Trouble ahead over small plane fees

On the other hand, I do think
there is some national interest in being able to get stuff (people or
supplies) to remote areas of the country that are otherwise inaccessible.

What if I never go there, or order stuff from there? Why should I pay?

I am of course being contrarian (though the questions have merit). The
libertarian view would also eliminate libraries and the space program.
It is fatally flawed when applied as a panacea.

You are taking two completely disparate views and conflating them,
making arguments for one from the other. ON the one hand, you don't
like airplane noise (but don't seem to mind leafblower noise). On the
other hand you don't like GA "subsidies" but don't mind automotive
subsidies. This leads to arguments that are inconsistant, and an excuse
for inconsistancy that does not wash.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Skylune" wrote:
Dylan Smith wrote:
Meanwhile, when airlines need to use GA (for things like training)
they send their students abroad to dodge the fees they lobbied for

I.e. like outsourcing to India, the commercials ship training to
where it is cheapest. In this case, the USA, because of the
artificially low cost created by the subsidies. See below BTS study,
esp pp. 10-13.


http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_...pdf/entire.pdf

It uses passenger-miles as the normalizing factor, and on page 14 it states
the following:

"Comparing modes that have dramatically different average trip lengths,
subsidy per passenger-mile may overstate the subsidy for modes with short
trip lengths and understate subsidy for modes with long trip lengths."

Take a look at the source material for the aviation information:
http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/c...2097.03.19.pdf

Tables 1-2 and 2-1 show that the complete elimination of GA flights would
reduce FAA expenditures by only about 12%. That's right - support of non-GA
flights eat up about 88% of the FAAs fiscal resources. That study made
clear that "In general, the air carrier share of FAA program costs has been
increasing over time, while general aviation (GA) and the public sector
shares have been decreasing."

"Jose" wrote in message
t...

I am of course being contrarian (though the questions have merit). The
libertarian view would also eliminate libraries and the space program. It
is fatally flawed when applied as a panacea.


The libertarian view would eliminate libraries and the space program? I
don't think so. It would certainly eliminate taxpayer support of libraries,
but I don't think libertarians are opposed to the funding of libraries by
the Andrew Carnegies of the world or by user fees. I also do not believe
libertarians are opposed to the portion of the space program that serves a
valid defense need, but they would certainly eliminate that portion that
serves pure science.

It would certainly eliminate taxpayer support of libraries,
but I don't think libertarians are opposed to the funding of libraries by
the Andrew Carnegies of the world or by user fees...

You are correct, I was imprecise. However the result would be quite
similar. It would eliminate the public libraries we all (or most of us)
know and love. It would eliminate support for pure science (and the
part of the space program that generates results accessible to the public)

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

by Jose Apr 11, 2006 at 06:20 PM


What if I never go there, or order stuff from there? Why should I pay?

I am of course being contrarian (though the questions have merit). The
libertarian view would also eliminate libraries and the space program.
It is fatally flawed when applied as a panacea.

You are taking two completely disparate views and conflating them,
making arguments for one from the other. ON the one hand, you don't
like airplane noise (but don't seem to mind leafblower noise). On the
other hand you don't like GA "subsidies" but don't mind automotive
subsidies. This leads to arguments that are inconsistant, and an excuse
for inconsistancy that does not wash.




I agree that libertarianism taken to an extreme would result in no roads,
libraries, health care, etc. I don't want to live in a society that is
like the wild west, nor would most others I think.

Leafblower noise?? That is apples and oranges. You can knock on your
neighbor's door, and you have common interests with your neighbors.
Aircraft noise is an externality that has no cost to the aviator. The
victims cannot even identify the fliers, and if they do, no one is
responsible. A classic catch-22: the FAA says the airport is
responsible, the airport says the FAA is responsible, and most of the
fliers simply say "F- You: Its my right to make noise" or silly variants
like the airport was there first. The cost of noise pollution is borne
100% by those on the ground, and they have little to no political recourse
(in most places). As I said before, there are laws on the books in most
communities that target noise pollution: Only plane noise is exempt.


There are no automotive subsidies at the federal level. Federal gasoline
taxes exceed subsidies provided for road projects. So there are in fact
negative subsidies. See the BTS study I posted for info.

You might find the Reason Foundation study interesting, and you'll see its
not that harsh on nonbusiness GA (see pp. 31- from below link). They
propose keeping the current GA avgas tax as the preferred funding method,
even though correctly stating that it generates only 3% of Trust Fund $$.
(They also debunk some absurd Boyerisms, but then come down largely on his
side for funding of FSS, for e.g.).

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

Leafblower noise?? That is apples and oranges. You can knock on your
neighbor's door, and you have common interests with your neighbors.

