Trouble ahead over small plane fees

Solution is simple. Raise AV gas taxes to a level that covers the expense
associated with subsidizing thousands of GA airports.

So, do GA pilots then get a cut of the extra business we bring to the city?

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

by Jose Apr 11, 2006 at 02:13 PM



So, do GA pilots then get a cut of the extra business we bring to the
city?

Jose



C'mon Jose, rhetorical questions are not your style. ;-)

Of course, the subsidies are not limited to federal subsidies. Off the
top of my head, state subsidies goto Worcester, Mass, and the Minneapolis
area GA airports are subsidized by the commercial airport.

As you know, a tax subsidy reduces the true price of a good, and
artificially increases demand. Econ 101.

So, do GA pilots then get a cut of the extra
business we bring to the city?
Of course, the subsidies are not limited to federal subsidies. Off the
top of my head, state subsidies goto

So, do GA pilots then get a cut of the extra business we bring to the state?

(See, I can do stuff that's not my style.

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

by Jose Apr 11, 2006 at 02:33 PM



So, do GA pilots then get a cut of the extra business we bring to the
state?

(See, I can do stuff that's not my style.




That is another reason (after the old safety/statistics discussion) that
I
would hop in the right seat of your plane anytime. You are not a cowboy.


Seriously, though, your "cut" would be availabilty of GA airports and
airspace that is funded by the users.

I think subsidies make alot of sense for some states, esp remote rural
airstrips in AK or WY. But in the Northeast, Calif, and other built up
areas?? No way. There is no compelling economic/social need to provide
general tax subsidies to what is largely recreational/training usage.
Users should bear the full brunt of the costs.

Some will argue, "that will increase the cost of your fed ex" deliveries.
I think that is true, and I would say that users of Fed Ex should bear the
true delivery costs. Why should I be subsidized if I order a package that
arrives via GA?

BTW: here is a link to an article on the local subsidies the Minneapolis
GA airports get, at Northwest's expense.

http://www.flyidaho.org/nwsltrs/2004/jun04/crusade.html

In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" wrote:

by Jose Apr 11, 2006 at 02:33 PM



So, do GA pilots then get a cut of the extra business we bring to the
state?

(See, I can do stuff that's not my style.




That is another reason (after the old safety/statistics discussion) that
I
would hop in the right seat of your plane anytime. You are not a cowboy.


Seriously, though, your "cut" would be availabilty of GA airports and
airspace that is funded by the users.

I think subsidies make alot of sense for some states, esp remote rural
airstrips in AK or WY. But in the Northeast, Calif, and other built up
areas?? No way. There is no compelling economic/social need to provide
general tax subsidies to what is largely recreational/training usage.
Users should bear the full brunt of the costs. \

http://www.flyidaho.org/nwsltrs/2004/jun04/crusade.html

Pure sophistry! Northwest doesn't want to share "their" airports, but
doesn't want to share in the solution to their desires.

The problem with "Skyloon's" "solution" is that those airports in highly
populated areas are the link with those in the less-densely-populated
areas. The airports are part of a *system* -- not just a bunch of loose
parts.

Pure sophistry! Northwest doesn't want to share "their" airports, but
doesn't want to share in the solution to their desires.

The problem with "Skyloon's" "solution" is that those airports in highly
populated areas are the link with those in the less-densely-populated
areas. The airports are part of a *system* -- not just a bunch of loose
parts.



Its pretty clear that objectivity goes out the window for many when self
interests are concerned....

Sure the airport network is linked. That has nothing, zero, Nada, to do
with the appropriate ways of funding the system, and who pays. The
Heritage Foundation among others has long argued for user fees based for
private activities, which clearly includes GA. I agree with their
viewpoint, and oppose governement subsidies for private goods. Now, if
states or localities choose to support a GA airport, a local ski area or a
shooting range, with taxes, that is fine with me.

In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" wrote:

Pure sophistry! Northwest doesn't want to share "their" airports, but
doesn't want to share in the solution to their desires.

The problem with "Skyloon's" "solution" is that those airports in highly
populated areas are the link with those in the less-densely-populated
areas. The airports are part of a *system* -- not just a bunch of loose
parts.



Its pretty clear that objectivity goes out the window for many when self
interests are concerned....

Sure the airport network is linked. That has nothing, zero, Nada, to do
with the appropriate ways of funding the system, and who pays. The
Heritage Foundation among others has long argued for user fees based for
private activities, which clearly includes GA. I agree with their
viewpoint, and oppose governement subsidies for private goods. Now, if
states or localities choose to support a GA airport, a local ski area or a
shooting range, with taxes, that is fine with me.


The airport system is just as important as the Interstate Highway system
-- it helps to bind the nation together. The Heritage Foundation (esp.
Mr. Poole) is blinded by ideology and ignores the big picture!

How about Rural Electrification? postal service to outlying areas? roads?

he list goes on.

Skylune wrote:

Sure the airport network is linked. That has nothing, zero, Nada, to do
with the appropriate ways of funding the system, and who pays. The
Heritage Foundation among others has long argued for user fees based for
private activities, which clearly includes GA.


It also includes air carriers.

In article
outaviation.com,
"Skyloon" wrote:

I think subsidies make alot of sense for some states, esp remote rural
airstrips in AK or WY.


What is the cost of remote rural airstrips in AK or WY?

by "Steven P. McNicoll" Apr 11, 2006 at 04:09
PM


In article
outaviation.com,
"Skyloon" wrote:


What is the cost of remote rural airstrips in AK or WY?



Capital costs would obviously depend upon the length of the runway, number
of runways, equipment, etc. Operating costs would depend on towered vs.
nontowered, number of maintenance personnel, etc. So it would vary.

The point is that very remote areas depend on GA for access, but traffic
volume would likely be insufficient to support the financial operations of
the airport. If important to access to the outside world (AK and some MT
airports), some sort of subsidy would be required.