hours per year, in a
plane that cruises approximately 135 miles per hour, covering a grand
total of about 20,000 miles per year.

I write this letter, sitting in the coach cabin of a 757 flight from New
York to Seattle, flying 180 people 2500 miles at 500 miles per hour in
about 5 hours. And shortly after I get off, the plane will turn around
and go back - doubling its air time. It does this twice per day, every
day, for a grand total of about 2 MILLION miles per year. And that is one
plane in the airlines fleet of hundreds of thousands that do the same
thing for Richard Anderson and other Airline executives and shareholders.

I think most people believe that you must be wealthy to fly private
planes. They watch Donald Trump's gold-laced private Jet full of
Champaign-drinking executives and figure that's how it must be for
everyone. And certainly, for a small sector of General Aviation -
executives and stars like Donald Trump - it is that way. But for a
majority of General Aviation pilots, this is not the case. The plane I
fly (which I don't own, but share as part of a flight club) is smaller
than my car, weighs less than my car, and costs more to operate and
maintain than my car. The plane, a Piper Archer, has 4 seats in it, but
cannot actually hold 4 average-sized people without sacrificing fuel to
accommodate weight capacities. It flies at a maximum speed of about 135
miles per hour, and requires 100 octane, low-lead gas that costs more
than the fuel you buy for your car, and in fact costs more than Jet Fuel.

I use my plane in much the same way I use my car. I fly for both business
and pleasure - flying to customer sites, business meetings, vacation
destinations, and the occasional tour of the Hudson River. While I do
earn more than the median income level in some years, I am by no means
wealthy. I use some of the FAA resources for weather briefing and Air
Traffic Control services. But I use far fewer of those resources than
Richard Anderson, whose fleet consumes more of these services in a single
hour than I will in a lifetime.

I do believe it is appropriate for General Aviation pilots to share
fairly in the expenses associated with regulating, controlling, and
protecting airspace. However, it needs to be fair and equitable across
all of the services provided. And while Air Traffic Control services and
Weather services are used by all of us, many other FAA services are not.
For example, it is highly unlikely that during our four hour flight from
New York to western Pennsylvania the plane will be hijacked by my wife
sitting in the seat next to me. As such my usage of the TSA security
system is substantially less than that of air-buses that fly hundreds of
strangers thousands of miles every day, and apparently require careful
screening, monitoring, and X-Raying by the TSA.

I'm not certain what the best method for fairly and equitably splitting
the cost of these services is, since I am not totally familiar with all
of the services that the FAA provides, nor how much they cost for
different planes and passengers. However, it seems to me that the only
sensible way to share costs equitably and fairly is based on consumption,
usage, and wear. Tolls are different for Cars, Motorcycles, Buses, and
Trucks, for exactly this reason. And already this type of approach is
used in calculating landing fees based on airplane weight.

In the case of Air Traffic and Weather services, consumption and usage is
mostly measured in time - time spent talking to Weather Briefing
personnel and Air Traffic Controllers. The best (and perhaps only
legitimate) way to measure time in an airplane is by fuel consumption.
However since other things, like security screening, are consumed on a
per-passenger basis, it is only reasonable to charge a fee per passenger
as well.

I suspect Mr. Anderson already realizes this. I suspect that Mr.
Anderson's motivation for his diatribe is based mostly on cost-cutting
initiatives and greed, and on his recognition that the average airline
passenger has minimal knowledge of General Aviation and the FAA system,
beyond what they see on TV. By taking advantage of public ignorance, he
can muster up support for a big cost cutting measure without cutting so
much as a paper clip from his own expense report. Imagine how proud his
shareholders will be!

After all, if the government reduces the fees attached to your round trip
airfare, who, exactly, do you think will pocket the difference?"

David Martin
Mountain Home, Ar.
(to respond, get rid of the NOT)