Huh? That doesn't stop the noise. And usually the noise is coming from
whoever they hired, who aren't going to stop either. And it drones on
hour after hour, when one neighbor stops, the other starts. And it's a
whine that is very piercing (all the energy is located in a narrow band
of the spectrum) so a mile away even at low volume it is annoying.
Neighbors who blow leaves basically have the attitude "Its my right to
make noise" coupled with the "need" to blow the leaves instead of raking.

There are no automotive subsidies at the federal level. Federal gasoline
taxes exceed subsidies provided for road projects.

The gas tax subsidizes the trains. Why shouldn't the subway riders pay
the full cost of the subway, even if it means ten dollars a ticket?
(There are reasons, and they are similar in nature to the GA arguments)

My point in any case is not that GA is or is not subsidized (or should
or should not be). It is that you are inconsistant in your reasoning,
and your choice of target.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

by "Steven P. McNicoll" Apr 11, 2006 at 06:31
PM


The libertarian view would eliminate libraries and the space program? I
don't think so. It would certainly eliminate taxpayer support of
libraries,
but I don't think libertarians are opposed to the funding of libraries by

the Andrew Carnegies of the world or by user fees. I also do not believe

libertarians are opposed to the portion of the space program that serves
a

valid defense need, but they would certainly eliminate that portion that
serves pure science.




Yes. In general, user fees that do not distort economic behaviour are
favored over general tax support. If I provide a subsidy for something,
more of it will be created than the economics justify. For that reason,
taxes should only be levied for things that are purely in the interest of
the public at large.

Recreational flying does not serve the public at large, and should
therefore be 100% funded by the participants. At a local airport, they
charge no landing fees, charge only about $600 per year for a tie down,
and thats it. Overnight tie-down is $5. Yet, they receive millions of
dollars in AIP grants (derived from general taxpayer dollars and
commercial airline ticket taxes), $150K annual operating subsidy, state
subsidies, etc. They even wanted the city to kick in some $$ so as not to
"burden" airport users. Hey, who subsidizes my boating: It costs $3500
per year for the slip; transient slips will cost upwards of $75 per
night, etc. Yet, a marina has minimal infrastructure compared to an
active GA airport. Tax subsidies make GA flying artificially cheap.

"Skylune" wrote in
lkaboutaviation.com:

by "Steven P. McNicoll" Apr 11, 2006 at
06:31 PM


The libertarian view would eliminate libraries and the space program?
I don't think so. It would certainly eliminate taxpayer support of
libraries,
but I don't think libertarians are opposed to the funding of libraries
by

the Andrew Carnegies of the world or by user fees. I also do not
believe

libertarians are opposed to the portion of the space program that
serves a

valid defense need, but they would certainly eliminate that portion
that serves pure science.




Yes. In general, user fees that do not distort economic behaviour are
favored over general tax support. If I provide a subsidy for
something, more of it will be created than the economics justify. For
that reason, taxes should only be levied for things that are purely in
the interest of the public at large.

Recreational flying does not serve the public at large, and should
therefore be 100% funded by the participants. At a local airport,
they charge no landing fees, charge only about $600 per year for a tie
down, and thats it. Overnight tie-down is $5. Yet, they receive
millions of dollars in AIP grants (derived from general taxpayer
dollars and commercial airline ticket taxes), $150K annual operating
subsidy, state subsidies, etc. They even wanted the city to kick in
some $$ so as not to "burden" airport users. Hey, who subsidizes my
boating: It costs $3500 per year for the slip; transient slips will
cost upwards of $75 per night, etc. Yet, a marina has minimal
infrastructure compared to an active GA airport. Tax subsidies make
GA flying artificially cheap.






So you pay for the dredging, the shorline maintainence, and in many
cases the gazillion dollars for the dam and land costs that created that
lake??

Public funding of small city/county airport by local govt especially
makes sense because of the economic activity it generates. its a simple
$- in $$$- out equation.

--
-- ET :-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

If I provide a subsidy for something,
more of it will be created than the economics justify.

And sometimes that is a Good Thing. Economics is not the be-all and
end-all of life, something libertarians do not see.

Recreational flying does not serve the public at large

That is another area where you are incorrect.

and should therefore be 100% funded by the participants.

No gray in your vision?

Hey, who subsidizes my boating...

The coast guard is not funded by user fees, neither is harbor dredging.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Nantucket is an island off the coast of Massachusetts - right next to
Martha's Vinyard. Very little training activity. I'd guess it's close to
100% transients.

"Tom Conner" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Steve Foley" wrote in message
...
I've heard that on a busy summer weekend, Nantucket Airport
(ACK) has more operations than Logan (BOS). If we go to an
operation based fee, I hope Nantucket gets the same level of
funding as Boston does.


This might very well be true. However, you need to find out how many
operations are "local" (pattern practice), and how many are "transient"
(actually go someplace). Many GA airports have high numbers of
operations,
but once you subtract the student pilot pattern practice flights there is
very little activity left.