Trouble ahead over small plane fees

Skylune wrote:

Military is and should be taxpayer funded.

Do you fly? Do you know what joint-use is?

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

by B A R R Y Apr 11, 2006 at 02:50 PM


Skylune wrote:

Military is and should be taxpayer funded.

Do you fly? Do you know what joint-use is?



Uh, Uh, uh. Joint-use refers to potheads, right? They fly after
smoking?

Skylune wrote:

Solution is simple. Raise AV gas taxes to a level that covers the expense
associated with subsidizing thousands of GA airports. (Capital and
operating subsidies).


What is your evidence that thousands of GA airports are being
subsidized?



I can post the contribution of various revenue sources to the AIP (again).
As has already been demonstrated, AV gas taxes represent a tiny fraction.
Of course this FACT is not mentioned by the Destroyer or other advocates of
taxpayer subsidies for rec flying.


Who advocates subsidies for rec flying?

by "roncachamp" Apr 11, 2006 at 08:16 AM




What is your evidence that thousands of GA airports are being
subsidized?



Who advocates subsidies for rec flying?



You gotta be kidding me. Do you know how the AIP is funded, by source.
Do you know if your local airport does a project, it is usually 90% funded
by FAA grants, 5% state, and 5% local???

Do you know about the $150k annual operating subsidies that many GA
airports receive??

Do you know about the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, that determine
tax expenditures for various transportation categories??

I guess not. Just listen to Boyer, and his hyperbole and rhetorical
arguments.

(Why am I starting to see an analogy between the Boyer-types and the
French student protestors?)

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,
"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?

On 10 Apr 2006 14:25:55 -0700, "AJ" wrote in
.com::

Essentially, the National Air Transportation Association representing
the airlines is seeking about $2 billion a year in federal tax relief.
To accomplish that, NATA wants general aviation - all aircraft except
commercial airliners and military - to take up the slack. That would
reduce the 7.5 percent "user fees" airline passengers pay.

The airlines and FAA are embarking on a divide and conquer mission.
Once the proposed precedent is established, it's going to be easier
for the government to move to a fee based ATC system for all flights.

If the airline passengers are paying the 7.5% ticket tax, please
explain how shifting that tax to GA is going to provide financial
relief to the airline industry. The airlines only collect the tax;
they don't pay it; the passengers do.

Will a 7.5% decrease in ticket prices make US airlines more
competitive globally? Domestically? Doubtful. And There is no doubt
shifting airline passengers' responsibility for ATC services and
airport improvements on to GA will have a large, and inequitable,
negative impact on GA.

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.